You are on page 1of 5

Answering Critiqie of Truthseekers Objections Regarding- Wudu, Abulution verses

Briefly mentioning Quranic cross reference isn't the same as not using any cross reference at all. Besides, How many
times is Tayyamu mentioned in The Quran in connection to salat and how many times is Ghusl mentioned in The Quran
in
general?
Cross reference is ALWAYS a great and recommended practice to employ when exploring The Quran. However,
because The Arabic words in The Quran have different meanings which depend upon the context in which they are used,
that alone lets us know that there are some limits to us using the method tasreef (cross referencing). The root word
DdaRaBa is a perfect example of a word in The Quran that we CANNOT give one definition or connotation to even with
the
use
Tasreef.
But I would like to mention something to you about 4:43 and 5:6 and how I believe today's dominant understanding of
those verses is a weird understanding. And I am pretty certain that Free-Minders, 19 Believers, Parvezis (the Tolu-eIslam guys) and Shabbir Ahmed and his fans STILL understand these two verses the same as the traditional Muslims do.
Dr. Qamar and Dr. Akhtar are the only two people (that I am aware of) who have interpreted differently and it makes
complete
sense
to
me
and
I'll
tell
you
why.
The Traditional understanding/interpretation of both verses say that IF you have been intimate with a woman and you
cannot find clean water to purify yourself with, then use clean, dry earth. Wakas, this rendering of these verses have
ALWAYS perplexed me, from the time I was a traditional muslim all the way until I came across Aastana and Quranic
Education
and
Research.
Please forgive me for how I am about to illustrate my point. I am not trying to be a wise guy with you. My apologies in
advance
if
any
part
of
this
is
offensive
to
you
Bro.
I don't know if you are a Virgin or not. If you are a virgin, you can ask ANY person or married couple to verify what I am
about to say. If you are not a virgin then you should already know the truth of what I am about to say. But after a man and
a woman have had intercourse, there is a certain smell that each of them carry and WILL NOT simply go away on it's
own. You HAVE to bathe!!! The man will have a certain stench to him and the woman will have a certain stench to her as
well. And the more that they have engaged in intercourse before finally taking a bath, the stronger the smell becomes
over a course of time. And rubbing your face and hands with a handful of dirt doesn't even come close to fitting the bill.
Not
even
close.
THIS is why the present traditional understanding has always perplexed me. I told you in my last e-mail that the present
traditional understanding and rendering of these verses are themselves Far From Proven but are widely Unquestioned
and Accepted. I too was guilty of that. I never QUESTIONED it, I simply ACCEPTED the traditional rendering and went
along with the program. Of course I have NEVER put into practice the traditional understanding and I would imagine no
one with any common sense would do it either. Even in Morocco almost every home has a sandstone that is kept close
by for the purpose of...umm...Tayammum. But I swear to you with all that I hold dear to me that they DO NOT and WILL
NOT engage in their prayer after intercourse UNLESS and UNTIL they have had a full body bath!!! Please trust me on
that
one.
I
know
this
for
a
fact.
So if a salat meeting of some sort is called and YOU come in and sit next to me after you have spent the night having
intercourse with your wife and you have not bathe, you will smell pretty trifling to me and I'm going to give you the "What
the fuck" look. :-/ confused And believe me someone will be saying the same thing about your wife.
It is good that you are studious bro, but somethings in life (including correct Quranic understanding) can only come to
those who HAVE or routinely DO experience certain things in life. A person who is not married with children simply will
not have the same perspective and mental paradigm as a person who is married and has children that they are raising. A
man can NEVER know what it's like to be the victim of Sexism and male dominance. A White person can NEVER know
what it's like to be a Non-White person and a Victim of Racism White Supremacy [Racism]. There are certain things in
The Quran (such as 4:43, 5:6 and the sex issue) that unmarried people or virgins will not correctly understand and put
into
proper
practice.
Now, that was just the Logical or Common Sense way of looking at those verses. We can ask certain, 'Key' questions
about the traditional way of reading these two verses and see that something is terribly wrong with how they are
interpreting them. Once we do that (which I have eventually done) we would see that there must be another way to look
at this, which brings us back to the Linguistic and Grammatical avenues again. To correctly understand and interpret
them from a Linguistic analysis, you would have to FIRST realize and eventually accept that the TRADITIONAL
interpretation
of
the
word
Nisaa'a
is
incorrect.
:)
happy
Wakas Wrote Quote "I am not only referring to "tayyamu" and "ghusl" in terms of Quran cross-reference." End Quote

Okay, what other words/terms are you referring to so that we can explore them and get to the bottom of things?
Wakas Quote "Whilst I agree we cannot say one word means the same thing everywhere, DaRaBa is not really a good
example as it always means "put/show forth" (from one person/place to another place/person) as far as i know." End
Quote
I have to disagree with you about that. As far as I know there are contexts in The Quran in which it means to beat or hit
which is why some people still wish to render 4:34 as a "wife beating" verse. Secondly, I ask if you either agree or
disagree over the issue of Arabic words in The Quran having different definitions depending on the context in which they
are used? You state that you AGREE with me that we cannot say one word means the same thing everywhere, but then
you state that the word DdaRaBa DOES mean ONE THING everywhere it is mentioned. I am confused by your
statements
bro.
Wakas Quote "Firstly, lets clarify something: after touching sexual fluids or private parts or having a poo and cleaning
oneself when one has no access to water will more likely leave one with germs on one's hands. Now, rubbing one's
hands with dry/clean soil/sand will likely reduce the level of germs on one's hands. I'm not saying in all cases, but I am
confident
it
would
in
the
majority.
Do
you
agree:
yes
or
no?"
End
Quote
No,

do

not

agree.

Bro, WHERE is the SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH which provides your conclusions? You are guessing that rubbing one's
hands with soil/sand will "LIKELY" reduce the level of germs on one's hands. We do not want to do the guessing thing
and assume that something will likely bring about a wanted result. That is the first issue I have with that conclusion.
My second issue is that you are still not addressing the private parts of the people involved. You DO NOT want to use
soil/sand/dirt in those areas because if sand granules enter the openings of the sex organs we are now talking about the
possibility of the person contracting a urinary tract, bladder and/or kidney infection. A female using sand/dirt/soil in her
private area can contract bacterial and fungal infections. I am not making guesses with this information. There IS
research
available
for
reading
online
to
learn
these
things
for
yourself.
The private parts are the MAIN AREAS which will require cleansing after intercourse and rubbing one's hands and face
with
dirt
does
not
compensate
for
a
total
body
bath
with
WATER.
My third issue is that you say that it may not work in ALL cases but you are confident that it will work in the MAJORITY of
cases. The problem is that a Quranic solution has to be fair and applicable across the board. It should not work for
SOME and not ALL. Also because a person may be confident that his/her views should work in the majority of cases
does not substitute for the reality and pragmatism of things. The traditional muslims are confident that if the entire world
were
to
uphold
their
sharia
we
would
all
be
better
off.
Wakas Quote "Secondly, it seems you have only considered a certain aspect of the verses. Let me clarify what I mean by
asking
you
to
ponder
over
a
simple
question:
How common do you think it would be for couples to have sex who have no access to water?" End Quote
I believe that you are walking away from what The Quran is saying and what I was addressing from the very beginning.
The traditional understanding of 4:43 and 5:6 paints a picture of people having sex and NOT having access to clean
water for bathing. For me THAT is the fundamental issue. It is what people are believing in. And they are also believing in
the idea that dirt on the hands and face can substitute for water all over the body (especially the sex organs). The dirt on
the
hands
and
face
do
not
even
address
cleansing
the
sex
organs.
So

it

boils

down

to

three

questions.......

1). Can DIRT on a person's hands and face realistically substitute for a full body bath with WATER after sex???
Especially when only the hands and face are being addressed and not even the sex organs?
2).Is
3).

The
Are

human

Quran
beings

and

wrong
their

rendering

on
of

5:6

and

this
4:43

wrong

issue???
on

this

issue???

Wakas Quote "This suggests to me you have not scrutinised/verified much of what Dr Zaman has written as there are
many
examples."
End
Quote

I believe that I have made it clear that I HAVE and DO scrutinize Dr. Qamar's writing. Somethings I have outright
rejected, but MOST things I have pondered over, studied and come to agree with. I am sure that I have made it equally
clear that I did not put his understanding of 4:43 and 5:6 under as much scrutiny as I have other things by him and that is
because his explanations almost immediately resonated with me and what I was thinking about the subject...same as the
Sawm
issue.
As far as I know there are only TWO available understandings of 4:43 and 5:6. One is the traditional understanding and
the other one is Dr. Qamar's presented understanding. Between these TWO understandings Dr. Qamar's seems more
logical and makes the most sense to me. If you are aware of a Third understanding or one that is more
maverick/advanced
than
Dr.
Qamar's
I
would
love
to
see
it.
Also, I asked that other terms be pointed out that you feel needed to be put to my attention. Instead I am told that my
request suggests that I have not scrutinized/verified much of what Dr. Zaman has written. Just the words that you want
me
to
consider
will
do
bro.

Wakas Quote "My statement on the 'not one meaning for all' topic was not confusing at all. I agreed in principle with what
you
said,
but
not
the
example
you
gave"
End
Quote
Okay, I will not focus too much on that. It appears to me that this part of the I will have to agree to disagree. But it still
looks to me that by your statement you are saying that all root words in the Quran are multi-meaning except the root
word
DdaRaBa
but
that's
no
big
deal
to
me.
I
agree
to
disagree.

Wakas

Quote

"My

germ

on

hands

view

is

based

on

logic

and

science"

End

Quote

I am sorry brother But I am sure that it is NOT based upon science which is why I asked for you to link me to any
scientific research done to verify your conclusion. As human beings, we are all subject to the possibility of something
being logical to us as the originators of an idea or theory while still being illogical to other than the originator of such
ideas or theories. It is my humble opinion that such is the case with the conclusion you have come to and the example
you
have
given
to
illustrate
your
conclusion.
Wakas Quote "You can even test it right now, put some tomato ketchup on ur hand, then rub your hands with clean/dry
sand/soil, then tell me after, is there the same or less tomato ketchup on your hands?
Studies have proven washing one's hands with water reduces germs. Most likely, any liquid. The same principle applies
for grass or clean/dry soil/sand etc. Sure, the latter may not be as effective, but AQ doesn't say it is as effective" End
Quote
I have to say that I totally disagree with everything that has been stated in this paragraph. It appears to me that you are
making the issue out to be satisfactorily cleanliness even if it comes short of being truly clean. For me the emphasis
(based upon 4:43 and 5:6) is Cleanliness to the utmost. Either a person is clean or he/she is not clean. Rubbing one's
hands with clean/dry sand may reduce the amount of tomato ketchup on my hands, but the fact remains that the dry
sand still did not CLEAN my hands of germs. That is the issue of 4:43 and 5:6 and I believe this is being overlooked on
your part and that you are focusing on issues and conclusions that 4:43 and 5:6 are not concerned with.
You made a statement that AQ does not say it is AS effective. With that logic I can also say that AQ does not say it is
effective at all. Neither does it say that it more than suffices or does a better job than water. What it DOES say is that
something (according to your understanding, dirt) is supposed to compensate/substitute for water and this substitute is
supposed to have the same affect on the same thing as the water. The Quran never says that this substitute may not be
as effective or may fall slightly short on the matter. This is a clause that you have personally put in their with your own
words.

Wakas Quote "Another example I like to give is to ask someone would they rather shake the hand of a person who has
touched sexual fluids and/or their private parts and afterwards rubbed their hands with clean/dry sand/soil, or with
someone who has not done that afterwards? Let me know your answer." End Quote
You can ask ME that question and my answer would firmly be neither person. I would not want to shake hands with
neither one of them because neither one of their hands are clean. This is a pretty gross question to ask by the way. You
are asking me to choose what you may consider the lesser of the two evils. So you want me to shake the hand of
someone who has his or her own sexual secretions as well as their mates secretions on their hand and smothered over
in dirt? That is nothing by filth on top of filth. And please keep in mind that diseases are transferred by spreading germs
and the person who has put dirt on top of his sperm soaked hand would be doing exactly that.
Also, you still have not answered one of my original queries. We have ONE ACT (sexual intercourse). If water is

available we are under obligation for a total bathing of the body after performing said act. BUT, if water is not available to
bathe the body then one should (instead) wipe his face and hands with dirt from the earth as a substitute. How do we go
from bathing in water to rubbing one's face and hands with dirt as a means of addressing the same thing, that is, the
issue
of
BODILY
uncleanliness
after
sexual
intercourse?

Wakas Quote "I use words such as "likely" and "majority" because I prefer to be accurate when I speak, and since I have
not done testing of such things and cannot be certain regarding an infinite number of permutations, I can be "confident"
about
the
vast
majority
of
cases"
End
Quote
I can understand where you are coming from but I also see fallacies or should I say contradictions in this statement.
First, the use of the words "likely" and "majority" takes away all sense of "accuracy". "Likely" is not the same as
"definitely" and hence inaccurate. "Majority" is not the same as "all" and hence also inaccurate. So using these words
does
not
make
ones
thoughts
and
conclusions
accurate.
Secondly, you made the earlier statement that your conclusions are based upon logic and science. But you are now
expressing that you have NOT done any testing of such things and CANNOT be CERTAIN regarding aspects of your
conclusions. This in addition to not presenting anyone else's scientific research to support your conclusions. Being
"confident" about the majority of cases is an empty statement when we consider that you have not done any testing or
"Case
Studies"
in
order
to
support
this
confidence.

Wakas Quote "I am also reasonably confident it would reduce germs on hands for all, but I cannot be certain of that" End
Quote
I

believe
my
above
explanation
would
apply
to
this
statement
as
well
bro.
Wakas Quote "I am also reasonably confident it would reduce germs on hands for all, but I cannot be certain of that"
End
Quote
I

believe

my

above

explanation

would

apply

to

this

statement

as

well

bro.

Wakas
Quote
"I
have
listed
some
logical
fallacies
you
made
strawman
argument:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
The
verse
does
not
mention
soil
for
the
private
parts.
The verse does not say clean/dry soil/sand will compensate (i.e. is equivalent or as good as) water." End Quote
I am sorry brother, but I am afraid you are the one guilty of presenting arguments which have fallacies and I would like to
point them out to you. In fact, there are two in particular I would like to bring to your attention.
Wakas Quote "The verse does not say clean/dry soil/sand will compensate (i.e. is equivalent or as good as) water." End
Quote
There is certainly much fallacy in this argument. The verses (and sentence) in question state: fa LAM tajiduu maa'an
FAtayammamuu
Please focus on the negative and the prefixed conjunction I have underlined. The verse says and you DON'T find water
THEN go you all to tayammum. The key is in the prefixed conjunction "FA" which (among other uses) stands for the
English equivalent of "Then" as in "If you can't find any Pepsi, THEN grab some Mountain Dew."
When this word (then) is used in the manner that it is in 4:43 and 5:6, it represents a substitute or replacement of what is
originally sought after (in this case Water). It's another way of saying "this will do instead" or "this will suffice". That's the
first
fallacy.
The second fallacy is your repeated statement that The Quran doesn't say that tayammum has to be as effective as
bathing with water. My question to you would be Why would it be mentioned in The Quran as a replacement/substitute if
it IS NOT as effective as bathing with water? What would be the point in mentioning it at all as a suitable replacement if it
doesn't
do
the
same
job?
Let's say Wakas' Mum gets a pretty bad cut on her hand. Wakas's Mum sends him to the store to get a bottle of
Hydrogen Peroxide for the purpose of cleaning and treating the cut on her hand. You get to the store and there is
absolutely no Hydrogen Peroxide. As a replacement or substitute, would you be willing to bring her a bottle of window
cleaner instead to clean the cut on her hand? Of course not. What about a small container of jewelery cleaner? Again, no
because neither of these things are suitable replacements/substitutes for the hydrogen peroxide. However, if your Mum

gives you these specific instructions tell me if it makes sense or not....."If you DON'T see any hydrogen peroxide, THEN
pick up some Liquid Neosporin" There is a REASON that she mentions the liquid neosporin in the possibility of you not
finding what she had originally asked for. The liquid neosporin is equally as effective and is a suitable
replacement/substitute for the hydrogen peroxide. But you CANNOT bring her a container of gold or silver cleaner and
use the logic in your own mind of "the instruction label doesn't say that it isn't as effective as hydrogen peroxide, so it
might just be good enough for the job." This is essentially what you are doing and it is a fallacy in your position.

Wakas

Quote

"Since

you

did

not

answer

my

latter

question,

cant

comment."

End

Quote

If by latter question you mean how often do people engage in sex without access to water, I have addressed that. I told
you that asking THAT question is dancing around the issue of what AQ 4:43 and 5:6 are talking about because these two
verses say that two people CAN have sexual intercourse and NOT be able to find water to bathe in. So you are bringing
up a scenario that AQ itself does not present. I would much rather stick to WHAT AQ is talking about and not a made up
scenario. Besides, No One can honestly answer that question UNLESS they are flies on the wall everytime and
everywhere all over this Planet Earth two people are engaging in sexual intercourse. Remember, Earth is pretty big and
with over 7 billion human beings inhabiting it, how can ANYONE even attempt to answer such a question which is
actually
irrelevant
anyway?
But to satisfy that question to some extant, prostitutes and many of their tricks do that all the time. :) happy
Lastly my brother, I asked that you present to me the other words and terms that you felt should have been more
thoroughly covered. I didn't mean for you to write a 7 page critique. If there are 6 words that you think should have been
dealt with better, please present those 6 words and I will gladly look them over and do my own tasreef of those words. Or
if it's 10 words or 13 or 5 or whatever, please just list them and I'll take it from there. However, I will certainly try to read
your
critique
when
I
can
and
get
back
to
you.