Islam According To The Qur'an/hadeeths Interpreted By:

[RezaMikhaeil]

Once again, you're not getting into the Exegesis of the scripture... and Muhammed Asad is a very reliable and respected Muslim scholar [as were the others that I posted] in which highly disagree with you.

It's very interesting that you totally ignored Muhammed Asad.

Muhammad Asad, was a Jew that converted to Islam, a very respected Muslim that could be considered a scholar based upon his vast research that was detailed in the many books that he had written. He once wrote that Muslims shouldn't be in a moral alliance with Christians/Jews, because they fundementally disagree on a vast amount of morals, but have a friendship alliance with them. He uses Sura 60:7-9 to prove his point:

[quote]60:7-9 says, GOD may change the animosity between you and them into love. GOD is Omnipotent. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.[/quote]

Reza

[mortify]

Peace Reza,

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291129' date='Jun 8 2007, 06:07 PM']Once again, you're not getting into the Exegesis of the scripture... and Muhammed Asad is a very reliable and respected Muslim scholar [as were the others that I posted] in which highly disagree with you.[/quote]

In the next few sentences you say,

[quote][i]"Muhammad Asad, was a Jew that converted to Islam, a very respected Muslim that [b]could be[/b] considered a scholar..."[/i][/quote]

Was he a scholar or not? I personally don't know him, I quoted Ibn Kathir, an authority that needs no introduction. Scholarship in Islam is not based on reading or writing books, one needs permission from a Shaykh to teach. Self proclaimed ulema are a recent phenomena with the Wahabis and neo-Salafis. I mentioned in another thread a former friend of mine, an apostate Catholic who embraced Islam and began studying Shafi Fiq. After he studied under a shaykh for some time, the Shaykh gave him a license to teach others the basics of the faith. I looked up Muhammad Asad and apparently he was a convert who wrote some articles on the faith, he was not a scholar and certainly not a follower of the traditional schools of thought.

You're quoting the opinions of modern Muslims who voice their opinions as if they were Shayukh. Can you show me anything of a historical or authoritative nature?

And I addressed several questions (some repeated) to you, will you be answering them any time soon?


Now lets take a look at surah 60, and then I'll quote Ibn Kathir:

You quoted surah 60 to say:
[color="#FF0000"]GOD does not enjoin you from [b]befriending[/b] those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may [b]befriend[/b] them and be equitable towards them.[/color]

Why is it none of the three main translators of Quran use the word "befriend"?

[color="#0000FF"]YUSUFALI: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing [b]kindly and justly[/b] with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

PICKTHAL: Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them [b]kindness[/b] and deal [b]justly[/b] with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

SHAKIR: Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them [b]kindness[/b] and deal with them [b]justly[/b]; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.[/color]

Reza, what Arabic word was translated as "befriending" in your translation?

This is what Ibn Kathir has to say about surah 60, verses 7 through 9 (only certain sections for brevity's sake)

[quote][color="#0000FF"]Allah said to His faithful servants, after ordering them to be enemies with the disbelievers,

(Perhaps Allah will make friendship between you and those, whom you hold as enemies.) meaning affection after animosity, tenderness after coldness and coming together after parting from each other,

(And Allah has power (over all things),) Allah is able to gather opposites and bring together hearts, after feeling hostility and hardness. In this case, the hearts will come together in agreement, just as Allah said when He mentioned His favor on the Ansar

([b][u]Love your loved one moderately, because one day, he might become your enemy. Hate your hated one moderately, because one day, he might become your loved one.[/u][/b]) Allah's statement,

And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) means, Allah forgives the disbelief of the disbelievers if they repent from it, returned to their Lord and surrendered to Him in Islam. Surely, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most-Merciful to those who repent to Him from their sins, no matter what type of the sin it is.[/color][/quote]

[quote] [color="#0000FF"](Allah does not forbid you with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes,) means, those who did not have a role in your expulsion. Therefore, Allah does not forbid you from being kind to the disbelievers who do not fight you because of the religion, [b][u]such as women and weak disbelievers[/u][/b]

(to deal kindly) to be gentle with them,

(and justly with those) to be fair with them

(Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.) Imam Ahmad recorded that Asma' bint Abu Bakr said, "My mother, who was an idolatress at the time, came to me during the Treaty of Peace, the Prophet conducted with the Quraysh. I came to the Prophet and said, `O Allah's Messenger! My mother came visiting, desiring something from me, should I treat her with good relations' The Prophet said,

Yes. Keep good relation with your mother.)'' The Two Sahihs recorded this Hadith. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin Zubayr said, "Qutaylah came visiting her daughter, Asma' bint Abi Bakr, with some gifts, such as Dibab, coagulated milk and clarified (cooking) butter, and she was an idolatress at that time. Asma' refused to accept her mother's gifts and did not let her enter her house. `A'ishah asked the Prophet about his verdict and Allah sent down the Ayah,

(Allah does not forbid you with those who fought not against you on account of religion) until the end of the Ayah. Allah's Messenger ordered Asma' to accept her mother's gifts and to let her enter her house.''[/color][/quote]

Taken from: [url="http://www.tafsir.com/Default.asp"]http://www.tafsir.com/Default.asp[/url]
Surah 60


Let us keep in mind the opening of this Surah:
[color="#FF0000"]O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord ? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim ? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way.[/color]

The later verses clarify that this does not mean Muslims can be unjust or unkind towards disbelievers, they do not say Muslims can take them as friends.

Edited June 9, 2007 by mortify

[mortify]

[quote][size=3]Question:
Can a non-muslim man marry a muslim woman?[/size]

Answer:

[b]It is absolutely not permissible under any circumstances in Islamic law (shari'a) of Allah, the most esteemed and exhalted, for a non-Muslim to marry a Muslim woman,[/b] as per what He has said regarding the marriage of a kafir (unbeliever) to a Muslim woman and vice versa: (interpretation of the meaning).

They are not lawful (wives) for the unbelievers, nor are the unbelievers lawful (husbands) for them... (Al-Mumtahina:10)

And Allah the most esteemed and exhalted has also said (interpretation of the meaning):

Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe... (Al-Baqara:221)

i.e., it is not ever permissable for someone to marry his Muslim daughter or sister or any Muslim woman for whom he is a guardian to a kafir.

[b]Islam must be exhalted and cannot be subjugated, so how could a Muslim woman be put under the care of a kafir man[/b], when the man is normally naturally in a stronger position? In such a situation he could cause her to corrupt the practice of her religion or force her into subdual by causing her to live a life of oppression with him. He could also prevent her from practicing some of her religious rites. These are among the reasons for the aforementioned ban expressed in the previous ayaat. wallahu a'lam (and Allah is the most knowledgable).



Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid[/quote]

[url="http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=115&ln=eng&txt=Kafir"]http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=115&...g&txt=Kafir[/url]

[RezaMikhaeil]

Ibn Kathir is not honored by all 4 of the Islamic schools of thought, infact by fewer of them then you might suspect, while Muhammed Asad is respected by every school of thought in Islam.

However, again... you're avoiding the Exegesis of the scripture.

Reza

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289877' date='Jun 6 2007, 09:59 PM']Actually it was more detailed then the brief "history" [if you wanna call it that] that you and KnightofChrist posted, you simply posted a very litered with propaganda, version of an Islamic timeline.

As I'd mentioned, it's not just me that disagrees with you, but a professor at George Town University, among others. If you'd like a further details in a timeline form, as you gave that better explains the plight of Muslims, here is a great source: [url="http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm"]http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm[/url] or a very indepth and long winded synopsis: [url="http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/"]http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/[/url]

It was a general claim against yours, as you suggested that Islam spread strictly by the sword, throughout the lands, but this Georgetown College Professor, gave evidence otherwise, that it was spread by merchants, etc. which is true. If you knew just a little bit of history behind the culture of Mekkah, you'd know that it was a central trading post for trade in the middle east. If Muhammed would have killed everyone that believes a different faith, as you suggested, it would have caused such a severe depression and famine that Arabia couldn't survive but contrary to your claims, Mekkah remained a central trading post for a long time after Arabia had become primarily Muslim. It was spread throughout the world, through trade, which worked very magnificently for Mekkah and those of the Islamic faith.

You didn't fool me, it's obvious that you were using propaganda, and depending on non-Muslims for your information about Muslims, just as you always have done. I'm not remotely surprised, you have more to say about the Qur'an thou having never read it before, yet proclaiming that it says something, then those that have read it.

No you havn't, as you haven't even taking the Qur'an in the proper context, researched the context, etc. You've simply used propaganda websites, that have anti-Qur'anic claims to fuel a hateful stereotype. I, on the other hand, have read the Quran, done the research on the context and history regarding it.

What's your point? That's quite different then your claim that Christianity was "wiped out".

I gave the proper context of the scriptures, which most Islamic scholars going back to the beginning agreed with, while you relied on your propaganda websites to tell you "this means they hate us", which it doesn't.

It has everything to do with the subject, as the battle of Tabouk involves the Byzintines that were involved with the Crusades along with the Roman Catholics. It's interconnected. If you chose to believe that the Pope didn't order the mass killing of Copts [and Jews, among others don't forget] then you seriously got a problem. After the Crusades, which killed mass amounts of Copts, St. Mark's relics were stolen, along with lots of artifacts of the Coptic Church, which weren't returned until His Holiness Pope Paul VI [I believe it was him, one of the modern Roman Popes, no doubt], that's over 1000 years after the Crusades, so if these other Popes [including the Pope that ordered the crusades] didn't agree with it, why didn't he denounce it? Why didn't he right the wrong? It's totally infathumable to say that he didn't agree with it or order it.

I never said that the majority of current Muslims aren't Sunni, but they weren't always the majority and again, your mass stereotype of all Muslims being violent in spreading Islam, is false. Using a select few, to massively stereotype all Muslims is deliberately ignorant.
I've given more evidence that it was spread by merchants, then you have that it was spread by violence, so don't sit here and say that I should give you more evidence, when the evidence that supports your bigoted agenda isn't even remotely supported.
Seriously, do you not even read my posts? I never said that Muslims claim to be Christians today, what I said is that it [color="#FF0000"][u][b][i]BEGAN[/i][/b][/u][/color] as a Christian sect, as I provided evidence that testifies to this...

Reza[/quote]
Again, you have provided nothing to refute the historical facts which I have mentioned.
Quoting a professor saying that Islam in the tenth through fifteenth centuries (after the fall of the Caliphates) is not a refutation of what I posted concerning the rise of Islam in the seventh and eight centuries.

And even your Islamic websites do not refute the facts about the battles mentioned here.

I have been honest about the sources I was using. Dr. Carroll was my history professor, and is quite honest. He is not an anti-Muslim propagandist, though he is a devout Catholic, and if you read his works you will see that not everything he says about the Muslims is negative. He cited well-established histories of the Arabian world.
While you may not accept Wikipedia, it is hardly an "anti-Muslim propaganda" site, but is merely repeating accepted historical fact, citing mainstream histories of Islam. (It was cited here as a"neutral," "mainstream" source.) Again, if you can provide specific evidence against what it says, provide it, rather than just giving denials.

It seems that you refuse to accept any non-Islamic sources that disagree with your (almost militantly) pro-Muslim views, and thus your arguments are circular. Anything you disagree with is automatically dismissed as false propaganda.

You have thus far failed to refute the following facts:

1) Islam was spread by violent warfare, and threat of war. Towns and tribes were given the option of either submitting to Islamic rule or facing the Muslims in battle. Mohammed himself led armies and raiding parties, and ordered the assasination of several of his enemies, including three poets who mocked him. (John Baggot Glubb, [i]The Life and Times of Muhammed[/i] pp 160, 235-240)

2) In territories conquered by the Muslims, under Islamic law, Christians were made to live as second-class citizens (Dhimmi), whose rights were restricted, and who had to pay a heacy tributary tax (jizya).

3) Apostacy from Islam to Christianity under Islamic law was punishable by death. (Despite the fact that this was overturned in many places centuries later, this was the original practice.)

As for the Crusades, you have still provided absolutely no evidence of a Pope ordering the massacre of Copts, but if you have evidence, please provide in a new threat, as it is off-topic.

Unless you can provide specific historical evidence refuting the three points I have listed above, I'll consider this debate ended.

And while Muslims indeed took things from Christians, they were never a Christian sect. Christians worship Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Savior. Muslims consider Christ a mere prophet, and even claim He was never crucified! You will have to show me a Koranic verse proclaiming Christ's divinity to convince me otherwise.

Edited June 9, 2007 by Socrates

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291164' date='Jun 8 2007, 08:12 PM']Ibn Kathir is not honored by all 4 of the Islamic schools of thought, infact by fewer of them then you might suspect, while Muhammed Asad is respected by every school of thought in Islam.[/quote]

That's a stunning statement, considering Ibn Kathir's commentary is one of the most famous commentaries, while Muhammad Assad explicitly attacked the foundation of the Schools of thought when he rejected Taqleed (or submitting to the authority of the schools of thought.) Honestly Reza, it's like saying St Thomas Aquinas is not accepted by the Church while Hans Kung is endorsed by the Magesterium.

I understand you want to prove your point, but you're getting daringly close to lying (if not already there).

[mortify]

Throwing in some wiki quotes about Ibn Kathir and Muhammad Asad:

Ibn Kathir:
[quote]Ismail ibn Kathir (Arabic: ابن كثير) (1301-1373) was an Islamic scholar. His full name is Abu Al-Fida, 'Imad Ad-Din Isma'il bin 'Umar bin Kathir Al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi. He was born in Busra, Syria (hence Al-Busrawi). He was taught by the "scholar of Islam"Ibn Taymiyya in Damascus, Syria and Abu al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi, d. 742H, main teacher of Ibn Kathir. Upon completion of his studies obtained his first official appointment in 1341, when he joined an inquisitorial commission formed to determine certain questions of heresy. Thereafter he received various semi-official appointments, culminating in June/July 1366 with a professorial position at the Great Mosque of Damascus. Ibn Kathir wrote a famous commentary of the Qur'an named Tafsir ibn Kathir which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur'an, in explanation. [b]Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, and is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today.[/b][/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir[/url]

Muhammad Asad:
[quote]Asad wrote several books, including Road to Mecca, an account of his travels through Muslim lands and his conversion to Islam, as well as his thoughts on the growing Zionist movement. He also wrote The Message of The Qur'an, a translation and brief commentary on the Muslim holy book based on his own knowledge of classical Arabic and on the authoritative classical commentaries. It has been acclaimed as one of the best, if not the best, translations of the Quran into English, [b]although it has been criticised by some traditionalists for its Mutazilite leanings.[/b] He also wrote a translation and commentary on the Sahih Bukhari, the most authoritative collection of Hadith. In addition, he wrote This Law of Ours where [b]he sums up his views on Islamic law and rejects decisively the notion of taqlid, or strict judicial precedent which has been accepted as doctrine by most Muslim sects except the Salafis[/b]. He also makes a plea for rationalism and plurality in Islamic law, which he sees as the true legacy of the salaf or earliest generations of Muslims.[/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad[/url]


Reza is fishing for people who can support his view.

Edited June 9, 2007 by mortify

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]That's a stunning statement, considering Ibn Kathir's commentary is one of the most famous commentaries, while Muhammad Assad explicitly attacked the foundation of the Schools of thought when he rejected Taqleed (or submitting to the authority of the schools of thought.)[/quote] This is very incorrect but again, the other scholars that I quoted agree with Muhammed Assad, and you're refusing to get into the Exegesis of what is written.

It's kinda interesting that you take everything Wikipedia says, claiming it's fact, when infact you know nothing about what you're talking about, which is why you can't seem to get into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.

Reza

Edited June 9, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291249' date='Jun 9 2007, 01:53 AM']This is very incorrect but again, the other scholars that I quoted agree with Muhammed Assad, and you're refusing to get into the Exegesis of what is written.

It's kinda interesting that you take everything Wikipedia says, claiming it's fact, when infact you know nothing about what you're talking about, which is why you can't seem to get into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.

Reza[/quote]

Reza, we've been talking about exegesis the whole time. Why do you think I bothered quoting Ibn Kathir, the scholars from islam-qa.com, and Muslim scholars that translated "awliya" as friends. Ironically when we were discussing surah 9 verse 29 you endorsed the use of the various translators (Ali, Shakir, and Pikthal) to try to create a false impression of ambiguity, and now you ignore them?

What's[i] interesting [/i]is that you can't make a worthwhile response to anything that has been addressed to you, and have even resorted to lying. Are you planning on sticking to your statement that Muhammad Asad is respected by all schools of thought, when he rejected the fundamental doctrine of taqlid?

Edited June 9, 2007 by mortify

[mortify]

double post

Edited June 9, 2007 by mortify

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='mortify' post='1291254' date='Jun 9 2007, 01:16 AM']Reza, we've been talking about exegesis the whole time. Why do you think I bothered quoting Ibn Kathir, the scholars from islam-qa.com, and Muslim scholars that translated "awliya" as friends. Ironically when we were discussing surah 9 verse 29 you endorsed the use of the various translators (Ali, Shakir, and Pikthal) to try to create a false impression of ambiguity, and now you ignore them?[/quote] This is not getting in the Exegesis. Are you confused to the meaning of the term "exegesis"?

[quote]What's[i]interesting [/i]is that you can't make a worthwhile response to anything that has been addressed to you, and have even resorted to lying. Are you planning on sticking to your statement that Muhammad Asad is respected by all schools of thought, when he rejected the fundamental doctrine of taqlid?[/quote]

I never resorted to "lying", Muhammed Asad is a respected Muslim. You probably can't even tell me what the different Islam schools of thought are, so obviously this is going over your head.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

Since you're only interesting in a "my scholar is better then your scholar" debate, rather then digging into the exegesis, let me quote Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi [if you don't know who he is, google it]: "people of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity. Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky"

Now if you deny his "credibility", then essentially you're denouncing the most respected Sunni Cleric in the world. Being that this is going to keep being a "my scholar against your scholar", I suggest you dig into the exegesis.

[quote]Surah 5:82
And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian."[/quote]

Edited June 9, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291260' date='Jun 9 2007, 03:23 AM']This is not getting in the Exegesis. Are you confused to the meaning of the term "exegesis"?[/quote]

I think you're confused. The whole point in quoting Ibn Kathir's *commentary* and the various accepted translators, is to show that "awliya" means "friends." Your entire argument is based on stretching the word "awliyya" to ridiculous levels that are foriegn to the most famous Quranic commentary and translations of Quran.

[quote]I never resorted to "lying", Muhammed Asad is a respected Muslim. You probably can't even tell me what the different Islam schools of thought are, so obviously this is going over your head.[/quote]Reza, you have an unfortunate habit of getting personal in these discussions, there is no reason to insult me, its not like knownig that the Ahl Sunnah wa'al Jamat have four schools of thought (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki) is a big thing

You claimed that not all four schools of thought honor Ibn Kathir, while *ALL* respect Muhammad Asad. Do I really need to get into how famous and widespread the use of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir is? Muhammad Asad on the other hand attacked the doctrine of taqleed, do you know what taqleed is? I'm starting to think you don't. Attacking taqleed is like saying a Catholic doesn't have to submit to the Pope. Do you see why your claim is so ridiculous? If they respect him, it's on a personal level, that he converted to Islam, not on a scholarly basis since his works have errors in them.

In other words, in no time soon will Asad's writing replace Ibn Kathir's Tafsir.

[quote]Since you're only interesting in a "my scholar is better then your scholar" debate, rather then digging into the exegesis, let me quote Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi [if you don't know who he is, google it]: "people of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity. Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky[/quote]

First of all, the whole point in quoting Ibn Kathir is because his opinions reflect what I call classical Islam, that is, how Islam was originally understood. I'm not interested in your [i]personal[/i] interpretation, I'm interested in the actual interpretation, the way Muslims saw it. The actual interpretation is recorded in Ibn Kathir's tafsir, and in the action of Umar, which btw, [b]you still have not addressed Umar's action in throwing out a Christian scribe from the town of Medinah[/b]. Umar justified this by quoting, "do not take Jews and Christians as friends..." How do you square Umar's action and use of the verse with your understanding??

Now you quote Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Reza apparently does not research the people he quotes,[b] the Shaykh *supports* Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians[/b]. I wonder if Reza will change his mind about violence being intrinsic to Islam, since the Shaykh is "[i]the most respected Sunni Cleric in the world[/i]."

In the quote provided, the Shaykh does not contradict anything that has been said. Muslims can be kind and just to disbelievers who are not a threat to them, such as women and weak disbelievers (Ibn Kathir), but it does not mean they can be friends, as that is forbidden and can even be an act of apostasy (islam-qa.com)

But the problem with resorting to [i]modern[/i] authorities, which I've already said numerous times, is that they often break from the classical teaching in order to make Islam more palatable, and this Shaykh is no different:

[quote][color="#FF0000"]Scholars schooled in traditional settings and advocating strict adherence to traditional methods of learning and understanding do not agree with Qaradawi's more lax approach to Sharia.[/color][/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi[/url]

Sharia is Islamic law.

[b]Lax interpretations that appease modernists is not what I look for when I want to understand a religion as it truly is.[size=3] Got it??[/size][/b]

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291261' date='Jun 9 2007, 04:04 AM']Surah 5:82
And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian."[/quote]

The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir has some beautiful things to say about this verse. According to the Muslims it was "sent down" when the Christian Abyssian leader, who gave Muslims asylum, converted to Islam. Unfortunately in the end, the Abyssians and other Christians were thrown out of Arabian Peninsula, such is the reward for giving asylum.

"[i]Qatadah said, "They were some followers of the religion of `Isa, son of Maryam, who when they saw Muslims and heard the Qur'an, they became Muslims without hesitation.'' Ibn Jarir said that these Ayat were revealed concerning some people who fit this description, whether they were from Ethiopia or otherwise. [/i]"

[quote](and you will find the nearest in love to the believers those who say: "We are Christians.'') refers to those who call themselves Christians, who follow the religion of the Messiah and the teachings of his Injil. These people are generally more tolerant of Islam and its people, because of the mercy and kindness that their hearts acquired through part of the Messiah's religion. In another Ayah, Allah said;

(And We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him, compassion, mercy, and monasticism...) [57:27]. In their book is the saying; "He who strikes you on the right cheek, then turn the left cheek for him.'' And fighting was prohibited in their creed, and this is why Allah said,

(That is because among them are Qissisin (priests) and Ruhban (monks), and they are not proud.) This means that among them are Qissisin (priests). The word Ruhban refers to one dedicated to worship. Allah said,

(That is because among them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.) This describes them with knowledge, worship and humbleness, along with following the truth and fairness.[/quote]

[url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14465"]http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14465[/url]


Then it gets a little weird, basically saying they are more open to conversion.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Now you quote Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Reza apparently does not research the people he quotes,[b]the Shaykh *supports* Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians[/b]. I wonder if Reza will change his mind about violence being intrinsic to Islam, since the Shaykh is "[i]the most respected Sunni Cleric in the world[/i]."[/quote]

Sorry but I quoted the wrong person, the quote itself was correct, but it didn't come from Shaykh Yusuf A-Qaradawi but from Shaykh Muhammad Sayid Tantawi, who doesn't support suicide attacks.

[quote]I think you're confused. The whole point in quoting Ibn Kathir's *commentary* and the various accepted translators, is to show that "awliya" means "friends." Your entire argument is based on stretching the word "awliyya" to ridiculous levels that are foriegn to the most famous Quranic commentary and translations of Quran. [/quote]Ibn Kathir's commentary isn't gospel thou, and Shaykh Muhammed Sayid Tantawi disagrees with heavily.

Being the curious mind that I am, I decided to research Ibn Kathir's commentary myself, and guess what I found?

[quote] Let not believers take the disbelievers as protecting friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, except you indeed fear danger from them.[/quote] Protecting friends... hmm... would that possibly be the same as Patrons? That's right it is the samething, it's no different then what Muhammed Assad said with his commentary that Muslims can be friends to Christians on a social level but not a moral level, since they dont have the same morals.

[quote]Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council ofNorth America, states:The Qur'an does not say that non-Muslims cannot be Muslims' friends, nor does it forbid Muslims to be friendly to non-Muslims. There are many non-Muslims who are good friends of Muslim individuals and the Muslim community. There are also many good Muslims who truly and sincerely observe their faith and are very friendly to many non-Muslims at the same time.

Islam teaches us that we should be friendly to all people. Islam teaches us that we should deal even with our enemies with justice and fairness. Allah says in the Qur'an in the beginning of the same Surat Al-Ma’dah: [O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.](Al-Ma’dah 5 :8)

In another place in the Qur'an, Allah Almighty says:

[Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9)

Moreover, Allah Almighty has described Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as "a mercy" to the worlds. He was a sign of Allah's Mercy to all, Muslims as well as non-Muslims. In his kindness and fair treatment he did not make any difference between the believers and non-believers. He was kind to the pagans of Makkah and fought them only when they fought him. He made treaties with the Jews of Madinah and honored the treaties until they broke them.

He (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have received the Christians of Najran with kindness in his Masjid in Madinah. They argued with him about Islam, but he returned them with honor and respect. There are many examples from his life that show that he was the friendliest person to all people.

In the verse you quoted, the word "Awliya" is used. It is a plural and its singular is "wali". The correct translation of the word ""wali"" is not "friend" but it is someone who is very close and intimate. It is also used to mean "guardian, protector, patron, lord and master".

In the Qur'an this word is used for God, such as [Allah is the Protector (or Lord and Master) of those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…] (Al- Baqarah 2: 257)

There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as [And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his next kin "wali" the authority (to seek judgement or punishment in this case)…] (Al-‘Isra' 17 :33)

The correct translation of the verse in Surat Al-Ma’idah is: [O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.] (Al-Ma'dah 5: 51)

It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This verse is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

In his Tafsir, (Qur’an exegesis) Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse (i.e. the one you referred to) was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says: [O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.] (Al-Tawbah 9: 23)

In a similar way, the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims' duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from oppression. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that he himself will defend a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non-Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. Allah Almighty says, [Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers…] (Aal-'Imran 3: 28)[/quote]

Reza

[mortify]

Reza,

[quote]Protecting friends... hmm... would that possibly be the same as Patrons? That's right it is the samething, it's no different then what Muhammed Assad said with his commentary that Muslims can be friends to Christians on a social level but not a moral level, since they dont have the same morals.[/quote]

Ibn Kathir explicitly states Muslims can't befriend Christians and Jews:

[color="#0000FF"]"Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them."[/color]

So no, its not the same as what Asad said.

Now Tantawi agrees for the most part, he does say Muslims can be just and kind to non-Muslims, but he also adds they can be friends. His translation of the verse differs from that of Shakir, Ali, and Pikthal (all of them translate "awliya" as friends), and he contradicts Ibn Kathir. On this issue, I'm going to go with Ibn Kathir and the three translators, the evidence is on their side. Hate to sound like a broken record but Tantawi's understanding of the verse makes Umar seem unjust for throwing the Christian scribe out of Medinah, but how can a foremost companion of Muhammad be in error? Again, I think it goes back to the laxity of modern scholars and their desire to make religion palatable.

Just to comment further, "awliya" can't only mean "Lord, guardian, master, etc" since saints in Islam are given the title, "Awliyaullah," or "Friends of Allah" and to understand this phrase any other way (i.e. Lords of Allah) is nothing short of blasphemy.

Secondly, Tantawi mentions marriage as an example, but there is a reason why Muslim women can't marry non-Muslim men, and that's because (in their thought) it would mean a Muslim is subjugated to a non-Muslim, and this can't be. It's perfectly acceptable for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman, because the Muslim remains on top, so to speak. So if you want to interpret the verse to mean that Muslims can befriend non-Muslims so long as the later is subjugated (in some way) to the former, you're not solving anything. If we can't be their protecting friends, only their subjugated friends, Muslims will have a tough time living in the Western world, unless they are actively seeking to make us their subjugated friends.

So its not much of a solution.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='mortify' post='1291489' date='Jun 9 2007, 04:44 PM']Now Tantawi agrees for the most part, he does say Muslims can be just and kind to non-Muslims, but he also adds they can be friends. His translation of the verse differs from that of Shakir, Ali, and Pikthal (all of them translate "awliya" as friends), and he contradicts Ibn Kathir. On this issue, I'm going to go with Ibn Kathir and the three translators, the evidence is on their side. Hate to sound like a broken record but Tantawi's understanding of the verse makes Umar seem unjust for throwing the Christian scribe out of Medinah, but how can a foremost companion of Muhammad be in error? Again, I think it goes back to the laxity of modern scholars and their desire to make religion palatable.[/quote] Actually he doesn't contradict anything, he explizitly states that the reason they were kicked out, was for breaking a treaty with the Muslims there [google it]. However, it's interesting that you say you're "going with Ibn Kathir" over the Grand Sheikh of probably the most respected Islamic scholarly school in the world, whom also mentions Ibn Kathir but gives a more detailed explaination... infact Ibn Kathir's thesis, is just a summery of previous thesis's written, in which he provides his account of the Hadeeths [which are disputable].

[quote]Just to comment further, "awliya" can't only mean "Lord, guardian, master, etc" since saints in Islam are given the title, "Awliyaullah," or "Friends of Allah" and to understand this phrase any other way (i.e. Lords of Allah) is nothing short of blasphemy.[/quote]It wouldn't be "lords of Allah", it would actually he protectors of Allah, which is quite different.

[quote]Secondly, Tantawi mentions marriage as an example, but there is a reason why Muslim women can't marry non-Muslim men, and that's because (in their thought) it would mean a Muslim is subjugated to a non-Muslim, and this can't be. It's perfectly acceptable for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman, because the Muslim remains on top, so to speak. So if you want to interpret the verse to mean that Muslims can befriend non-Muslims so long as the later is subjugated (in some way) to the former, you're not solving anything. If we can't be their protecting friends, only their subjugated friends, Muslims will have a tough time living in the Western world, unless they are actively seeking to make us their subjugated friends.[/quote] Well actually there are many many verses in the Quran [including the one that I posted previously] that say that Muslims can be friends with non-Muslims. In this case, I'm going to take the hardline view, which is that Muslims can be friends with Non-Muslims.

[mortify]

Peace Reza,

[quote]Actually he doesn't contradict anything, he explizitly states that the reason they were kicked out, was for breaking a treaty with the Muslims there [google it].[/quote]

Go back to the last post you wrote, you yourself said Tantawi "disagrees heavily" with Ibn Kathir.

Umar threw out the Scribe because he was Christian, he even quoted the chapter and verse in dispute to justify his action:

"[color="#0000FF"]`Umar liked what he saw and exclaimed, "This scribe is proficient. Would you read in the Masjid a letter that came to us from Ash-Sham'' Abu Musa said, `He cannot.'' `Umar said, "Is he not pure'' Abu Musa said, "No, but he is Christian.'' Abu Musa said, "So `Umar admonished me and poked my thigh (with his finger), saying, `[b]Drive him out (from Al-Madinah).'[/b] He then recited, [u][b]"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends..."[/b][/u][/color]"

[quote]However, it's interesting that you say you're "going with Ibn Kathir" over the Grand Sheikh of probably the most respected Islamic scholarly school in the world, whom also mentions Ibn Kathir but gives a more detailed explaination... infact Ibn Kathir's thesis, is just a summery of previous thesis's written, in which he provides his account of the Hadeeths [which are disputable].[/quote]

Reza, I'm just being objective, I'd do the same for a Catholic theologian who claimed the Eucharist is just a symbol, even if he was the head of some theological institute. I'm looking for the interpretation that's truest to the faith, in an ironic sort of way, I'm actually defending the religion from false interpretations. Obviously classical interpretations, such as Ibn Kathir's, which you recognize are themselves compilations of even older teachings, outweigh anything that is produced today. If a modern scholar contradicts what was taught in the past, and even contradicts what the [i]sahaba[/i] did, then of course I'm not going to accept the novel opinion.

Wikipedia describes Shaykh Tantawi (whom you called "Grand Shiekh") [b]"somewhat conservative."[/b] What does that mean? Is he basically a liberal Muslim in a high position? Perhaps his interpretations are the ones sought if I want to be an Islamic apologist, but if you want a pristine understanding you're going to have to look elsewhere.

[quote]It wouldn't be "lords of Allah", it would actually he protectors of Allah, which is quite different.[/quote]Even that is blasphemous, and I've never heard such a translation of Awliyaullah. This is how a concise sunni glossary defines it:

[b]walî, pl. awliyâ': Friend of Allâh; Saint.[/b]

[quote]Well actually there are many many verses in the Quran [including the one that I posted previously]that say that Muslims can be friends with non-Muslims. In this case, I'm going to take the hardline view, which is that Muslims can be friends with Non-Muslims.[/quote]

You mean the verse in Surah 60? You never addressed what I had to say:

[quote]You quoted surah 60 to say:
[color="#FF0000"]GOD does not enjoin you from [b]befriending[/b] those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may [b]befriend[/b] them and be equitable towards them.[/color]

Why is it none of the three main translators of Quran use the word "befriend"?

[color="#0000FF"]YUSUFALI: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing [b]kindly and justly[/b] with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

PICKTHAL: Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them [b]kindness[/b] and deal [b]justly[/b] with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

SHAKIR: Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them [b]kindness[/b] and deal with them [b]justly[/b]; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.[/color]

Reza, what Arabic word was translated as "befriending" in your translation?[/quote]

Edited June 10, 2007 by mortify

[RezaMikhaeil]

I'm not going to respond immediately... because I want to take more time [probably in the next few days] to respond and do some research. Just a heads up so you know...

[RezaMikhaeil]

Here's a message that a good friend that's of Muslim/Bengali heritage wrote me:

[quote]I looked through some of my books namely yusuf ali's commentary, M. Abdul Haleem's modern translation and Ghazalli's thematic writings. The latter does emphasise that when it refers to Jews and Christians it refers to those living in Arabia at the time who were persecuting Muslims... so it was written with the influence of emotion. That verse was given to remind muslims to stick together against being divided in their own lands. And the only way it can be appliedd today is in the vision of unity. The importance of standing by your muslim brother to strengthen community. Ibn Kathir, from my recollection was a very emotionally involved scholar who was steadfast in Islam from a defensive/aggressive stance.

Even if I was to put myself in a strictly "muslim" bubble this verse wouldnt work as it is contradicted by Dawah which teaches to befriend disbelievers and invite them to "the truth"[/quote]