Islam According To The Qur'an/hadeeths Interpreted By:

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='mortify' post='1291254' date='Jun 9 2007, 01:16 AM']Reza, we've been talking about exegesis the whole time. Why do you think I bothered quoting Ibn Kathir, the scholars from islam-qa.com, and Muslim scholars that translated "awliya" as friends. Ironically when we were discussing surah 9 verse 29 you endorsed the use of the various translators (Ali, Shakir, and Pikthal) to try to create a false impression of ambiguity, and now you ignore them?[/quote] This is not getting in the Exegesis. Are you confused to the meaning of the term "exegesis"?

[quote]What's[i]interesting [/i]is that you can't make a worthwhile response to anything that has been addressed to you, and have even resorted to lying. Are you planning on sticking to your statement that Muhammad Asad is respected by all schools of thought, when he rejected the fundamental doctrine of taqlid?[/quote]

I never resorted to "lying", Muhammed Asad is a respected Muslim. You probably can't even tell me what the different Islam schools of thought are, so obviously this is going over your head.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

Since you're only interesting in a "my scholar is better then your scholar" debate, rather then digging into the exegesis, let me quote Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi [if you don't know who he is, google it]: "people of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity. Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky"

Now if you deny his "credibility", then essentially you're denouncing the most respected Sunni Cleric in the world. Being that this is going to keep being a "my scholar against your scholar", I suggest you dig into the exegesis.

[quote]Surah 5:82
And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian."[/quote]

Edited June 9, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291260' date='Jun 9 2007, 03:23 AM']This is not getting in the Exegesis. Are you confused to the meaning of the term "exegesis"?[/quote]

I think you're confused. The whole point in quoting Ibn Kathir's *commentary* and the various accepted translators, is to show that "awliya" means "friends." Your entire argument is based on stretching the word "awliyya" to ridiculous levels that are foriegn to the most famous Quranic commentary and translations of Quran.

[quote]I never resorted to "lying", Muhammed Asad is a respected Muslim. You probably can't even tell me what the different Islam schools of thought are, so obviously this is going over your head.[/quote]Reza, you have an unfortunate habit of getting personal in these discussions, there is no reason to insult me, its not like knownig that the Ahl Sunnah wa'al Jamat have four schools of thought (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki) is a big thing

You claimed that not all four schools of thought honor Ibn Kathir, while *ALL* respect Muhammad Asad. Do I really need to get into how famous and widespread the use of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir is? Muhammad Asad on the other hand attacked the doctrine of taqleed, do you know what taqleed is? I'm starting to think you don't. Attacking taqleed is like saying a Catholic doesn't have to submit to the Pope. Do you see why your claim is so ridiculous? If they respect him, it's on a personal level, that he converted to Islam, not on a scholarly basis since his works have errors in them.

In other words, in no time soon will Asad's writing replace Ibn Kathir's Tafsir.

[quote]Since you're only interesting in a "my scholar is better then your scholar" debate, rather then digging into the exegesis, let me quote Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi [if you don't know who he is, google it]: "people of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity. Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky[/quote]

First of all, the whole point in quoting Ibn Kathir is because his opinions reflect what I call classical Islam, that is, how Islam was originally understood. I'm not interested in your [i]personal[/i] interpretation, I'm interested in the actual interpretation, the way Muslims saw it. The actual interpretation is recorded in Ibn Kathir's tafsir, and in the action of Umar, which btw, [b]you still have not addressed Umar's action in throwing out a Christian scribe from the town of Medinah[/b]. Umar justified this by quoting, "do not take Jews and Christians as friends..." How do you square Umar's action and use of the verse with your understanding??

Now you quote Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Reza apparently does not research the people he quotes,[b] the Shaykh *supports* Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians[/b]. I wonder if Reza will change his mind about violence being intrinsic to Islam, since the Shaykh is "[i]the most respected Sunni Cleric in the world[/i]."

In the quote provided, the Shaykh does not contradict anything that has been said. Muslims can be kind and just to disbelievers who are not a threat to them, such as women and weak disbelievers (Ibn Kathir), but it does not mean they can be friends, as that is forbidden and can even be an act of apostasy (islam-qa.com)

But the problem with resorting to [i]modern[/i] authorities, which I've already said numerous times, is that they often break from the classical teaching in order to make Islam more palatable, and this Shaykh is no different:

[quote][color="#FF0000"]Scholars schooled in traditional settings and advocating strict adherence to traditional methods of learning and understanding do not agree with Qaradawi's more lax approach to Sharia.[/color][/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi[/url]

Sharia is Islamic law.

[b]Lax interpretations that appease modernists is not what I look for when I want to understand a religion as it truly is.[size=3] Got it??[/size][/b]

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291261' date='Jun 9 2007, 04:04 AM']Surah 5:82
And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian."[/quote]

The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir has some beautiful things to say about this verse. According to the Muslims it was "sent down" when the Christian Abyssian leader, who gave Muslims asylum, converted to Islam. Unfortunately in the end, the Abyssians and other Christians were thrown out of Arabian Peninsula, such is the reward for giving asylum.

"[i]Qatadah said, "They were some followers of the religion of `Isa, son of Maryam, who when they saw Muslims and heard the Qur'an, they became Muslims without hesitation.'' Ibn Jarir said that these Ayat were revealed concerning some people who fit this description, whether they were from Ethiopia or otherwise. [/i]"

[quote](and you will find the nearest in love to the believers those who say: "We are Christians.'') refers to those who call themselves Christians, who follow the religion of the Messiah and the teachings of his Injil. These people are generally more tolerant of Islam and its people, because of the mercy and kindness that their hearts acquired through part of the Messiah's religion. In another Ayah, Allah said;

(And We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him, compassion, mercy, and monasticism...) [57:27]. In their book is the saying; "He who strikes you on the right cheek, then turn the left cheek for him.'' And fighting was prohibited in their creed, and this is why Allah said,

(That is because among them are Qissisin (priests) and Ruhban (monks), and they are not proud.) This means that among them are Qissisin (priests). The word Ruhban refers to one dedicated to worship. Allah said,

(That is because among them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.) This describes them with knowledge, worship and humbleness, along with following the truth and fairness.[/quote]

[url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14465"]http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14465[/url]


Then it gets a little weird, basically saying they are more open to conversion.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Now you quote Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Reza apparently does not research the people he quotes,[b]the Shaykh *supports* Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians[/b]. I wonder if Reza will change his mind about violence being intrinsic to Islam, since the Shaykh is "[i]the most respected Sunni Cleric in the world[/i]."[/quote]

Sorry but I quoted the wrong person, the quote itself was correct, but it didn't come from Shaykh Yusuf A-Qaradawi but from Shaykh Muhammad Sayid Tantawi, who doesn't support suicide attacks.

[quote]I think you're confused. The whole point in quoting Ibn Kathir's *commentary* and the various accepted translators, is to show that "awliya" means "friends." Your entire argument is based on stretching the word "awliyya" to ridiculous levels that are foriegn to the most famous Quranic commentary and translations of Quran. [/quote]Ibn Kathir's commentary isn't gospel thou, and Shaykh Muhammed Sayid Tantawi disagrees with heavily.

Being the curious mind that I am, I decided to research Ibn Kathir's commentary myself, and guess what I found?

[quote] Let not believers take the disbelievers as protecting friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, except you indeed fear danger from them.[/quote] Protecting friends... hmm... would that possibly be the same as Patrons? That's right it is the samething, it's no different then what Muhammed Assad said with his commentary that Muslims can be friends to Christians on a social level but not a moral level, since they dont have the same morals.

[quote]Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council ofNorth America, states:The Qur'an does not say that non-Muslims cannot be Muslims' friends, nor does it forbid Muslims to be friendly to non-Muslims. There are many non-Muslims who are good friends of Muslim individuals and the Muslim community. There are also many good Muslims who truly and sincerely observe their faith and are very friendly to many non-Muslims at the same time.

Islam teaches us that we should be friendly to all people. Islam teaches us that we should deal even with our enemies with justice and fairness. Allah says in the Qur'an in the beginning of the same Surat Al-Ma’dah: [O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.](Al-Ma’dah 5 :8)

In another place in the Qur'an, Allah Almighty says:

[Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9)

Moreover, Allah Almighty has described Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as "a mercy" to the worlds. He was a sign of Allah's Mercy to all, Muslims as well as non-Muslims. In his kindness and fair treatment he did not make any difference between the believers and non-believers. He was kind to the pagans of Makkah and fought them only when they fought him. He made treaties with the Jews of Madinah and honored the treaties until they broke them.

He (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have received the Christians of Najran with kindness in his Masjid in Madinah. They argued with him about Islam, but he returned them with honor and respect. There are many examples from his life that show that he was the friendliest person to all people.

In the verse you quoted, the word "Awliya" is used. It is a plural and its singular is "wali". The correct translation of the word ""wali"" is not "friend" but it is someone who is very close and intimate. It is also used to mean "guardian, protector, patron, lord and master".

In the Qur'an this word is used for God, such as [Allah is the Protector (or Lord and Master) of those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…] (Al- Baqarah 2: 257)

There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as [And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his next kin "wali" the authority (to seek judgement or punishment in this case)…] (Al-‘Isra' 17 :33)

The correct translation of the verse in Surat Al-Ma’idah is: [O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.] (Al-Ma'dah 5: 51)

It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This verse is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

In his Tafsir, (Qur’an exegesis) Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse (i.e. the one you referred to) was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says: [O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.] (Al-Tawbah 9: 23)

In a similar way, the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims' duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from oppression. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that he himself will defend a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non-Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. Allah Almighty says, [Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers…] (Aal-'Imran 3: 28)[/quote]

Reza

[mortify]

Reza,

[quote]Protecting friends... hmm... would that possibly be the same as Patrons? That's right it is the samething, it's no different then what Muhammed Assad said with his commentary that Muslims can be friends to Christians on a social level but not a moral level, since they dont have the same morals.[/quote]

Ibn Kathir explicitly states Muslims can't befriend Christians and Jews:

[color="#0000FF"]"Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them."[/color]

So no, its not the same as what Asad said.

Now Tantawi agrees for the most part, he does say Muslims can be just and kind to non-Muslims, but he also adds they can be friends. His translation of the verse differs from that of Shakir, Ali, and Pikthal (all of them translate "awliya" as friends), and he contradicts Ibn Kathir. On this issue, I'm going to go with Ibn Kathir and the three translators, the evidence is on their side. Hate to sound like a broken record but Tantawi's understanding of the verse makes Umar seem unjust for throwing the Christian scribe out of Medinah, but how can a foremost companion of Muhammad be in error? Again, I think it goes back to the laxity of modern scholars and their desire to make religion palatable.

Just to comment further, "awliya" can't only mean "Lord, guardian, master, etc" since saints in Islam are given the title, "Awliyaullah," or "Friends of Allah" and to understand this phrase any other way (i.e. Lords of Allah) is nothing short of blasphemy.

Secondly, Tantawi mentions marriage as an example, but there is a reason why Muslim women can't marry non-Muslim men, and that's because (in their thought) it would mean a Muslim is subjugated to a non-Muslim, and this can't be. It's perfectly acceptable for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman, because the Muslim remains on top, so to speak. So if you want to interpret the verse to mean that Muslims can befriend non-Muslims so long as the later is subjugated (in some way) to the former, you're not solving anything. If we can't be their protecting friends, only their subjugated friends, Muslims will have a tough time living in the Western world, unless they are actively seeking to make us their subjugated friends.

So its not much of a solution.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='mortify' post='1291489' date='Jun 9 2007, 04:44 PM']Now Tantawi agrees for the most part, he does say Muslims can be just and kind to non-Muslims, but he also adds they can be friends. His translation of the verse differs from that of Shakir, Ali, and Pikthal (all of them translate "awliya" as friends), and he contradicts Ibn Kathir. On this issue, I'm going to go with Ibn Kathir and the three translators, the evidence is on their side. Hate to sound like a broken record but Tantawi's understanding of the verse makes Umar seem unjust for throwing the Christian scribe out of Medinah, but how can a foremost companion of Muhammad be in error? Again, I think it goes back to the laxity of modern scholars and their desire to make religion palatable.[/quote] Actually he doesn't contradict anything, he explizitly states that the reason they were kicked out, was for breaking a treaty with the Muslims there [google it]. However, it's interesting that you say you're "going with Ibn Kathir" over the Grand Sheikh of probably the most respected Islamic scholarly school in the world, whom also mentions Ibn Kathir but gives a more detailed explaination... infact Ibn Kathir's thesis, is just a summery of previous thesis's written, in which he provides his account of the Hadeeths [which are disputable].

[quote]Just to comment further, "awliya" can't only mean "Lord, guardian, master, etc" since saints in Islam are given the title, "Awliyaullah," or "Friends of Allah" and to understand this phrase any other way (i.e. Lords of Allah) is nothing short of blasphemy.[/quote]It wouldn't be "lords of Allah", it would actually he protectors of Allah, which is quite different.

[quote]Secondly, Tantawi mentions marriage as an example, but there is a reason why Muslim women can't marry non-Muslim men, and that's because (in their thought) it would mean a Muslim is subjugated to a non-Muslim, and this can't be. It's perfectly acceptable for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman, because the Muslim remains on top, so to speak. So if you want to interpret the verse to mean that Muslims can befriend non-Muslims so long as the later is subjugated (in some way) to the former, you're not solving anything. If we can't be their protecting friends, only their subjugated friends, Muslims will have a tough time living in the Western world, unless they are actively seeking to make us their subjugated friends.[/quote] Well actually there are many many verses in the Quran [including the one that I posted previously] that say that Muslims can be friends with non-Muslims. In this case, I'm going to take the hardline view, which is that Muslims can be friends with Non-Muslims.

[mortify]

Peace Reza,

[quote]Actually he doesn't contradict anything, he explizitly states that the reason they were kicked out, was for breaking a treaty with the Muslims there [google it].[/quote]

Go back to the last post you wrote, you yourself said Tantawi "disagrees heavily" with Ibn Kathir.

Umar threw out the Scribe because he was Christian, he even quoted the chapter and verse in dispute to justify his action:

"[color="#0000FF"]`Umar liked what he saw and exclaimed, "This scribe is proficient. Would you read in the Masjid a letter that came to us from Ash-Sham'' Abu Musa said, `He cannot.'' `Umar said, "Is he not pure'' Abu Musa said, "No, but he is Christian.'' Abu Musa said, "So `Umar admonished me and poked my thigh (with his finger), saying, `[b]Drive him out (from Al-Madinah).'[/b] He then recited, [u][b]"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends..."[/b][/u][/color]"

[quote]However, it's interesting that you say you're "going with Ibn Kathir" over the Grand Sheikh of probably the most respected Islamic scholarly school in the world, whom also mentions Ibn Kathir but gives a more detailed explaination... infact Ibn Kathir's thesis, is just a summery of previous thesis's written, in which he provides his account of the Hadeeths [which are disputable].[/quote]

Reza, I'm just being objective, I'd do the same for a Catholic theologian who claimed the Eucharist is just a symbol, even if he was the head of some theological institute. I'm looking for the interpretation that's truest to the faith, in an ironic sort of way, I'm actually defending the religion from false interpretations. Obviously classical interpretations, such as Ibn Kathir's, which you recognize are themselves compilations of even older teachings, outweigh anything that is produced today. If a modern scholar contradicts what was taught in the past, and even contradicts what the [i]sahaba[/i] did, then of course I'm not going to accept the novel opinion.

Wikipedia describes Shaykh Tantawi (whom you called "Grand Shiekh") [b]"somewhat conservative."[/b] What does that mean? Is he basically a liberal Muslim in a high position? Perhaps his interpretations are the ones sought if I want to be an Islamic apologist, but if you want a pristine understanding you're going to have to look elsewhere.

[quote]It wouldn't be "lords of Allah", it would actually he protectors of Allah, which is quite different.[/quote]Even that is blasphemous, and I've never heard such a translation of Awliyaullah. This is how a concise sunni glossary defines it:

[b]walî, pl. awliyâ': Friend of Allâh; Saint.[/b]

[quote]Well actually there are many many verses in the Quran [including the one that I posted previously]that say that Muslims can be friends with non-Muslims. In this case, I'm going to take the hardline view, which is that Muslims can be friends with Non-Muslims.[/quote]

You mean the verse in Surah 60? You never addressed what I had to say:

[quote]You quoted surah 60 to say:
[color="#FF0000"]GOD does not enjoin you from [b]befriending[/b] those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may [b]befriend[/b] them and be equitable towards them.[/color]

Why is it none of the three main translators of Quran use the word "befriend"?

[color="#0000FF"]YUSUFALI: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing [b]kindly and justly[/b] with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

PICKTHAL: Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them [b]kindness[/b] and deal [b]justly[/b] with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

SHAKIR: Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them [b]kindness[/b] and deal with them [b]justly[/b]; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.[/color]

Reza, what Arabic word was translated as "befriending" in your translation?[/quote]

Edited June 10, 2007 by mortify

[RezaMikhaeil]

I'm not going to respond immediately... because I want to take more time [probably in the next few days] to respond and do some research. Just a heads up so you know...

[RezaMikhaeil]

Here's a message that a good friend that's of Muslim/Bengali heritage wrote me:

[quote]I looked through some of my books namely yusuf ali's commentary, M. Abdul Haleem's modern translation and Ghazalli's thematic writings. The latter does emphasise that when it refers to Jews and Christians it refers to those living in Arabia at the time who were persecuting Muslims... so it was written with the influence of emotion. That verse was given to remind muslims to stick together against being divided in their own lands. And the only way it can be appliedd today is in the vision of unity. The importance of standing by your muslim brother to strengthen community. Ibn Kathir, from my recollection was a very emotionally involved scholar who was steadfast in Islam from a defensive/aggressive stance.

Even if I was to put myself in a strictly "muslim" bubble this verse wouldnt work as it is contradicted by Dawah which teaches to befriend disbelievers and invite them to "the truth"[/quote]

[mortify]

Peace Reza,

No offense, but someone who is looking into the Yusuf Ali commentary obviously isn't a scholar, and some statements in that quote sound iffy. Why would a Muslim have to put themselves in a "[i]strictly 'muslim' bubble[/i]"? And when they said the verse was "[i]written with the influence of emotion[/i]" are they referring to Allah?

Your friend describing Ibn Kathir as emotional and aggressive/defensive based off "recollection" wont convince me to ignore Ibn Kathir. Sure, his writing is hard to swallow at times, but that's because he's being honest.

And again, how do you fit your friend's interpretation with the fact that Umar threw out a scribe simply for being Christian? The scribe was obviously not a threat, and Umar quoted surah 5:51 as justification for his action.

[quote]Even if I was to put myself in a strictly "muslim" bubble this verse wouldnt work as it is contradicted by Dawah which teaches to befriend disbelievers and invite them to "the truth"[/quote]

That's simply not true. One can be kind and just (as one aya says) and still not befriend the kafiroon (as another aya says), all while conducting Dawah. I've personally known Muslims who follow the Quranic injunction not to have Christian and Jewish friends, and they conducted dawah just fine.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]I think the ayah is 5/51 but [url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14082"]the one you mentioned[/url]

"Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this..."

In context (the meaning of freinds, awliya, as translated):

(Then they will become) meaning, the hypocrites who gave their friendship to the Jews and Christians, will become, (for what they have been keeping as a secret in themselves) of allegiances, (regretful, ) for their friendship with the Jews and Christians which did not benefit them or protect them from any harm. Rather, it was nothing but harm, as Allah exposed their true reality to His faithful servants in this life, although they tried to conceal it. When the signs that exposed their hypocrisy were compiled against them, their matter became clear to Allah's faithful servants. So the believers were amazed at these hypocrites who pretended to be believers, swearing to their faithfulness, yet their claims were all lies and deceit.

So the meaning is in context of allegiences and vying for protection via these Kufar as opposed to taking them as mere friends:

(saying: "We fear lest some misfortune of a disaster may befall us.") They thus offer this excuse for their friendship and allegiances to the disbelievers, saying that they fear that the disbelievers might defeat the Muslims, so they want to be in favor with the Jews and Christians, to use this favor for their benefit in that eventuality!

The meaning is further explained on tafsir of latter verses which is prohibiting close freindship. Rasulallah (saw) said that Abu Bakr (ra) would be his bosom freind, and the Muslims are prohibited from being attached to Kufar in this way as explained (2 sections down):

[url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14148"]"The Prohibition of Being Loyal Friends with Disbelievers"[/url]

Ma'Salam, in light of the context (of the next parts of the tafsir), the only way that tafsir can be attributed to Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) is if you only look at part of what he said.[/quote]

[OneForTruth]

I have a couple of questions that kind of go together...

Does Allah forgive sin and is he just/righteous in doing so?

Thank You.

Edited June 19, 2007 by OneForTruth

[Vincent Vega]

[quote][i]004.088 [/i]
[b]YUSUFALI:[/b] Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
[b]PICKTHAL:[/b] What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O MUhammad) canst not find a road.
[b]SHAKIR:[/b] What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.
[i]004.089 [/i]
[b]YUSUFALI:[/b] They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden).[b] But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them[/b]; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
[b]PICKTHAL:[/b] They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; [b]if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them[/b], and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
[b]SHAKIR:[/b] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; [b]but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,[/b] and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[i]004.090 [/i]
[b]YUSUFALI:[/b] Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
[b]PICKTHAL:[/b] Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.
[b]SHAKIR:[/b] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.[/quote]

Edited August 19, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[mortify]

Yes, orthodox Islamic doctrine instrinsically encourages violence

Edited August 19, 2011 by mortify