I seek your forgiveness, for my words maybe strong.
You wrote: “You need to look at the CONTEXT of what is being discussed in the Quran around every verse you are trying to understand.”
Absolutely, I do take CONTEXT into consideration as and when required. Can you bring evidence from my writings so far that prove your allegation? On the contrary, my brother you ignore the context when it does not suit you. How nice!
You wrote: “You ignore the 99% of what Parwez says about a topic, the values, the meaning of words and what they try to do to us by undertaking them, and elevate the last part, the 1% discussing the 'ritual, attached to them. I do the opposite and reject the 1% and try to do what Allah wants us to do, FOLLOW HIS GUIDANCE.”
This is pure conjecture and ignorance at your part, and I dare say personality worship. Allama Parwez is my teacher, I highly respect him for his work, for I benefitted from his work tremendously. But I am not a blind follower. I perhaps disagree with the great scholar on certain issues as I see the weakness of the evidence supporting his inferences. For me, Quran is the ultimate evidence. Period.
On the other hand, with due respect my brother, you are a blind follower without even using your own imagination and God-given faculties. You are not only repeating to me what others have written, which I have already read, you are going a step further, extrapolating beyond where they ended their work without even bothering about the clear and unambiguous verses of the Quran. You want to confirm from the Quran what you have already concluded. This is not scholarship, rather called “bias confirmation.” This is how people lost their Salat, for they extrapolated via their desires and then projected it back to God, saying this is what God says and means.
You wrote: “Parwez "this shows that qiblah is actually the symbol of religion or deen and following the qiblah means following the particular deen." If this does not grab you by the forlock then I am wasting my time, but here goes anyway:”
This sentence “this shows…” is the inference. You want to present the evidence upon which this inference is based. Further, I am not just referring to the Qibla, rather how it is used in a sentence.
You wrote: “Qibla Qiblah means to follow a particular way of life. In Islam it means to keep your attention or direction towards Deen.”
In Urdu language we have a word “goli”. This means three different things when used in a sentence in certain ways, such as “goli dena”, “goli khana/leyna”, “gooli marna.” This is what you are doing with the Arabic word “Qibla.” You are not even looking at what other words, phrases and sentences are in which this word is used. This is your classic modes operandi; take a word from one kind of verse, bring about external ideas and inferences, and then project those inferences back to the entire verse or other verses, finally concluding what you began with to conclude. Is this called scholarship?
You wrote: “The only reason why we would ‘face’ the Kaabah is when there is a Central Islamic Authority established there that issues regulations based upon the Quran. We would not physically face the Kaabah; we would look towards it for guidelines, guidance.”
LoL. This is nonsense and conjecture at best. There was no “central authority” in Mecca when the verses of change of Qibla were revealed to prophet Muhammad and his companions in Medina. Masjid AlHaram, the direction to face when doing Salat, is in Mecca. Prophet was in Medina, his companions were in Medina, and the verses of change of Qibla toward Mecca were revealed in Medina. And you want us to believe your conjecture that there was a central authority already in place in Mecca? Does Allah say, guidance is in the book (Quran) or the guidance coming from some “central authority?” Nonsense, just like your “system” theory. You are completely deluded.
You wrote: “You quoted some verses around 2:142 so now read what led up to this.”
Did you even read my analysis? Let me state clearly, your mind is so clouded with preconceived judgements that you even cannot read these verses right. You are quoting as many verses as you can with a hope some may stick.
Why start from 2:135, why not from 2:125? Ibrahim and his children and their story about Ka’ba, and how they were Muslims is covered in 2:125 to 2:133, culminating in 2:134 indicating they are gone, what they earned for them and what you earned for you, thereby establishing a permanent rule/value. This context is in terms of Ibrahim and his fellows.
Starting 2:135, A dialogue begins between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Christians and Jews asking Muslims to be either Christians or Jews, then they are guided. God responding, Nay, creed of Ibrahim is the right choice. Then 2:136 is the declaration of what is Muslims faith: “You say …we believe in Allah…..and that we don’t make any distinction between any prophets...and that we are Muslims.” 2:137-138 are simply stating if they do believe as you (Muslims) do, they are rightly guided else they are just in dissension and God’s color is the best color. In 2:139, Prophet is asked to respond, don’t argue about God, He is ours as well as your God and for us are our deeds and for you yours, and we are sincere to Him. Or you (prophet) argue via [2:139] by saying what are you talking about? Were Ibrahim, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob Jews or Christians, ….. God knows what you do? Finally culminating in 2:140, repeating exactly 2:134. Thus, this passage and its context is over at 2:140. This context is in terms of a dialogue between Christains, Jews, and Muslims, and how God asked prophet to refute certain claims by both Christians and Jews.
None of the above can change my analysis as presented earlier. Did you ask yourselves who are the people termed “fools, foolish, of less understanding” in 2:142? In the context above, they cannot be but from both Christians and Jews, and perhaps some Muslims who God wanted to expose. Thus, my earlier inferences stay completely valid and the only analysis valid in the context.
Then God is fully and completely stating His purpose for the old direction (Qibla) in 2:143. The change of Qibla is not until 2:144. Are you really reading these verses right? I want to restate 2:144 with very basic meanings so that we can stay close to the verse and don’t extrapolate it.
[2:144]: We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a Qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it. ….
You are stating that “The Qibla mentioned here is not a physical niche in the mosque wall or a physical direction by which we should turn five times a day but the beliefs of the people.”
As per your understanding, “Qibla = Beliefs of the people.”
Read 2:144 above again, and answer the following questions.
1. Why was the prophet uneasy with his previous beliefs/qibla?
2. Did God ask prophet to have “Qibla=beliefs” which he did not like?
3. Why did God ask prophet to have a different “qibla=belief” until 2:144?
4. Why did God readily obliged him, saying you will be happy with new “qibla=belief”?
5. Is “belief” something inside or outside?
6. Is Masjid Alharam a physical entity?
7. Read the phrase: wajhakashatra almasjidi alharami = turn your face towards the direction of Masjid Alharam.” Now translate it for yourself, please.
From 2:145, the topic undergoes a sea change. Now it is talking about general direction with reference to both Jews and Christians. Now phrases are different. You are mixing up things and generalizing them.
You wrote: “Moses told his people to follow the Guidance he had received from Allah, make this a reality starting in their homes, by putting them into practice. Take instructions and know the guidance=Qibla, and put this into practice=salat.”
Awesome! Please give me a verse which states as you stated above? Did the verses I quote give you any idea of your inference? Now what happened to the context? You have thrown the context out of the window. Read them in context and your conjecture will be put to rest.
You wrote with reference to 2:177: Whether you point east or west, or a 'physical' qibla, this HAS NO RELEVANCE TO YOUR DEVELOPMENT OF A JUST, BALANCED PERSONALITY. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN?”
Now the word “tuwallū wujūhakum = You turn your faces” in 2:177 is translated as “physical” direction but in 2:144 a much stronger phrase exactly in line with the context is translated differently. Is this not extrapolation, wholly unwarranted and misleading? I am sorry, you are completely subjective and deluded beyond belief.
You wrote: "If you want a relevant example of what can happen to a concept then jihad, Manchester, is one. Fighting as a last resort to defend human rights, becomes fighting at any cost to kill the kufar! Emphasizing the fighting but not not the striving to establish peace and justice within oneself and society is the most graphic way what you are doing."
This is the point. They have gone to one extreme in misguidance, you are fast approaching the other, the way I see it. Both have lost Salat with their homegrown desires and ideas.
Now a word related to Bukhari. Why did you bring Bukhari here? Did I refer to him?