[RIGHT]وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لَكَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ أَحَاطَ بِالنَّاسِ وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّؤيَا الَّتِي أَرَيْنَاكَ إِلاَّ فِتْنَةً لِّلنَّاسِ وَالشَّجَرَةَ الْمَلْعُونَةَ فِي القُرْآنِ وَنُخَوِّفُهُمْ فَمَا يَزِيدُهُمْ إِلاَّ طُغْيَانًا كَبِيرًا {60}[/RIGHT]
[Shakir 17:60] And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men; and We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Quran as well; and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great inordinacy.
[Pickthal 17:60] And (it was a warning) when we told thee: Lo! thy Lord encompasseth mankind, and We appointed the sight which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind, and (likewise) the Accursed Tree in the Qur’an. We warn them, but it increaseth them in naught save gross impiety.
In this ayat Allah SWT sympathizes and then ensures his Messanger (sawaw) that what ever the vision he has been shown was nothing but the ordeal for mankind and the Accursedtree in the Quraan to whom Allah causes to fear but it doesn’t work.
Mostly, almost all the translators and the illustrators of Quraan assume from the word “shajra-e-maloona” as a tree of leaves and buds. In some ‘tafaseer’ it has been narrated that Rasoolallah SAWAW once was on his ‘minber’ and he suddenly surmount by his dream and he saw that some monkeys are dancing over his ‘minber’. He just awakens and people saw that there were very sad impressions on his face. At that time to make him comfortable Allah SWT revealed the above ayat. And said “We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Quran as well; and We cause them to fear, but it doesn’t work and of them is ‘Yazeed’ nothing but great inordinacy.” Here the ‘Shajr-e-maloona’ is not used for a tree of leaves and buds but actually means the ancestral tree “*shajra-e-nasab” *to whom Allah SWT cause to fear but it doesn’t work and of them is the “Yazeed” who is nothing but a ‘Tughyane kabeer’
So the Shajra-e-maloona fil Quraan is ‘Bani umayads’ and of them is the Yazeed ‘malaoon’ a “Tughyane Kabeer”, no doubt about it.
First of all kindly clear your concepts which are based on very poor information
Umayya was not from the same tribe from which Muhammad SAWAW was. Umayya was a slave to which Abde Shams S/o Abde Munaaf had adopted from Rome. In Arabs before Islam adopted sons considered as real sons and they also inherits to which Islam prohibits afterwards.
When it is said that Aal-e-Ibrahim then it doesn’t include his fathers and fore fathers. And if someone refers Aale Imran than it includes Muses, Maryam, And Eisa Alehimus salam but not Yaqoob, Yousuf and Dawood alehimus salam. Likewise if it is said that Aale Muhammad sawaw then it definitely not includes his father and fore fathers. Similarly when it is said that bani umayya then it means the descendant of Umayya but not his fathers and forefathes.
It is a very serious ignorance to say that devil was the teachers of Angels. It is absolutely wrong conception and totally against the Quranic verses. In sura baqara it is mentioned there that Angels when asked to tell the names of persons presented before them that
[RIGHT]قَالُواْ سُبْحَانَكَ لاَ عِلْمَ لَنَا إِلاَّ مَا عَلَّمْتَنَا إِنَّكَ أَنتَ الْعَلِيمُ الْحَكِيمُ {32}[/RIGHT]
Shakir 2:32 They said: Glory be to Thee! we have no knowledge but that which Thou hast taught us; surely Thou art the Knowing, the Wise.
Pickthal 2:32 They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise.
So the teacher of Angels is only Allah SWT and nobody else therefore by saying that devil was the teacher of Angels you not only disgrace the angels but (maz Allah) you place the devil on Allah’s place (Astaghfirullah).
Another very big misunderstanding is about the Noh and his son. It was proved from Quran that that guy was not the son of Hazrat Noh alehis salam but he considered him his own son. Allah SWT disclosed this fact in Sura Hud as
[RIGHT]وَنَادَى نُوحٌ رَّبَّهُ فَقَالَ رَبِّ إِنَّ ابُنِي مِنْ أَهْلِي وَإِنَّ وَعْدَكَ الْحَقُّ وَأَنتَ أَحْكَمُ الْحَاكِمِينَ {45}[/RIGHT]
Shakir 11:45 And Nuh cried out to his Lord and said: My Lord! surely my son is of my family, and Thy promise is surely true, and Thou art the most just of the judges.
Pickthal 11:45 And Noah cried unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Lo! my son is of my household! Surely Thy promise is the truth and Thou are the Most Just of Judges.
[RIGHT]قَالَ يَا نُوحُ إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنْ أَهْلِكَ إِنَّهُ عَمَلٌ غَيْرُ صَالِحٍ فَلاَ تَسْأَلْنِ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ إِنِّي أَعِظُكَ أَن تَكُونَ مِنَ الْجَاهِلِينَ {46}[/RIGHT]
Shakir 11:46 He said: O Nuh! surely he is not of your family; surely he is (the doer of) other than good deeds, therefore ask not of Me that of which you have no knowledge; surely I admonish you lest you may be of the ignorant
Pickthal 11:46 He said: O Noah! Lo! he is not of thy household; lo! he is of evil conduct, so ask not of Me that whereof thou hast no knowledge. I admonish thee lest thou be among the ignorant.
Translators here could not understand that Allah SWT is not telling here that he (son) was the doer of evil conduct but Allah SWT is disclosing to Noh A.S that he (son) himself is a product of evil conduct of his wife. And this fact is further elaborated in Sura Tehreem
ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا اِمْرَأَةَ نُوحٍ وَاِمْرَأَةَ لُوطٍ كَانَتَا تَحْتَ عَبْدَيْنِ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا صَالِحَيْنِ فَخَانَتَاهُمَا فَلَمْ يُغْنِيَا عَنْهُمَا مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا وَقِيلَ ادْخُلَا النَّارَ مَعَ الدَّاخِلِينَ {10}
Shakir 66:10 Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut: they were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter both the fire with those who enter.
Yusufali 66:10 Allah sets forth, for an example to the Unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: they were (respectively) under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands), and they profited nothing before Allah on their account, but were told: "Enter ye the Fire along with (others) that enter!"
That is why Hazrat Noh A.S seeks refuge and forgiveness from Allah SWT as
[RIGHT]قَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِكَ أَنْ أَسْأَلَكَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِهِ عِلْمٌ وَإِلاَّ تَغْفِرْ لِي وَتَرْحَمْنِي أَكُن مِّنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ {47}[/RIGHT]
Shakir 11:47 He said: My Lord! I seek refuge in Thee from asking Thee that of which I have no knowledge; and if Thou shouldst not forgive me and have mercy on me, I should be of the losers.
Pickthal 11:47 He said: My Lord! Lo! in Thee do I seek refuge (from the sin) that I should ask of Thee that whereof I have no knowledge. Unless Thou forgive me and have mercy on me I shall be among the lost.
Similarly was the case of Loot A.S’s Wife. She had also committed ‘khayanat’ of his husband.
So the key of ayat of Sura Al-Asra which was quoted earlier is in the words “wa ma yazeed-o-hum”. As much you examine the ayat you may bound to understand that it was nothing but a forecast of “bani umayya’s tughyane kabeer”.
The Prophet [s] specefically condemned Bani Ummayah at several places and the verse of Shajra Maluna has also been referred to Bani Ummayah by Prophet [s] himself, but more specifically we find that it refers to Mal’oon Hakam and his son Mal’oon Marwan: Ayesha once told Marwan:
First of all kindly clear your concepts which are based on very poor information
Umayya was not from the same tribe from which Muhammad SAWAW was. Umayya was a slave to which Abde Shams S/o Abde Munaaf had adopted from Rome. In Arabs before Islam adopted sons considered as real sons and they also inherits to which Islam prohibits afterwards.
When it is said that Aal-e-Ibrahim then it doesn’t include his fathers and fore fathers. And if someone refers Aale Imran than it includes Muses, Maryam, And Eisa Alehimus salam but not Yaqoob, Yousuf and Dawood alehimus salam. Likewise if it is said that Aale Muhammad sawaw then it definitely not includes his father and fore fathers. Similarly when it is said that bani umayya then it means the descendant of Umayya but not his fathers and forefathes.
It is a very serious ignorance to say that devil was the teachers of Angels. It is absolutely wrong conception and totally against the Quranic verses. In sura baqara it is mentioned there that Angels when asked to tell the names of persons presented before them that
[RIGHT]قَالُواْ سُبْحَانَكَ لاَ عِلْمَ لَنَا إِلاَّ مَا عَلَّمْتَنَا إِنَّكَ أَنتَ الْعَلِيمُ الْحَكِيمُ {32}[/RIGHT]
Shakir 2:32 They said: Glory be to Thee! we have no knowledge but that which Thou hast taught us; surely Thou art the Knowing, the Wise.
Pickthal 2:32 They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise.
So the teacher of Angels is only Allah SWT and nobody else therefore by saying that devil was the teacher of Angels you not only disgrace the angels but (maz Allah) you place the devil on Allah’s place (Astaghfirullah).
Another very big misunderstanding is about the Noh and his son. It was proved from Quran that that guy was not the son of Hazrat Noh alehis salam but he considered him his own son. Allah SWT disclosed this fact in Sura Hud as
[RIGHT]وَنَادَى نُوحٌ رَّبَّهُ فَقَالَ رَبِّ إِنَّ ابُنِي مِنْ أَهْلِي وَإِنَّ وَعْدَكَ الْحَقُّ وَأَنتَ أَحْكَمُ الْحَاكِمِينَ {45}[/RIGHT]
Shakir 11:45 And Nuh cried out to his Lord and said: My Lord! surely my son is of my family, and Thy promise is surely true, and Thou art the most just of the judges.
Pickthal 11:45 And Noah cried unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Lo! my son is of my household! Surely Thy promise is the truth and Thou are the Most Just of Judges.
Shakir 11:46 He said: O Nuh! surely he is not of your family; surely he is (the doer of) other than good deeds, therefore ask not of Me that of which you have no knowledge; surely I admonish you lest you may be of the ignorant
Pickthal 11:46 He said: O Noah! Lo! he is not of thy household; lo! he is of evil conduct, so ask not of Me that whereof thou hast no knowledge. I admonish thee lest thou be among the ignorant.
Translators here could not understand that Allah SWT is not telling here that he (son) was the doer of evil conduct but Allah SWT is disclosing to Noh A.S that he (son) himself is a product of evil conduct of his wife. And this fact is further elaborated in Sura Tehreem
ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا اِمْرَأَةَ نُوحٍ وَاِمْرَأَةَ لُوطٍ كَانَتَا تَحْتَ عَبْدَيْنِ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا صَالِحَيْنِ فَخَانَتَاهُمَا فَلَمْ يُغْنِيَا عَنْهُمَا مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا وَقِيلَ ادْخُلَا النَّارَ مَعَ الدَّاخِلِينَ {10}
Shakir 66:10 Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut: they were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter both the fire with those who enter.
Yusufali 66:10 Allah sets forth, for an example to the Unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: they were (respectively) under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands), and they profited nothing before Allah on their account, but were told: "Enter ye the Fire along with (others) that enter!"
That is why Hazrat Noh A.S seeks refuge and forgiveness from Allah SWT as
Shakir 11:47 He said: My Lord! I seek refuge in Thee from asking Thee that of which I have no knowledge; and if Thou shouldst not forgive me and have mercy on me, I should be of the losers.
Pickthal 11:47 He said: My Lord! Lo! in Thee do I seek refuge (from the sin) that I should ask of Thee that whereof I have no knowledge. Unless Thou forgive me and have mercy on me I shall be among the lost.
Similarly was the case of Loot A.S’s Wife. She had also committed ‘khayanat’ of his husband.
So the key of ayat of Sura Al-Asra which was quoted earlier is in the words “wa ma yazeed-o-hum”. As much you examine the ayat you may bound to understand that it was nothing but a forecast of “bani umayya’s tughyane kabeer”.
My dear brother you have good logics and explanations but switch the angle and now look at thesee ayaas from north side
" he was not the so.........."
may nay asif ko aaak kiya woh mera beta nahee .......if given in paper will it change the natural blood relation b/w father and son ....... or just from the worldly affairs point of veiw...........................so this ayaa is symbolic not literal...............distinction b/w son and father was based on attitude/character not blood or wife khianat................
" Wives dishonesty........."
so my dear brother what is dis-honesty?.............. if i steal some thing from u am i dishonest or not?......... if i disclose some secrets of urs , am i dis-honest or not?.............if i say some thing bad about u that has no thing to do with u , am i dis-honest or not?.........and so on .................. now let me ask u, what would be the probability of a simple/common man to continue to keep his wife
if she is lier, she is stealer, she is cheater and so on but not fornicatter/Zaani
and on the other side she is very nice and abid and this and that but Zani..........which one will husband continue to live with...... off course u will answer the first case............. and some one thinks that a man guided by Allah (swt) called nabe/rasool will live with such a wife........... no my dear quran is silent about kind of dishonesty and scholar have come up with following the rules that wives were used to disclose the secrets of Prophets................
shiatan ..............
1) how was he there in Janaa
2) why was he rewarded with life forever
3) whay has he been rewarded with an excess to hearts or thoughts
4) how can he be every where by himself or zuriyaat
etc etc etc
Now as for as my last reply...........
i am not saying for fathers are included in specific tribes and it goes backward..... but sons are included in it and goes forward/downward......................
any how I meant the starter of the thread does not have to blame all in Ummayeds but some of them has questionable role and schlars/historians have difference of openion on...........and Allah has given u the freedom to choose what ever path or people u want be with...............
finally I completely admire u for the efforts u put on the thread........ this is what make it educating and we have chance to look at from different angles........ just look at them from more than one possible angle.......
Salamun alaikum
Brother, property or jaidad se aaq ker dena is a different thing but if someone announce that his son (howsoever he may be disobedient and defiant) is not his son, it is a ‘gali’ for himself. So Allah is telling here is that “he is not among your Ahl, ‘innahu amalun gher-e-saleh’ “ Allah didn’t say that “Inna amalohu gher-e saleh” it means that he himself was an ‘amal’ of some ‘gher saleh’. Therefore the ayat quoted above has pure literal meanings. And this fact was also new to Hazrat Nooh A.S that’s why Allah SWT has warned him "**therefore ask not of Me that of which you have no knowledge; surely I admonish you lest you may be of the ignorant" *and Hazrat Noh A.S. asked refuge from Allah in these words “ *I seek refuge in Thee from asking Thee that of which I have no knowledge**” otherwise sheikh saadi ki to samajh main aa gaya ke Hazrat Noh A.S. ka beta kafir or nakhalaf hay magar Hazrat Nooh ye baat nahin samajh sake or Allah ki bargah main muqadma dair ker dia ke mere bete ko kyoon duboya?
Second point is regarding the wives of Prophets. I know that it is a very touchy matter and very hard to digest that some of the wives of Prophets were not good in character but Allah SWT himself discloses atleast two of his messengers of whom wives were not faithful and loyal to them. Here again Allah didn’t mentioned that these wives were not loyal to the mission of their husbands but he catagorically said that “fa khanata huma” means that unhon ne apne shoharon se khayanat ki. Chunanche un ka anjam ye hua ke 'un se keh dia gaya ke 'dakhil ho jao aag (jahannum) main dakhil hone walon ke saath' or Un ke shohar un ki koi madad nahin ker sake.
Iblees-e-laeen
It is very difficult to say how Iblees was placed among the Mlaika Alehimus Salam but it is proved from Quraan that he was a Jinn. he was very ibadatguzar till he disobeyed Allah’s order and after that he was declared ‘rajeem’. Then he asked Allah SWT to respite him to deviate the human being till the day of resurrection And Allah SWT awarded him breather till the time appointed.
So it is a matter between Allah SWT and Iblees, we have no authority to comment on it as to why this and that has happened.
As far as the position of Malaika Alehimus salam is concerned, we have to respect them and keep faith upon them. It is part of our Iman.
Salamun alaikum
Brother, property or jaidad se aaq ker dena is a different thing but if someone announce that his son (howsoever he may be disobedient and defiant) is not his son, it is a ‘gali’ for himself. So Allah is telling here is that “he is not among your Ahl, ‘innahu amalun gher-e-saleh’ “ Allah didn’t say that “Inna amalohu gher-e saleh” it means that he himself was an ‘amal’ of some ‘gher saleh’. Therefore the ayat quoted above has pure literal meanings. And this fact was also new to Hazrat Nooh A.S that’s why Allah SWT has warned him "**therefore ask not of Me that of which you have no knowledge; surely I admonish you lest you may be of the ignorant" *and Hazrat Noh A.S. asked refuge from Allah in these words “ *I seek refuge in Thee from asking Thee that of which I have no knowledge**” otherwise sheikh saadi ki to samajh main aa gaya ke Hazrat Noh A.S. ka beta kafir or nakhalaf hay magar Hazrat Nooh ye baat nahin samajh sake or Allah ki bargah main muqadma dair ker dia ke mere bete ko kyoon duboya?
Second point is regarding the wives of Prophets. I know that it is a very touchy matter and very hard to digest that some of the wives of Prophets were not good in character but Allah SWT himself discloses atleast two of his messengers of whom wives were not faithful and loyal to them. Here again Allah didn’t mentioned that these wives were not loyal to the mission of their husbands but he catagorically said that “fa khanata huma” means that unhon ne apne shoharon se khayanat ki. Chunanche un ka anjam ye hua ke 'un se keh dia gaya ke 'dakhil ho jao aag (jahannum) main dakhil hone walon ke saath' or Un ke shohar un ki koi madad nahin ker sake.
Iblees-e-laeen
It is very difficult to say how Iblees was placed among the Mlaika Alehimus Salam but it is proved from Quraan that he was a Jinn. he was very ibadatguzar till he disobeyed Allah’s order and after that he was declared ‘rajeem’. Then he asked Allah SWT to respite him to deviate the human being till the day of resurrection And Allah SWT awarded him breather till the time appointed.
So it is a matter between Allah SWT and Iblees, we have no authority to comment on it as to why this and that has happened.
As far as the position of Malaika Alehimus salam is concerned, we have to respect them and keep faith upon them. It is part of our Iman.
Iltemase dua
Salam!
you have good logics/statements........... but Until quran clearly says
kind of khianat we should not try to elaborate on that negative........according to religious laws
1) shohar kay maal bee khiyanat hay agar uss kee ijazat kay baghair ho
2) shohar kay status/respect may khianat hay agar uss kay mutalik baat kee jaye
3) shohar or biwi aik doosray kay leye Pardhaa hay or shohar kee har chees kee hiafaz kar naa farz warna khianat
4) zina , khianat
5) etc etc ...........
so if Allah(swt) is silent and is not giving u the clue of zina then it is better not to go to extreme khianat to be little quranic (u like it) as quran has the beauty that one verse explains the other
11:78
And his people came running to him, impelled towards his house [by their desire]: for they had ever been wont to commit [such], abominations. Said **lot]: "O my people! [Take instead] these daughters of mine:** they are purer for you [than men]! Be, then, conscious of God, and disgrace me not by [assaulting] my guests. Is there not among you even one right-minded man
29:32
[And when Abraham] exclaimed, “But lot lives there!” - they answered: We know fully well who is there; most certainly we shall save him(Lot) and his household - all but his wife: she will indeed be among those that stay behind.”
27:54
AND [thus, too, did We save] lot, when he said unto his people: “Would you commit this abomination with your eyes open (to its being against all nature)?
51:35
And in the course of time We brought out [of **lot ’s city] such [few] believers** as were there
66:10 For those who are bent on denying the truth God has propounded a parable in [the stories of] Noah's wife and **lot's wife:** they were wedded to two of Our righteous servants, and each one betrayed her husband; and neither of the two [husbands] will be of any avail to these two women when they are told [on Judgment Day], "Enter the fire with all those [other sinners] who enter it!"
now according to quran from above verses
lots people issue/interest was “men to men” not “men to women”, u can see that in verse number 29:32 …………….where Lot offered his daughters but they were interested in his male guests and
27:54……..to” its being all against all nature” clearly reveals that if it were man and women then it would be wrong/punishable but not against nature
And 51:35 clearly says that believers were brought out not non-fornicators ( if u want to be very specific with wordings
66:10 shows that parable in the story of Noah’s and Lot’s wives is for truth deniers not fornicators……… fornicator can be a fornicator and truth acceptor at the same time ( like some muslims now a days)……
66:10 is a verse from surah in which Allah (swt) discusses several good and bad ladies and 66:10 is used in reference to the wife/wives of Prophet disclosing the secret not Zina ( ma-zallah)
and so on……………
so brother this was the story of Lot’s wives
*Now Noah’s son/wife story……………..*
011.042 YUSUFALI: So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): "O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!" PICKTHAL: And it sailed with them amid waves like mountains, and Noah cried unto his son - and he was standing aloof - O my son! Come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers. SHAKIR: And it moved on with them amid waves like mountains; and Nuh called out to his son, and he was aloof: O my son! embark with us and be not with the unbelievers.
011.045 YUSUFALI: And Noah called upon his Lord, and said: "O my Lord! surely my son is of my family! and Thy promise is true, and Thou art the justest of Judges!" PICKTHAL: And Noah cried unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Lo! my son is of my household! Surely Thy promise is the truth and Thou are the Most Just of Judges. SHAKIR: And Nuh cried out to his Lord and said: My Lord! surely my son is of my family, and Thy promise is surely true, and Thou art the most just of the judges.
011.046 YUSUFALI: He said: "O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge! I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!" PICKTHAL: He said: O Noah! Lo! he is not of thy household; lo! he is of evil conduct, so ask not of Me that whereof thou hast no knowledge. I admonish thee lest thou be among the ignorant. SHAKIR: He said: O Nuh! surely he is not of your family; surely he is (the doer of) other than good deeds, therefore ask not of Me that of which you have no knowledge; surely I admonish you lest you may be of the ignorant
now from above verses
*1) 11:42 Noah said “ O my son”*
*2) 11:45 Noah called “ my son is of my family*
**3) 11:46 Allah (swt) said he is not of thy family: **for his conduct is unrighteous*”*
*my dear brother he was a real/blood son not a result of evil conduct of Noah’s wife. *
finally Iblees........(Surprising charcter)................. later on
Wasalam
Brother zerokhan, salamun alaikum
Thank you for your patience to read through my postings and also for taking pains to reply with certainly good materials and analyzing the subject with logics and references. I realy appreciate your efforts.
As for as your points you have mentioned now, I would like to advise you to kindly read again and again my postings and specially the bold and under lined matters therein and then form an opinion. One thing I would like to stress upon is that to seek the truth and will of Almighty God, keep your pre-conceived believes apart at the time of analyzing any subject and read open heartedly. There are a lot of things which are totally misunderstood by historians and narrators and it is just because they were influenced with their likings and preconceived ideas.
Coming to the subject, I just wanted to highlight it here that in Quraan Shajra-e-maloona is referred to bani Umayya and the biggest beast among them was Yazeed Mal`aoon.
Brother zerokhan, salamun alaikum
Thank you for your patience to read through my postings and also for taking pains to reply with certainly good materials and analyzing the subject with logics and references. I realy appreciate your efforts.
As for as your points you have mentioned now, I would like to advise you to kindly read again and again my postings and specially the bold and under lined matters therein and then form an opinion. One thing I would like to stress upon is that to seek the truth and will of Almighty God, keep your pre-conceived believes apart at the time of analyzing any subject and read open heartedly. There are a lot of things which are totally misunderstood by historians and narrators and it is just because they were influenced with their likings and preconceived ideas.
Coming to the subject, I just wanted to highlight it here that in Quraan Shajra-e-maloona is referred to bani Umayya and the biggest beast among them was Yazeed Mal`aoon.
I hope you are not claiming that you are free from pre-conceived sectarian bias and that you are more knowledgeable than scholars and historians of times gone by. Sorry but your analysis reeks of sectarianism
Read the following and stop useless speculations.
**Allah has encompassed Mankind and made the Vision of His Prophet a Trial for Them **
Allah says to His Messenger , encouraging him to convey the Message and informing him that He is protecting him from the people, that He is able to deal with them and that they are in His grasp and under His domination and control.
(And (remember) when We told you: "Verily, your Lord has encompassed mankind..‘’) Mujahid, `Urwah bin Az-Az-Zubayr, Al-Hasan, Qatadah and others said, "This means, He protected you from them.‘’
(And We made not the vision which We showed you but a trial for mankind,) "This is the vision which the Messenger of Allah saw with his own eyes on the night when he was taken on the Night Journey (Al-Isra’).
and (likewise)** the accursed tree in the Qur an. refers to the Tree of Zaqqum.‘**’
This was also recorded by Ahmad, Abdur-Razzaq and others. It was also reported by Al-Awfi from Ibn Abbas. It was also interpreted as referring to the Night of the Isra' by Mujahid, Said bin Jubayr, Al-Hasan, Masruq, Ibrahim, Qatadah, `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd and several others. We have already quoted at length a comprehensive collection of Hadith about the Isra’ at the beginning of this Surah, praise be to Allah.
We have also already stated that some people gave up their Islam after they had been following the truth, because their hearts and minds could not comprehend that, and they denied what their knowledge could not grasp, but Allah caused it to increase and strengthen the faith of others, and so He says:
[RIGHT]إِلاَّ فِتْنَةً] [/RIGHT]
(but a trial), meaning a test. As for the cursed tree, this is the Tree of Zaqqum. When the Messenger of Allah told them that he had seen Paradise and Hell, and seen the Tree of Zaqqum, they did not believe that, and Abu Jahl, upon whom be the curses of Allah, even said, "Bring us some dates and butter,‘’ and he started eating them and saying, "Let us have some Zaqqum, we don’t know any other Zaqqum but this.‘’
This was narrated by Ibn `Abbas, Masruq, Abu Malik, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and others. Everyone who interpreted the Ayah to refer to the Night of the Isra’, also interpreted it to refer to the Tree of Zaqqum.
[RIGHT]وَنُخَوِّفُهُمْ] [/RIGHT]
([We] make them afraid) meaning, `We make the disbelievers afraid with Our warnings and punishments and torment.’
(but it only increases them in naught save great disbelief, oppression and disobedience to Allah.) means, it only pushes them further into their disbelief and misguidance, and this is because Allah has forsaken them.
Brother zerokhan, salamun alaikum
Thank you for your patience to read through my postings and also for taking pains to reply with certainly good materials and analyzing the subject with logics and references. I realy appreciate your efforts.
As for as your points you have mentioned now, I would like to advise you to kindly read again and again my postings and specially the bold and under lined matters therein and then form an opinion. One thing I would like to stress upon is that to seek the truth and will of Almighty God, keep your pre-conceived believes apart at the time of analyzing any subject and read open heartedly. There are a lot of things which are totally misunderstood by historians and narrators and it is just because they were influenced with their likings and preconceived ideas.
Coming to the subject, I just wanted to highlight it here that in Quraan Shajra-e-maloona is referred to bani Umayya and the biggest beast among them was Yazeed Mal`aoon.
Iltemase Dua
My Dear Brother:
I agree
there is no doubt in the bad character of yazeed ( some scholars even has defined as non -beleiver such as "imam Shafaee" and this bani has
some others bad people too in this but not all there were few good too................
Walah-u-Alim
Philosophically it is said that........ every one is affected by four and un-intentionally and un-knowingly in control of four :
1) mother
2) father
3) teacher
4)society
thus what ever he does reflects these 4
but this is normal for a normal human......................
and beauty is to keep in control.........................for example
agar ghusa nahee ataa to abnormality hay , ataa hay or control nahee hotaa to buree baat hay or ataa hay magar control may rehtaa hay to kamal hay
larkee ko daik kay achaa nahee lagtaa to abnormality hay (vice versa for girls),
taluk barhatay ho to ghalat hay, or control may rehtay ho to kamal hay........
and just coz of diffrence of openion do not start secterian issues please......... though it is good to discuss for knowledge and better understanding...........
if hindu invites me and want to convert me to be hindu...... instead of thinking of him bad I appreciate him coz "he beleives ( his complete faith) that u can be saved completely if u become a hindu "...... look at that qouted statment so according to his beleif he is doing good to me and i should appreciate him for his good thinking for me( similar for muslim trying to convert hindu)......... and then i will politly with respect discuss with him...............
Sorry I had lost connection due to disturbances in my phone line yester night therefore I could not complete my reply Mr. Ibne sadique. I want to ask mr sadique that:
1. What was the crime of shajar-zaqoom for which Allah SWT cursed them in punishment?
2. Can you give any example from Quraan where any other plant or any of the animal being accursed? Even the dirtiest animal i.e., pig has not been cursed.
3. If you know some Arabic, then you can understand that the zameer of ‘hum’ in ‘wa-nokhwefohum’ is used for shajra-e-maloona fil quraan so if it is tree of zaqoom how can allah cause a tree to fear?
4. Similarly the zameer of ‘hum’ in ‘wama yazeedohum’ also used for ‘Shajar-maloona fil quraan’, so how can inordinacy be added to that tree?
5. And if you go in some more linguistic delicacies then I will advise you to go through all the ayats where the same terminology ‘yazeedohum’ has been used in Quraan, then you may find that in all those ayats alongwith this term only one word as attribute is used , like yazeedohum illa nafoora, yazeedohum khoshooa, yazeedohum min fazleh etc without using superlative attachment like kafooran kabeera, khashooan azeema or min fazlehi azeema. But in the subject matter the superlative izafat is used as tughyanan kabeera. Point is that that when you use this terminology in the meaning of adding something then there is no need to use any izafat with it. But when you are using this word as noun then you can add some izafat with it like ‘ajran kabeera’, ‘uloowan kabeera’. ‘tghyanan kabeera, ‘ajran azeema’, ‘mulkan azeema’, and ‘isman azeema’. (I dont know how successfull I be in convayingmy point of view)
And I think it is not just to label an accadamic discussion as sactarianism. I have also written on numerous topics whcih have no sactarian inclination. like Qibla-awal, lunar calander, ruyat-e-hilal etc.
I hope you also consider these discussions as accadamic with the intention to find the truth only.
