Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1621 - December 04, 2014, 08:16 PM

Quote from: Abu Ali on December 04, 2014, 08:11 PM

Yes, proof-reading. We could do with some volunteers.

Please put your name on this thread if you can do that please

I can proof read the english version after exams.

In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1623 - December 04, 2014, 08:19 PM

Quote from: TheDarkRebel on December 04, 2014, 08:16 PM

I can proof read the english version after exams.

Good man! Your name is noted Afro

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1625 - December 04, 2014, 09:04 PM

Me too!

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1627 - December 04, 2014, 09:10 PM

Brilliant - thanks Zaotar and Lily Afro

Edit - and Billy

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1629 - December 04, 2014, 11:11 PM

Thanks, Lua Afro

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1631 - December 09, 2014, 05:24 PM

Wow Abu, you really deserve something for all the work you have put into this. I look forward to reading the finished piece. You are clearly a very intelligent guy, I really enjoy reading your contributions on the Forum.

Here are some dancing bananas for you because it's clear you love them. grin12

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1633 - December 11, 2014, 04:58 PM

This is another online review. It is from a Qur'anist website.

__________________________________

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/show_article.php?main_id=2802

Website: Ahlul-Qur'an.(This is a Qur'anist website.)

A Critical Reading of the book: (My Ordeal with the Qur'an and with God.)

Samer Islambouli. Monday 17th December 2007

________________________

A Critical Reading of the book: "My Ordeal with the Qur'an and with God." By Dr Abbas Abdul Nour.

The first thing to notice straightaway is that the author is mentally ill and suffering from grief, depression and melancholia. This is clear from the things the author says about himself, having to undergo a surgical operation on his eyes and on his feet that led to permanent disability (claudication) with thinning of the bones and becoming tired when walking. As well as suffering a financial crisis to the extent that he considered selling his house and similar misfortunes which spares few of us in the Arab world. So he began to make du'a and beseech God, reminding him of his the long years he spent worshiping him and never asking a thing from him, but now the time had come for God's turn to respond by recompensing him for his worship and fulfil his promise and to stand by his side and remove his affliction and worries and he repeated the du'a many times and stayed up all night praying and beseeching God but his financial crisis was not solved. Instead his crisis just deepened, so he quickly denied the existence of God because he didn't answer his du'a nor remove his misfortune.

So in order to take revenge on the Creator he decided within himself to defame his book that he spent so many nights reciting and reading. So he tore into the Qur'anic text with his heart full of hate for it and started stirring up problems here and there, exploiting the heritage and his shallowness. He cites examples of out-dated* explanations of the Qur'anic text as though it is inspiration that was revealed with the Qur'an itself and he considers it sound and so he begins his criticism, defamation and mocking of it. Then he makes out that this naive understanding applies to the Qur'anic text itself and so judges it to be false and faulty. Thus does he proceed to relate his journey from faith to doubt!! He transfers his infectious sickness to those like him who have a disease in their heart and I will shortly discuss a summary of his call with an open mind and in a brief way, relying on the good sense of the reader.

The first statement that reveals his blind stumbling and going astray is his saying: "My journey from faith to doubt." For it is a false statement in reality, foolish and silly. In fact the stages are the wrong way round, because it is like saying "My journey from knowledge to ignorance."! Is it possible for a man to arrive at the truths of matters or its correct understanding through proper scientific methodology (which the Qur'anists approve of) and then to reject it and return to a state of ignorance!? Since when has ignorance been higher than knowledge?

Oh brothers, faith is not simply believing and practising only. Faith is belief based on evidence from reality and as a consequence it is practiced. If one stops practising then that means faith has ceased to be part of the condition of that person and so it becomes belief in name only. In it's place is only a bunch of information in the mind and nothing more. "Actions" speak louder than words and if they intentionally cover up the truth then he is an unbeliever regardless of whether he denies it. Or if he works against the truth in reality. For the concept of faith essentially rests upon knowledge first of all and secondly practice. They are inseparable. So how is it possible for a man who is honest to himself and desires the truth, to go from faith to doubt!?

There are two possibilities:

A. He never had true faith to begin with and he didn't arrive at it through knowledge and study and practise. Instead he was merely at the stage of imitation of traditions and memorising texts and confusion and misguidance, thinking that is faith! But it is only blind imitation of traditions and belief in concepts without evidence. This only indicates the concept of belief (عقيدة) and not the concept of faith (ايمان). For that reason the word belief (عقيدة) was not used in the Qur'anic text because it doesn't imply knowledge and evidence. The difference between the two is as follows:
- Faith (الايمان): is belief that corresponds to reality that is based on evidence so that it becomes concepts that shape a man's behaviour according to his practicing it and adhering to it. It results in peace & security.
- Belief (العقيدة): is the affirmation of a set of ideas without having any evidence for them. It doesn't bring about actual compliance nor does it bring about action and practice. It is a type of ideological loyalty based on tribalism and interests, and always results in wars and bloodshed.

B. Abbas Abdel Nour arrived at a faith like his, in the same way the leaders of disbelief and misguidance have throughout human history, those who turned back on their heels like Iblees. He chose blindness over guidance and disbelief over faith. If that interpretation is correct then we should title the affair as it really is and say: "Turning back from faith to disbelief." like the title "Turning from knowledge to ignorance." because his original title: "My journey from faith to doubt," misleads the reader into thinking he went from something lower to something higher and that his thinking is now superior! This is a deceptive and devious the way of phrasing it. It hides the truth! Since when was disbelief, doubt and ignorance superior to faith, certainty, and knowledge?

- The second matter: There is a question that must be asked, namely: Why does he try to demolish and attack the text, seeking to prove to the reader that it is not the word of the Creator and as a result disprove its miraculousness, eloquence and holiness? Since Abbas denies the existence of God from the beginning of the book and denies that he manages the affairs of his creation, in which case rejecting the existence of God is enough to undermine the holiness of the Qur'an!!

But we see him blacken the pages, pursuing the verses that he finds difficult to understand, (and that is not surprising for one who is in the stage of blind imitation - تقليد ) and he proceeds to knock verses against others, like a small child who went into a room full of technical equipment in order to play in it and starts to hit the equipment against others not knowing what each one does by itself because the equipment only accomplishes its function when it's used in practice.

-The third matter is his saying: that "The existence & the non-existence of God is the same thing!" arguing that the evidence for his existence and non-existence is equal and can't be proven either way. This is a huge error that a doctor of philosophy shouldn't make. Dear reader, look at these rational, logical principals that the wise cannot deny since they are proven in reality.

1. Denial does not need evidence. Only an assertion needs evidence. From this the jurists have coined the principal that "the evidence is the responsibility of the plaintiff," or "If you are making a claim, then bring evidence."

2. Proving something with evidence, in itself implies a refutation of denial. As a result it is incorrect for someone to say; 'I will bring evidence to disprove that which has been proven by evidence.' That is nonsense, heresy and sophistry that no philosopher or wise men would give it any credit nor weight.

See, for example the sentence: "The sun is shining." It is an assertory sentence (a sentence in which a subject is named and something is stated/predicated about it.) that proves the shining of the sun through awareness of observable or tangible reality. Thus proof that is accompanied by tangible evidence refutes at the same time denial that the sun is shining. So how can Abbas bring evidence to deny the shining of the sun!?

3. Self-evident things should not be discussed nor should time be wasted proving them. Such as half of 4 is 2 or that man possess awareness and comprehension of what is around him. I mean by that the matter of discussing the agent "The Creator". Would one of you accept discussing whether an action has an agent!? For example look at the sentence; "Zaid read the lesson." Imagine a person is fully aware and cognisant of the action "read" but said: I doubt in the existence of Zaid and that he is the agent!? What can one say? This is the same as his saying, Most High, "Can there be doubt about Allah, Creator of the heavens and earth?" Can you doubt, oh you limited action, that there is an agent!? The existence of an agent is proven beyond all doubt by the existence of the action, even though the agent must of course exist before the action. Despite this the "caused" Abbas says he doubts there is an agent!!Indeed that is something astounding!!

- The fourth matter: The position Abbas has taken is as a result of his poor mental health and financial circumstances and the question must be asked is: Would Abbas have had these thoughts if his bad condition had changed!?

I think that there is some sort of faction who took advantage of Abbas' difficult circumstances and made a deal with him and offered him a financial solution to all his problems on the condition that he writes a book that would incite weak people towards atheism and to doubt the religion of Islam. This is not a conspiracy theory at all, because it would be a mistake to reject an analysis of the affairs and what lies behind them on the excuse that it is a conspiracy theory. If this isn't the case with Abbas then he has passed judgment & witness to himself of stupidity and nonsense and proven to the world that having a diploma from Al-Azhar doesn't mean you are a rational or knowledgable person. For if he was knowledgable but hid his knowledge and wrote the opposite then he is more astray than cattle!! Whichever way you look at the situation of Abbas you find he is between a paid agent and between being more astray than cattle.

In this way he marketed his book as though it is the most dangerous and greatest book of atheism in the putrid, dead history of atheism!! And after having studied it and read it with a keen awareness able to distinguish the falsity of this claim I can state that it's worthlessness and lies doesn't even reach the level of worthlessness!! To the extent that I showed it's suspicions about the existence of God to my daughter who is only 14 years old and she couldn't restrain herself from laughing at such a shallow level of analysis and intellectual reasoning and she said: "This man has She said: This man has a neurosis about poverty and an inferiority complex, and the saying applies to him: "He who can't reach the grapes says they are bitter."

- As for the matter of his failure to comprehend and his misunderstanding of the verses, I will soon review some of them to clarify to the reader how Abbas didn't use his mind at all, but simply sufficed with recounting the heritage (classical tafseers) and then on the basis of them judged the Qur'anic text. It would have been better for him to study the Qur'an itself, but how can he understand it since he approached it right from the beginning believing in it's falsity and erroneousness.

1. - His saying that 'The word "think/suppose" (الظن) appears in the Qur'an in a contradictory and conflicting way, sometimes meaning doubt and sometimes meaning certainty,' and he also said a similar thing about the word "chaste women" (المحصنات). I say to him, and those like him, indeed your ignorance of the Arabic language is what led you to these confusions. For the word in in the Arabic tongue has only one abstract meaning or sense, but when it is used in realty, its common usage becomes confused it and other meanings becomes tied to it and people understand it according to that usage without restricting it to its proper linguistic meaning.

A. The word "think/suppose" (الظن) refers to an inclination and feelings within a man. If these feelings are weak, it then appears in the form of doubt. If they increase and become more preponderant it then appears as a more likey view, while if it has been proven, then it becomes certainty.

The Qur'an uses the word "think/suppose" (الظن) in all three senses:

1. Meaning doubt: "They follow nothing but conjecture (الظن), they do nothing but lie." (6:116)
2. Meaning more likely: "David realised (الظن) that We had tried him. He asked forgiveness of his Lord, fell down, falling in prostration, and turning in repentance."
3. Meaning certainty: "Those who are certain (الظن) that they will meet their Lord." (2:249)

B. The word "impregnable/guarded" (حصن) refers to impenetrability, protection and shield. From that comes the word "Fortress" meaning a building that is for defence of the city and from that comes the word "chaste woman" in the Qur'an which is related to a woman in a number of ways:

1. The protecting of a woman through her being part of a family and society so that they are like a fortress for her: "And whoever among you who doesn't have the means to marry protected** (المحصنات), believing women, then marry from those whom your right hands possess." (4:25)

2. The protecting of a woman through her being married to a man so that he is like a fortress for her: "Prohibited to you (for marriage) are your mothers… and married women except those your right hands possess." (4:23-24)

3. The protecting of a woman through her adhering to the values and morality and chastity so they become like a fortress for her: "And she who guarded her private parts, so We blew into it of our spirit." (21:91).

C. Abbas the atheist said: The Qur'an sometimes descends from it eloquent structure to the level that even ordinary people should not descend to and he gives an example of that from his saying, Most High: "And those who disbelieved will be driven to Hell in groups… " (39:71) and his saying, Most High: "And those who feared their Lord will be driven to Paradise in groups… " He says that the word "driven" as the commentators mention, indicates driving them like cattle, with violence and harshness in order to humiliate the unbelievers. It is an method of driving that is done by force, compulsion and in a humiliating way. So how can God describe the believers using this method of driving them and liken them to the way unbelievers and animals are driven? Does that not indicate that the Qur'anic text has fallen from good eloquence and that it is not from God (if there is a God).

We say to Abbas the atheist, that the word "drive" means bringing something in an unspecified manner extending to maximum joining by stopping or stern cutting. From this we name the place that goods are brought from all different places; "Market" (سوق).

So the evidence is that the word "drive" doesn't have a connotation of blame nor praise. It is simply used to for anything that is driven to a place without their will or knowledge. From that we use the word "drive" to begin the process of conscripting the young into the army by compulsion and we use it for driving a car and animals.

So the process of driving the unbelievers to Hell realises the attribute of making them go against their will or knowledge to Hell and likewise the believers are driven to paradise without their will or knowledge because the decision to enter did not come from them, but having something done without your will doesn't mean it is necessarily by force and compulsion. For this is related to the thing that the person is being driven to. If he is being driven to that which he hates and will perish in then as a consequence of that "driving" there is force, compulsion and humiliation, but if he is being driven to that which he loves and is content with, then as a consequence of that there is no force or compulsion, on the contrary there is satisfaction and happiness at the process of "driving".

As for the fact that this word "drive" is not used in the culture of the society except when it is connected to force, compulsion and humiliation by the common masses such as 'driving cattle', well that is not proof that matters in the Arabic tongue, because the Qur'an was revealed in the pure Arabic tongue and was not revealed in what most people are accustomed to in their terms and usages.

So in this way we see it is correct to use the word "driven" for the unbelievers to Hell and for the believers to Paradise, for it portrays things as they really are perfectly since the decision did not come from them and they have no knowledge of how they will go to their fate. It is only as a consequence of that (fate), that the process of driving the unbelievers is forced and humiliating for them because they are being driven to that which they hate. While the believers are being driven to that which they love and so they go happily, honoured, displaying satisfaction and joy.

D. Then Abbas looks at his saying. Most High: "And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry those that please you of women, two or three or four… " and asks a question that he directs to the learned commentators: 'What is the logical connection between the first part of the conditional clause: "And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans" and the concluding part of the conditional clause: "then marry those that please you of women, two or three or four… " and he thinks he has silenced the commentators and then builds upon that a deluded hypothesis based upon the hypothesis of his first delusion and so says: 'There must be a sentence between the first part of the conditional clause and it's conclusion that would clarify the logical connection between the two and this sentence must have been forgotten, or omitted or corrupted. This confirms the corruption of the Qur'anic text and that it is not from God, if there is a God.'

I have dealt with this text in previous articles so I will summarise here:

The word "Qist" (justice/instalment) doesn't indicate justice or oppression it simply indicates division and partition. While the word "Yatama" (orphans) is applied to children, both male and female, who have lost their father while under the age of puberty. They are not to married because of their youth. The text is talking about caring for orphans and their wealth according to the context of what is before it and after it in the text.

The meaning of the text is this: 'If you feel yourself that you won't fail in the process of division & partition for the orphans on behalf of their mother and won't eat up their wealth, then marry those that please you of the mothers of the orphans.' The word "women" is used because the mothers of the orphans are women. Because of that usage (saying 'women' instead of the 'mothers of orphans') the jurist came up with the extra understanding that it is a permission to marry women in general as well as the specific ruling to marry the mothers of orphans. If the word 'mothers of orphans' was used instead of 'women' then the permission to marry 4 wives would have been limited to the mothers of orphans only. In this way we see the logical relationship between the first part of the conditional clause and the second in the text without any confusion or ambiguity.

E. As for his saying connected to his saying, Most High: "By those who tear out violently, and those who gently draw out…" (Sura 79) and similar such declarative texts (the shorter suras at the end of the Qur'an.) and saying that it is meaningless speech that has no value nor meaning, this is an amazing and strange thing to come from a doctor of philosophy! Doesn't this short sighted created being (Abbas) know that the it is impossible for the created being to comprehend all the profound dimensions and meanings of the actions of the prime agent/mover, never mind the impossibility of comprehending aims and objectives of the prime mover/agent!! For that reason his question and ambiguity has no value to it at all on the face of the earth in reality. For the Qur'anic text didn't just descend upon Abbas so that he could comprehend its meanings and objectives. It was revealed for all people across time and place and every society takes its portion of knowledge and understanding from it while using the best intellectual tools that they have at their disposal according to their time. Each time judges the superiority of the Qur'an and its originality in a complete and general way. Which in turn proves its divine origin and man deals with it in a relative way guided by reason and the arrangement of the Qur'an and leaves the particulars to others from following societies to follow up the study build up the body of knowledge. In this way the Qur'anic text continues to give and is relevant for every age age and place. For that reason the position the deficient being (Abbas) too is non-scientific. Because the lack of human knowledge about something does not negate the existence of something or its correctness. Because humans are short-sighted and limited in their knowledge and understanding.

F. He confused the meaning of "read" (قرأ) with "recite" (تلى) and considered that "reading" (قراءة) is the source of "recitation" (تلاوة).

G. He explains the verse "Their sign is on their faces from the effect of prostration" as being the mark that appears on the forehead from the effect of the friction of prostration and this is a laughable and stupid explanation. The text is referring to the sign in the behaviour of a Muslim man as an effect of his abiding by the commandments of God, Might and Glorious, in society and it is apparent in the pious man and it appears on his face in the sense of happiness and joy and contentment and self-confidence. It has no connection to the mark that appears on the forehead!!!

H. He claims that philosophies negate the existence of God, but they only differ about his nature, oneness and not his existence.

I. He described the matter of denying the existence of God as if it is a clear truth and I don't know how the non-existence of the Agent/Cause can be a clear truth when the evidence of the caused/created is stablished and Abbas himself is evidence of that!! (i.e. that someone caused him.)

J. He thinks that when the Qur'an talks about du'a that it is saying it is a definite way of achieving things and so he made du'a but did not get an answer so he denied the existence of the Agent because he didn't reply to him. As though the Agent derives his existence from his creation or the recognition of his creation.

K. His lies and invention that there are many verses in the Qur'an that contradict scientific facts.

L. He considers the Qur'anic text to be chaotic and disjointed and it's subjects to be fragmentary because of his inability to deal with it. It has escaped him that the Qur'an has its own special structure and arrangement and internal and external keys for its implicit study within its text.

This is as much as I was ago do in a hurry to reply to Abbas (the deficient being) and expose his ignorance and flaws and that his book is not worth reading - at all! And will not harm anyone. There is no fear from it. Nor min others like him against the truth, ever! He didn't reach the level to be called the most dangerous atheist book in human history! It is not usually my habit to reply to his like, but I was provoked by this description of it by some brothers and forums who were passing it around. So I wrote this criticism of mine to make people aware of the of the book and its low intellectual level and shallowness.

"And say: Truth hath come and falsehood hath vanished away. Lo! falsehood is ever bound to vanish."

"Say: Bring your evidence if you are truthful."

_____________________________

*Literally: "Forefathers/Ancestors." He is referring to classical mufassirun/commentators of the Qur'an. As a Quranist he rejects not only hadith material but the classical commentaries also.

**In this particular verse, most English translations use the word "free women" for (المحصنات). Though in other verses they translate it as "chaste women".

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1635 - December 11, 2014, 05:16 PM

Quote from: Abu Ali on December 11, 2014, 04:58 PM

The first thing to notice straightaway is that the author is mentally ill and suffering from grief, depression and melancholia

but of course!

"we can smell traitors and country haters"

Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM

God is Love.
Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1637 - December 11, 2014, 07:01 PM

Quote from: Cornflower on December 11, 2014, 05:13 PM

So 2/3 of the "criticism" was basically talking shit about the author. Conveniantly, he chose to criticize the "linguistics" of "Abbas the atheist's" (lol) book. I mean, come on. Why not get into the harder stuff? And contradicting science? "Nooo, it doesn't! Shut up!" Cheesy

This is one of the lamest critical reviews (if you can even call it that) I've ever read.

It's really terrible, isn't it.

All ad hominem and strawmen. It is also typical Quranists to say this or that word doesn't mean what everyone thinks it means.

I think it would be good to include this in the book as anyone with an ounce of sense will see he has absolutely nothing to offer.

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1639 - December 11, 2014, 07:04 PM

This was really hard to translate because I kept falling asleep or finding other things I 'suddenly needed' to do - it was just so bad - badly written and of course lacking any substance - I could hardly concentrate enough to finish it lol

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1641 - December 11, 2014, 07:20 PM

There are Youtube vids with someone reading the book in Arabic - looks like he's currently doing them and is up to page 21 so far:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAl9XkQp4Yk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBcnF2zPsSk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAtyzwBr068

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STfUOY9AOA4

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1643 - December 11, 2014, 08:06 PM

@Abu Ali

I'm a bit surprised at how many critiques of the book and copies of it are floating around the internet.

Would you say it's fairly popular among the arab internet world ?

In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1645 - December 11, 2014, 09:03 PM

Quote from: TheDarkRebel on December 11, 2014, 08:06 PM

@Abu Ali

I'm a bit surprised at how many critiques of the book and copies of it are floating around the internet.

Would you say it's fairly popular among the arab internet world ?

It has certainly made some waves on the internet and been passed around atheist/secular/liberal sites and has had enough of a profile to provoke some Muslim responses. It has been mentioned and discussed on a few forums.

Though it hasn't had the mass attention I think the author expected and I think it deserves.

Apparently it was banned from publication in hard copy in Egypt. So the internet is the only place it can be read and that is mostly in a rather unattractive scan.

I think its publication in English may revive interest in the Arabic version too and perhaps then it will get the attention it deserves.

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1647 - December 11, 2014, 09:18 PM

Quote from: Abu Ali on December 11, 2014, 09:03 PM

I think its publication in English may revive interest in the Arabic version too and perhaps then it will get the attention it deserves.

Although with all the commentary and editing to improve it, even arabic speakers people might prefer to read the english version.

In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living

Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

Reply #1649 - December 12, 2014, 08:54 PM

This a very strange review/response - I'm not sure what to make of it. (NOTE: It is unfinished)

Review on the website forum: Kalemasawaa/كلمة سواء

An Islamic website & forum aimed at giving Da'wah to non-Muslims.

http://www.kalemasawaa.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6644

Reviewer is a member of the forum going by the name: MALCOMX (sic)
______________________________________________

Response to the book:

"My Ordeal with the Qur'an and with God in the Qur'an."

By Abbas Abdul Nour - Damanhour, Egypt, 2004.

The book is not a book of theology, according to the introduction.

Page 7 he doesn't encourage the reader to agree with him.

Page 19 the author says he's a Sufi.

Pages 20-21 he attacks the Christian faith and it's tenets.

Hadith from the prophet:

"I saw my Lord in the most beautiful form and he put his hand on my shoulders until I felt the coldness of fingers between my chest, beside the throne on the shoulder of Israfil, and indeed it (the throne) made a sound like the sound of a new saddle."

There is no authenticity to the previous hadith.

Doubts:

-The period the people of the cave is contradictory in the Qur'an.

Response:

"They will say there were three, the fourth of them being their dog; and they will say there were five, the sixth of them being their dog - guessing at the unseen; and they will say there were seven, and the eighth of them was their dog. Say, [O Muhammad], "My Lord is most knowing of their number. None knows them except a few. So do not argue about them except with an obvious argument and do not inquire about them among [the speculators] from anyone."

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

"God Most High says regarding people's differing about the number of the people of the cave and relates 3 views, indicating that there is no fourth view. He then undermines the first two views by saying: "guessing at the unseen" meaning saying something without knowledge like one who throws towards something he can't see and so is not able to hit the mark and even if he does it is unintentional. They he relates the third view and kept quiet about it or confirmed it by his saying: "and the eighth of them was their dog" and so indicated it's correctness."

And Ibn Jarir said: Ibn Bashar related from Abdu al-Rahman, from Isra'il, from Samak, from 'Ikrama, from Ibn 'Abbas: "No one knows them except a few." He said: "I am one of those few and they were seven."

It is also related from Ibn Abbas that he said: "They are Maxlima, Yamlikha, Mirtouns, Binouns, Sarenouns, Thu Nuwas and Kashfitatnous and he was the shepherd while the dog was called Qitmir."

-We were made to carry the burdens of the people so we threw them - where did they throw them??

"We were made to carry burdens from the ornaments of the people, so we threw them, and thus did the Samiri throw." (20:87)

It is said: When God Most High drowned Pharaoh the sea threw their ornaments/jewellery out so they (Bani Isra'il) took them. It was booty. But booty wasn't halal in those days. So he (God) called it "burdens" for that reason.

"burdens from the ornaments of the people" the ornaments/jewels of the people of Pharaoh. He called them "burdens" because they took them without permission and didn't return them."

"So we threw them" It is said: Samiri said to them; 'dig a hole and throw it in it until Moses returns.'

"and thus did the Samiri throw" what he had of ornaments/jewelry in it. Sa'id ibn Jubayr said from Ibn 'Abbas, may God be pleased with him, that Haroun lit a fire and said throw what you have into it. So they threw it into it. Then Samiri threw what he had of the dust from the hoof of Gabriel's horse."

Welcome

Donations

Recent Posts

Theme Changer

Topic: Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"

TheDashingRabbit

Reply #1620 - December 04, 2014, 08:15 PM

TheDashingRabbit

Reply #1621 - December 04, 2014, 08:16 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1622 - December 04, 2014, 08:18 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1623 - December 04, 2014, 08:19 PM

Zaotar

Reply #1624 - December 04, 2014, 08:51 PM

Lilyesque

Reply #1625 - December 04, 2014, 09:04 PM

billy

Reply #1626 - December 04, 2014, 09:04 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1627 - December 04, 2014, 09:10 PM

lua

Reply #1628 - December 04, 2014, 10:34 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1629 - December 04, 2014, 11:11 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1630 - December 05, 2014, 03:49 PM

laico

Reply #1631 - December 09, 2014, 05:24 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1632 - December 09, 2014, 05:33 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1633 - December 11, 2014, 04:58 PM

Cornflower

Reply #1634 - December 11, 2014, 05:13 PM

billy

Reply #1635 - December 11, 2014, 05:16 PM

Lilyesque

Reply #1636 - December 11, 2014, 05:22 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1637 - December 11, 2014, 07:01 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1638 - December 11, 2014, 07:03 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1639 - December 11, 2014, 07:04 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1640 - December 11, 2014, 07:10 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1641 - December 11, 2014, 07:20 PM

TheDashingRabbit

Reply #1642 - December 11, 2014, 08:02 PM

TheDashingRabbit

Reply #1643 - December 11, 2014, 08:06 PM

Cornflower

Reply #1644 - December 11, 2014, 08:26 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1645 - December 11, 2014, 09:03 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1646 - December 11, 2014, 09:05 PM

TheDashingRabbit

Reply #1647 - December 11, 2014, 09:18 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1648 - December 11, 2014, 09:24 PM

cosmicdancer

Reply #1649 - December 12, 2014, 08:54 PM

Basic Information

General Resources

CEMB Organisation