Meaning a lot of muslims generalize without knowing the specific context behind a verse. None of the verses in the Quran are context free though many of them do not require a particular or strict context for following them in my opinion. For instance, there are verses which talk about not befriending the Jews or Christians instead of your fellow muslims. Today I have seen many muslims take this literal and they think every non-muslim is the God-given enemy. They apply it up, down, right and left to every situation.
Meaning a lot of muslims generalize without knowing the specific context behind a verse. None of the verses in the Quran are context free though many of them do not require a particular or strict context for following them in my opinion. For instance, there are verses which talk about not befriending the Jews or Christians instead of your fellow muslims. Today I have seen many muslims take this literal and they think every non-muslim is the God-given enemy. They apply it up, down, right and left to every situation.
I think I am in agreement, but I would like to point out that in your example, Aoolyaa is translated incorrectly (based on some wierd context fom similar stories). Linguistically, aooliya means protectors and it has been used even in another verse where it is said, do not take for aoolyaa your fathers if their do not follow the right path. Now obviously it may not be talking about physical protection, but rather that of your way of life. It is you who has to guard it. If provided with proper linguistic meaning, I really should not need any storical context to figure out what this verse is saying.
Are you saying that there is no compulsion for Jews to remain in their religion but once someone becomes a muslim he is compelled to remain muslim (even in name only) or be killed?
Are you saying that there is no compulsion for Jews to remain in their religion but once someone becomes a muslim he is compelled to remain muslim (even in name only) or be killed?
it would if you depended on storical analysis and wanted to extract this meaning... that's why I am not in favour of "stories" but looking on Quran as stand-alone...
Are you saying that there is no compulsion for Jews to remain in their religion but once someone becomes a muslim he is compelled to remain muslim (even in name only) or be killed?
Secondly, Islam is total submission to The God WITHOUT fear or pressure... if someone submits wholeheartedly since he is convinced of the truth, why would he back off from it? It's illogical. So the meaning of submitting is not proclaiming that you are muslim in front of a group of inquirers (doingg that is NOT Islam) ... but to have a direct covenent with God Himself. That is the bond that never breaks.. not some incantation in Arabic.
I think I am in agreement, but I would like to point out that in your example, Aoolyaa is translated incorrectly (based on some wierd context fom similar stories). Linguistically, aooliya means protectors and it has been used even in another verse where it is said, do not take for aoolyaa your fathers if their do not follow the right path. Now obviously it may not be talking about physical protection, but rather that of your way of life. It is you who has to guard it. If provided with proper linguistic meaning, I really should not need any storical context to figure out what this verse is saying.
Actually you do need the historical context about it and then you can derive the proper principles from it. The verse (I don't remember the exact Surah and number) was revealed about Abdullah ibn Ubai ibn Salool (popularly known in our history is the Chief of the hypocrites) who did not want to fight against the Jews because he was not sure whether the muslims would come out victorious, if they did not, then he would be blacklisted with the jews. This is when this verse was revealed telling not to take them as protectors or friends against your own muslim people. I can post more detail later on as I am recalling from memory right now. It had to with another statement of a companion as well who was also allied with jews and distinctly choose to go along with the muslims instead of showing diplomacy and duplicity waiting for the outcome (you know thaali ke baigan).
Secondly, Islam is total submission to The God WITHOUT fear or pressure... if someone submits wholeheartedly since he is convinced of the truth, why would he back off from it? It's illogical. So the meaning of submitting is not proclaiming that you are muslim in front of a group of inquirers (doingg that is NOT Islam) ... but to have a direct covenent with God Himself. That is the bond that never breaks.. not some incantation in Arabic.
I agree with this, the verbal declaration or Shahada should come once one is convinced not at the beginning of his quest for truth.
Actually you do need the historical context about it and then you can derive the proper principles from it. The verse (I don't remember the exact Surah and number) was revealed about Abdullah ibn Ubai ibn Salool (popularly known in our history is the Chief of the hypocrites) who did not want to fight against the Jews because he was not sure whether the muslims would come out victorious, if they did not, then he would be blacklisted with the jews. This is when this verse was revealed telling not to take them as protectors or friends against your own muslim people. I can post more detail later on as I am recalling from memory right now. It had to with another statement of a companion as well who was also allied with jews and distinctly choose to go along with the muslims instead of showing diplomacy and duplicity waiting for the outcome (you know thaali ke baigan).
So you mean that the Quran is unclear or misleading if you take it off the storical lens...
So you mean that the Quran is unclear or misleading if you take it off the storical lens...
I am saying it can be misinterpreted when it is refering to historical events (your point, its not a history book but it does give references to certain events). It cannot be misinterpreted when it comes to straightforward beliefs as they are universal truths not subject to history.
I am saying it can be misinterpreted when it is refering to historical events (your point, its not a history book but it does give references to certain events). It cannot be misinterpreted when it comes to straightforward beliefs as they are universal truths not subject to history.
So compulsion in religion (actually Deen is a way of life), hence free will, is subject to historical events and not universal truth?
Nop that ain't what I said. I wasn't even talking about compulsion.
Then there is no need for the storical lens... you gave the example of jews/christins not to be taken as friends and you said one has to analyze it in the light of the storical context to get the right meaning.
I presented the argument that linguistically, aooliyaa does not mean friends but protectors so if people translate it as "friends", their argument is flawed to begin with. When properly translated the meaning of the verse comes out clear (mubeen) without any story ...
Then there is no need for the storical lens... you gave the example of jews/christins not to be taken as friends and you said one has to analyze it in the light of the storical context to get the right meaning.
I presented the argument that linguistically, aooliyaa does not mean friends but protectors so if people translate it as "friends", their argument is flawed to begin with. When properly translated the meaning of the verse comes out clear (mubeen) without any story ...
I see what you mean however the muslims have accepted the protection of polytheists many times during the time of the Prophet SAW. The biggest example of our Prophet SAW was always under the protection of Abu Talib until he died. Its a little more deep than that. It depends on the othersides intentions as well, which in the case I mentioned, the jews intentions towards the muslims of Madinah were clearly known. So looking for their hand in friendship or protection was a mistake. So you cannot go by just a literal meaning all the time and generalize it. If I go by your logic I can find conflciting accounts of muslim actions, even of our Prophet SAW, where he as accepted protection from Polythiests at times and then there are Quranic verses which say do not. Ofcourse for this wise, he would know who to trust without ever knowing the context as is demonstrated by the context itself.
excellent point (and I expect nothing less from you bro)...
Should I also mention that aooliyaa is never used linguistically to infer physical protection. "Wali" means to have command and authority, and taking such "protection" could only mean one thing, you actually follow the aoolya at their command, and hence the verb form to describe is used as wallayya "caused to turn away" and tawalla "he/it turned away".
excellent point (and I expect nothing less from you bro)...
Should I also mention that aooliyaa is never used linguistically to infer physical protection. "Wali" means to have command and authority, and taking such "protection" could only mean one thing, you actually follow the aoolya at their command, and hence the verb form to describe is used as wallayya "caused to turn away" and tawalla "he/it turned away".
Well I take that for now until I open the lexicon and understand it myself.
