Another victim of Arabian imperialism

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Nov 17, 2009 at 10:38

Our dear Awliya' oh did you mean wali?... Do do us a favor you would be a wali (singular) and not plural or awliya' right?

And it is indeed pathetic when wannabe Arabs try to tell us what the Qur'an really says when they do not know any Arabic and have to depend on tendentious and poor translations and when the Muslim ulama themselves in the 3rd century of Islam had no clue what this opaque revelation is saying and an example here would be the word MLK in surat al-fatiha and is it maaliki (the owner of and for this see the Tunisian Qur'an circa 1969) or is it maliki (the king of and for this see the Cairo Qur'an circa 1923) this example alone is enough to make us all suspicious that we really do not know what this opaque revelation is saying

For the readers: in the 3rd century of islam and in distant Mesopotamia and Iran the non Arab Ulama (go figure!) were trying to decipher the poor and defective Arabic rasm (the basic layer of the Qur'an that lacks the short vowels and at times the long vowels and consonants the likes of hamza and shadda or double consonants) of the so called al-Qur'an and this activity is called the Muslim masora and it is dated to the 3rd century and not any earlier! And very soon they realized that the Qur'an does not make any sense and an example here would be ayat la ikrah fi al-deen (the no compulsion in religion) and ayat al-sayf (the infamous Q9:5) and ayat al-jizya (the infamous Q9:29) and in the words of a certain Sa3d Ibn Abd al-Rahman "how could the God of the universe allow false religions?" and soon the ulama realized that it is either Allah is saying that there is no compulsion in religion which would mean that there is nothing wrong even with polytheism or that some how gabriel did not get it right! So what was the way out?

1. The ulama invented asbab al-nuzul or the reaons for revelations and in the case of ayat the no compulsion in religion sabab al-nuzul was some story about orphan Arab children that were adopted by the Jews (!) and when the Jews were expelled from Madina it seems that Muslims came to Muhammad and told him what should be done for those children as they have been raised as Jews! And Gabriel came to the recue as usual and Q2:256 was revealed. And even among the ulama themselves they did not agree on this tafseer and when the ulama were confronted with such an example of inconsistency in Allah's revelation they came up wih the celebrated saying:

al-tafseer lel sahaba wa al-ta'weel lel ulama/fuqaha

Or the exegesis (tafseer) is for the companions (of Muhammad) and the exegesis (read this as ta'weel) is by the doctors of Islamic law

Which means as long as you were not there when this opaque revelation was revealed to Muhammad then any guess (read this as ta'weel) is no more than a guess

So much for the words of Allah

2. And based on al-nasikh wa al-mansukh (see Nahas) ayat la ikrah was nusikhat or abrogated by ayat al-sayf

Et voila we have la ikrah and we have ayat al-sayf! and so much for the words of Allah

Oh what does this have to do with al-awliya'? stay tuned

>Dear Anne-Marie,

Oh I'm another kaffir and I can only speak for myself

>Whether "allies" or "friends" the choice of words didn't matter too much here from this line, both pretty much having the same meaning

No they do not. The word friend means sadeeq and the word allies means al-hulafa' but the word awliya' means freinds and protectors and indeed we have the Arabic expression mu3ahadat al-wala' or the treaty of friendship and protection

The word awliya' has a very significant history behind it as early on the Hijazi Arabs that invaded the civilized Middle East realized that the Qur"an is saying as per Q14:4 that islam is really the religion of the Hijazi Arabs only. However, they faced the fact that many non Arabs in the occupied lands wanted to convert to islam and help the Arabs in looting their own people. And the way out was the concept of al-wali wa al-mawali where if a non Arab wanted to become Muslim then he had to become an Arab first by being a mawla (friend/protected/sposnsored) of an Arab wali and then and only then can such a non Arab convert ot the religion of the Arabs! now do you get it?Oh and by the time the wannabe Arabs invaded the lands of your Hindu ancestors there were very few Arab awliya' and many Hindu infidles (sic) and this concept was abandoned and now we have victims of islam like you that spaek other languages and do not even have Arabic names

>and the part-verse commonly quoted by a great majority of people who wish to use it for various reasons..

And the reasons are?

>The most important thing here for all readers of the Quran would be to quote the following lines of this chapter..The description of the so called Jews and christians AND even amongst born muslims who reject faith . Examples:-

This would be fun

5:57
"take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a MOCKERY OR SPORT,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith"

This is a poor tarjamat al-lafz aw al-kilma (oh the Arabic? I do not translate Arabic for wannabe Arabs and may be you can go and ask the freak al-Shiekh al-Hilali to tell you what this means) and as an example the word li3ban (i3rab) does not mean sport. It means play or no substance or disregard or a joke. Sport means riyada and the word li3b in this aya would mean no substance/disregard (see Muqatil)

So here is your lesson for today: the word awliya' is from the root WLY and we have the words

1. Wali or friend and protector and the plural is awliya'

2. Mawla and the plural is mawali and it means friend/protected

So your Allah us saying that do not be friends/protectors (plural) to those given the book (auutuu al-kitab)

So what does this mean? Only Allahu a3lam as we have no clue what the term those given the book mean, are they the Jews? Or are they the Jews and Christians and in this case why is not in the dual case as in al-kitabayn (oh the Tawrah wa al-injiil) or is it as per Karen Armstrong the term ahl al-kitab includes the Hindus and Buddhists but if this is true then why did Allah not use the plural kutub?

I guess we will never know

'So much for the Qur'an that claims to be a kitab mubeen

Stay tuned for more

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".