Messages

I understand your point that Quran is from the source of infinite knowledge and was granted to the Prophet, but the Quran itself draws a clear line:

"You have not been given of knowledge except a little." (17:85)

That includes the Prophet. Granting the Quran does not mean granting the totality of divine knowledge it contains. The Quran even says clarification is upon Allah not entirely in the Prophet's control
Ref: Quran (75:verses 18–19).

Receiving the Quran is not the same as possessing infinite knowledge.

Thats the core point I raised and I will leave it at that.

Mazhar quoting 17:85 actually supports the exact point I raised earlier that the Prophet was given limited knowledge especially regarding unseen realities. That verse cannot be reconciled with the earlier description you gave of "limitless ocean of divine knowledge" being granted to him. That remains my only concern.

[They ask you about the Ruh. Say: The Ruh is from the command of my Lord, and you have not been given of knowledge except a little. (17:85)]

Mazhar, I would like to comment on one specific part of your post. You wrote:

What was granted to the Chosen and exalted Allegiant is so vast in knowledge that even if the seven seas were combined and their ink used to record it they would be exhausted yet the Words of Allah would remain inexhaustible.


And earlier:

Al-Kawthar is not merely a Hawd but rather the limitless ocean of divine knowledge.

This description appears to use a Quranic metaphor that refers specifically to Allah's knowledge:
Say: If the sea were ink for the Words of my Lord, the sea would surely be exhausted before the Words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought the like of it to add to it. (18:109)

That verse is not about the Prophet but about the limitless nature of God's knowledge. Applying this to what was granted to the Prophet shifts the meaning from divine to human  which the Quran does not support.

If the Prophet had been granted such infinite knowledge, how do we understand the verse:

They ask you about the Ruh. Say: The Ruh is from the command of my Lord, and you have not been given of knowledge except a little. (17:85)

This is a clear moment where the Prophet is instructed to admit limited knowledge

So while it is valid to reject the pond interpretation of Al-Kawthar if one finds it inadequate, replacing it with the idea of boundless divine knowledge given to the Prophet goes too far. The Quran sets clear limits on human access to knowledge, even for the Messenger.

Brother, there is a serious concern here. If such descriptions continue assigning divine-level qualities like boundless, inexhaustible knowledge to the Prophet one may unknowingly cross into a zone where the line between reverence and shirk becomes dangerously thin. Love and respect for the Prophet are essential, but the Quran places clear boundaries. Allah is the source of all knowledge, and no creation, including the Prophet was given infinity.

It is important that we honor the Prophet the way Allah did with truth, clarity, and within the limits of revelation.

Let me respond once and clearly not only for you, but for those observing.

You have made it plain: any disagreement with your interpretation is dismissed as emotional hurt ancestral blindness or spiritual failure. That is not dialogue. That is religious gatekeeping. You do not engage with views you diagnose people. Then you pretend the Quran is what is hurting us  when it is really your arrogance wearing Quranic language as armor.

You weaponize verses to preach not to reflect. Your version of truth does not invite discovery it demands surrender. And when that does not happen you attack sincerity not ideas. That is why your friendly WhatsApp offer rings hollow friendship does not come from someone who just denied my faith my intellect, and my sincerity.

I will not reply further not because I am retreating but because I value the Quran too much to see it reduced to a tool for self-glorification. This is not submission to truth  it is submission to ego dressed in preaching.

Others can read and decide. As for me I choose respectful reflection over spiritual bullying. May Allah guide us all including you.

[You frequently drop long threads and vanish, with little interest in genuine exchange. When your posts gather more silence than discussion, perhaps it's time to reflect ; not just on others but on your own approach.]

Thanks for your reply and trust me I read your messages carefully and gives me such a relaxation.

But let me be clear upfront: disagreeing with your interpretation does not make one "adamant" "trapped by ancestors" or "keeping Allah at bay." That kind of framing doesnt invite guidance or discussion  rather it assumes authority and diagnoses disagreement as spiritual stubbornness. Thats not fair. Its not respectful either. Yours posts are loaded with passive aggressive superiority cloaked in "gentle reflection" language : its doctrinal gaslighting.

You say you are "not turning salat into abstract ideas" but your articles consistently remove their physical forms, timing, and practice-based continuity all of which the Quran directly affirms. Salat also involves bowing, prostration, and fixed times (4:103, 2:238, 48:29). None of these are "ancestral chains"  they are Quranic realities echoed in the lived example of the Prophet.

You also reinterpret "uswah hasanah" into a phrase like "state of consolation of equity" and then fault others for not seeing it your way  even though the entire historical, classical, and linguistic consensus, including Arabic lexicons and tafsir disagrees with your isolated definition. Its ironic that you question everyone else's grounding while demanding full trust in yours.

If the Prophet's example, as mentioned in 33:21, 60:4, and 60:6, does not extend to his way of praying, fasting, or practicing Islam then what does it mean practically to follow uswah hasanah? You ask for examples from the Quran alone but those examples existed in a living community not in isolation from practice.

Finally, calling my response "emotional utterance" because it defends generational practice is a deflection not a refutation. You are free to assert your views. But implying that sincere Muslims who follow the Quran with the Sunnah are deluded by culture is a claim of superiority  not scholarship.

If you want dialogue, let's keep it intellectual. But if your model assumes everyone else is misled unless they come to your conclusions, that's not guidance — it's intellectual absolutism.

You frequently drop long threads and vanish, with little interest in genuine exchange. When your posts gather more silence than discussion, perhaps it's time to reflect ; not just on others but on your own approach.

[Your article warns against turning the Prophet into a ritual model which is fair but 33:21 still calls him a beautiful example. That means his life showed how to walk the path not just talk about it.]

You are turning salat zakat fasting and bowing into abstract ideas only. But the Prophet and his community practiced them physically and that is how the Quran was implemented from the start. Not just understood in theory but lived through clear repeatable actions. This is what spread across generations even before hadith books existed.

The Quran repeatedly says obey Allah and obey the messenger which shows there was no disconnect between the message and the way it was applied. Your article warns against turning the Prophet into a ritual model which is fair but 33:21 still calls him a beautiful example. That means his life showed how to walk the path not just talk about it.

Salat has depth no doubt. It involves reflection integrity and moral discipline. But that does not cancel its physical side. The Quran speaks of bowing prostrating and fixed times. These are not later inventions they are part of the Quranic instruction.

And your point about inner realization is valid. That is the essence and sincere people always knew that. But removing the outer practice as if it was all a mistake from the beginning is not interpretation so If everyone including the Prophet and his companions misunderstood something as basic as salat by treating it as a ritual with physical form then the issue is not just with hadith. It means the entire lived transmission of the Quran was flawed from the beginning. That is not a minor difference in interpretation. That is a claim against the foundational understanding of the message itself. The message was not just spoken. It was lived and passed down through action. Realization includes that action too.

I honestly feel Jkhan you are trying to counter all of that and come up with your own structure. It is a good effort but still just an effort. You may express your view but proving the understanding of generations starting from the Prophet and his companions to be wrong is something else. That is a serious claim and one you may never be able to prove.

Thank you Good Logic.

You said the righteous are the same in every generation and already known. If that is the case then why was there a need to reveal the Quran at all??

Would that not mean the message was meant more for those still searching or unaware of the path...

And if understanding varies across time as you noted then it seems reasonable that some verses were meant to allow for that variation rather than point to one final fixed meaning, is not it?

Also then why blame traditional scholars for their understanding or for converging on one meaning in their time if that was the level of knowledge available to them?

Thank you GL for your reply and the example you presented shows how some verses may become clearer with time.
I also agree that Arabic is a rich language and that the Quran encourages reflection and learning no issues on that understanding brother.

But your reply also made me think more about something important.

When you say that some meanings are only now being understood like the heavy clouds example then it seems even you are saying you do not know for sure what some verses meant in the past. And that is completely fine.

In fact maybe that is the point i wanted to say....which is Maybe earlier generations understood those verses in the best way they could based on the knowledge and language they had. And that should be accepted. We should not be too hard on them for not seeing what we might see today ? They lived in a different world with different tools and realities.

So this brings me to a question for you and for others in this forum..

Did God allow His words to be understood differently by different generations based on human knowledge and context and intellect???

Or is there one single fixed meaning of every verse that is permanent and we just dont get it....until now?

Because if there is only one true meaning then it means everyone who understood it differently before was WRONG!!. But if meaning is allowed to grow then translation and interpretation are also part of the test.

Would love to hear what others think as well.

[And how much of what we believe today is shaped by translators who may have just copied what came before them?]

Thanks GL.

Also I want to add something more here.

Now think about this the Quran's language is Arabic but Arabic is not some divine or flawless language. It was the available human language at the time. So of course, God used the existing Arabic to send the message  not because Arabic was perfect but because people could understand it.

That means the Arabic language had its own natural limits, variations, and gaps and I do not think God "fixed" the language or invented a new one just to communicate his words perfectly. That was never the point. The goal was to reform people guide them toward truth away from idol worship and injustice not to teach them divine linguistics.

My original question in this thread was about the style we see in verses like the opening of Chapter 52  especially the oaths and how translations tend to repeat inherited interpretations without asking new questions. And here is a practical example:

Today I asked my Arabic speaking friend what the word المسجور means in the verse والبحر المسجور (52:6). I did not ask about the word al-bahr because that clearly means "the sea".

But المسجور  he said it means "fire" probably because of sajara which is a common word here to light up. And sure enough I see some English translations saying "sea of fire". But when I use Google Translate, it says "imprisoned".

Now this is exactly what I was getting at.

This one word a key part of an oath by God  is being translated as:

sea full of fire

imprisoned sea

full or brimful

mixed waters

restrained or held back

So what are we really supposed to take from this?

Is God just swearing by random powerful images or are we supposed to reflect on something deeper? Are these just poetic devices or are they inviting us to uncover layers of meaning? And how much of what we believe today is shaped by translators who may have just copied what came before them?


Would love to hear how others  especially Arabic speakers  experience these verses. Do you find yourself influenced by past tafsir or do you try to read with a fresh mind?