|
progress: n.
a. movement, as toward a goal; advance.
b. development or growth.
c. steady improvement, as of a society or civilization.
progress: intr.v.
pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing,
pro·gress·es
a. to advance toward a higher or better stage.
|
Monday, March 17, 2003
The lack of a modern Muslim polity
This is an excellent article from Iqbal Latif:
"This ideology [of 'political Islam'] must free itself of the medieval constraints and tarnished reputation of being associated with authoritarians, who conveniently hijack the religion to suit their own demonic beliefs. As human beings endowed with the freedom of choice and action we cannot in good conscience rest our collective responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature but ourselves. For tyrants to appeal to the divine, as an absolution from their actions is a cowardly act for their citizens, whom they had shackled for so long, must hold them accountable. Saddam cannot escape from the wrath of his people and it is our obligation, as citizens of the free world and especially as Muslims, to make sure he does not."
Indeed, most of our historical polticial theory has been based around the concept of the autocratic concept of the Caliph, to whom all are answerable, and who is meant to execute the Will of God, by implementing the Shari'ah in the land. That the early community after the Prophet (p) was torn apart by partisanship, meant that the Muslims required a strong leader, who had virtually complete control (for the law itself was primarily the work of private individuals who shunned government posts), and under whom any rebellion, like that of the Khwarijites, could be crushed to safeguard society from pious acts of criminality.
But, the dynastic powers, under whom our polity has really developed, have served their time and purpose, and must now be shrugged off. No one, not even members of the Hizb at-Tahrir, can tell me that the Caliphate as developed under, first the Ummayads, then more extensively under the Abbassids, was the poltical structure ever envisaged by earlier Caliphs. In fact the lack of a concrete poltical structure in our primary sources, indicates Muslims of varying times, locations, and situation must be allowed to determine their own set up.
Time does not allow me to expand on this, but needless to say what Zachary's father points out is the inability of the Muslims to shake off the medieval authorities. That is not to say we must take a broom and sweep all and sundry away, for the medieval authorities are part of our intellectual and cultural heritage, and there is still plenty we can learn. But if the Muslims of yesteryear were able to derive and understand according to the situations they fond themselves, why are Muslims of today disallowed? That "tradition" dictates an answer is not an outlook the Qur'an inspires; not in me, anyway.
Of course, on the other hand, that does not mean we must be dictated to by Western developments in politics and society; people who suggest such have a blinkered and Euro-centric view of history. It ought to be for Muslims to determine our own path, and our own "modernity". I am close to finishing off a brief post on secularism and its application to Islamic thought, which I shall, Insha'Allah, post sometime later this week (work permitting).
Iqbal Latif continues:
"Common sense and pragmatic rationalism seems to be a premium when Muslim peoples defend Saddam so vehemently despite his actions towards the Muslims populaces of Iran, Iraq and Kuwait. Until they shed the fanatical anachronisms of the past Muslims will continue to remain subject to the whims of tyrants like Saddam, who have a monopoly on the masses."
I could not have put it any better myself. Tyrants have long been given immunity from our jurists. Rebellion has been considered a crime against society, which leads to anarchy and chaos - and that is something which is generally abhorred by all Islamic thought. This position was also developed against such a background as the Khwarijites, and later attempted rebellions. [1] I do agree that such rebellion should be crushed, because it usually leads to the situation we found ourselves in, for example, Afghanistan, where rape, pillage and killings were the order of the day for our so-called "mujahideen".
Nonetheless, the way to tackle the propensity for tyranny is not simply to address the symptom - but the cause itself. The lack of a genuine methodology for appointing and changing our leaders has been exploited by tyrants, and they have used, to their advantage, the Classical position of rejecting rebellion as being against the social order of Islam. For this reason we must look again at the relationship between the ruled, and the ruler. A modern reworking of the executive, judiciary and legislative bodies (or their equivalents), taking everything from first principles, is a must, for a genuine Islamic reformation, and to allow our societies of flourish.
Notes
[1] Certain scholars have allowed for rebellion to take place, but they must meet certain criteria, which are difficult to establish (e.g. Abu Hanifa).
:: this was posted by thabet at 17:44
War on Iraq: mixed motives, mixed intentions in all camps (III)
This is a very good piece at Balkinization, where he makes a case against war. He rounds off his post by stating:
"But you [people who support war for the liberation of Iraq] need to realize that your agenda is not Bush's agenda. Your motives are not his motives. He is playing you, and all of us, for fools. Don't be taken in. He isn't serious about making the long term commitment that will be necessary to secure a democratic state in Iraq. And, as a result, he is going to make this world an even bigger mess, and an even more dangerous place than it was before he became President." [Emphasis mine]
That is pretty much (in a roundabout sort of way) what I stated in my second post on this impending war, though Jack Balkin puts its much more succinctly than I ever could.
"God help us. God help us all."
Indeed, may He show us all His Mercy. Amen.
:: this was posted by thabet at 06:48
Saturday, March 15, 2003
War on Iraq: mixed motives, mixed intentions in all camps (II)
The drive to this impending war is being pushed to the public on three fronts:
1. Saddam's desire to either restart or continue his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programme.
2. The "links" between the Iraqi regime and terrorists; the implication being that these weapons of mass destruction would find their way into the hands of terrorists.
3. The "moral argument" for war; that the Iraqi peoples deserve to be liberated and freed from the tyranny that is Saddam Hussein, and then allowed to form a governance which shall be democratic and a true representation of the society.
Even a rudimentry examination shows that points 1 and 2 are related closely; so much so that they can become one from a certain angle. Both Saddam and "international terrorism", i.e. al-Qa'ida, are enemies of the USA. Why then, we are told, will these two enemies not join forces? Of course this assumes that everyone holds to the doctrine of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Putting aside the actual probabilty of Saddam and al-Qa'ida joining forces (unlikely because the former is very much in the "infidel" category), I'd like to look at point 3. It is clear that point 3 is not contingent upon 1 or 2.
Michael Walzer, in his classic Just and Unjust Wars, wrote:
"The lives of foreigners don't weight that heavily in the scales of domestic decision-making. So we [...] have to consider the moral argument of mixed motives. It isn't neccessarily an argument against humanitarian intervention that it is, at best, partially humanitarian, but it is a reason to be skeptical and to look closely at the other parts."
The parts given as a justification for this war make me skeptical, especially the "moral case". The reasons for going to war have been continually changing. The arguments have shifted from the security case, to the political case, to the moral case, and as I am writing this, the furore is now about the legal case for war (or the illegality of it). Some might argue that all these reasons coming together in the case of Saddam make this a unique situation and as such is a reason to go to war. Indeed I know people who have changed their mind to a "pro-war" stance because of this. But I cannot accept such an argument for reasons I shall now outline.
A war of liberation, or other humanitarian intervention, requires absolutely no prerequisite as a reason to engage in an act of aggression (if that is the course we wish to follow). Freeing a people, who call on the outside world to help, is not a depdendent on any other reasons. It might be considered an imperative. In the case of Iraq, the 'liberation' of the peoples from the tyranny of Saddam is not contingent upon Saddam's desire to obtain WMDs, nor any supposed links to any terrorist organisations or individuals.
The only obstacles in the way of providing assistance then become practical - for in theory we accept that there is an obligation to help. And of all the alternatives we must consider, warfare is a valid option, for it can be a way of removing a tyrannical ruler. This must be so, because to limit our options, before considering them, is not morally correct.
However, we can clearly see that the "liberation" of Iraq was not the initial catalyst for going to war, and only serves as a convinient reason to placate the public. First, it was claimed that Saddam's continual flouting of the UN resolutions was a reason to begin the drive to war. Then with the inspectors inside Iraq, we were told that the increasing drive to war was due to Saddam's refusal to comply with the latest UN resolution, 1441. When the inspectors did not come back with a 'smoking gun' which would prove Iraq was in "material breach", the reasons for war shifted to "links" going back "decades" to al-Qa'ida. The mendacity of that statement is clear for all to see. In addition, if the Iraqi regime has links with terrorist organisations, then the USA requires no support from the UN, since it set the precedent by bombing Afghanistan.
With public opinion wavering, and staunch resistance from other members in the UN Security Council, the "moral case" was trotted out. Surely the suffering of another peoples was reason enough? Yes, it could be construed as such. But the mere fact it took this much time to bring this out shows that it was never that important. If Bush, and more importantly for me, Blair had wanted to "liberate" the Iraqis, they would have mentioned it a long time ago. Blair has been in power now since 1997. And back in November of 2000 he had gone on record as saying that the regime of sanctions had "contained" Saddam (those of you who saw him with Jeremy Paxman, would have seen him deny this). So what changed?
If Bush had been interested in alleviating the suffering of the Iraqis, he would have made it clear in his Presidential election campagin. In fact he did the opposite - he showed his apparent disgust at "nation-building". That together with the lack of interest in Afghanistan, a country that the USA promised not to "forget", makes me wonder at the real intentions of Bush.
When we have a motive, we know there will be several actions which we will have to intend to do. These intentions are not something desired, but seen as parts of achieving the desired goal - the motive. And though the intentions may change, the motive remains the driving force throughout. We will then chop and change our intentions as suits the outside circumstances, which can remain laregly outside our control.
And that is the case we have had in this drive to war. The motive all along from Bush has been to go to war (I shall avoid conspiracy theories like the war is about that 'o' word), and the intentions have chopped and changed depending on the reaction from the public and other nations. When one proposed intention failed to convince a skeptical audience, the advocates for war shifted the intentions. And no matter what intention was given, as long as it served the motive of starting war, it was reason enough to invoke it.
Taking you back to beginning of my post, you will see that if Bush and Blair were really driven by a motive of "freeing" Iraqis, then all this shifting of intentions would not have been required. For such a selfless act does not require any other reason to enagage in a "liberation" effort. It is clear that the "moral case" is being used as a smokescreen for this war, simply because all the other reasons provided do not seem to stand up. Why else did they continually change their position, and then invoke the one intention which no one can deny as being a good one? Clearly, this war, I am afraid to say, is not driven by such altruism.
:: this was posted by thabet at 07:38
Friday, March 14, 2003
War on Iraq: mixed intentions, mixed motives in all camps (I)
As the world gears itself for what will probably signal the end of the, seemingly outdated and outmoded, global institutions represented at the the highest level by the UN, I have to be honest and say I have still not fully decided about the validity of this war. I have, however, been lurching to an anti-war stance, for reasons I shall describe in this set of posts.
This first post shall look at the opposition to war, primarily the Muslim response.
Those who oppose the war can placed in three categories:
1. Those who oppose anything the USA does, i.e. 'anti-Americanists'.
A lot of Muslims (if not all, I hear you say?) are probably in this group, at least in my experience. So might members of the "Euro-Left".
2. Those who are pacifists.
This again will probably include a lot of people in the Left of the political spectrum.
3. Those who do so for religious reasons.
This will again include Muslims - many Islamic verdicts have been produced declaring the war on Iraq haraam (forbidden), because it is an attack by non-Muslims, or "the Kuffar", on a Muslim country. This grouping would also include other religious groups who reject the use of force.
These groupings will suffice for now (there might be others).
Some Muslims, if not all the ones I meet, who oppose war, do not appear to do so out of a sense of "right" or "wrong". Of course, if they are following a religious ruling this for them is the "right" thing to do. Yet, it seems a lot of these religious rulings are only rejecting war, not on the basis of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act, but because of the title worn on the forehead by the proposed "liberators". In other words there seems to be no moral judgment behind these. They are only driven by a hate for America.
One fatwa [1] I have seen declares that aiding the "disbelievers" shall amount to apostasy on behalf of the Muslims who do so. The reason? Because aiding "disbelievers" against a "Muslim country" is a "sin" which takes one out of the "fold of Islam".
That's interesting because the Shi'a Muslims are often regarded as as "disbelievers" in some Sunni circles; and "heretical" at best in most, just about keeping them inside the "fold of Islam". So, I take it they are not the Muslims these jurists might be concerned about? In addition, where are the fatawa on the issue of Saddam's brutality against these Muslim peoples? Where was the opposition to the slaughter of the Shi'a Muslims in soutern Iraq by the Iraqi regmie, from our jurists, scholars and other leaders, religious and secular? Or do the Shi'a people cease to be Muslims when a "Muslim" tyrant abuses their freedom and dignity?
How about the Kurds? They are Sunnis. But I have never seen a fatwa, or some other vocal opposition, to the brutality they receive from the Turks, or the Iraqi regime. And further, al-Ansar al-Islam, the group with supposed links with Saddam, regard the Kurdish blood as acceptable to take. There are no fatawa ruling this as haraam. So until further notice I shall rule the Kurds out.
So who is left? The Sunni minority in Iraq? Again an interesting proposition, that some of our `Ulema are defending supporters, if only de facto supporters, of the Ba'ath. And I never knew the Ba'athist regime in Iraq was a 'Muslim' government. The last time I read anything on Iraq, the Ba'ath were secular nationalists.
That people were driven in Pakistan to chant Saddam's name disgusts me. These people are, lets not forget, part of the religious right - or "radical Islamists". Saddam would probably crush them if they ever so much as raised a voice in his country; yet they were showing open support for him, only because the country set to launch a "liberation" is the USA. Further, where are all the protests from these people at the slaughter of Pakistani Shi'as and Christians?
So just who are they talking of defending?
Let it be said that their opposition has little to do with helping the peoples of Iraq. If there are alterior intentions and motives on the part of the Americans, there aren't any better intentions and motives on the part of some of our `Ulema and these "radical Islamist" groups, who oppose the USA.
It all comes back to the point I raised earlier in this blog: that our desire for "Justice", though in itself a noble effort, is driven by partisanship and sectarian affiliation - we want to see justice for us, or our sectarian affiliates, but can't care less when either we are the perpretators, or the acts of injustice take place in our own midst; especially if the victims happen to be our "enemies" or "rivals". In fact, in the latter circumstances they will abuse casuistry to a great extent.
Notes
[1] Two prominent scholars issued some fatawa (see here and here). Another one I've seen was posted on a moderated news Islamic newsgroup, and was even more adament in the prohibition of helping the Americans. The Imaam of my local mosque also happens to be a senior Shakyh (Shuaib Hassan), and he has made it clear that it is not allowed to help "the Kuffar".
:: this was posted by thabet at 11:07
Monday, March 10, 2003
War on Iraq: invocation of God
As we build up to war (something I will blog about later this week, Insha'Allah), the following occured to me, which was prompted due to something I read.
What is the difference between the following?
1. The moral and religious justification proclaimed by Osama bin Laden and his crowd, to liberate Palestine and end the embargo in Iraq.
2. The moral and religious justification proclaimed by George W. Bush and that crowd, to liberate Iraq and end the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein.
As someone else put it far better than I could, "surely Messianic overtones do run rampant in the world, both Muslim and Christian, now don't they?"
:: this was posted by thabet at 23:33
Friday, March 07, 2003
Jailed: Nine years for el-Faisal
Abdullah el-Faisal has been sentenced to nine years in jail for preaching race hate, under the guise of teaching "Islam". Of these seven years are for soliciting murder, 12 months run concurrently for the use of threatening and insulting words and a further two years - to run consecutively - for the use of threatening and insulting recordings.
It is claimed by his lawyer that "[t]his was a man who, although misguided, was not malicious". Incredulous nonsense. He told young men to kill a Hindu if they were in India; he told them that the use of nuclear and chemical weapons was fine if the country had "100% unbelievers". Not the sign of a "misguided" soul, but someone who preaches venom to the young an impressionable mind.
His lawyer also tried to claim:
"There is a realistic prospect that many Muslims will regard this sentence as harsh, even though they don't share his views."
Personally, I find it an appropriate sentence - even a little lenient. Here we have a man who was exhorting young men, who are quite impressionable, to kill, murder and loot non-Muslims. For Muslims to say this sentence was "harsh" betrays any sort of clear thinking (no doubt his apologists, and some in the wider community will trot out "Islamaphobia" claims). We should be thankful that this man, who clearly sees himself as some sort of "rightly-guided" soul, will serve time behind bars.
:: this was posted by thabet at 23:29
A few words on some responses to my posts on Jihaad
Thank you to anyone who read my posts on Jihaad ( 1, 2), and to anyone who linked to them.
Aziz, at Shi'a Pundit, has responded to my posts. Not surprisingly, he disagrees with me. Nonetheless, I feel he has misunderstood my post, primarily Part I. Aziz writes:
"He believes that my interpretation is not valid because I represent a minority within a minority."
I did not invoke Aziz's minority status as a way of rebutting his understanding. I used it as a statement of fact - most Muslims are not Ismailis, hence, most Muslims would not accept Aziz's interpretation. Yes, they may indeed be wrong - and the 'wrongness' is not an argument by numbers.
As might have been evident, I do not claim to be an upholder of the Classical interpretation (I have a slightly different understanding). Yet, even I would not simply dismiss their interpretation or understanding with the ease with which Aziz seemed to do so. But I do not have the comfort of falling back on my sectarian affiliations and annoucing my sectarian rivals as "wrong". The first three "Sunni" Caliphs (ra) form an integral part of the major divison in Islam, and I am forced to accept their status.
That they engaged in wars of aggression, to gain politial control, is, therefore, an important aid in an understanding of the Qur'an. I did mention that we must try to ascertain the meaning of the words as understood in the cultural environment of Revelation. Evidently, based on a cursory examination of history alone, Jihaad seems to have been understood as a term implying "the utmost use of physical force".
Clearly, from the set of quotations cited ( 1, 2, 3) most Muslims, who adhere to the Classical interpretations, accept the need to engage in warfare to "make God's Word supreme" (at least in theory). It is up to proponents of Classical Islam to suggest if this is still the case. Nuh Ha Meem Keller, a contemporary scholar and one with the appropriate qualifications in Classical Islam (he has an ijaaza from al-Azhar, Egypt), translated The Reliance of the Traveller. As he seemed to make no mention of any modifications in the understanding of the contemporary Classical jurists with regards to this subject in his footnotes, I can only draw the conclusion that such an interpretation is still binding on one of the followers of these schools.
In addition, Aziz missed the point of my "invoking" the Hanafiy jurists. It was again a statement of fact, in me trying to describe the situation of Sunnism (Traditional Islam). That Imaam Abu Hanifa was a student of Imaam Jaafir as-Saadiq is important is, therefore, of no consequence to me. (Though I understand this has never been denied by any Sunni.)
:: this was posted by thabet at 22:38
A short history of Muslim Philosophy (II)
Part II: The foundations: The Qur'an and Muhammad
b. The Qur'an
The Qur'an is not a book on philosophy, but a book, primarily, on "religion". And "religion" ought not to be understood in its "Western", or modern, sense, as something which belongs to the 'Other' (i.e. God, the Heavens and so on), and hence has little bearing on the 'secular' (the "this worldly"). In Islamic parlance, "religion" means 'living' itself. Hence, the Qur'an incoporates the living aspects of man; the personal, the social, the moral, the transcendent and the mundane. These questions are answered by philosophical inquiry, so the Qur'an can be said to contain 'philosophical' teachings. Specifically, these teachings would include: the existence of the universe, God, morality, the individual and his relation to these. Hence, it throws light on other subjects: the will of man, life after death, existence, attributes, appearence, reality, truth, error, space, time, permeance, change, eternity and immortality.
The Qur'an is the unadulaterated Word of God to Muslims; a continuation of the earlier Revelations, and is the last Revelation, because it was revealed to the last Prophet - Muhammad (p). Nonetheless, it does not contain a new doctrine - it is in fact the same religion of the earlier Apostles. [1]
It exhorts the Muslim to ponder the world, which ought to reveal the Creator of the World. Therefore, Muslims have long tried to reconcile the statements of the Qur'an with developments in philosophy and the sciences. Indeed, the Classical view of the Qur'an is that it contains teaching on every single topic that has been, is, or will be known to man. [2] A more contemporary view of the the Qur'an is that it has a moral elan, that it is a book which manifests the Justice of God, and that man must be held accountable by the Moral Law, for the autonomy he has been granted. [3]
Below I have tried to mention some of the philosophical teachings of the Qur'an, concentrating mainly on God, man and the theory of knowledge. There are, of course, those teachings on man and society, death, life fater death and so on, which also have a philosophical cogent. But I have not included them for the sake of brevity. No doubt I shall return to them at a later point in this series.
It must be noted that in order interest to present a wide as scope as possible on Muslim thought, I will often quote verses which might seem to promote contrdictory teachings.
Some philosophical teachings of the Qur'an [4]
1. The Ultimate Being - God
The Ultimate Being, Fundamental Reality [5], Lord of the Worlds [6], Lord of the Throne [7], The One Most Exalted [8], The Sovereign [8], yet still Immanent [9], is God - 'Allah' in the Arabic tongue. He is Self-Existing [10], All-Pervading, Eternal [10] and Absolute Reality. He is the First and the Last, the Seen and the Unseen. [9] He is above all comprehension [11] except that which is revealed [12]. He uses similtitudes fro our own experiences [13]. He is, or belief in Him is,
"...the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things.[14]
God is One and there is no god but He. [15] Glory be to Him! He is above any partners [16] It is a blasphemy to associate anything with God. [17]
God is the primal origin of everything. [18] He is the Creator [19] of all that we see, and that which we do not. It is God who gives life and death. And God is not only the Creator; He is the cherisher [20], sustainer [21], protector [22], helper [23], guide [24], and reliever of distress and suffering [25].
2. God and man
God created man for the sole purpose of `Ibaadah. [26] He did not create all this in "idle sport". [27] God created man out of nothing. [28] But man is distinguished from other creation, in that God breathed His Spirit into him [29], giving him the Divine Spark, enabling him to fulfill his role as God's vicegerent on earth. [30] He will taste death [31] and will be raised once again, in readiness for his moral reckoning, on the Day of Ressurection. [32]
3. Theory of knowledge
God has taught man the names [33], the knowledge of which even the angels do not posses. [34] Man can acquire knowledge through three avenues: (i) `Ilm al-Yaqeen [35] (knowledge by inference); (ii) `Ain al-Yaqeen [36] (knowledge by perception of reported perception); and (iii) Haqq al-Yaqeen [37] (knowledge by intuition of personal experience). The famous example is that of the fire: (i) fire always burns; (ii) fire has burnt John's fingers; and (iii) fire has burnt my fingers.
The natural phenomena are but signs from the Almighty for men of understanding [38] And in these perfectly "measured" laws of God [39] they will find the teleology of the Universe. [40]
In addition, God has not created man to wander lost; He has inspired him with the knowledge of 'good' and 'evil'. [41] To supplement this, He sends Scriptures and Messengers and Prophets to teach man His Law, to which man must submit.
Notes
[1] Qur'an 46: 9- 10.
[2] See: as-Suyooti, Jalaal ad-Deen, Itqaan fee Ulum al-Qur'an ( The Perfection of the Qur'anic Sciences), 2nd edition, Volume 4.
[3] For examples, see: Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes in the Qur'an, Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980; and by the same author, Islam, 2nd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979; Amin Ahsan Islahi, "Good and Evil", In: Renaissance, January & February 1998, Volume 8, Nos. 1-2; Moiz Amjad, "Principles of Islamic Ethics - An Introduction", In: Understanding Islam, May 2002.
[4] This is primarily based on M. M. Sharif, ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy, Lahore: Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 1963, Book Two. This book is also available in PDF format here (via Philosophia Islamica).
[5] Qur'an 23: 116.
[6] Qur'an 1: 2.
[7] Qur'an 9: 129.
[8] Qur'an 59: 23.
[9] Qur'an 57: 3.
[10] Qur'an 3: 2.
[11] Qur'an 6: 103.
[12] Qur'an 82: 21- 24.
[13] Qur'an 30: 28.
[14] Qur'an 24: 35.
[15] Qur'an 2: 163.
[16] Qur'an 6: 22- 24.
[17] Qur'an 5: 75- 76.
[18] Qur'an 30: 11.
[19] Qur'an 96: 1.
[20] Qur'an 10: 32.
[21] Qur'an 27: 63.
[22] Qur'an 3: 150.
[23] Qur'an 40: 51.
[24] Qur'an 6: 71.
[25] Qur'an 27: 62.
[26] Qur'an 51: 56. The word `Ibadaah is usually translated as "worship", but the English word betrays the fuller meaning. It is referring to a life process.
[27] Qur'an 44: 38.
[28] Qur'an 19: 67.
[29] Qur'an 15: 29.
[30] Qur'an 2: 30.
[31] Qur'an 23: 15.
[32] Qur'an 23: 16.
[33] Qur'an 2: 31.
[34] Qur'an 2: 32.
[35] Qur'an 102: 5.
[36] Qur'an 102: 7.
[37] Qur'an 69: 51.
[38] Qur'an 2: 164.
[39] Qur'an 77: 23.
[40] Qur'an 3: 190.
[41] Qur'an 91: 7- 10.
:: this was posted by thabet at 22:01
|
|
