Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ade_cool

Pages: [1] 2 ... 21
Hadith Discussions / Dusty praise
« on: March 14, 2021, 08:35:03 AM »
Salam all,

Has anyone ever seen this "sunnah of the prophet" being practiced?

Abu Ma'mar said:
"A man stood and praised one of the 'Amirs so Al-Miqdad bin Al-Aswad threw dust in his face and said: 'The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) ordered us to throw dust in the faces of those who praise others.'"

Hammam said :
A man came and praised ‘Uthman in his face, al-Miqdad b. Al-Aswad took dust and threw it on his face, saying : The Apostle of Allah (ﷺ) said : When you see those who are given to praising people, throw dust in their faces.

It was narrated that Miqdad bin 'Amr said:
"The Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) commanded us to throw dust in the faces of those who praise others."

Abu Ma'mar reported that a person lauded a ruler amongst the rulers and Miqdad began to throw dust upon him and he said:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) commanded us that we should throw dust upon the faces of those who shower too much praise.


Marriage & Divorce / Re: Forced marriage forbidden ?
« on: March 14, 2021, 07:11:04 AM »
Salam ade cool,

We can have different understandings from different translations, that is a problem.

Salam Fadiva,

I agree with you that different translations can lead to different understandings.

That is why I started by pointing out problems with existing translation, i.e. "And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life" does not make sense to me.


... and Layth intentionally distorting the Qur’aan when it comes to Salaat.

That is a serious accusation! ...intentionally distorting means one knows something but says something else to distort ...and it is totally different thing with expressing one's view as per one's current understanding

Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Can you eat Monkey?
« on: February 13, 2021, 08:09:07 AM »

perhaps the answer to why the monkey ia not explicitly me tioned as forbidden lies in surah 5 verse 1

“o you who believe, honor your contracts. made lawful for you are the a’aam, except that which is being recited to you. You are not permitted to hunt the game while you are under restriction. The God decrees as He pleases”

the monkey is perhaps not included in an’aam and so are forbidden by definition of not being an’aam (whether an’aam
means livestock or not i dont know as i understand hunting is permissible so an’aam
could mean other than livestock)

in anycase the answer to why the why the money is mentioned explicitly to be forbidden is perhaps because they are not included in an’aam so by exclusion from not being an’aam and by definition of what an’aam
could mean, the monkey is not permissible

that is my understanding maybe i am wrong


Salam tutti_frutti,

The context of verse 5:1 is about hunting and not about what is forbidden to eat.

Regarding what is forbidden to eat, it has been explained in for example 6:145. Some translations are below:

[6:145] Say: “I do not find in what is inspired to me to be forbidden for any eater to eat, except: that it be already dead, or running blood,  or the meat of pig—for it is foul—or what has become vile by  being sacrificed to other than God.” But whoever is forced to,  without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is  Forgiving, Merciful.

[6:145] Say [O Prophet]: "In all that has been revealed unto me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat, if one wants to eat thereof, unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine-for that, behold, is loathsome-or a sinful offering over which any name other than God's has been invoked. But if one is driven by necessity - neither coveting it nor exceeding his immediate need -then [know that], behold, thy Sustainer is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace."

[6:145] Say, "I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine - for indeed, it is impure - or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful."

The messenger has been commanded to say as per 6:145 and the messenger did deliver the message, i.e. from revelation received, he cannot find anything forbidden to one who wants to eat it except what is in the list (A, B, C). Given the wordings delivered by the messenger, I don't see the receiver of the message should understand that outside the list there are still forbidden to eat.

And regarding 5:1, my proposed translation is as below:

[5:1] O you who believe, honor your contracts. Permissible for you are BAHIMATUL ANAM except that which is being recited to you without making permissible the hunting of game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases.

So, based on 5:1:
- In general BAHIMATUL ANAM are permissible for hunting
- There are some exceptions which is being recited (so if it falls under the exceptions being recited, then hunting is not permissible)
- Lastly, in any case if we are under restriction then hunting is not allowed.


General Issues / Questions / Re: Forgiveness for repeated sins
« on: February 13, 2021, 07:09:40 AM »
Salam Wanderer,

From Quran, we are informed that there are certain conditions in which God will not forgive.

For examples:
[3:90] Those who have rejected after their belief, then increased in rejection, their repentance will not be accepted, they are the  strayers.

[4:137] Those who believed, then rejected, then believed, then rejected, then they increased in rejection; God was not to forgive them nor  to guide them to the path.

But from our point of view as humans, we really don't know whether we are among those in such group (whom God will not forgive). Therefore, as long as our consciousness is there, as long as we realize we are sinful, then seek forgiveness from God.

[3:135] And those who, if they commit immorality, or wrong themselves, they remember God and seek forgiveness for their sins. And who  can forgive the sins except God? And they do not persist in what  they have done while they know.

After all, who else can forgive except God?


Marriage & Divorce / Re: Forced marriage forbidden ?
« on: February 13, 2021, 06:39:59 AM »
Salam everyone,

I haven't found a verse that "forbids" forced marriage. It doesn't mean automatically that forced is allowed.
I haven't read a verse in which forced marriage is allowed neither.
It seems to me that the future  spouses are willing, not under compulsion ( I am more sure for the man) .

Maybe I have missed something.
The question is: Can a muslim stop a forced marriage using verses from al Quran ? ( which verses ? )

Salam Fadiva,

On top of what Wakas already mentioned, you might want to have a look at verse 24:33

Below is translation from sahih international:
[24:33] But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.

Let's analyze the part that I highlighted in bold:
(1) Prostitution is forbidden
(2) Being chaste is commanded
(3) If the girls desire chastity, then it is not OK to compel them into prostitution. Does it mean it is OK to compel the girls into prostitution if they don't desire chastity? Based on #1, then regardless whether the girls desire or don't desire chastity, compelling them into prostitution is not OK.
(4) Based on #2, being chaste is not something that believers have options to desire or not to desire. It is commanded so one must strive to maintain chastity.

Now that we have established that better translation is needed, let's try to come up with one.

- The word translated as prostitution is ٱلْبِغَآءِ

From PRL:
Root ب غ ي

Sought for or after, desired, endeavored to find and take and get (good or evil)
Loving or affecting a thing
Acting wrongfully, injuriously or tyrannically
Seeking or endeavoring to act corruptingly, wrongly and/or unjustly, insolent/disobedient
Exceeding due bounds or just limits in any way
Not right, proper or fit
Prostitute or adulteress, unchaste [e.g. 19:20, 19:28, 24:33]
Seeking what one should not seek
Seeking game or prey
Place where a thing is sought, way or manner in which a thing is sought

- The word translated as chastity is تَحَصُّنًا

From PRL:
Root ح ص ن

To be guarded, be inaccessible/unapproachable, be chaste, be strongly fortified, difficult to access, be preserved, be protected (against attack), abstain from what is not lawful nor decorous, preserve or guard a thing in places inaccessible/unapproachable, make or render a thing inaccessible or unapproachable or difficult to access, make/render a thing unattainable by reason of its height, to fortify oneself.

Proposed refined translation:

[24:33] And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His bounty. And if those whom your right hands possess desire Kitab/decree (blessings - given the context of seeking marriage, decree here is in the form of blessings),  then decree (bless) them if you know goodness in them, and  give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. And do not force your young women against sought for if they have desired to be unapproachable, in order that you may make a  gain in the goods of this worldly life. And if anyone has compelled  them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Some notes:
- In the beginning of the verse, we are commanded to remain chaste if not able to marry. So being chaste is not something we have options to desire or not to desire.
- The overall context is about marriage. The act of marriage itself is not forbidden. What makes it forbidden is if it is forced (against what the girls want).
- Arranged marriage itself is not forbidden as long as not against what the girls want. It is not uncommon that girls leave the choice to her parents.


General Issues / Questions / Re: Lesson from Yousuf's story Ch 12
« on: January 13, 2021, 12:14:55 PM »
Salam Anoushirvan,

Salam ade_cool,



2:185    The month of Ramadhan, in which the Qur'an was sent down as a guide to the people and a clarification of the guidance and the criterion. Those of you who witness the month shall fast therein; and whoever is ill or traveling, then the same count from different days. God wants to bring you ease and not to bring you hardship; and so that you may complete the count, and magnify God for what He has guided you to, and that you may be thankful.

6:105 It is thus that We dispatch the signs and that they may say: "You have studied," and We will make it clear for a people who know.


According to, you have 35 times the occurrence of bayyanu (بَيَّنُ) / to make clear, or 71 times the occurrence of bayyinat (بَيِّنَة) / clear signs, or 119 times the occurrence of the word mubīn (مُّبِين) / clear.

So the lexical field of clarity is overwhelming in Qur'an compared to the other few verses you have exhibited.

So either the few verses you have exhibited have a different meaning than the one you have in mind. Or they were written by someone else.

All of those verses are from God.

In fact, it is one of the miracles of Quran that it is clear and at the same time concealed.

And regarding verse 31.27, please also note that you don't need a full ocean of ink to write the entire Qur'an but only a small bottle one.

Sure write the entire revealed 6236 verses we don't need that much ...but to elaborate His Kalimah we will need that much

This is also one of the miracles of Quran. Even though it only consists of 6236 verses, but to elaborate it, "years" of researches from multi disciplines are "needed". It has been revealed 1400 years ago and it is still the most up to date book which has not been exhausted, i.e. generations after us will continue to discover new things.

This is called concordism, i.e. trying to match ancient Scriptures with recent scientific discoveries.

Concordism happens when religion is losing ground to science and reason.

There are two possibilities here:
(1) The scripture does not make statement which recent science discovers but people are trying to "twist" it to look like it is in agreement
(2) The scripture does make statement which only recent science discovers.

For #1, I am strongly against it.

For #2, it is one of the miracles of Quran.

Jews and Christians did it a lot in 19th and 20th centuries. Some continue to do it in a lesser extent but most of them have acknowledged that it leads to nowhere and is just bad hermeneutics.

Muslims have started to do it with Qur'an in the 70s and beyond, probably to imitate evangelical Christians.
And by "Muslims", I include Qur'an-alone people and alike, since for that matter, they share the same mindset.

Buddhists and Hindus do concordism also.

It should be noted that when the Muslim civilization was at its apogee, never did ancient Muslims feel the need to read Qur'an in a concordist way as modern Muslims do. On the contrary, they felt that science or philosophy were going nowhere and that divine truth and knowledge were only in Qur'an.

This goes back whether it is #1 or #2.

Science and technology 1400 years ago are not the same as science and technology nowadays. So we cannot expect believers 1400 years ago to even think about something which their science has not reached (and it is not because they don't feel the need to read Quran with science in mind).

I said:

Well, I mean topics like these:

All these imply some sort of answers like the Torah or Gospels we have are corrupted from their original versions.

In Genesis chapter 37, Joseph narrates his dreams to his brothers, while in Qur'an verse 12.5, his father asks him to not tell the dream to his brother.
Still, in Genesis chapter 37, Jacob does not understand the dream of Joseph. But in Qur'an, he does.

Then, why is their a divergence between Pentateuch and Qur'an there ?
Aren't both supposed to come from God ?

Tawrat and Injil are from God.

Quran is from God.

Since all the three are from God, all of them will have consistent message. It is as simple as that.

What if there are discrepancies? Then figure out which one is to be taken as source of truth.

If the story of Joseph in Qur'an comes from God but the one narrated in Pentateuch does not come from God, then where does the story of Joseph in Pentateuch actually come from ?

I mean, why was the original "true" story of Joseph, supposed to be identical to the one narrated in Qur'an, not preserved since centuries or millennia before Qur'an by Jews or Christians ?

Or why is that the canonical Gospels say that Jesus was crucified and Qur'an says Issa ben Mariam was not ?

To these, if you have a different answer than usual Muslim argument "Jews and Christians or scribes have corrupted their Scriptures given originally by God, and Qur'an has come to correct the false Bible", then I would be interested to know it.

I don't understand where you are going to. What is your proposed answer to those discrepancies?

I said

The root cause of the problems in understanding Qur'an that I exposed above arises from the this specific belief: that Qur'an should be a text to speak of God, to reveal who is God, to call (especially polytheists) to pure monotheism and to correct mistakes made by previous monotheist people Jews and/or Christians.

This kind of (erroneous) belief has the clear advantage that you don't need any historical context for Qur'an: whatever is God, it is supposed to be the same in the past, in the present, in the future.
If He called to pure monotheism in the 7th CE, then He will do the same in the 21st CE, and since He did that with this "most perfect" Scripture we call "Qur'an", there is no reason for another Scripture in the 21st CE that would add nothing more than Qur'an, right ?

And by the way we don't really need science anyway, right ?
Because either science confirms Qur'an and then it's fine but fairly useless by itself unless it is apologetic.
Or it refutes Qur'an but then science is deluded, not Qur'an.

This is why Muslim belief, including Qur'an-alone belief and alike (God-alone and so on), has to make Qur'an void from historical context.
Or, alternatively, a context that reflects this belief. The asbab an-nuzul were clearly made, forged I would say, to reflect this belief that Qur'an was purposely made for calling to pure monotheism.

But the truth is that Qur'an was never written to call to pure monotheism, this is an erroneous reading.
Qur'an only calls to pure monotheism in a polemical way with its 7th CE adversaries.
It was customary for authors on those times to call their opponents idolaters, and Qur'an is not an exception in this view.

But it is a mistake and a misreading to read that what is at stake in Qur'an is monotheism.

What is at stake are the terms and conditions of salvation.

It is only because according to Jewish and Christian beliefs and Scriptures idolaters (whatever they meant by that) are doomed to damnation that ancient authors, including Qur'an, called their opponent "idolaters" or alike, even though those shared the same Scriptures.

Qur'an says the same as me by the way, read verse 2.113:
2:113    And the Jews say: "The Nazarenes have no basis," and the Nazarenes say: "The Jews have no basis," while they are both reciting the Book! Similarly, those who do not know have said the same thing. God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection in what they dispute.

So in order to understand Qur'an, you need to understand first what is "salvation" in the preceding Scriptures, how Jews or Christian understood it, how they reflected upon it, and so on.

Salvation in the Scriptures and in the Jewish/Christian/Gnostic belief is much more than believing in God-alone according to Muslim understanding of Qur'an, and includes concepts like the Messiah, the signs of the coming of the Messiah, the end of times, the world to come, the height of the ordeal or trial, the destruction and restoration of the Jerusalem Temple, the entry of the pagan nations into the Alliance with God, etc.

You don't plainly understand Qur'an until you properly understand salvation in the previous Scriptures and Qur'an.

Believers who uphold Tawrat and Injil will be able to recognize that Quran is from God.

[2:2] That is the book, which is without doubt—a guide for the righteous.
[2:3] The ones who believe in the unseen, and hold the Connection, and from Our provisions to them they spend.
[2:4] And the ones who believe in what was sent down to you, and what was sent down before you, and regarding the Hereafter they are  certain.

For example:

[6:139] And they said: “What is in the bellies of these livestock is exclusive for our males and forbidden for our wives, and if comes  out dead, then they will be partners in it.” God will recompense  them for what they describe. He is Wise, Knowledgeable.
[6:140] Losers are those who have killed their children foolishly, without knowledge, and they forbade what God had granted them by  lying about God. They have strayed and they were not guided.
[6:141] And He is the One who initiated gardens; both trellised and untrellised; and palm trees, and plants, all with different taste;  and olives and pomegranates, comparable and not comparable.  Eat from its fruit when it blossoms and give its due on the day of  its harvest; and do not waste. He does not like the wasteful.
[6:142] And from the livestock are those for burden, and also for clothing. Eat from what God has provided you and do not follow the  footsteps of the devil; he is to you a clear enemy.
[6:143] Eight, in pairs: from the sheep two, and from the goats two. Say: “Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the  wombs of the two females bore? Inform me if you are truthful!”
[6:144] And from the camels two, and from the cattle two. Say: “Is it the two males that He forbade or the two females, or what the wombs  of the two females bore? Or were you witnesses when God ordered  you with this?” Who is more wicked than he who invents lies  about God to misguide the people without knowledge. God does  not guide the wicked people.
[6:145] Say: “I do not find in what is inspired to me to be forbidden for any eater to eat, except: that it be already dead, or running blood,  or the meat of pig—for it is foul—or what has become vile by  being sacrificed to other than God.” But whoever is forced to,  without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is  Forgiving, Merciful.

Another example:

[61:6] And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: “O children of Israel, I am a messenger of God to you, affirming what is between my hands of  the Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after  me whose name will be ‘most acclaimed.’” But when he showed  them the clear proofs, they said: “This is clearly magic.”

Another example:

[17:2] And We gave Moses the Book and We made it a guidance for the Children of Israel: “Do not believe in any besides Me.”
[17:3] The progeny of those whom We carried with Noah, he was a thankful servant.
[17:4] And We decreed to the Children of Israel in the Book, that you will make corruption twice on the earth, and that you will become  very high and mighty.

Of course, not everyone has Tawrat or Injil background and people who don't have Tawrat or Injil background are also able to recognize that Quran is from God.

General Issues / Questions / Re: Homosexuality In Islam
« on: December 30, 2020, 02:54:32 AM »
Salam Alaikum Sania,

You are correct. Lut a.s. tells us through "bal" that his town are not approaching men "besides women" i.e. being gay. This is explained in much more depth in a different article here:

The article I'm sharing goes over more Quranic context to prove the point that the one by Siraj Islam doesn't. It also covers some of the counter points some folks have listed in this thread. Its a good read.

In Quran, "bal" is also used to emphasize (not only to retract). Some examples:

[2:100] Is it that each time they make a pledge, a group of them breaks it? BAL, most of them do not believe.

In 2:100, the "bal" particle does not retract previous statement mentioned in the verse. It emphasizes that most of them indeed do not believe.

The verse 2:100 does not explain that a group of them never breaks a pledge that they made, right?

[7:179] And We have given to Hell many of the Jinn and mankind; they had hearts with which they did not understand, and they had eyes  with which they did not see, and they had ears with which they  did not hear. They are like livestock; BAL, they are even more astray.  These are the unaware ones.

In 7:179, the "bal" particle does not retract previous statement mentioned in the verse. It emphasizes that they are even more astray.

The verse 7:179 does not explain that many of the Jinn and Ins use their hearts to understand, eyes to see, ears to hear, and they are not like livestock, right?

[11:27] The leaders who rejected from among his people said: “We do not see you except as a mortal like us, and we see that only the lowest  among our people who have no opinion have followed you. And  we do not see a thing that makes you better than us; BAL, we think you are liars.”

In 11:27, the "bal" particle does not retract previous statement mentioned in the verse. It emphasizes they even think that Noah is liar.

The verse 11:27 does not explain that those leaders view Noah as more than a mortal, his followers are something, and Noah is better than them, right?

Having shown examples of the usage of "bal" in Quran in which it is used to emphasize, let's ponder on verses related to Lot's people (leaving the "bal" particle untranslated):

[7:80] And Lot, he said to his people: “Do you commit immorality such as none of those of the worlds has surpassed before?”
[7:81] “You are approaching the men out of desire instead of the women! BAL, you are a transgressing people.”

[26:165] “Do you approach the males of the worlds?”
[26:166] “And you leave what your Lord has created for you of mates? BAL, You are a transgressing people!”

[27:54] And Lot, when he said to his people: “Why do you commit immorality when you can clearly see?”
[27:55] “You are approaching the men out of desire instead of the women! BAL, you are an ignorant people.”

In those verses, is the "bal" particle used to retract or to emphasize?

General Issues / Questions / Re: Lesson from Yousuf's story Ch 12
« on: December 30, 2020, 01:37:56 AM »
Salam Anoushirvan,


I wrote above

This might be slightly off-topic.

Let's begin with Arabic as my Syrian teacher explained.

When you read a sentence in Arabic, there is often an ambiguity on the words because in general the diacritical signs are not marked.
So how do you know which word is the correct one when you read ?

Well, you need to have first an idea of the context where the word is used and then the context removes ambiguity and you can finish reading the sentence.
The context can be internal to the structure of the sentence, I mean grammatical, it represents the signifier.
The context can be external to the structure of the sentence, it represents the signified.

Native Arabic people do it unconsciously but non-native Arabic people must do it explicitly at least at the beginning.

Now for Qur'an a similar idea applies.
Sure, you can read the text as long as you want. And I did that for several years in the frame of traditional Islam.

I have then discovered in 2015 that other readings of Qur'an than the ones proposed by traditional Islam could be possible thanks to, its articles and its forum.

And that was the problem: a lot of readings and interpretations sounded plausible though the text claims it is "clear" and "obvious" in various verses.

But how could one claim that Qur'an is "clear" and "obvious" if so many readings and interpretations are possible ?

Because it is concealed? So that only purified ones can understand?

[56:77] It is an honorable Quran.
[56:78] In a concealed Book.
[56:79] None can grasp it, except those purified.

Because it is so heavy?

[73:4] Or a little more, and arrange the Quran in its arrangement.
[73:5] We will place upon you a saying which is heavy.

That so much amount of ink will be needed to elaborate His Kalimah?

[31:27] And if all the trees on the earth were made into pens, and the ocean were supplied by seven more oceans, the words of God  would not run out. God is Noble, Wise.

We can even read interpretations that are only possible because of scientific discoveries made in the 20th CE (by non-Muslims by the way).
But science is not bound by any Qur'anic agenda, and does not hesitate to discard theories that were previously well accepted, so maybe we should wait for a couple centuries more the time Qur'an becomes much clearer, no ?

Yup, this is a privilege that we have in this era with the advance of science and technology ...but people in the past also had their own privilege that we don't have ...

This complaint often comes again and again in the topics on this forum and elsewhere.

This is a contradiction. Sometimes I read here or there that more or less any reading should be valid. But this sounds just a workaround position to avoid admitting there is indeed a problem.

So reading doesn't mean you will understand, and as I did before, you can read during years, even all your life, without ever understanding the text and its purpose if you don't possess the right key.

The reason is the either lack of context or erroneous context about Qur'an and why it was written that would remove ambiguities.

At least in traditional Islam, there are the so-called asbab an-nuzul that attempt to frame tafsirs, even though the asbab an-nuzul are completely fictitious.
Yet interpreting Qur'an within the frame of the asbab an-nuzul leaves the door open to many possibilities like zahir vs. batin in Sufism.

But in my opinion the situation seems even worse for Qur'an alone interpretations.
Wishing to get rid of hadiths, asbab an-nuzul and tafsirs of traditional Islam for the sake of interpreting Qur'an is nice.

But this process, although necessary in first step, has gone too far into believing that interpretation of Qur'an is to be sought in Qur'an alone itself.
This is weird and leads to a lot of circular reasoning that I often read here and there.

Everyone has different background and is guided differently.

Somebody with expertise in geology might be able to better understand verses that touch the subject.
Somebody with expertise in archaeology might be able to better understand verses that touch the subject.
Somebody with expertise in quantum physics might be able to better understand verses that touch the subject.
Somebody with expertise in astronomy might be able to better understand verses that touch the subject.
Somebody with jews background might be able to better relate verses regarding Moses.
Somebody with christian background might be able to better relate verses regarding Jesus.

It leads to pure non-sense, similar to what we hear in traditional Islam, that the true "tawrat" of Moses or the true 'injeel" of Jesus have been irremediably corrupted by Jews and Christian and thus, not available anymore. While, on the contrary, there is no proof that the Bible we know today has been corrupted since the 7th CE.

I am not sure if I understand regarding "this leads to pure non-sense".

While Qur'an invokes a lot of times Biblical figures, Abraham, Moses, and here Joseph, etc, it is hardly that the assertions of Qur'an about them are compared to the Jewish and Christian traditions, as if Qur'an mentioned biblical figures by coincidence and without any reference to the Jewish tradition.

It sounds as if the stance attributed to Umar ibn Khattab “As for the books you mention, if there is in it what complies with the Book of God, then it is already there and is not needed and if what is in these books contradict the Book of God there is no need for it. And you can then proceed in destroying them.” were still to be applied.

This is simply severing the text from its native roots.
Probably, people believing in Qur'an alone interpretation consciously cut Qur'an from its roots because, since they believe the text is directly authored by God Himself, it must eternally valid in any situation, whether in the past, in present, or in future, and therefore it must not be tied to any historical context.

Surely when a text has no root, you can plant it anywhere, then unfold it and plant it elsewhere again, right ?

I am sorry I don't get what you are trying to say here ...can you elaborate please?


General Issues / Questions / Re: Lesson from Yousuf's story Ch 12
« on: December 30, 2020, 12:13:53 AM »
Salam nimnimak_11,

I think you must understand how to approach the book, before you can hope to correctly understand it.

How one approaches the book depends on his conviction.

  • Some people are just being exposed to the book. So for these people they definitely will not approach the book as from God.

    [2:23] And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then bring a chapter like this, and call upon your  witnesses other than God if you are truthful.

    And if they are sincerely seeking the truth, they will eventually realize that the book is from God.
  • Some people are convinced that the book is from God. They study the book properly seeking guidance from God.
  • Some people claim to believe in the book but never actually read the book by themselves. These people are unaware that what they believe actually against the teaching what they claim to believe (unfortunately, some people took advantage of that situation by writing Kitab saying it is from God to gain something)

    [2:78] And among them (Bani Israel - whom God gave the Book) are ummi who do not know the Book except by hearsay, and they only conjecture.
    [2:79] So woe to those who write the Book with their hands then say: “This is from God,” so that they can purchase with it a cheap  price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to  them for what they gained.
  • Some people hate what God sent down.
  • Some people have believed that the book is from God. But overtime they grow arrogant in that when they don't understand the verses, they start saying the book turned out to be the work of mortal.

    [7:175] And recite to them the news of the person whom Our revelations were given to him, but he removed himself from them, and thus  the devil followed him, and he became of those who went astray.

    [74:18] He thought and he analyzed.
    [74:19] So woe to him for how he thought.
    [74:20] Then woe to him for how he thought.
    [74:21] Then he looked.
    [74:22] Then he frowned and became bad tempered.
    [74:23] Then he turned away and was arrogant.
    [74:24] So he said: “This is nothing except the magic of old.”
    [74:25] “This is nothing except the saying of a mortal.”

The most obvious approach is that any interpretation you take from it, is in line with pure reason. After that, any interpretation you make must be in line with your genuine and sincere sense of good. The Quran is like life. At times, its appearance is such that it does not look as though it is from God (just as what we see in our lives does not look as though Existence Is Perfect). But I think there is enough there for anyone with sincerity to truth and humility, to try and get closer to God. To increase in reverence. To increase in goodness. Also, I think Arabic is an ideal language for this book. The root of words like Ha-qaf-qaf (which semantically highlight truth, justice, reality and other things) are so ideal in conveying the nature of God/Existence that I don't think any other language has grouped or organised or connected labels to semantics in such an ideal way with regards to making the right connections to understanding God and Its Perfection.

As things about it start to come together and make sense, you start to genuinely appreciate the book more and more. Not just for what it is in itself, but how perfectly appropriate and adequate it is for us in our current state. Just like this worldly life.

Thanks for you sharing your thought! I agree that sincerity is key here.


Pages: [1] 2 ... 21