Interesting ayat

[Ghosty]

Jcaz: My point is that Hawk isn’t the one who did the translation. Are you accusing Ali, a Muslim, of purposeful mistranslation in order to defame Islam? You accused Hawk of mistranslating, but he didn’t do the translating. He could just as easily used wicked, or evil-liver, but he used a widely accepted translation merely to prove his point.

You are harping on a detail and not the substance of his point. Would you have been less offended if he had used the translation that said “wicked”? Perverted and wicked are synonyms, after all, and perverted transgressor means the same as wicked sinner. Arabic does not have word-for-word translation with English, so approximations must be made according to understood meaning. This is obvious just from the vast differences in the rendering of that one word in all the different English editions. There is no actual word in English with the same meaning and implication as faasiq, so all translators must make approximations. In this case, perverse transgressor is equally valid with wicked or evil-liver.

To all appearances it seems that you are unable to actually refute the fact that the Quran calls Christians and Jews, or at least the majority of them, wicked/perverse violators of God’s will, and even makes false claims about Jews’ view of Ezra.

I support you being here, I really do, and I’m still very interested in hearing your story. Your argument in this thread, however, is tenuous and doesn’t actually get to the heart of the original post. So you don’t like the translation used. Fine. We can just as easily replace it with another translation that has the exact same implications and meanings in English.

 

[jcaz]

Ghosty: You are harping on a detail and not the substance of his point.

Here is my original answer to his point, as you perhaps overlooked it:

“Lastly, for those who may want to still understand why the Quraan would say that many of the Christians and Jews are rebellious, or are “lacking moral restraint,”, if you look at various verses in Islaam where Allaah addresses the Christians regarding their beliefs toward Jesus, you would then understand this verse in that context. According to Islaam, our only purpose of being created is to worship Allaah, ALONE and without partners. This is our only purpose of being created. So if Allaah sends a messenger to call humanity to this purpose, and those people follow this messenger, but after his departure, some end up calling the creation to the worship of this messenger, and begin to diefy him and suggest that he is God, son of God, or part of God, than, whether you agree with these beliefs or not, you can at least understand from the Islamic perspective, from Allaah’s perspective, that these Christians were “lacking moral restraint” because instead of worshiping the Creator, who Jesus called people to worship, and who JESUS HIMSELF WORSHIPED, these people began to worship Jesus himself. And from the Muslim perspective, Catholics today worship Mary and the saints. I know that you may not feel it is worship, and that is for another discussion. But whether you agree with the beliefs or not, the reality is that Islaam says it is worship. So from the Islaamic perspective, since these people are worshiping other than their Creator, keeping in mind that our only purpose of being created (from the Islaamic perspective) is to worship our Lord, then one can easily see that those who do this are lacking moral restraint.”

Originally posted by Ghosty
To all appearances it seems that you are unable to actually refute the fact that the Quran calls Christians and Jews, or at least the majority of them, wicked/perverse violators of God’s will

Again, perhaps you missed the original explanation.

 

[gilliam]

Jcaz,

Then, as I understand what you are saying, the Koran is wrong. Catholics worship Jesus and God as one. If the Koran was really recited by an Angel and given to Mohammad, then it would have not made this error.

Sorry, it just isn’t correct.

 

[jcaz]

Wow, well if you guys ever feel that you are talking till you are blue in the face but you words are hitting a brick wall, then i sympathize greatly.

Gilliam, there may not be much else to say on this topic. Your post is actualy geared more towards another topic of Jesus peace be upon him.

But as you may know, Islaam does not allow the worship of Jesus. So no, the Quraan is not wrong.

 

[hawk]

jcaz:

Here is my original answer to his point, as you perhaps overlooked it:

“Lastly, for those who may want to still understand why the Quraan would say that many of the Christians and Jews are rebellious, or are “lacking moral restraint,”, if you look at various verses in Islaam where Allaah addresses the Christians regarding their beliefs toward Jesus, you would then understand this verse in that context. According to Islaam, our only purpose of being created is to worship Allaah, ALONE and without partners. This is our only purpose of being created. So if Allaah sends a messenger to call humanity to this purpose, and those people follow this messenger, but after his departure, some end up calling the creation to the worship of this messenger, and begin to diefy him and suggest that he is God, son of God, or part of God, than, whether you agree with these beliefs or not, you can at least understand from the Islamic perspective, from Allaah’s perspective, that these Christians were “lacking moral restraint” because instead of worshiping the Creator, who Jesus called people to worship, and who JESUS HIMSELF WORSHIPED, these people began to worship Jesus himself. And from the Muslim perspective, Catholics today worship Mary and the saints. I know that you may not feel it is worship, and that is for another discussion. But whether you agree with the beliefs or not, the reality is that Islaam says it is worship. So from the Islaamic perspective, since these people are worshiping other than their Creator, keeping in mind that our only purpose of being created (from the Islaamic perspective) is to worship our Lord, then one can easily see that those who do this are lacking moral restraint.”

That is an article of the deen, called tawheed, it does not render one as faasiq,but mushrik, how many times do I have to explain that to you?

But you are welcome to misinterpret the Quran, it hardly matters, it being invalid, as I have shown on this forum.

faasiq most specifically speaks about transgressing shari’a

 

[jcaz]

Worshiping other than Allaah labels one as a mushrik. But a person who knowingly commits shirk, is not only a mushrik, but he is DEFINITELY TRANSGRESSING the limits, and is a faasiq.

How many times must this be explained to you.

The word faasiq comes from fisq. Fisq means to remove yourself from where you should be. For example, it is said linguistically, “fasaqat al-af’aa”, translating to “the snake removed itself”, meaning when the snake sheds, it removes itself from where it should be.

When a person comes out from the umbrella of obeying Allah, they become a faasiq, as they have have left from the umbrella of obedience and gone to that of disobedience.

In the Quraanic language, the word faasiq is sometimes used to describe a believer, and it is sometimes used to describe a habitual sinner. Allaah is referring to the people of the book, where from them are pious believers, but most of them are faasiqoon. You cannot argue that their choice to worship other than Allaah, knowingly, makes them a faasiq, because it does. Now, are they also labeled a faasiq because of lewd behaviors. Allaah knows best.

But your question has been answered more than once. If you choice to ignore it, that is your choice.

 

[gilliam]

jcaz:

But as you may know, Islaam does not allow the worship of Jesus. So no, the Quraan is not wrong.

Jcaz,

But Christians worshipped Jesus as God in 600 AD. If the Quran is saying that the Christians worshipped Jesus as another god and not as God, than the Quran is simply incorrect in that fact. Which could not be if it was recited to Mohammad by an Angel. Where am I mistaken here? Does the Quran not say that Christians worship Jesus as another god? Maybe it does not and that is where I am mistaken?

 

[jcaz]

Gilliam,

You are not mistaken in the fact that the Quraan says that they worshiped Jesus as a god along with Allaah. The fault in your logic is that you are trying impose your christian beliefs on the meaning of this verse. According to Islaam, because Jesus is not God, and never was God, those who worship him were and are worshiping Jesus as a god alongside Allaah.

But Christians worshipped Jesus as God in 600 AD.

Yes, Christians, according to their beliefs, which had already been corrupted, worshiped Jesus as the second member of the Trinity, as God. The verse says that they worshiped Jesus as a god alongside Allaah, and from the Islaamic perspective, this is true, as Jesus is not considered God

 

[gilliam]

jcaz:

Gilliam,

You are not mistaken in the fact that the Quraan says that they worshiped Jesus as a god along with Allaah. The fault in your logic is that you are trying impose your christian beliefs on the meaning of this verse. According to Islaam, because Jesus is not God, and never was God, those who worship him were and are worshiping Jesus as a god alongside Allaah.

Yes, Christians, according to their beliefs, which had already been corrupted, worshiped Jesus as the second member of the Trinity, as God. The verse says that they worshiped Jesus as a god alongside Allaah, and from the Islaamic perspective, this is true, as Jesus is not considered God

But they didn’t they simply didn’t. They worshipped Jesus as God. No matter what Muslems think, or Mohammad might have thought, they didn’t. The verse is historically mistaken. The verse should have been recited differently. It should have pointed out that the Christians were mistaken in thinking that Jesus was God, but it doesn’t say that. Sorry, it is simply wrong.

 

[jcaz]

Gilliam,

I am only going to say this one more time, as after that, it will simply be a waste of typing.

The verse, FROM AN ISLAAMIC PERSPECTIVE, is absolutely correct, as Christians did AND STILL DO, according to Islaam, worship Jesus as a god alongside Allaah.

The did this then. And you still do this now.

You can disagree. You can say “no we don’t! we worship Jesus as God!” This is your choice. But the ayah is in the Quraan and is based on Islaamic beliefs, and according to Islaam, there is no doubt that Christiand did and still do worship Jesus as a god alongside Allaah.

 

[Asking]

do muslims really think jews worship ezra?
sorry, but that is funny, out of all the old testaments prophets, judges, patriarchs… EZRA!!!

it is so random

 

[gilliam]

jcaz:

Gilliam,

I am only going to say this one more time, as after that, it will simply be a waste of typing.

The verse, FROM AN ISLAAMIC PERSPECTIVE, is absolutely correct, as Christians did AND STILL DO, according to Islaam, worship Jesus as a god alongside Allaah.

The did this then. And you still do this now.

But that is simply not true. We don’t worship Jesus as a god alongside Allaah. We never did. We worship Jesus as Allah. Jesus is God, simply a different manifistation if you will. God made man, but God never the less. To say that we worship Jesus as a god alongside Allaah is just plain wrong. And you saying we do over and over again will not change that historical fact.

And this historical fact is the same no matter how you look at it, no matter what perspective you use. Truth is truth and the it doesn’t matter if you are looking at us as a Muslem or as a Hindu, we are worshiping Jesus as God nevertheless. You can say we shouldn’t, but you can’t say we are not.

sorry, the Quran is wrong here.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

jcaz:

The word faasiq comes from fisq. Fisq means to remove yourself from where you should be. For example, it is said linguistically, “fasaqat al-af’aa”, translating to “the snake removed itself”, meaning when the snake sheds, it removes itself from where it should be.

When a person comes out from the umbrella of obeying Allah, they become a faasiq, as they have have left from the umbrella of obedience and gone to that of disobedience.

Salaam All;
I just want to give my contribution concerning the Arabic verb Fasaqa and hence the noun Fasiqun.
When Allah (SWT) commanded the angels to bow down to Adam in reverence, they all did, except Ibliss (Satan). Here is the context:

(Qur’an 018.050)
YUSUFALI: Behold! We said to the angels, “Bow down to Adam”: They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers!

PICKTHAL: And (remember) when We said unto the angels: Fall prostrate before Adam, and they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He was of the jinn, so he rebelled against his Lord’s command. Will ye choose him and his seed for your protecting friends instead of Me, when they are an enemy unto you? Calamitous is the exchange for evil-doers.

SHAKIR: And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam; they made obeisance but Iblis (did it not). He was of the jinn, so he transgressed the commandment of his Lord. What! would you then take him and his offspring for friends rather than Me, and they are your enemies? Evil is (this) change for the unjust.

What I bolded above is the English translation of the Arabic verb Fasaqa. Please read any English transliteration, you will find it.

Salaam.
Joseph.