Nachricht von Diskussion
The Samaritan error in the Qur'an
From: "Dr. M S M Saifullah" <s...@aecl.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: The Samaritan error in the Qur'an
Date: 1999/05/25
Message-ID: <7idhss$2ao$1@waltz.rahul.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 481803687
Approved: sri-ad...@hrweb.org
Sender: ar...@rahul.net
Organization: None
Moderator: SRI Moderator <sri-ad...@hrweb.org>
NNTP-Posting-User: ariel
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
jk...@math.gatech.edu writes:
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
>The usual response by Yusuf Ali and Jamal Badawi on this issue has
>been to deny that this word refers to a Samarian/Samaritan (that is
>really insubstantial). Even though it is the exact same Arabic word
>as the one that is used for the Samaritans, it is supposedly not
>derived from it, but from some other entity, so goes the reasoning.
Now I have not read the arguments of either Yusuf Ali or Jamal Badawi. Our
argument is principally from the point of view of what is written in the
Christian missionary literature concerning the Samaritan error in the
Qur'an. Their argument is that since Samaritans did not exist in the time
of Moses or Aaron(P), it is a historical error in the Qur'an. It is clear
>from our discussion that the Samaritans claim that they are the descendents
>from the tribes of Joseph(P) and continuously occupied the territory from
the ancient times.
Further, the argument that the Bible uses the word Samaritan is already
refuted because the Samaritans themselves do not use that word at all to
address themselves. It is most like that the word means inhabitants of
Samaria not Samaritans.
On what basis does Yusuf Ali and Jamal Badawi deny that the word refers to
Samaritan or whatever is something I have no clue. Of course, we would like
to see their arguments before commenting.
>Now, it seems to me that Saifullah does no longer want to hold to
>this kind of evasive explanation, but instead tries to prove that
>these Samaritans can already (by their own claim) be traced back
>far enough to make the Qur'anic mentioning valid, and no longer a
>contradiction.
I was not trying to be evasive. It is Katz, who pretty well knows that the
word used in the Bible does not mean Samaritans, is complaining.
>Before we discuss the issue, I would like to have this clarification:
>
>Does Saifullah agree with most non-Muslim writers now (and we agree
>too) that this Qur'anic verse talks about a Samaritan (i.e. a name
>for a people group or ethnic/tribal entity, just like saying "a German"
>or "an Arab" or "a Levite") and not about a man who for whatever reason
>had the personal name of "as-Samiri" but this has nothing to do with
>Samaritans.
Well, there are two ways of looking at the verse. Khalid in a personal
communication told me that Samiri has its root from the word Samar, meaning
to stay a wake all night for guard or for simply for company and chatting
with others as in celebrating. Interestingly, Samaritans call themselves as
"keepers" or "observers" of the Law. Moreover, if one reads the history of
how jealously the Samaritans guarded/kept/observed the Torah it would be
clear that the word Samiri or Shamerim (as the Samaritans call themselves)
has the same root meaning.
as-Samiri, as far as, my personal opinion goes is a title rather than a
name. Further investigations need to be carried out on this issue. It is
just like al-Aziz in the story of Yusuf(P). Even a better example would be
al-Dimashiqi or al-Hindi which are used as titles for a person from
Damascus and India. Similarly as-Samiri would mean the Samaritan. And Allah
knows best!
>If we agree on this, then we have a basis for discussion. If he
>wants to play both sides of the issue, then there is no point of
>even discussing this. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Well, Katz your basis of discussion using II Kings 17 is already refuted. I
am sorry you did not have the cake at the first place to eat. You
missionaries forgot that you ate your hand instead.
Or are we entering into one of those fake Christian-Muslim 'dialogues' so
to say?
>Is in your eyes, "as-Samiri" a proper personal name, or is it a
>term telling us about his belonging to the group of "Samari(t)ans"
>whether they existed at this time as Saifullah claims, or not as
>many other claim?
>
>Please commit yourself clearly to an interpretation and then
>we discuss the rest of the evidence. But first I want to know
>what exactly we are discussing.
Now suddenly we are seeing that Katz wants to discuss the issue with an
'evidence'. It did not occur to him at the first place that before claiming
a contradiction he should have used some of his own advice of "commit
yourself clearly to an interpretation and then we discuss the rest of the
evidence. But first I want to know what exactly we are discussing."
--
Dr. M S M Saifullah NTT Basic Research Laboratories
'Islamic Awareness' http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/
|
