Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)

[abdalquran]

Thanks for clarifying. Here is my comments:

Re: your translation of 38:41-44

Thanks for the reply, however I see many issues with your understanding.

Great. Thanks for taking the time to think. 

1) you do not take into account the chapter theme, whatever that is - something you accuse me of neglecting 

Actually I did, the 'sad,  Quran dhi adh-dhikr' is the objective here. The Quran possess the means of vivification so for us, ayyub's example could be actualised from the Quran. What you asked me was about ayyub's story w.r.t. 2/196. I am not able to expound on it fully hence I'm not delusional to say 'this is comprehensive'.

2) No cross-reference whatsoever

Again false, I checked out several words using cross-references. I am not able to expound on it fully hence I'm not delusional to say 'this is comprehensive'

3) fitting "forces of alienation/disimmediation" into other occurrences seems problematic, e.g. 2:275

If you can't see the application, move on. No skin off my nose.

4) you translate "rijl" as "mobility/independence" which does not fit in many of its other occurrences, 5:6, 5:33, 5:66, 24:31, 24:45 etc

If you can't see the application, move on. No skin off my nose

5) You use "here is an agent of washing, cool and refreshing, and to drink" when the Arabic begins this part with "hadha" i.e. "this" referring to something in context, meaning we can only assume "mobility/independence" is an agent of washing, cool and refreshing to drink, which makes little sense.

To you maybe. Unsurprising for one who thinks Lanes is a credible place to refer to despite his leanings in Christianity which inevitably coloured his understanding of Arabic.

6) translates "dighthan" as "confusion" which seems to pop out of nowhere. I assume you would make some link of confusion relating to alienation, which seems a tenuous link.

Again, that's to you.

7) You do not explain what oath he was not meant to break

Yeah, sorry sorry. I keep forgetting who I'm talking to. Go back to theme of the chapter, it goes back to realising the values of the Quran.

But the most surprising thing, for me at least (as I expected your translation above to have issues), was your explanation of "psychological issues". So, let's make it clear for readers, inserting your definition of AMAH:
1) You consider a person who whines as having "psychological issues"
2) people who think the modern world doesn't need a space where submisson to Allah's laws are performed since it has already the nation state have "psychological issues"

It seems you're loading this phrase with unnecessary baggage. Psychological issues simply means 'issues with the psyche'. We're not talking about Hannibal Lecter here. The psyche is my understanding of Quranic vocabulary is the 'nafs'. Maybe that should be the next subject in your 'comprehensive' (lol) study?

Whilst the above is interesting in itself, the highlight is what happens if we actually insert YOUR understanding into YOUR OWN understanding of 2:196

About 2:196 you said:

Those who are ill or with psychological issues should fast or give charity or keep up their life activities.

But you gave an example of psychological issues as someone who thinks the modern world doesn't need a space where submisson to Allah's laws are performed, so someone who obviously does not advocate or believe in submitting to Allah's laws in a "space" is expected to submit to Quran when it says fast, give charity or keep up their life activities, according to you.

I assume therefore, they submit personally, but do not advocate a "space" for such - even though Quran implies these people have psychological issues, according to you, so they are not really submitting to Allah's laws as such. Hmmm.

Yes, more evidence of Aristotelian logic, hehe. I don't know if you think thinking is haram or something. If you have ANY kind of issue with Allah or His laws, can Allah tell you to do anything about WITHOUT involving you submitting to his laws?

As a side note, you have added my critique to your blog (finally) but then you posted "These questions have now been answered on free-minds." which is false. They are being answered (present tense), not have been answered (past tense). It seems you do not pay attention to grammar.

Yes I don't expect to return to them in the future since no one will read them and part of them HAVE been answered.

Ah yes, also, I expect to see you linking this thread to YOUR page on 2/196 by the time you post the next response.

I forgot to add "modern world" and "nation state" would obviously not be applicable prior, so I guess your only left with "whining" as "psychological issues" for the past.

I don't read the Quran in prior. The Quran is the eternal present for me. If you've been reading the Quran in prior, that's probably why you need to think if Musa or Muhammad is mentioned in 17/1 which to me is absolutely irrelevant and pointless.

I now point you to my thread for my answers please. I am waiting for the crucial answer about WHO decides whatis Quranic.

[Wakas]

Thanks for clarifying, readers can decide for themselves.

You keep repeating the claim that I somehow consider Lane (and consequently other CAD) as credible implying you do not, but YOU are the one who said the following when asked:

"How do we understand meanings of Quranic words?"

"Personally, I look at lexicons and try to fit the meanings back into the text. The text is remarkably helpful when guiding the reader to the correct meanings."


That is ALL you said. Clearly implying you consider them credible.

[abdalquran]

Look up 'credible' and 'authoritative' please. I know you're a big fan of synoyms but are these two  synonymous?

And I DO think the text is INCREDIBLY helpful but not when you pluck out a word (like musa and leave out the rest of the aya 17/2) and deem other words 'in passing' (like nuh who was mentioned obviously for entertainment purposes only in 17/3).

Oh, might as well look up comprehensive while you at it

Once again, I request that you to LINK my future critiques and even this thread to your writings on the web. What is your answer to this?

[Wakas]

Look up 'credible' and 'authoritative' please.

No need, I know there is a difference.

So, can we conclude then, you consider lexicons credible? Yes/No.

Once again, I request that you to LINK my future critiques and even this thread to your writings on the web. What is your answer to this?

What critiques? If you can keep them clear, concise, and without slander / derogatory comments / baseless statements / logical fallacies etc I will consider it.

[abdalquran]

So, can we conclude then, you consider lexicons credible? Yes/No.

'yes/no' answers are best kept for Aristotelian logicians. Real life is WAY beyond 'yes/no'. I consider lexicons credible IF they suit the readings of the Quran I consider correct. It's very possible that lexicons DO NOT have the answers. For example, the name 'maryam'. i do NOT feel any lexicons has the meaning.

What critiques? If you can keep them clear, concise, and without slander / derogatory comments / baseless statements / logical fallacies etc I will consider it.

Concise? Your writings are not concise, how do you expect their critique to be concise? I aim to deconstruct every single point.

Baseless statements according to whom? Your critique on 2/196 uses a baseless source, your CADs but your forced your way into my blog anyway. When I ignored you , you harassed me to answer. So why should I follow your judgement of 'baseless'.

Logical fallacies according to whom? Your critique's FIRST point is logically fallacious, that no one will be able to do it. That goes outside the bounds of measure of correctness. It's an absurd statement but I allowed it in. How come that's ok?

What are you afraid of? You expect to BULLDOZE your way into other discussions but you won't allow critiques of your work? Mr Comprehensive needs a little more confidence, I think. Be just please. You want to criticise, be ready to be critiqued yourself.

[Wakas]

I consider lexicons credible IF they suit the readings of the Quran I consider correct. It's very possible that lexicons DO NOT have the answers.

Finally, we get an answer on this. And how does this differ from my view? Please remember to respond with evidence not baseless conjecture. I want actual quotes from me etc.

And my Q1 of the critique may or may not be relevant, but since you've been running away from answering my Qs, I wont know till I have those answers. Simple.

[abdalquran]

Finally, we get an answer on this. And how does this differ from my view? Please remember to respond with evidence not baseless conjecture. I want actual quotes from me etc.

It differs from your view because you simply claim it. For you, not adhering to dictionaries causes one to lose all credibility. Remember that statement? Or you want me to quote it?

And my Q1 of the critique may or may not be relevant, but since you've been running away from answering my Qs, I wont know till I have those answers. Simple.

Running? Your criticisms are being answered on this thread.

[Wakas]

It differs from your view because you simply claim it. For you, not adhering to dictionaries causes one to lose all credibility? Remember that statement? Or you want me to quote it?

Farouk has been exposed yet again.

He provides no evidence whatsoever, not one shred, on how my view differs.

[abdalquran]

Ah , lets have the quote then:

Of course, if you were openly say such a thing, your credibility would be non-existent. You even admitted to me in private message about showing how you arrive at word meanings and said that will come later. Clearly implying the current info you presented is lacking. To what degree it is lacking is open to interpretation. In my view it was woeful.
from : https://www.facebook.com/groups/181724025200188/permalink/427396597299595/?comment_id=433644953341426&offset=50&total_comments=126

There you go

[Wakas]

Farouk claimed my position was: "not adhering to dictionaries causes one to lose all credibility"

Is that what I actually said? Let's see... (bold emphasis mine)

I have already explained "NCADR". If a person comes up with a new meaning and cites no evidence, not even from Quran, then I will point out the lack of evidence. CAD are simply one reference you could have used. If you do not care about CAD, fine. Just make it clear for all to see, e.g.you dont mind if you come up with a new Arabic word meaning and its unheard of in any Classical Arabic Dictionary (or any non-Quran source).....and you consider it unnecessary to cite Quran reference or reasoning for your new word choice also. As you regularly did this throughout your 2:196 interpretation.

Of course, if you were openly say such a thing, your credibility would be non-existent. You even admitted to me in private message about showing how you arrive at word meanings and said that will come later. Clearly implying the current info you presented is lacking. To what degree it is lacking is open to interpretation. In my view it was woeful.

Clearly, I discussed evidence from Quran, CAD, other source, and reasoning etc, and if you used NONE to back-up what you write, that would damage credibility, that's what I actually said.


It is becoming rather tedious for me to correct your false/misleading/baseless statements time and time again. From now on I will simply use: fomob (false or misleading or baseless).

If you cant be bothered keeping this discussion accurate/evidence-based, I dont see why I should waste my time having to correct/clarify.