Interesting ayat


#1

Come let

3:110. Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
**
Christians and Jews are perverted transgressors, most of us at least.
**

9:33. It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

**
Interesting
**

9:29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:30. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

**
how many jews consider Ezra the son of God?
**

I never understand how muslims can say that the Quran is from Allah, when there are so many verses addressed to Allah, look at this one, shouldn’t it be “Our curse is on them”

And God curses good people, so many righteous christians, when it was He Himself that led them astray.
**
The Quran, says Allah leads astray who he wills, and causes their hearts to be sealed from the Truth
**


#2

I would really like my muslim bretheren to put the verse regarding Christians and Jews as perverted transgressors into perspective for me.

It has always perturbed me that Allah, the cherisher of the worlds, will debase the very people he led out of egypt, and call “most of them, perverted transgressors”

I ask you to look into your heart, and of those that you know that actually follow their religion, how many of them are “perverted transgressors”?


#3

Hawk,

Even if I spent several hours a day, it would take me a long, long time even attempt at rebutting all your false claims against Islaam. I have seen that several Muslilm members have refutted a few of your claims, only for you to suggest it had never been done. So that being said, and for anyone that reads this, I am not responding for the purpose of answering hawk, because, and pardon me hawk if I am too quick to judge, but from experience, the people who are always defaming another religion are not looking to truly learn about that religion, but rather, they are simply wanting to do what they are doing…defaming.

So my answers will not be for hawk. But if and when I can answer questions, they will be for the common folk who come here with a truly open mind. So there’s my little intro.

And it can be downright impossible when dealing with certain individuals, because they try to reword verses in order to “prove” their point. And You Catholics deal with this also, when Baptists try to quote you, or the catechism, with very selective criteria. They do not care to find the truth or be open minded, they simply want to show you that you are wrong.

So to this post…

NO WHERE in this verse does Allaah call the Christians and Jews perverted transgressors. NO WHERE. This is a LIE. Allaah does say (here’s a transliteration): “wa aktharuhum al-faasiqoon.” The translation is “and most of them are al-faasiqoon.” Faasiq means rebellious. If you look at the most accurate translations of the Quraan, you will see this translation. And Faasiqoon is merely the plural of Faasiq. So the translation is “and most of them are rebellious.” And even if you do not want to accept this translation, then go look to the well known arabic-english dictionary, Al-Mawrid. The first english word for the translation of Faasiq is dissolute, which according to dictionary.com, means “lacking moral restraint.” And even this translation would be acceptable. But if one truly wants to know what a word means, they must look to the sources of Quraanic arabic and also to the explanations of the Quraan to see what is written. You can view the explanation of this verse here: tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=9037

So here I have already proven my point just ten minutes into being a member. Hawk, in an effort to defame Islaam, not only mistranslated a Quraanic verse, but he straight out corrupted its meaning. Nowhere does this verse say Christians and Jews are perverted transgressors. THIS IS A LIE meant for one and only one purpose…to try to make Islaam look bad. One cannot have beneficial discussions when members are going to do this.

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.

Lastly, I want to stress that you do not have to agree with the Islaamic belief. But if you want to understand a verse, you have to understand it within the context of Islaamic belief. I hope this helps.

Jonathan


#4

Hawk, after re-reading my post, I’m sure you will feel that I was harsh towards you, and you may be wondering why this new person, who knows nothing about me, would say such things. I simply wanted to respond so you can read my explanation before you reply to my original post.

Hawk, you may very well be a person who is open-minded to learning about other religions. You may be one of the better members on this forum. I do hope that I misjudged you. But my suspicions were based on the factual content of several of your posts where you were attacking Islaam in a way far greater than my words to you. I saw several posts where you were making claims, which were false, including the one in this reply. So if those posts were done on a day when you were just “spewing” and upset, or if I simply misunderstood them, then I apologize.


#5

jcaz: Hawk is actually a group of people, as I understand it, all of whom are converts from Islam to Catholicism, most of them having been raised in Islam. Hawk isn’t someone who doesn’t know the Islamic faith, which isn’t to say that everything they say is accurate.

I’m just sharing this not to defend Hawk, but give you a little more insight into who they are, 'cause it may not be immediately apparent. Follow the link at the bottom of Hawk’s posts.

:blessyou:


#6

Jcaz
No offense taken
:slight_smile:

I dont like to mince words and I dont like to sugar coat them either.

Rebellious could be an appropriate term, I would have no argument with that, I would like to point out though that he is putting it eupahmistically, believe me when I tell you faasiq, is a harsh term reserved for people who…here is the definition from an islamic site.

Let me tell you what this means, it means someone who knows Gods law, but refuses to follow it out of his own desires, in the harshest of terms.

A perverted transgressor in other words.

Or if you want to be euphamistic- rebellious.

As far as jcaz saying not adhereing to islamic tawheed makes them faasiq, thats almost laughable.

He is most obviously a new convert, Christians and Jews are “mushrik”, they associate partners with Allah.

They are faasiq, because they do not follow the moral code, or they “pervert” the moral code.

Also they are rejectors of the Shari’a

His explanation is not altogether accurate.


#7

Thank you hawk for not taking offense at my post.

Now, c’mon. There is a HUGE difference between quoting the Quraan as saying rebellious and saying PERVERTED transgressors. To mistranslate in this manner is an oppression against Islaam. You can use several words to describe faasiq, and I do appreciate when one really knows that one word may not properly carry the meaning of a word from another language…thus the need for an explanation as you have given.

But to make your own translation and write perverted transgressor…well, I’ve said my peace on that. And I believe that I have sufficiently answered the original question, which was why were these people called faasiqoon. And mind you, there are many Muslims today who can be classified as faasiqoon. Basically those who know the rules and limits of Allaah, but they instead follow their desires and choose to go another path. Such are the ones who involve in terrorist bombings. You can sometimes talk to them until you are blue in the face, you can quote them where Allaah says that the one who commits suicide will be in hell FOREVER, and they still try to argue, not based on evidences, but based on their desires. These are people who are faasiqoon. But PERVERTED transgressors? That translation is an oppression, by you, on Islaam. It is a common ploy used by many apologists.


#8

Perhaps we could settle this better by finding what translation Hawk is using.

EDIT: It appears Hawk is using the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, which seems to be the most commonly used English translation by Muslims that I can find online. It’s EVERYWHERE. If you have a criticism with Ali’s translation, it should not be addressed against Hawk. Incidently, Ali was apparently a fluent speaker of both Arabic and English, and could recite the Quran from memory.

Ali’s translation of the Quran. It should also be pointed out that www.whyislam.org links to Ali’s translation on their website. It seems to be a well regarded and authoritative translation. I’ve seen no correction of this particular passage by any Quranic authorities. On the contrary, it seems to be very well regarded.


#9

[quote=jcaz]That translation is an oppression, by you, on Islaam. It is a common ploy used by many apologists.
[/quote]

It is an oppression in your mind jcaz.

here are 4 popular translations on the net, i know that you are not a native arabic speaker, you are offended even though you are not familiar with arabic, because it offends your mind, that your new found faith can speak about your parents and family in this way.
I commend you, I hope that you can change islamic society from within, the three of us, have found the truth outside of Islam, and are in great peace with it.

YUSUFALI: Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
SHAKIR: You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors.
KHALIFA: You are the best community ever raised among the people: you advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and you believe in GOD. If the followers of the scripture believed, it would be better for them. Some of them do believe, but the majority of them are wicked.

It is my sincere hope that you can change islam from within, because it will not change from outside.

You might note that not one translation uses the term “rebellious”

why?, you might well ask

Because if you know arabic, then you know that “rebellious” is “Marid”

It is not Faasiq

I think that settles it doesnt it?


#10

It seems Hawk beat me before I could edit the addition to my post. Jcaz, I’m afraid it appears that “perverted transgressor” is indeed a proper English rendering of the Arabic term. I can’t find a single refutation of that translation by any native Arabic speakers.


#11

9:30. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allahs curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

If Allah is to curse us Jews and Christians, where do you think we would be?

Doesnt the same Quran say that Allah closes and hearts of the disbelievers and causes them to disbelieve?

How is it that Allah firstly curses Christians and Jews, impotently.
After it was He that caused us to disbelieve in the first place, by placing a seal on our hearts?

Shouldnt the verse read

“Our curse be on them?”

But what really gets me, is the conversations in the Quran, that are about the same event, in which the characters actually say different things.

Like the conversation between Iblis and Allah.


#12

EWW-WEE.

So it did not take long for this discussion to become personal and have someone say “i must be a new muslim” or that “i do not know arabic.”

“mine is bigger than yours” “i have more knowledge” “i am an arab, you do not know arabic” (always provides a good laugh)

Is that what this is about? Because I care not to sink to that level. I know what faasiq means. The definition from Allahuakbar.net is suitable. PERVERTED transgressor is NOT.

And a person can be classified as a faasiq for many reasons, including for the CHOICE to worship other than Allaah. Because no doubt, this person is then a transgressor. He is of course a mushrik, as that specifically describes the sin of his action. But he would also be a faasiq. Since you are trying to be technical, a mushrik is definately a faasiq; but a faasiq is not automatically a mushrik. wallaahu a’alem.

And it does not offend my mind that my “new” faith (funny) speaks of my parents as faasiq, because Allaah knows their hearts and their intentions. I do not. A Christian may or may not be a faasiq. that is why it said MANY are faasiqoon. It did not say all.

And when you wrote “Marid”, I assume you meant maarid with a fatha. But even then, that is not the typical word used for rebellious. Perhaps mutamarrid or other than that. Guess it depends on your native tongue. I only care about fusha, the classical arabic of the Quraan and Sunnah.


#13

Bottom line, you purposely used an aggressive mistranslation. Your purposely tried to defame Islaam. I called you out on it. You could have at least admitted it and moved on.

Does it settle it? Well, even with your mistranslation, I still answered your question. So yes, this topic, as far as I am concerned, is over.


#14

Jcaz: Why do you call it a mistranslation when it’s used by English speaking Muslims all over? Of the four translations provided, 3 use aggressive terms, and only one says just “transgressor”. None say “rebellious”. If this was a mistranslation, why is it so widely used by Muslims, and has been for decades?

What translation do you prefer?


#15

[quote=jcaz]EWW-WEE.

So it did not take long for this discussion to become personal and have someone say “i must be a new muslim” or that “i do not know arabic.”

“mine is bigger than yours” “i have more knowledge” “i am an arab, you do not know arabic” (always provides a good laugh)

[/quote]

That was not the point at all, and certainly i wasnt trying to deride you, or your knowledge in anyway. Except to point out that your understanding on the matter may not be so clear.

But let it rest you are getting offended.

Is that what this is about? Because I care not to sink to that level. I know what faasiq means. The definition from Allahuakbar.net is suitable. PERVERTED transgressor is NOT.

I dont think so, after all not one of the translators of the Quran chose “rebellious”

But if it makes you feel better, by all means I dont object to “rebellious”

And a person can be classified as a faasiq for many reasons, including for the CHOICE to worship other than Allaah. Because no doubt, this person is then a transgressor. He is of course a mushrik, as that specifically describes the sin of his action. But he would also be a faasiq. Since you are trying to be technical, a mushrik is definately a faasiq; but a faasiq is not automatically a mushrik. wallaahu a’alem.

I dont think you quite understand, A faasiq is quite specifically a transgressor of the shari’a or the law.

Tawheed is not a part of shari’a, but a part of the deen.

And it does not offend my mind that my “new” faith (funny) speaks of my parents as faasiq, because Allaah knows their hearts and their intentions. I do not. A Christian may or may not be a faasiq. that is why it said MANY are faasiqoon. It did not say all.

Quite right.

And when you wrote “Marid”, I assume you meant maarid with a fatha. But even then, that is not the typical word used for rebellious. Perhaps mutamarrid or other than that. Guess it depends on your native tongue. I only care about fusha, the classical arabic of the Quraan and Sunnah.

Are you showing off your knowledge of arabic?


#16

[quote=jcaz]Bottom line, you purposely used an aggressive mistranslation. Your purposely tried to defame Islaam. I called you out on it. You could have at least admitted it and moved on.

[/quote]

Peace jcaz,

I am not trying to defame islam, I simply using a translation that muslims themselves use.

I think the slight is in your mind, I could care less about defaming islam, i was an adherent long enough to know the faith well.

I sense though that you are horribly offended, so I shall try to be more sensitive to your sensibilities.


#17

“Why do you call it a mistranslation when it’s used by English speaking Muslims all over?”

It does not matter how many muslims read and “accept” a mistranslation because of their lack of arabic knowledge? Does their ignorant acceptance make the translation correct? No. Bottom line, perverted is not a word in the ayah. Period.

The mistranslation is the addition of the word perverted. Make no mistake, faasiq is not a nice word. It is harsh. And the implied meaning is harsh, and deservingly so for whomever Allaah labels as a faasiq.

Perverted is not in that meaning at all. That is what I am correcting. And I do not care if it is in Yusuf Ali, as that is considered by Islamic scholars as one of the worst translations.

As to what translation I prefer, and this is off topic, but important, I recommend the translation by Saheeh International. They try very closely to duplicate the meanings of the arabic text. And this is noticed immediately upon the very first verse of the Quraan, where they give a detailed explanation between Rahmaan and Raheem. And just as a side note, this translation uses “defiantly disobedient” for faasiq. With regards to accuracy and popularity, the most common translation is “The Noble Qur’an”, which is the one with all the explanations from hadeeth.


#18

jcaz: How about “wicked”, which seems to be an accepted translation. That is just as harsh, if not moreso, than perverted. Evil-liver is even worse. What of those translations?


#19

Ghosty, I think the point of my original post is being lost. There was a purposeful mistranslation of the text in order to defame Islaam. This I called hawk out on.

I have already stated that faasiq is not something nice. One surely does not want to be labeled a faasiq by Allaah. As mentioned, a good translation is “defiantly disobedient.” So I do not understand the point of saying that wicked is perhaps more harsh than perverted, or to ask about other translations

I’m not sure of your point. You may choose to think of several words that you may find applicable to someone who defiantly disobeys his Lord. However, that would be your choice to choose that word, and in this case, that is the translation, or mistranslation, of certain authors.


#20

[quote=jcaz]Ghosty, I think the point of my original post is being lost. There was a purposeful mistranslation of the text in order to defame Islaam. This I called hawk out on.

[/quote]

I think you are being too sensitive, I told you, I couldnt care less about defaming islam.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.