Are Muslims really not allowed to have Non Muslim Friends ?

[saif]

salam dear brother Haimi

The original discussion was started with a post quoting an article from answering christianity website. Recently, the discussion was revived by our christian sister Cariad. She pointed, that muslims are allowed to marry women from the people of the book, so how can the friendship be forbidden at the same time.

In my initial response I accepted it, that it is a paradox and I have seen enough people, who translate the word wali as friend and they are never disturbed, that they can marry their women. My words for those people were, they are a disgrace to human intellect, because they should at least try to resolve this paradox.

Then I read that article in answering christianity and I saw how they resolve this paradox by restricting the meaning of Wali to political alliances of muslim countries with christian and jewish countries against other muslim countries. Thus they allow personal friendship between muslims and non-muslims, without even further restricting it, how deep a friendship it can be.

After reading that I posted again and pointed out the internal conflicts of this interpretation. I presented my Ustaaz's translation as an alternative.

Brother cabdixakim has been trying to give his understand of the word Wali, to which I personally do not disagree. I am just trying him to realize, that he is standing alone with his translation. This is the whole context of our on-going discussion. Once he confirms me, that he disagrees with answering christianity, I will start my analysis on his interpretation.

Wassalamu alaikum

 

[cabdixakim]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraktuh

Then be explicit please and say in clear words, that you disagree with answering christianity (and sahih international). The quotes I have copied from answering christianity are very clear.

Because first you should realize, that you are alone in your translation. Then we can discuss it further.

Wassalamu alaikum

Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh...

Brother, which of my view is still not understood to you when all from me seem clear to you?

As for restricting the verse to a political alliance between a muslim and a christian/jew countries against another muslim nation, a situation which was never heard of in the earliest centuries of Islam, it's a total deviation!... But this fact, comes under the prohibition of "do not take them as Awliya" which also applies to personal level!

As for my confirmation for "disagreeing with Answering christianity" why would it matter?... They've given a contextual explanation of the verse(which comes under the scope of awliya) and I said it's the english word for " wali" that's deluding us! As for Sahiih International, they've given wali an english word(that comes under its scope) and I'm yet to get one!

As for me, being alone in my perception of the word... That couldn't be further from the truth as there is explicit word for "wali" in my language and in the Tafasiir I listened to! ... "haleef" and "wali" are not the same thing in Arabic even though they may have a common meaning just like "home" and "shelter"... a fact which an Arab on this forum should help us get straight!

As for my take of your recurring question, I think you just want to say; " disagree with them!" "Good! Now provide a solution for "this" paradox" " Aah! Can't? Then take the alternative of my Ustad as eraneous as it sounds"

As for a muslim being allowed to marry a chaste woman of " the people of the book" and not take them as Wali... I should make it clear from my understanding that this and every other prohibition or permission in the Qur'aan is by Allah's wisdom... And that Islamic rulings are in the intrests of muslims... It's in the muslims intrests to marry a woman from the people of the book_ if a necessity arises! Just as muslims were permitted to eat a carrion if a necessity arises( I'm in no way suggesting that such women are like carrion) ... It's also NOT in the intrests of muslims to take the jews/christians as Awliya!... Is that unjust?... but how?... No one forced the lady to accept the marriage( this is a permission, it does not mean it must occur) and no bond of walimah was broken with a Jew/christian friend( this is a prohibition and "Welaya" was never bound to occur).

 

[saif]

Wa'aleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh...

Brother, which of my view is still not understood to you when all from me seem clear to you?

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

Where have I said, I have not understood you? I have only asked you to take a clear position about the original post of this thread. Unfortunately, you have failed to take a clear position until now.

As for restricting the verse to a political alliance between a muslim and a christian/jew countries against another muslim nation, a situation which was never heard of in the earliest centuries of Islam, it's a total deviation!...

EXACTLY. Then say that loudly and throw that version of interpretation out. If you are not courageous enough, I can do that for you. "Answering christianity have taken a deviant position."

But this fact, comes under the prohibition of "do not take them as Awliya" which also applies to personal level!

I agree with you but again answering christinity does not.

As for my confirmation for "disagreeing with Answering christianity" why would it matter?... They've given a contextual explanation of the verse(which comes under the scope of awliya) and I said it's the english word for " wali" that's deluding us! As for Sahiih International, they've given wali an english word(that comes under its scope) and I'm yet to get one!

It does matter. You know very well, that their explanation does not come under the scope you are defininng. You also know very well, that people at Sahih International are not so stupid to choose the word ally to represent something, which you have in mind. We are not discussing the word Ally here. We are discussing the meaning of Wali. I have given you long passages from Answering Christianity, so that you don't come up with the "choosing of one word" argument again. But you can't leave that argument, can you?

As for me, being alone in my perception of the word... That couldn't be further from the truth as there is explicit word for "wali" in my language and in the Tafasiir I listened to! ... "haleef" and "wali" are not the same thing in Arabic even though they may have a common meaning just like "home" and "shelter"... a fact which an Arab on this forum should help us get straight!

Ok, we are not discussing the word "Wali" stand-alone. We are discussing the meaning of this verse and the meaning of the word Wali in this context. You know very well, that the meaning cannot remain the same as in other verses, where Allah has been named as Wali. I have never challenged your knowledge of arabic and everything which you have written in explanation of the meaning of the word Wali in arabic is true. In my explanation, I am closer to your understanding of this word. Just you own "allies" have a different understanding of this word in this particular verse.

As for my take of your recurring question, I think you just want to say; " disagree with them!" "Good! Now provide a solution for "this" paradox" " Aah! Can't? Then take the alternative of my Ustad as eraneous as it sounds"

Yes, this is only the first thing you need to answer. I have much more to come. A wrong interpretation causes many a dents. And this paradox is only one of them

As for a muslim being allowed to marry a chaste woman of " the people of the book" and not take them as Wali... I should make it clear from my understanding that this and every other prohibition or permission in the Qur'aan is by Allah's wisdom... And that Islamic rulings are in the intrests of muslims... It's in the muslims intrests to marry a woman from the people of the book_ if a necessity arises! Just as muslims were permitted to eat a carrion if a necessity arises( I'm in no way suggesting that such women are like carrion) ...

I am sure with a little more deliberation you could come up with a much better analogy. Just try to feel the pleasant mood of this verse and the blessed day, when this is being revealed:

"This day (all) the good things are made lawful for you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste women from among the believers and the chaste women (Arabic: muh-sanatu) from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you);

And now read again, what you have written. I am sure, you will feel the need to puke.

Also, I am very disappointed to see, that you are epitomizing all the cliches about muslim men. The way you have worded the above passage makes one believe, that you think, in case of a biological necessity, men are allowed to fullfill their needs from a christian or jewish woman. You are forgetting, that marriage is a door to establish all the blood relationships, the relationships, which are much much more sacred, than any bond of friendship you can imagine. If you are allowed to marry a christian woman, you are actually allowing a christian woman to have mother-son or mother-daughter relationship with muslims of the next generation. All definitions about walima are bound to look pale before that sacred relationship of mother. (Unless it is between the believers and Allah and his Prophet).

It's also NOT in the intrests of muslims to take the jews/christians as Awliya!... Is that unjust?... but how?... No one forced the lady to accept the marriage( this is a permission, it does not mean it must occur) and no bond of walimah was broken with a Jew/christian friend( this is a prohibition and "Walimah" was never bound to occur).

If something is from Allah, then no muslim can have a word against that. Looking at the overall context of this verse your friends from Answering Christianity have come to the conclusion, personal relationships can get as close as the mother-son relationship. Do you have an issue with their understanding?

Wassalamu alaikum

 

[Haimi]

Well you guys can try to scroll a page back and try to read my post.
Alhamdulellah i already answered the question about none muslim friends issue, so imo this is resolved if noone has an another question.

About the wali word i can help you out since i resolved that matter long time ago when i was a teen ager, idk maybe when i was 16-18 and already has my researches alhamdulellah. Fell free to PM me if theres any help that i can do.
Regard:Hamid

WS ya saif, sorry forget to reply to your salam.

 

[saif]

Salam dear brother Hamid,

I have to thank you for your interest in the discussion. You also deserve a thank for your effort to resolve the matter between me and brother cabdixahim. I am afraid, you are not getting the complexity of the situation. Let me try once again.

• The overall mood of this thread, set mostly by "thetruthseeker" was, that personal relations with non-muslims are not addressed in Quran 5:51 but only the alliances of muslim countries with non-muslim countries against other muslim countries. He (thetruthseeker) took his understanding from an article in Answering Christianity website.
• I, for the first time in this thread challenged even that understanding. For me 'adl is decisive and for that we can make alliances with non muslims against dhaalim muslims. An alliance of muslims and non-muslims against the so called "Islamic State", which is as dhaalim as it can get, is a very recent example of such an alliance.
• With the help of overall context of Quran I showed, that Quran 5:51 was meant for Ahli Kitaab of Arabia at the time of the Prophet, on which the Prophet had himself done Itmaami Hujjah. It is not meant for all ahli kitaab of all times to come.
• On that brother cadixahim came and rejected my understanding. He gave his meaning of the word Wali without trying to resolve the paradox, which would then come up, when we accept his definition. His understanding is, that Wali is a special kind of friendship, which goes beyond being "friends" in English language. He thinks, since that special friendship can happen only among believers, lesser forms of relations like a marriage is allowed to happen between a muslim man and a woman of ahli kitaab, only if it has to be, just like muslims are allowed to eat carrion, if they are dying of hunger.
• You have seen in my last post, how I think his understanding is an insult to the verse, which is allowing muslim men to marry chaste women of the people of the book.

This is a summary of our discussion until now. I thank you for your participation, even though this site is full of people, who won't care about what you or your scholars think about that word. There are supporters of "islamic state" here, those who don't even take shia as the captives of war. They are only kind enough to give shia a da'wa to become sunni and on not accepting it they find it their birth right to kill the shia. I appreciate you for being so positive despite all that.

Wassalamu alaikum

 

[Haimi]

WS, i don't care what ppl are thinking about sunni or shia, even other religions as far as (if) they talking properly since:اطلبوا العلم بالصين فان طلب العلم فريضة علي کل مسلم
This is a famous hadith from rasul allah Muhammad (SA),
and since: emam Ali (awas) said:
وَ الْعَدْلُ مِنْهَا عَلَي أَرْبَعِ شُعَبٍ عَلَي غَائِصِ الْفَهْمِ وَ غَوْرِ الْعِلْمِ وَ زُهْرَهِ الْحُكْمِ وَ رَسَاخَهِ الْحِلْمِ فَمَنْ فَهِمَ عَلِمَ غَوْرَ الْعِلْمِ وَ مَنْ عَلِمَ غَوْرَ الْعِلْمِ صَدَرَ عَنْ شَرَائِعِ الْحُكْمِ وَ مَنْ حَلُمَ لَمْ يُفَرِّطْ فِي أَمْرِهِ وَ عَاشَ فِي النَّاسِ حَمِيداً.
And:
اُنظُر إلى ما قالَ و لاتَنظُر إلى مَن قالَ ؛

So i will try to help as much as i can. Doesn't matter that much if he's/she's muslim or if he's/she's not.
And yes i did read what you guys typed. And understood your situations and issue.

Like i said wali word is the must famous issue fi O'olom tafsir, tarkib and tajzia'a.
Try to look at Raqeb(Ragheb) book called Mofradat, المفردات
And yes, the circle of meaning of wali is bigger than friend and ally.
Wasallamo aleykonlm va rahmatullah.

 

[cabdixakim]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

Where have I said, I have not understood you? I have only asked you to take a clear position about the original post of this thread. Unfortunately, you have failed to take a clear position until now.


EXACTLY. Then say that loudly and throw that version of interpretation out. If you are not courageous enough, I can do that for you. "Answering christianity have taken a deviant position."


I agree with you but again answering christinity does not.


It does matter. You know very well, that their explanation does not come under the scope you are defininng. You also know very well, that people at Sahih International are not so stupid to choose the word ally to represent something, which you have in mind. We are not discussing the word Ally here. We are discussing the meaning of Wali. I have given you long passages from Answering Christianity, so that you don't come up with the "choosing of one word" argument again. But you can't leave that argument, can you?




Ok, we are not discussing the word "Wali" stand-alone. We are discussing the meaning of this verse and the meaning of the word Wali in this context. You know very well, that the meaning cannot remain the same as in other verses, where Allah has been named as Wali. I have never challenged your knowledge of arabic and everything which you have written in explanation of the meaning of the word Wali in arabic is true. In my explanation, I am closer to your understanding of this word. Just you own "allies" have a different understanding of this word in this particular verse.


Yes, this is only the first thing you need to answer. I have much more to come. A wrong interpretation causes many a dents. And this paradox is only one of them


I am sure with a little more deliberation you could come up with a much better analogy. Just try to feel the pleasant mood of this verse and the blessed day, when this is being revealed:



And now read again, what you have written. I am sure, you will feel the need to puke.

Also, I am very disappointed to see, that you are epitomizing all the cliches about muslim men. The way you have worded the above passage makes one believe, that you think, in case of a biological necessity, men are allowed to fullfill their needs from a christian or jewish woman. You are forgetting, that marriage is a door to establish all the blood relationships, the relationships, which are much much more sacred, than any bond of friendship you can imagine. If you are allowed to marry a christian woman, you are actually allowing a christian woman to have mother-son or mother-daughter relationship with muslims of the next generation. All definitions about walima are bound to look pale before that sacred relationship of mother. (Unless it is between the believers and Allah and his Prophet).




If something is from Allah, then no muslim can have a word against that. Looking at the overall context of this verse your friends from Answering Christianity have come to the conclusion, personal relationships can get as close as the mother-son relationship. Do you have an issue with their understanding?

Wassalamu alaikum

Wacaleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh,brother...

I let you go to this far because I thought you may've taken it as a personal attack on behalf of your Ustad and therefore have the right to go on the "offensive defence"... meanwhile, I'm busy showing honesty about what I said in my first reply!

Again, I do not see any wrong in what I've said in my recent post... so I'll save the puking for when I'm really ashamed. Unless you'll tell me the wrong in the statement; " Islamic rulings are in the intrests of muslims".

firstly, which lady? What requirements are needed? Is a topic of hot discussion such that no one will be willing to just marry a christian lady after knowing the burden!

As far as I go, I see no paradox here...( do not be afraid, you can still keep your Ustad's wrong translation if you try to understand me)...

The prohibition "do not take them as Awliya" and the permission " lawful for you are ...women from among the people of the book" are two different things!

To highlight what I mean; it's prohibited for a man to gaze at a marriageable woman or talk to her "passionately"(general prohibition)... Yet, if he marries the same woman he is allowed to gaze at her ( specific permission only for this woman)... does this sound like a paradox?

Similarly, a muslim man is not allowed to take the people of the book as Awliya(general prohibition)... but if he marries a woman from them(because that't lawful for him) then she has the right to his love affection and protection as much as a muslim wife would(specific permission only for this woman).

( I think I yet again made my argument flexible brother)

 

[saif]

Wacaleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh,brother...

I let you go to this far because I thought you may've taken it as a personal attack on behalf of your Ustad and therefore have the right to go on the "offensive defence"... meanwhile, I'm busy showing honesty about what I said in my first reply!

Again, I do not see any wrong in what I've said in my recent post... so I'll save the puking for when I'm really ashamed. Unless you'll tell me the wrong in the statement; " Islamic rulings are in the intrests of muslims".
)

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,
I thought it would be hard for you to understand the difference, when Quran is mentioning chaste women of ahli kitaab among all "the good things made lawful" in one verse and you are mentioning the chaste women of ahli kitaab together with carrion in one sentence. It is not a matter of shariah but a question of finesse. When have I questioned your honesty. I think, you are as honest as those terrorists, who are even willing to give their lives for that, which they consider to be "Islamic ruling".

"Islamic rulings are in the interest of muslims". Do you really think, I would argue with you on that? I will only argue with you about, what is an islamic ruling. All that killing is taking place with the hands of terrorists because they think, it is Islamic ruling, what they are doing and yes it is not only good for them, it is also good for those who are being killed.

firstly, which lady? What requirements are needed? Is a topic of hot discussion such that no one will be willing to just marry a christian lady after knowing the burden!

Do we marry "any" muslim lady? Is chastity not something we look in muslim ladies too? So looking for chastity or other good qualities is not specific to christian ladies.

As far as I go, I see no paradox here...( do not be afraid, you can still keep your Ustad's wrong translation if you try to understand me)...
The prohibition "do not take them as Awliya" and the permission " lawful for you are ...women from among the people of the book" are two different things!
To highlight what I mean; it's prohibited for a man to gaze at a marriageable woman or talk to her "passionately"(general prohibition)... Yet, if he marries the same woman he is allowed to gaze at her ( specific permission only for this woman)... does this sound like a paradox?
Similarly, a muslim man is not allowed to take the people of the book as Awliya(general prohibition)... but if he marries a woman from them(because that't lawful for him) then she has the right to his love affection and protection as much as a muslim wife would(specific permission only for this woman).

Thank you. This time you are more understandable. So you are saying, we are not allowed to take all ahli kitaab of all times as awliya, except when for some reason a muslim man has to marry a christian or jewish woman. In that case, it is an exception and we are allowed to treat her with love and affection. For the rest of christians, we are only allowed to face them apparently friendly. Otherwise, we are not allowed to feel any love, nor we should seek their protection.

Although it is hard to digest, like many other positions you take but at least it is understandable. I am sure, you also have some explanation of the verses 8 and 9 of surah al mumtahina, which sister a_sranger has posted, and which are addressing the specific applicability (and not general applicability, as you suggest) of "not taking awliya". I guess, this was the reason sister a_stranger had posted them.

To me, the specific applicability as suggested by my Ustad and as grounded in the verses 8 and 9 of Surah almumtahina seems a more reasonable approach. I see, that you have a different position, which is at least consistent in itself, although, like I said, you will have to be creative about those verses of Surah almumtahina. But I know you very well and I have no doubt about your creativity in that matter.

As for your comments on my Ustad, I don't mind them. I leave it, like my great Ustad too, for the day of judgement.

I know, you are not alone in your position. In fact, answering christianity is an exception. Most of the muslims, especially salafiyyah, who have no shame in taking social help from the christian countries also take the same position and think they are allowed to take all advantages of the christian societies, because this is their birth right being muslims and they are not allowed to take christians as their friends. The unthankfulness of those, who attack innocent people and take their lives, when they were living on their tax-money, must have its roots somewhere. I have always understood, where the roots are and now I think many others, including sister Cariad will also understand that.

I think, you have said what you had to say and I have said what I had to say. The discussion is over for me.

Wassalamu alaikum

 

[saif]

Salam dear brother Hamid,

I hope you understand now, that I am open to one or the other meaning of Wali, as long as its specific applicability is taken care of. Therefore, I have always stressed in my discussion with cabdixahim, that it's not me, who is against the meaning of wali he is presenting. Unfortunately, a large majority of muslims believe in its general applicability and therefore, you will always find people forbidding any friendly relations with ahli-kitaab. The difference in their interpretation of the word wali has the effect, that they only differ in the question, how far they are allowed to go. Some say this far is okay, others say that far is also okay.

Wassalamu alaikum

 

[cabdixakim]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,
I thought it would be hard for you to understand the difference, when Quran is mentioning chaste women of ahli kitaab among all "the good things made lawful" in one verse and you are mentioning the chaste women of ahli kitaab together with carrion in one sentence. It is not a matter of shariah but a question of finesse. When have I questioned your honesty. I think, you are as honest as those terrorists, who are even willing to give their lives for that, which they consider to be "Islamic ruling".

"Islamic rulings are in the interest of muslims". Do you really think, I would argue with you on that? I will only argue with you about, what is an islamic ruling. All that killing is taking place with the hands of terrorists because they think, it is Islamic ruling, what they are doing and yes it is not only good for them, it is also good for those who are being killed.


Do we marry "any" muslim lady? Is chastity not something we look in muslim ladies too? So looking for chastity or other good qualities is not specific to christian ladies.


Thank you. This time you are more understandable. So you are saying, we are not allowed to take all ahli kitaab of all times as awliya, except when for some reason a muslim man has to marry a christian or jewish woman. In that case, it is an exception and we are allowed to treat her with love and affection. For the rest of christians, we are only allowed to face them apparently friendly. Otherwise, we are not allowed to feel any love, nor we should seek their protection.

Although it is hard to digest, like many other positions you take but at least it is understandable. I am sure, you also have some explanation of the verses 8 and 9 of surah al mumtahina, which sister a_sranger has posted, and which are addressing the specific applicability (and not general applicability, as you suggest) of "not taking awliya". I guess, this was the reason sister a_stranger had posted them.

To me, the specific applicability as suggested by my Ustad and as grounded in the verses 8 and 9 of Surah almumtahina seems a more reasonable approach. I see, that you have a different position, which is at least consistent in itself, although, like I said, you will have to be creative about those verses of Surah almumtahina. But I know you very well and I have no doubt about your creativity in that matter.

As for your comments on my Ustad, I don't mind them. I leave it, like my great Ustad too, for the day of judgement.

I know, you are not alone in your position. In fact, answering christianity is an exception. Most of the muslims, especially salafiyyah, who have no shame in taking social help from the christian countries also take the same position and think they are allowed to take all advantages of the christian societies, because this is their birth right being muslims and they are not allowed to take christians as their friends. The unthankfulness of those, who attack innocent people and take their lives, when they were living on their tax-money, must have its roots somewhere. I have always understood, where the roots are and now I think many others, including sister Cariad will also understand that.

I think, you have said what you had to say and I have said what I had to say. The discussion is over for me.

Wassalamu alaikum

Wacaleykumas'salaam waraxmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh, brother...

Because you said the discussion is over from you I believe your questions about my stand has been satisfied to some extent... ??

And because you keep on mentioning about terrorists, unthankfulness,salafi and stuff( things that due to your emotions seem to pop up everywhere!)... I'd like to tell you that Allah's rulings are perfect... Did we discuss anywhere about an Islamic ruling which says "lower your hands for the Westerners and then be unthankful to them"( as unfortunate as it sounds!) ? Had my position was ; " the non-muslims must take us as their Awliya and we must never consider such a thing" then you'd have had the right to vent your anger on me... All Allah said "do not take them as wali" and // expect them not to take you as their Wali... They have their ways and I have mine! I do not force what's prohibited to me upon them nor shall I force my permissibilities( like marrying their women by force) on them.

so now, I'd like you to give me satisfactory one last reply of what got me here; How your Ustad reached to the conclusion that "Al-yahuud w Al-nasaara" means "these jews and these christians" instead of "the" ? who were the Christian community in Madinah who were addressed and "dealt with" by the ruling? Whether or not a muslim of this time can take a Jew/christian as Wali ( bearing in mind that you said you agree with my understanding of the word many times) ?

And why I should not object to Ghamidi's understanding and take it as erroneous?

 

[saif]

Wacaleykumas'salaam waraxmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh, brother...

Because you said the discussion is over from you I believe your questions about my stand has been satisfied to some extent... ??

And because you keep on mentioning about terrorists, unthankfulness,salafi and stuff( things that due to your emotions seem to pop up everywhere!)... I'd like to tell you that Allah's rulings are perfect... Did we discuss anywhere about an Islamic ruling which says "lower your hands for the Westerners and then be unthankful to them"( as unfortunate as it sounds!) ? Had my position was ; " the non-muslims must take us as their Awliya and we must never consider such a thing" then you'd have had the right to vent your anger on me... All Allah said "do not take them as wali" and // expect them not to take you as their Wali... They have their ways and I have mine! I do not force what's prohibited to me upon them nor shall I force my permissibilities( like marrying their women by force) on them.

so now, I'd like you to give me satisfactory one last reply of what got me here; How your Ustad reached to the conclusion that "Al-yahuud w Al-nasaara" means "these jews and these christians" instead of "the" ? who were the Christian community in Madinah who were addressed and "dealt with" by the ruling? Whether or not a muslim of this time can take a Jew/christian as Wali ( bearing in mind that you said you agree with my understanding of the word many times) ?

And why I should not object to Ghamidi's understanding and take it as erroneous?

How come you can raise that question without addressing vereses 8 and 9 of Surah almumtahina. I have already given them as my proof of the specific applicability. Do you read my answers at all?

 

[Haimi]

WS.
I think it's the time to finish the conversation if the topic has it's answers

 

[saif]

Wacaleykumas'salaam waraxmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh, brother...

Because you said the discussion is over from you I believe your questions about my stand has been satisfied to some extent... ??

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
Yes, I can confirm, that after your last post, I have a better understanding of your stand. I do not agree with that and like I pointed out, I consider it to be conflicting with the rest of Quran but I can see, it is at least consistent in itself. In fact, I have known more people with your stand-point than the one advocated here by "thetruthseeker" on behalf of Answering Christianity. And like I said, I have no proof, but a strong assumption, that Sahih International is using the term Ally in the same sense as Anwering Christianity. Because otherwise, it would be stupid to use the word ally, which you correctly translated to be haleef or mu'aahid, and I don't really think, they are stupid. They can be everything but not stupid. See all posts in this thread and you will see, that in this thread you are the only one taking that position.

And because you keep on mentioning about terrorists, unthankfulness,salafi and stuff( things that due to your emotions seem to pop up everywhere!)... I'd like to tell you that Allah's rulings are perfect...

The next time you come up with "I'd like to tell you that Allah's rulings are perfect", or that I should argue against "Islamic rulings are in the interest of muslims", I will have the right to consider you as a takfiri. Because as long as you consider me a muslim, all these things are given. I will give up Islam before having an argument with you on "imperfection of Allah's rulings" or that Islamic rulings are not in the interest of muslims or human beings for that matter. I hope you will refrain from such takfiri statements in future. I do mind them.

I keep coming back on these topics because they are everywhere. They are written in all newspapers everyday. They are written almost on all walls. You have to be numb to avoid these topics. It has very less to do with you as a person. We have many people here who condemn "Islamic state" and argue the same way as Islamic State would argue. So they would condemn Islamic state's fighters' taking yezidi girls as their sex slaves and at the same time, they would praise Sheikh Saleh al Munajjid's stance on slavery. The same applies to you.

Did we discuss anywhere about an Islamic ruling which says "lower your hands for the Westerners and then be unthankful to them"( as unfortunate as it sounds!) ? Had my position was ; " the non-muslims must take us as their Awliya and we must never consider such a thing" then you'd have had the right to vent your anger on me... All Allah said "do not take them as wali" and // expect them not to take you as their Wali... They have their ways and I have mine! I do not force what's prohibited to me upon them nor shall I force my permissibilities( like marrying their women by force) on them.

You know very well, that this phenomenon of unthankfulness does exist. I have never said, you explicitly support that. But I have said and I still say, that you implicitly support that bughd and 'inaad present in the muslim hearts against non muslims by the interpretation you have given.

so now, I'd like you to give me satisfactory one last reply of what got me here; How your Ustad reached to the conclusion that "Al-yahuud w Al-nasaara" means "these jews and these christians" instead of "the" ? who were the Christian community in Madinah who were addressed and "dealt with" by the ruling? Whether or not a muslim of this time can take a Jew/christian as Wali ( bearing in mind that you said you agree with my understanding of the word many times) ?
And why I should not object to Ghamidi's understanding and take it as erroneous

Give me some time to come up with a detailed answer.

 

[saif]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

Please read the following article from this source, which addresses exactly the same issue with fixing the meaning of "alif laam".

Meaning And Use Of The Article Al In Arabic
Question
I have heard Javed Ghamidi sahib explain that alif-laam in Arabic is the definite article and is the same as 'the' of English. From a lecture by him posted on http://www.tv-almawrid.org, I got the impression that, according to him, it is always used as a definite article. I am finding this difficult to reconcile with alif laam's other uses and would like to find out about his response. Alif-laam, according to my limited understanding, is used both as a definite article as well as an article to indicate a genus, referred to as al-laamu jins. In that usage, the sentence, such as al-rajulu khayrun mina lmar`ati would mean "man is better than woman" in general and not necessarily specify a particular man and woman. In Quran, one sees examples of this too. For instance, in verse 2:83, orphans, needy and people are referred to as al-yatama, al-masakeen and an-naas, all referring to general categories and not specific to a particular group. I would like to understand when Mr. Ghamidi explains the first few verses of Surah Taubah, how can one understand that being an alif-laam MUST imply that it is specific mushrikeen and not general to all mushrikeen. I understand that based on the textual context and context of revelation, one can argue either way, but I am more interested in understanding the linguistic aspect of it. A related but separate question is that if we use al-mushrikeen to understand the polytheists of the Prophet's (pbuh) time only, then I will also request you to consider the verses of Quran that command Muslims to pay due rights of orphans (such as 2:220 and 4:2) that use the word al-yataama. However, we do not understand them to be specific to the orphans of Prophet Muhammad's time, but rather commandments that are general for orphans of all times.
Answer
By Dr. Shehzad Saleem
First it needs to be clarified that in the opinion of Mr Ghamidi the article alif laam is used in both ways you have indicated. It is used to connote a specific entity (called alif laam of 'ahd (referred by you as the definite article)), and it is also used as alif laam of genus to indicate a common entity without specifying it.
As far as the alif laam in the word al-mushrikun mentioned in the Quran is concerned, in his opinion, it is that of 'ahd and refers to the mushrikun or the Idolaters of Arabia specifically and not to other mushrikun because unlike others they intentionally subscribed to shirk and later even after the truth had been conclusively conveyed to them arrogantly insisted on shirk and incurred God's wrath through the swords of the believers as mentioned in Surah Tawbah. It was because of this deliberate denial that they were meted out this stern punishment. This deliberate denial and the knowledge that they deliberately denied is specific to the Idolaters of Arabia only. It cannot be extended to other mushrikun. So common is this usage in the Quran that al-mushrikun has become a title for the unlettered Arabs (ummiyyin) of the times of the Prophet (sws).
As far as the alif laam on the yatama and masakin is concerned, it does not refer to any specific type of yatama and masakin which can be singled out in the Arabian society and which do not exist in other or later societies. For this reason, this alif laam is that of genus and not that of 'ahd.
In most cases, it is the context, concomitant factors and intrinsic indicators which help a serious student of the Quran in distinguishing between these two types of alif laams.

 

[saif]

So far the linguistic discussion on the translation of alif-laam.

Now, why are you expecting, that "these christians" can only be used for christians living in medina? The prophet was very well in contact with christians and the christians of states like Najran and Egypt were keenly following, what was happening in Arabia. With his direct contacts with the christians from Najran he did Itmami Hujjah on christians and went as far as doing mubahla with them.

So basically, the crime of yuhud of medina and that of christians was the same: rejecting the da'wa of the Prophet after all evidences were provided to them. There is every reason for Quran to address both of them in that verse under our discussion.

Remember again, it was not my idea to limit the word Wali for "alliances", so I have no burden of proof to address that part.

Please read carefully the document, which I am uploading with this post. I will copy the relvant parts in my next post for everybody else to follow.

 

[saif]

 

[saif]

I hope, my argument is also clear now. Like I pointed out earlier, verses 8 and 9 of Surah almumtahina are another proof of specific validity of not taking "them" as awliya. Although the verses are discussing that in context of mushrikeen, it is but logical to apply the same logic to ahli kitaab. (That means, if Quran is asking the believers not to apply that prohibition of friendship and kindness to all mushrikeen, it is but natural, that it cannot be applied to all ahli kitaab without differentiating)

 

[saif]

wa ma 'alayna illa albalaagh al mubeen.

Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

 

[cabdixakim]

I hope, my argument is also clear now. Like I pointed out earlier, verses 8 and 9 of Surah almumtahina are another proof of specific validity of not taking "them" as awliya. Although the verses are discussing that in context of mushrikeen, it is but logical to apply the same logic to ahli kitaab. (That means, if Quran is asking the believers not to apply that prohibition of friendship and kindness to all mushrikeen, it is but natural, that it cannot be applied to all ahli kitaab without differentiating)

wacaleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh... brother

without disregarding your lengthy efforts, I must tell you that you only made clear of your sources but not your argument!

As for me becoming a Takfiiri because of a question I asked; I'd say if anyone is closer to the chracteristics of a Takfiiri it would be you because no one labels people and groups them as much as you do!

As for (Q 60:8-9)... The first verse permits to be kind and just to those( and this applies to all even though in context it's pagans of Makkah being addressed) who are not in fighting with the muslims...(no where does the verse permit "wila" again) so two very different things... and the second gives the prohibition of "welaya" as we already discussed... ( if I try to answer your last question directly)... And I can't see how this verse invalidates what I said or how it's even a parallel to(Q 5:51)...

I tried to look for my answers in the posts you wrote and it's very tiresome...I did not need to direct you to a pdf or copy&paste an answer to another question which someone else asked to explain myself.

My first question is directly on the intrusion of the pronoun "these" instead of a definite article "the"... Where in the Arabic language is "al" used as "these"?... what your latest Ustad gives is the contextual meaning of the verse based on his point of view and thus he deliberatly writes "these" where there is no pronoun because he thinks his readers will know that he's talking about the "these" who he defined earlier!

The nouns(jews and christians) in question are class nouns ... and in Arabic or English, the definite article "the" or "al" preceeds them... to make the sentence sensible and good to read but not a grammatical wonder as "these": would it make sense to say; lion is a magnificent predator? If we say "the lion is a magnificent predator" does it make any difference in the meaning?... That's the role of "al" in Arabic.

and my second question; the first ever encounter of the prophet(p.b.u.h) with a christian group was with a group of 60 individuals from Najran two years before his death and this Surah was revealed earlier... But even if we accept these as "these" why were they punished? Because they rejected the message... what about those rejecting it now?... And both of them were not the direct addressees of the prophet(p.b.u.h) as you like to say...

And my third question which you did not attend to; I asked you whether or not a christian of now "our time" can and should be taken as "wali" by muslims?...( then are you not contradicting yourself when you say you have no personal disagreement with my understanding of wali ?)

/* The thing is you cannot let go of your Ustad's translation because he's your Ustad or maybe you can't find another alternative and somehow you find others to be in complete blindness but I can't see how that makes it right!) */

 

[saif]

wacaleykumas'salaam warahmatul'Lahi wabarakatuh... brother

without disregarding your lengthy efforts, I must tell you that you only made clear of your sources but not your argument!

As for me becoming a Takfiiri because of a question I asked; I'd say if anyone is closer to the chracteristics of a Takfiiri it would be you because no one labels people and groups them as much as you do!

As for (Q 60:8-9)... The first verse permits to be kind and just to those( and this applies to all even though in context it's pagans of Makkah being addressed) who are not in fighting with the muslims...(no where does the verse permit "walimah" again) so two very different things... and the second gives the prohibition of "walimah" as we already discussed... ( if I try to answer your last question directly)... And I can't see how this verse invalidates what I said or how it's even a parallel to(Q 5:51)...

I tried to look for my answers in the posts you wrote and it's very tiresome...I did not need to direct you to a pdf or copy&paste an answer to another question which someone else asked to explain myself.

My first question is directly on the intrusion of the pronoun "these" instead of a definite article "the"... Where in the Arabic language is "al" used as "these"?... what your latest Ustad gives is the contextual meaning of the verse based on his point of view and thus he deliberatly writes "these" where there is no pronoun because he thinks his readers will know that he's talking about the "these" who he defined earlier!

The nouns(jews and christians) in question are class nouns ... and in Arabic or English, the definite article "the" or "al" preceeds them... to make the sentence sensible and good to read but not a grammatical wonder as "these": would it make sense to say; lion is a magnificent predator? If we say "the lion is a magnificent predator" does it make any difference in the meaning?... That's the role of "al" in Arabic.

and my second question; the first ever encounter of the prophet(p.b.u.h) with a christian group was with a group of 60 individuals from Najran two years before his death and this Surah was revealed earlier... But even if we accept these as "these" why were they punished? Because they rejected the message... what about those rejecting it now?... And both of them were not the direct addressees of the prophet(p.b.u.h) as you like to say...

And my third question which you did not attend to; I asked you whether or not a christian of now "our time" can and should be taken as "wali" by muslims?...( then are you not contradicting yourself when you say you have no personal disagreement with my understanding of wali ?)

/* The thing is you cannot let go of your Ustad's translation because he's your Ustad or maybe you can't find another alternative and somehow you find others to be in complete blindness but I can't see how that makes it right!) */

We will have to leave it there. I am well experienced with your way of argumentation. So I will leave it for true knowledge seekers. You cannot see the logic but I am sure, the one who is truely searching for knowledge will see that.