22:39 Sanction is Given if Wronged (verses, hell, revelation, Mecca)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Within the Quran there are many verses relating to fighting and lots of verses which has evil elements [besides the good verses].
Here is merely one verse for general discussion.
Quote:
22:39. Sanction [permission authorised] is given unto those [Muslims] who fight because they [Muslims] have been wronged [ẓulimū ظُلِمُوا ظ ل م] [by infidels and hypocrites]; and Allah is indeed Able to give them [Muslims] victory;
22:40. Those [Muslims] who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they [as Muslims] said: Our Lord is Allah.
For had it not been for Allah's repelling some men by means of others, cloisters* and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down.
Verily Allah helpeth one [Muslim] who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.
Khalif is likely to interpret the "wronged" in 22:39 as specific to 22:40, i.e. the above permission is given ONLY if non-Muslims drove Muslims from their homes unjustly.
Anyway, Khalif, what is your actual view on 22:39?
Regardless of Khalif's view the majority of Muslims will view that fighting non-Muslim is sanctioned by Allah where Muslims are driven out of the homes wherever it happened especially in relation to the Palestinian issues.
This is the reason why SOME Muslims [politically has nothing to do with the Palestinian issues] all over the world are condemning, retaliating against and killing non-Muslims, especially the Jews and all those who are deemed to be part of the issue.
It is because of verses like 22:39 especially and in associating with other anti-Semitic verses that the Palestinian issue will not likely to be resolved in the near future and the associated killings and violence will continue to go on. The reason the Quran is immutable and the related verses cannot be changed or removed.
If it is a secular political issue [not immutable], then it would have been easier to resolve because there are room for compromise by various parties.
In addition to the above religious created perennial problem of never ending violence, 22:39 is also contributing to the promotion of fighting, [thus violence] in other aspects of humanity where Muslims are sanctioned to fight if they are wronged and if related to 22:40 then wronged unjustly.
The Quran is not conditioned by fixed examples that happened exactly as it has happened during Muhammad's time.
The point here is 22:40 is merely one example to represent the Principle, i.e. IF Muslims are wronged unjustly, then they are sanctioned to fight the non-Muslims and the wrong-doers.
The problem is the terms 'wronged' and 'unjustly' are opened to interpretations because they are not clearly defined.
Because it is not clearly defined, Muslims in general will be influenced to interpret these terms based on how the various terms are used within the Quran on an overall basis plus being influenced by their natural inclinations, if they are naturally good, then good will results, but if they are naturally evil, then the consequences will be evil.
So what is the hermeneutical basis for the terms 'wronged' and 'unjustly'?
Note, I am now researching into the depths of the Language of the Quran, so I am venturing and know at least a bit [not as an expert yet] of this matter.
From the above, if one were to analyze how the concept of 'wronged' ẓulimū ظُلِمُوا with its roots ظ ل م
is used all over the Quran, one will be able to gather any negative against the Muslims can be termed as 'wronged'.
[note some contexts are not relevant at all, e.g. Allah will not be wrong in judgment].
The above linguistic range is the reason why SOME Muslims are triggered to terrible and evils and violence at the slightest provocations and they will be find justifications for their action based on 22:39 and other related verses.
The point is no ONE or group [being merely human and not God] on Earth are in a position to judge who is right or wrong within the above framework.
The moderates and good Muslims will insist their interpretations are the right one, but WHO ARE THEY as mere human beings to decide for Allah?
The above is of open-ended maxim of killing is the reason why wise religions must have an absolute moral maxim in relation to 'killing' which will leave to onus on the killer to justify his act despite the absolute no killing maxim.
Last edited by Continuum; 08-08-2016 at 02:56 AM..
Within the Quran there are many verses relating to fighting and lots of verses which has evil elements [besides the good verses].
Here is merely one verse for general discussion.
Khalif is likely to interpret the "wronged" in 22:39 as specific to 22:40, i.e. the above permission is given ONLY if non-Muslims drove Muslims from their homes unjustly.
Anyway, Khalif, what is your actual view on 22:39?
Regardless of Khalif's view the majority of Muslims will view that fighting non-Muslim is sanctioned by Allah where Muslims are driven out of the homes wherever it happened especially in relation to the Palestinian issues.
This is the reason why SOME Muslims [politically has nothing to do with the Palestinian issues] all over the world are condemning, retaliating against and killing non-Muslims, especially the Jews and all those who are deemed to be part of the issue.
It is because of verses like 22:39 especially and in associating with other anti-Semitic verses that the Palestinian issue will not likely to be resolved in the near future and the associated killings and violence will continue to go on. The reason the Quran is immutable and the related verses cannot be changed or removed.
If it is a secular political issue [not immutable], then it would have been easier to resolve because there are room for compromise by various parties.
In addition to the above religious created perennial problem of never ending violence, 22:39 is also contributing to the promotion of fighting, [thus violence] in other aspects of humanity where Muslims are sanctioned to fight if they are wronged and if related to 22:40 then wronged unjustly.
The Quran is not conditioned by fixed examples that happened exactly as it has happened during Muhammad's time.
The point here is 22:40 is merely one example to represent the Principle, i.e. IF Muslims are wronged unjustly, then they are sanctioned to fight the non-Muslims and the wrong-doers.
The problem is the terms 'wronged' and 'unjustly' are opened to interpretations because they are not clearly defined.
Because it is not clearly defined, Muslims in general will be influenced to interpret these terms based on how the various terms are used within the Quran on an overall basis plus being influenced by their natural inclinations, if they are naturally good, then good will results, but if they are naturally evil, then the consequences will be evil.
So what is the hermeneutical basis for the terms 'wronged' and 'unjustly'?
Surah 22 was reveled in either 2 or 3 discourses. Ayyats 1-24 having been either the last discourse revealed in Mecca, or very close to being the last, and 25-78 were sent down in the month of Zul-Hijjah in the very first year after Hijrah, either in one discourse or divided into 2 parts. This was after the Muslims were blocked from performing Hajj in Mecca. 22:39/40 are relating to being driven out of the Kaaba.
Last edited by Woodrow LI; 08-08-2016 at 07:08 AM..
Khalif is likely to interpret the "wronged" in 22:39 as specific to 22:40, i.e. the above permission is given ONLY if non-Muslims drove Muslims from their homes unjustly.
Anyway, Khalif, what is your actual view on 22:39?
I am quite familiar with the Arabic word "zulm". The same word is in Farsi (Persian), Urdu (widely spoken in Pakistan and India) and Kurdish. Even in Turkish, it is "zulum".
"Zulm" must be eradicated if there is to be peace in the world.
I have been telling you that INJUSTICE is the root cause of violence (fighting, wars and killings). Injustice is "zulm". Zulm is a lot worse than "being wronged" (in English). "Zulm" is INJUSTICE but even INJUSTICE is not quite appropriate word in English for the Arabic word "zulm". To be precisely translated, element of CRUELTY must be part of INJUSTICE for it to be "zulm". In fact, CRUELTY is more appropriate word for "zulm" than even "injustice" (on its own) is. You can do "zulm" to people, children, wife, animals and even to yourself (inadvertently or otherwise). People who commit suicide are doing "zulm" to themselves.
The person who does "zulm" is called "zalim". Hitler was "zalim" as he did "zulm" to the Jews. Saddam did "zulm" to his own people when he gassed them to death. Meccans did "zulm" to those who became Muslims in Mecca during the first 13 years of the revelation of the Qur'an and then beyond that when they killed Muslims at Badr and Uhad, places close to Madina and over 300 miles from Mecca.
Therefore, "zulm" is not simply "wronged"; often a very mild word in English. You read far too much or far too little in some English words translated from the Arabic words. You would be far more closer to the meaning of the word "zulm" if you think it as "cruelty" than "wrong" even though "cruelty" is wrong.
I trust that this explains my view on 22:39. And that's why I would not do "zulm" to my Self by blowing myself up in a suicide or do "zulm" to any non-Muslim.
As for my linking 2:39 to 2:40, yes, 2:24 does link to "permission for fighting" or else all synagogues, churches and mosques would have been pulled down and destroyed by now. It is this permission to fight back that is deterrent in operation saving all these places of worship, and indeed the believers.
By the way, it must be noted that permission to fight is not permission to attack first but to fight back when attacked.
Note, I am now researching into the depths of the Language of the Quran, so I am venturing and know at least a bit [not as an expert yet] of this matter.
Happy researching into the depth of the Language of the Qur'an!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
From the above, if one were to analyze how the concept of 'wronged' ẓulimū ظُلِمُوا with its roots ظ ل م is used all over the Quran, one will be able to gather any negative against the Muslims can be termed as 'wronged'.
[note some contexts are not relevant at all, e.g. Allah will not be wrong in judgment].
Root ظ ل م ) ظ ل م from right to left) is Z L M. "ZLM" is pronounced "ZULM".
You should also know, unlike some other Allah hater, that Allah will not do any "zulm" (Injustice with cruelty) to anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The above linguistic range is the reason why SOME Muslims are triggered to terrible and evils and violence at the slightest provocations and they will be find justifications for their action based on 22:39 and other related verses.
They will do it in ignorance because they have not studied the Qur'an as it should be studied. The Qur'an is not just for reading fast without understanding it or even for just reciting it without knowing exactly what you are reciting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The point is no ONE or group [being merely human and not God] on Earth are in a position to judge who is right or wrong within the above framework.
You will likely be right if you study the Qur'an to understand it but you would likely be wrong if you are looking for support from the Qur'an for your preconceived ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The moderates and good Muslims will insist their interpretations are the right one, but WHO ARE THEY as mere human beings to decide for Allah?
Such people study the Qur'an for their personal knowledge and not for deciding who they should send to hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The above is of open-ended maxim of killing is the reason why wise religions must have an absolute moral maxim in relation to 'killing' which will leave to onus on the killer to justify his act despite the absolute no killing maxim.
An absolute moral maxim does not work because it will not stop "zulm". An absolute moral maxim in any religion, if adhered to at all times, will make that religion and the religious people a thing of the past in no time because they would be sitting ducks for the unbelievers.
Surah 22 was reveled in either 2 or 3 discourses. Ayyats 1-24 having been either the last discourse revealed in Mecca, or very close to being the last, and 25-78 were sent down in the month of Zul-Hijjah in the very first year after Hijrah, either in one discourse or divided into 2 parts. This was after the Muslims were blocked from performing Hajj in Mecca. 22:39/40 are relating to being driven out of the Kaaba.
Not sure how your above points has any relevance to the OP.
I am relating to the concept of 'wronged' in the whole context of the Quran and how it [in combination with other verses] has influenced SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence.
Not sure how your above points has any relevance to the OP.
I am relating to the concept of 'wronged' in the whole context of the Quran and how it [in combination with other verses] has influenced SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence.
Point of Woodrow LI does relate to the "permission" given to fight back AFTER years of unjust treatment and war against Muslims. Before that, Muslims did not fight back. This first permission to fight back was given after Hijrah.
I am quite familiar with the Arabic word "zulm". The same word is in Farsi (Persian), Urdu (widely spoken in Pakistan and India) and Kurdish. Even in Turkish, it is "zulum".
"Zulm" must be eradicated if there is to be peace in the world.
I have been telling you that INJUSTICE is the root cause of violence (fighting, wars and killings). Injustice is "zulm". Zulm is a lot worse than "being wronged" (in English). "Zulm" is INJUSTICE but even INJUSTICE is not quite appropriate word in English for the Arabic word "zulm". To be precisely translated, element of CRUELTY must be part of INJUSTICE for it to be "zulm". In fact, CRUELTY is more appropriate word for "zulm" than even "injustice" (on its own) is. You can do "zulm" to people, children, wife, animals and even to yourself (inadvertently or otherwise). People who commit suicide are doing "zulm" to themselves.
The person who does "zulm" is called "zalim". Hitler was "zalim" as he did "zulm" to the Jews. Saddam did "zulm" to his own people when he gassed them to death. Meccans did "zulm" to those who became Muslims in Mecca during the first 13 years of the revelation of the Qur'an and then beyond that when they killed Muslims at Badr and Uhad, places close to Madina and over 300 miles from Mecca.
Therefore, "zulm" is not simply "wronged"; often a very mild word in English. You read far too much or far too little in some English words translated from the Arabic words. You would be far more closer to the meaning of the word "zulm" if you think it as "cruelty" than "wrong" even though "cruelty" is wrong.
I trust that this explains my view on 22:39. And that's why I would not do "zulm" to my Self by blowing myself up in a suicide or do "zulm" to any non-Muslim.
Noted your point, the root sequence changed when I copied and pasted.
The translation 'wronged' whilst sufficient is not critical but note the related meaning in this attachment I included in the above;
The point is the term ẓulimū ظُلِمُوا and its related root words as used within the whole Quran represent a full range of meanings as listed in the above dictionary and not necessary refer to the worst case of 'zulm'.
Note in the dictionary it is 'evil,' to do wrong, injustice, unjustly, ill-treat, oppress, harm, beset, etc. [see the dictionary attached].
These words leave a lot of room for SOME Muslims to interpret any sort of provocation, threats, any feelings they do not feel uncomfortable as evil, wronged, injustice, etc.
Then 22:39 sanction fighting if they are face 'ẓulimū ظُلِمُوا .
Quote:
By the way, it must be noted that permission to fight is not permission to attack first but to fight back when attacked.
This is merely your interpretation. In any case if there is any ẓulimū ظُلِمُوا from non-Muslims within the context of the whole Quran then Muslims are sanctioned and permitted to fight.
For example the drawing of cartoons can be regarded as an evil ẓulimū ظُلِمُوا act by non-Muslims against Islam, the messenger and Muslims' feelings, therefore fighting is sanctioned in such a case.
They will do it in ignorance because they have not studied the Qur'an as it should be studied. The Qur'an is not just for reading fast without understanding it or even for just reciting it without knowing exactly what you are reciting.
The fault is not due to those SOME Muslims. They as human beings are trying their best to please Allah for their own desperate salvation.
The problem is because the Quran presented verses and whole contexts in a DUCK-RABBIT state which enable those with their natural inclinations to act on what they believe is their duty to act as good Muslims to that they can go the Paradise and avoid Hell.
How the Quran ended with two truths which are both true is because the Quran was compiled by fallible humans and not a supposedly all-powerful all knowing God.
Quote:
You will likely be right if you study the Qur'an to understand it but you would likely be wrong if you are looking for support from the Qur'an for your preconceived ideas.
You are totally irrational in this case because as a believer you MUST be bias and to ignore all evidence that contradict your beliefs.
ME on the other hand, starts with real evidences, for example,
It is based on the above evidence and full range of evils from SOME Muslims that I started my investigation and research into the ultimate root causes of the problem.
There is no preconceived ideas from my perspective, my conclusions are led and supported by real evidences.
Quote:
Such people study the Qur'an for their personal knowledge and not for deciding who they should send to hell.
What I meant was the 80% of moderate Muslims do not has any divine right at all to claim the evil prone Muslims are wrong in their practice of Islam.
Quote:
An absolute moral maxim does not work because it will not stop "zulm". An absolute moral maxim in any religion, if adhered to at all times, will make that religion and the religious people a thing of the past in no time because they would be sitting ducks for the unbelievers.
You point exposed your ignorance of how an effective framework and system of morality & ethic should in place and work.
No humans will be that stupid not to defend themselves when attacked even when guided by an absolute moral maxim re killing.
On the other hand, a religion [like Islam] that do not have an absolute moral maxim on killing leave holes that influence and inspire the evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence [proofs are glaringly evident] without any hope of stopping till eternity because the holy text is immutable [cannot be changed for improvements].
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
