Results 1 to 2 of 2

adhahireen = paulianity?

This is a discussion on adhahireen = paulianity? within the Classic Archives from the Previous Board forums, part of the Miscellaneous category; As-salamu 'alaykum, I have a lot of thoughts on thes issue of the Qur'an's view of the Torah and Gospel, ...

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    26
    Posts
    152

    Default adhahireen = paulianity?

    As-salamu 'alaykum,


    I have a lot of thoughts on thes issue of the Qur'an's view of the
    Torah and Gospel, which is an important one, so I'd like to share
    them with you sometime, insha'llah.


    Somewhere on your blog I read a (mis)use of Qur'an 61:14 and a
    response to this attempted misapplication. Christian apologists try to
    use this verse to show that the Qur'an confirms that the disciples of
    Jesus whose message won out over the others (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Peter,
    John, James) were the true Christians. Therefore, since these disciples
    also believed in the Divinity of Jesus...then Muslims are in a bind
    since the Qur'an seems to be either in error-and may God save us
    from all that-or confirming that Trinitarian Christians are the true
    Christians.


    The confusion here-whether deviously intentional or otherwise-comes
    from the last word in Qur'an 61:14, which is "aZHaahireen". This
    last phrase of the ayah in question has been variously translated as
    "...they became the ones that prevailed" (Yusuf Ali); "...they
    became the uppermost" (Pickthall); "...and they became uppermost"
    (Shakir); and "...and they became the uppermost" (Hilali/Khan).
    However, a quick look at "Lisan al-'Arab", or Lane's Lexicon,
    shows that the root ZH-Ha-Ra has many, many meanings. Indeed, in
    Lane's Lexicon entries for this root amount to just shy of five
    pages!!!


    Some of the main meanings of this word are "emerged", "became
    distinct from", "became manifest", "helpers" and
    "apparent". Indeed, when learning about the interpretation of
    Qur'an and hadith, we are often taught we should interpret a verse
    with its "ZHahir", meaning it's "manifest" meaning, unless
    there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. Even though I've only
    looked at Tafsir al-Jalalayn so far (and I plan to check the other
    major tafasir this evening, insha'llah), it seems to me that a more
    accurate (or at least another acceptable) translation would be that
    "...they were made distinct" (i.e. they were made distinct, or
    manifest from, their enemies from the Bani Isra'il who disbelieved).


    This understanding of the verse could have multiple correct meanings:


    1) They were distinct group from the Jews who rejected Jesus (as)
    during his lifetime;
    2) They were distinct group from Jews who oppressed them after Jesus'
    (as) ascension;
    3) They were distinct group from all other groups of disbelieving Jews,
    including Saul of Tarsus and others.


    However, in conjunction with the above it could also mean:


    1) They were those who followed the "manifest", as opposed to
    ambiguous, teachings of Jesus (as), as distinct from others who
    disbelieved since they didn't adhere to the manifest. Is there a more
    succinct and accurate description of what went wrong with Trinitarian
    Christianity than this (i.e. the focused on ambiguous verses in order
    to prove their doctrines, while ignoring the manifest)?!?!? I'm sure
    that some more research into how the Qur'an employs words based on
    the root ZH-Ha-Ra would add further useful details to this.


    In short, the Qur'an is telling us here just what the Christians
    don't want to hear...but what history bears out. History has
    preserved the fact that the true followers of Jesus, which still
    practiced the Law and were led by James in Jerusalem, were a distinct
    and manifestly different group from others like Saul of Tarsus.


    Now "distinct" and "manifest from" related to "their
    enemies", which brings up the question whether it means ALL of their
    enemies or just their enemies amongst the Bani Isra'il, which is the
    context of the ayah. Either way would work actually, but we should bear
    in mind that (St.) Paul's message, with all of its ambiguity in
    regards to Divinity, failed amongst the monotheistic Jews and only
    succeeded amongst polytheistic pagans.


    That's all I have time for now, but please shoot me an email if you
    wish. I would have sent you one but couldn't find it on your page...


    Wasalam,


    Abdurrahman R. Squires

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    26
    Posts
    152

    Default Re: adhahireen = paulianity?


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260