Islamic Revival

The following is a translation from Arabic. Question: Is it permissible to read the Qur'an on the pattern of " maqamaat -sort of rhythm", using as evidence the hadith that says: «He is not one of us that does not sing with Qur'an» ? I have heard from someone that there is another hadith which is opposite to this, ie, «He is not one of us that sings with Qur'an» , and, accordingly, he replied that acting upon both hadiths indicates dislike of singing with Qur'an. Is this true? Answer: Muslim narrated from Abu Hurayrah, he said: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: «He is not one of us that does not sing with Qur'an" ; others added ‘spoke out of it.' Al-Hakim reported it in his book (Al-Mustadrak) through Saad bin Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, and said that it is of sound narration, but they did not narrate it through this chain. It was also reported in the Musnad of Abd ibn Hamid, and the Musnad of Al-Qadaa'i.

The following is a translation from Arabic. Question: Is there a difference between the divine fact ( al-haqeeqah ) and the divine meaning? We have confusion in the matter, as one of the members said in a monthly circle: The divine fact transfers the linguistic meaning to a new meaning different from the origin, such as the word of prayer (salah). As for the divine meaning: it uses the same linguistic meaning, and adds to it a regulator or a constraint, such as the word of (qiblah). Is this true? If there is a difference, I request your elaboration due to the following: a - It was mentioned in the Economic System, page 205, under the subject of extravagance (israaf) and waste (tabdheer) "Its meaning is spending the money in the prohibited matters," where a member said this is a divine meaning rather than a divine fact. b - It came in the book of Tayseer on the situations of interpretation (tafseer) page 190 at the interpretation of "What turned the

From my experience atheists and agnostics are starting to use the two contentions below at a higher frequency and are popularising them. Hence, I felt the need to provide structured written responses. If you can think of anything else to add please let me know. 1. "You cannot apply causality to the universe. Because causality presupposes time, and since the universe is all of time, the universe cannot have a cause. In other words, causality doesn't make sense outside of time; therefore you cannot ask what caused the universe. The question becomes meaningless." The problem with this contention is that it assumes that causality presupposes time. There is no philosophical justification that causality only makes sense within time. In actual fact, there is no consensus amongst philosophers on what causality is, so in absence of a consensus the basic definition will suffice, and the basic definition is “something which produces an effect”. If you notice with this definition