Mohamed's surah 2 back-pedal.

[stevecanuck]

Anyone who has read my posts knows I believe that Mohamed authored the Qur'an on an ad hoc basis. Looking at his first attempts to convert the Jews of Yathrib can only be described as clumsy. His major blunder was to confuse the past with the present. Alternating between 2nd-person and 3rd-person conjugations creates the impression that the Jews of Yathrib were being admonished for the sins of their ancestors by occasionally, but not always, inserting them into events of the past. Would a perfect god, or perhaps an improvising person, make such a grammatical blunder?

Verse 2:49 starts by saying, "We delivered you from the People of Pharaoh". The next few verses continue to magically transport the Jews of Yathrib into the past 33 times (not counting 2:54 which correctly uses the second person in quoting Moses' speech to his followers). Mohamed really steps in it in verse 2:61 by mixing tenses while speaking of the same people. It starts with, "And when you said: O Moses...", but by the end, the object of his remarks switches to "they". In 2:67 through 2:71, Moses again speaks to his people, and this time, only "they" answer him, but in the next few verses, it becomes the 2nd-person Jews of Yathrib who are again said to have committed the wrongs done by their ancestors.

This grammatical back and forth probably created not only confusion among the Jews, but also concern, as it appeared that God's criticisms seemed to be aimed directly at them. Mohamed probably received a lot of push-back on this, so in what looks like an attempt to clear up any confusion, he revealed verse 2:134 and its verbatim twin 2:141, which say, "This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".

Talk about an obvious back-pedal.

 

[The Hammer]

Anyone who has read my posts knows I believe that Mohamed authored the Qur'an on an ad hoc basis. Looking at his first attempts to convert the Jews of Yathrib can only be described as clumsy. His major blunder was to confuse the past with the present. Alternating between 2nd-person and 3rd-person conjugations creates the impression that the Jews of Yathrib were being admonished for the sins of their ancestors by occasionally, but not always, inserting them into events of the past. Would a perfect god, or perhaps an improvising person, make such a grammatical blunder?

Verse 2:49 starts by saying, "We delivered you from the People of Pharaoh". The next few verses continue to magically transport the Jews of Yathrib into the past 33 times (not counting 2:54 which correctly uses the second person in quoting Moses' speech to his followers). Mohamed really steps in it in verse 2:61 by mixing tenses while speaking of the same people. It starts with, "And when you said: O Moses...", but by the end, the object of his remarks switches to "they". In 2:67 through 2:71, Moses again speaks to his people, and this time, only "they" answer him, but in the next few verses, it becomes the 2nd-person Jews of Yathrib who are again said to have committed the wrongs done by their ancestors.

This grammatical back and forth probably created not only confusion among the Jews, but also concern, as it appeared that God's criticisms seemed to be aimed directly at them. Mohamed probably received a lot of push-back on this, so in what looks like an attempt to clear up any confusion, he revealed verse 2:134 and its verbatim twin 2:141, which say, "This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".

Talk about an obvious back-pedal.

Okie doke

 

[Link]

It's about detaching from generations of the past. Quran says every people attach to themselves to forefathers not thinking about their actions and whether they should be trusted.

It argues how can they argue they as a people are guided, when they started off tracks wrong even taking calf statue as a god.

Jews heavily emphasize that they are people of covenant and are picked for guiding humanity. Quran is arguing against them being reliable and why.

But as God knows not everyone accepts these things all as facts, it more importantly saying, if we follow the same tracks of children of Israel towards our Messengers (the family of Mohammad), and do similar evils and go astray in a similar way, it's teaching the later generations not to follow tracks of previous generations.

People might assume he is burdening them with past people deeds, but he is not, he is saying you can't rely on them as a people and so should not follow people who are not reliable means of guidance.

 

[stevecanuck]

It's about detaching from generations of the past. Quran says every people attach to themselves to forefathers not thinking about their actions and whether they should be trusted.

It argues how can they argue they as a people are guided, when they started off tracks wrong even taking calf statue as a god.

You want it both ways. It makes no sense that 'Allah' should say, "YOU worshipped the golden calf (where they absolutely did not)", and then say, "You won't have to answer for what THEY did". Your 'perfect' god would simply not make such an error.

Jews heavily emphasize that they are people of covenant and are picked for guiding humanity. Quran is arguing against them being reliable and why.

But as God knows not everyone accepts these things all as facts, it more importantly saying, if we follow the same tracks of children of Israel towards our Messengers (the family of Mohammad), and do similar evils and go astray in a similar way, it's teaching the later generations not to follow tracks of previous generations.

That would be fine is that's what these verse were doing, and maybe that was Mohamed's goal, but the way in which he stated it causes confusion as to which Jews were the guilty party - those of Yathrib, or those of Moses' time.

People might assume he is burdening them with past people deeds, but he is not, he is saying you can't rely on them as a people and so should not follow people who are not reliable means of guidance.

There you go. All Jews are untrustworthy, right?

 

[Link]

There is them as a people (generations of the past included), and them as current generation. Quran can use both "you" to address both and there is no problem.

 

[stevecanuck]

There is them as a people (generations of the past included), and them as current generation. Quran can use both "you" to address both and there is no problem.

Nope. When the Qur'an (your god) says, "YOU did .....", and the people being spoken to were innocent, that's a false charge. Your god was making a false accusation. It just doesn't matter how much you deny it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Anyone who has read my posts knows I believe that Mohamed authored the Qur'an on an ad hoc basis. Looking at his first attempts to convert the Jews of Yathrib can only be described as clumsy. His major blunder was to confuse the past with the present. Alternating between 2nd-person and 3rd-person conjugations creates the impression that the Jews of Yathrib were being admonished for the sins of their ancestors by occasionally, but not always, inserting them into events of the past. Would a perfect god, or perhaps an improvising person, make such a grammatical blunder?

Verse 2:49 starts by saying, "We delivered you from the People of Pharaoh". The next few verses continue to magically transport the Jews of Yathrib into the past 33 times (not counting 2:54 which correctly uses the second person in quoting Moses' speech to his followers). Mohamed really steps in it in verse 2:61 by mixing tenses while speaking of the same people. It starts with, "And when you said: O Moses...", but by the end, the object of his remarks switches to "they". In 2:67 through 2:71, Moses again speaks to his people, and this time, only "they" answer him, but in the next few verses, it becomes the 2nd-person Jews of Yathrib who are again said to have committed the wrongs done by their ancestors.

This grammatical back and forth probably created not only confusion among the Jews, but also concern, as it appeared that God's criticisms seemed to be aimed directly at them. Mohamed probably received a lot of push-back on this, so in what looks like an attempt to clear up any confusion, he revealed verse 2:134 and its verbatim twin 2:141, which say, "This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".

Talk about an obvious back-pedal.

The Author of Quran just sees these people as the people of the past. He sees their deeds and behaviors, and words and characters to be just as the people of the past ages.
It is a mystical return. Metaphorically, these people were the return of the past people. Likewise, Muhammad said, He is all the past Prophets. There is a sense of oneness between all Messengers and their companions and in the same way, metaphorically people who opposed the Messengers of the past, had returned to the new age.

 

[stevecanuck]

The Author of Quran just sees these people as the people of the past. He sees their deeds and behaviors, and words and characters to be just as the people of the past ages.

Is that fair? Sounds like unfair profiling on steroids to me. Even if that's what he's doing, he's wrong. Saying to people who wouldn't even be born for millennia that, "YOU did things" is just plain un-godly-like WRONG. There's no getting around it.

It is a mystical return. Metaphorically, these people were the return of the past people. Likewise, Muhammad said, He is all the past Prophets. There is a sense of oneness between all Messengers and their companions and in the same way, metaphorically people who opposed the Messengers of the past, had returned to the new age.

It's fun watching you people try to spin this.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Is that fair? Sounds like unfair profiling on steroids to me. Even if that's what he's doing, he's wrong. Saying to people who wouldn't even be born for millennia that, "YOU did things" is just plain un-godly-like WRONG. There's no getting around it.

It depends. If those people indeed were the same kind of people who lived in past ages, it is correct to accuse them of the same things the past people did.
Because this accusation is not like taking someone to court. It is a Metaphorical expression than a literal one.
For example in verse says:

“Already have Apostles before me come to you with sure testimonies, and with that of
which ye speak. Wherefore slew ye them? Tell me, if ye are men of truth"

Qur’án 3:182


Muhammad is accusing people of His time of killing Messengers, though they did not kill any Measengers. But, it is a fair statement, when we consider these people actually plotted to kill Muhammad. So, they are the same kind of people.

 

[BrightShadow]

Anyone who has read my posts knows I believe that Mohamed authored the Qur'an on an ad hoc basis. Looking at his first attempts to convert the Jews of Yathrib can only be described as clumsy. His major blunder was to confuse the past with the present. Alternating between 2nd-person and 3rd-person conjugations creates the impression that the Jews of Yathrib were being admonished for the sins of their ancestors by occasionally, but not always, inserting them into events of the past. Would a perfect god, or perhaps an improvising person, make such a grammatical blunder?

Verse 2:49 starts by saying, "We delivered you from the People of Pharaoh". The next few verses continue to magically transport the Jews of Yathrib into the past 33 times (not counting 2:54 which correctly uses the second person in quoting Moses' speech to his followers). Mohamed really steps in it in verse 2:61 by mixing tenses while speaking of the same people. It starts with, "And when you said: O Moses...", but by the end, the object of his remarks switches to "they". In 2:67 through 2:71, Moses again speaks to his people, and this time, only "they" answer him, but in the next few verses, it becomes the 2nd-person Jews of Yathrib who are again said to have committed the wrongs done by their ancestors.

This grammatical back and forth probably created not only confusion among the Jews, but also concern, as it appeared that God's criticisms seemed to be aimed directly at them. Mohamed probably received a lot of push-back on this, so in what looks like an attempt to clear up any confusion, he revealed verse 2:134 and its verbatim twin 2:141, which say, "This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".

Talk about an obvious back-pedal.

Generations later - if the sentiment and attitude remains similar between two parties then I think it is okay to say it like that when one party has not learned from the past.
After Putin is gone - generations later if future Russian leaders attitude remain same with Ukraine then it is okay for Ukraine's point of view to address Russia as "you people did this and did that and you need to stop".
Talk to any Native American tribes - generations later even at today's peaceful times they still can say - "you people did this and did that" etc. This doesn't mean they are accusing present folks for past atrocities directly. This is just to show the continuity of their similar attitude or even similar minor attitude need to stop!

Furthermore - people back then were a close knit society. It is not like today's world. Now we live in a democratic society and we travel all over and intermix and our opinion and Govt's foreign policies may not even be on the same page. But back then when you have differences with certain group or tribe- the sentiments among each other were uniformly same or similar. So addressing them in that fashion was understandable. I am sure people involved understood what they were told.

Disclaimer: My opinion here is just based on observation. I do not speak Arabic. I just don't see anything wrong with these verses. As a matter of fact - I like the verse 2:62 because it shows Islam is basically open to all people as long as they believe in God, Judgement day and lead a good an honest life.

 

[stevecanuck]

It depends. If those people indeed were the same kind of people who lived in past ages, it is correct to accuse them of the same things the past people did.

Do you even read your ridiculous rationalizations before you post them? He's not accusing them of "the same things the past people did", he accusing them OF the things the past people did. Stop while you're behind.

Because this accusation is not like taking someone to court. It is a Metaphorical expression than a literal one.
For example in verse says:

“Already have Apostles before me come to you with sure testimonies, and with that of
which ye speak. Wherefore slew ye them? Tell me, if ye are men of truth"

Qur’án 3:182

LOL! That's not a metaphor. It's another example that proves my point. The Jews of Mohamed's time were lumped in with their ancestors to the point that Mohamed-pretending-to-be-god finally had to 'reveal' verses 2:134 and 2:141 in an obvious back-pedal in order to assure them that Allah would NOT hold them responsible despite doing just that in verse after verse.

Muhammad is accusing people of His time of killing Messengers, though they did not kill any Measengers. But, it is a fair statement, when we consider these people actually plotted to kill Muhammad. So, they are the same kind of people.

Where did you pull that from?

 

[stevecanuck]

Generations later - if the sentiment and attitude remains similar between two parties then I think it is okay to say it like that when one party has not learned from the past.

That's not what those verse are saying. They were not being compared to the Jews of the past - they were being accused of actually doing those things as though they had passed through time and back again. There is no metaphor here. There is no comparison. There is only an absurd and physically impossible accusation - followed by a rather shame-faced back-pedal.

 

[stevecanuck]

Furthermore - people back then were a close knit society. It is not like today's world. Now we live in a democratic society and we travel all over and intermix and our opinion and Govt's foreign policies may not even be on the same page. But back then when you have differences with certain group or tribe- the sentiments among each other were uniformly same or similar. So addressing them in that fashion was understandable. I am sure people involved understood what they were told.

Using that logic I assume you would have no problem accusing all white Americans of being slave owners. You know, "continuity".

 

[BrightShadow]

[QUOTE="BrightShadow, post: 7723001, member: 72848"

Furthermore - people back then were a close knit society. It is not like today's world. Now we live in a democratic society and we travel all over and intermix and our opinion and Govt's foreign policies may not even be on the same page. But back then when you have differences with certain group or tribe- the sentiments among each other were uniformly same or similar. So addressing them in that fashion was understandable. I am sure people involved understood what they were told.

Using that logic I assume you would have no problem accusing all white Americans of being slave owners. You know, "continuity".

I think you are fanatically looking for a worm when it is not there!
All examples won't work! My examples weren't good either. I tried to say - if the sentiment and attitude of a certain group of people doesn't change for generations then in some instances it may be okay to generalize it and show some examples of their forefather and say to them - "please change your course" - "the path you and your forefathers have been on - is wicked"!
The people involved got it - why are you not getting it?
Your example is not good because not all white Americans were slave owners! My example is not good either. I tried to say - "if sentiments don't change for generations = only then"!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Where did you pull that from?

(The same are) those who say: Lo! Allah hath charged us that we believe not in any messenger until he bring us an offering which fire (from heaven) shall devour. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Messengers came unto you before me with miracles, and with that (very miracle) which ye describe. Why then did ye slay them? (Answer that) if ye are truthful

Quran
3:183

 

[Link]

Over-complicating a simple issue. You can mean "people including all past generations" and "current generation".

 

[stevecanuck]

I think you are fanatically looking for a worm when it is not there!
All examples won't work! My examples weren't good either. I tried to say - if the sentiment and attitude of a certain group of people doesn't change for generations then in some instances it may be okay to generalize it and show some examples of their forefather and say to them - "please change your course" - "the path you and your forefathers have been on - is wicked"!
The people involved got it - why are you not getting it?
Your example is not good because not all white Americans were slave owners! My example is not good either. I tried to say - "if sentiments don't change for generations = only then"!

Yes, they got it. They got that they were being blamed for something their ancestors did.

 

[stevecanuck]

(The same are) those who say: Lo! Allah hath charged us that we believe not in any messenger until he bring us an offering which fire (from heaven) shall devour. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Messengers came unto you before me with miracles, and with that (very miracle) which ye describe. Why then did ye slay them? (Answer that) if ye are truthful

Quran
3:183

Thank you for providing another example of the Jews of Yathrib being blamed for alleged acts of long before. There are more.

 

[stevecanuck]

Over-complicating a simple issue. You can mean "people including all past generations" and "current generation".

That meant nothing. Did you participate in the beheading of the Jewish men and youth of the Banu Quriaza?

 

[Link]

That meant nothing. Did you participate in the beheading of the Jewish men and youth of the Banu Quriaza?

Already explain Stevecanuck, I talked about us as Muslims many times when talking about past generations. For example, in that thread about why Islam as is is a false religion:

(1) We didn't support our Imams (a) through out time, and hence can't claim to represent them properly.
(2) We mixed falsehood with truth and commanded people to what we didn't do ourselves.
(3) We didn't hold our scholars and their leadership accountable to Quran similarly how Christians followed their scholars without holding them accountable.

This shows, we aren't the true religion, even if Mohammad, Ali.... the Mahdi... (Ahlubayt) are true the same way it shows Judaism and Christianity are not truth even if Musa and Isa are true.


Comment: You are being obtuse to what is normal in language.