The Self-Serving Verses of the Qur'an

[Comrox]

for making u understand i m just picking one verse from all of your verses, becoz its impossible for me to expalin all of them here, i need a lot of time anyway, look into this verse.

three main points,
1 you can free to marry with adopted son wife.
2 a person in the era of last prophet name zayd is mention
3 and when God gives you permission of something society dosent matter,


this verse is prevailing lot of veils , this part is for my brother moF who was zayd, if there was no prophet exist. and at the time when this verse come , everybody know who zayd is and who Allah adressing, if you need more deatils check history.

in short he was the slave boy of khadija(prophets first wife) and then our beloved prophet adopted him ,becoz prophet was always against slavery. and he married with prophets cousin zainab i think. after some time they seperated and God was aware that prophet want to get married with her but due to the traditions of not gettting married with adopted son he was afraid,so Allah said him in this clear verse . interesting zayd is the only person mention by name in quran, in the prophet life time.

more over the people who try to say muhammad never exist their claim hold no water when this event took place, if it was a ficticious charatcer early people must arise questions about this issue, of zayd hence from this single verse i proved two things
muhammad was not ficticious,
and he was the same muhammmad what we know per history of mekka,

if there are some errors in the history books of hadith its not mean every single thing is lie, i filter this through quran anyway, in my beleiving , muhammad is our last prophet. and final as well.

@ language, i think zayd also got some root meaning of arabic if not a case of accepting him due to language lol

they need to interprete this verse in very hard long way,lol

Peace,

Yes, I've heard that explanation before about 33:37. It does make sense, it just sounds strange to me whenever I'm first reading the verse after a while of not pondering it. (If I'm remembering correctly, I believe there is a long thread on Zayd here but I haven't had the time to look into it.)

I'm also now remembering the verses that say one should not marry a woman because of her beauty or because of one's own desires. Following that, Muhammad could not have married Zayd's former wife because of simple attraction but there had to be some kind of connection there. Thinking about this makes the verse easier to understand and puts it in a better context.

However, I still find it hard to remove anti-Qur'an theories that are in my mind about a Qur'anic verse. (I know people would refute the above understanding by saying Muhammad didn't have to follow his own rules and he could do whatever he wanted.)

Sigh. I need to really look into this a lot more and try to better distinguish other people's thoughts from my own.

Thank you Imran for your explanation. I really appreciate it.

Does anyone have any thoughts on 22:52-53? And why was no one allowed to marry the wives of the prophet after him?

Peace.

[Man of Faith]

Imran,

Why is that funny? The fact is that I have not deciphered passages yet which contain Muhammed. Regarding the word it could potentially be used as a standard word and not a name since it has that structure. No I am absolutely not saying it because I am defeated in any way but because I simply have not deciphered Quran to that extent yet. Any organized translator would decipher a text from A to B.

Obviously I have theories regarding the word, but I have no research study to indicate anything definite since I have not analyzed discourse using 'Muhammed'.

its same if am making sugar in my project the main ingredient sugarcane i will not research on it, hahahaha

Do you think it is a one day venture to decipher Quran in its entirety? I have not been there yet and it is not because I am negligent.

mof if you think its fool written on our forehead than keep thinking, you are free to think whatever you like,

Why would I think that? Actually I find one being a fool by believing in the sectarian interpretation of it.

Is not my case a fully acceptable explanation since research may take a while?

Concerning at least the passage in which it says "Muhammad is not a father of yours" is doubtful whether the word is supposed to be a name.

Be well
Amenuel

[huruf]

I am at a loss to find ho any of these ayas mntionned are self-erving for the Prophet. By self-serving I understand to get personal undue advantag from whatever is "serving one". What advantage, that we know o, not that we surmise, did the prophet get from any of those ayas tht wa undue and esceptional for the prophet?

Asthe fifth of any gains fro war, it is not anything exceptional at all. When you undertke fighting  war which you have not provoked and on the contrary ha been mposed upon you, whatever fais you get from it hey normally go to the general welfare of the state, those mentionned were ot for muhhamad rivat prso but for the Prophet as the appointd perso in charge of the state or public affairs. Just s th royal fifth in any war was a universal practice and the proceeds were nnot for the privaate person of the king, but to the royal treasury. A comppleely differnt matter is how it is publically employed or whether there are devious actions concerning the administration of thoe monies.

As to the rgards for the privacy and the comfort of th prophet, I wonder how elf-serving ghey are. The fact that God has to stat them in the book on the contrary seems to show that he seemed to be loaded with a lot of dmands on his time and privacy to the point that a limit had to be put. Just the same with his wives or partners, the Qur'an says that eople sould ask anything from thm frombhind a curtain, why? what was the habit with those things? Did people coe anytime to the wivs houses and surprise them in whaver and never mind?

When we get tangled with these kinds of nitpicking, we seem to accept the premise that "our" prophet whould be not just an exempalry person in his behaviour, but also that nothig, nothing at all in the world hould leave open the slightest possibility that he did something "wrong".    That does not exist neithr for the Prophet nor for us nor for anybody at no time. And no person, neither rophet not or prophet will ever go ghrough this world without leaving a trail of conditions, choices, situations where no room will be left for anybody in the world to find fault. With all due consideratins for everybody we know or we do not know, we will find ourselves time and again in situations where we cannot please everybody without that meaning that we ar unjust of unconsidered or that we re seeking undue advantaage.

Prophets ar human and leave in this world. And we who feel so much ready to demand explanations from Muhammad for hi self-serving many times are being brainwashed on the othr hand on finding a limitless self-offering Jesus as much superior to Muhammed because he was spotless and this and that.

Of course I amnot saying anything about the goodness of 'sa or anybody, because in fact it ha nothing to do with the prophets themselves but on the "image" their historical exploiters have articulated in order to manipulate people minds and feelings. Also 'Isa and Jesus were maligned and can be still maligned just on what is written or said about them whether by God or by whoever. If we want to goby the "guilty" until proved innocent, we are fre to do so. Whthr that will be good for us is something else.

Salaam

[imrankhawaja]

@ amanuel God bless you , and what project you are dooing my best wishes are with you always but atleast lets come and share  with us , so that we will correct ourself in the light  of logic,

and i did not rely on secterian interpretation, Allah give  me some mind to think about it , i m agree with you there are secterian errors in interpretation, due to their own agenda, like jesus alive, and other stuff . but as soon we link other topics of quran with that disputed matter it comes towards you crsytal clear, secterians interpretors may be smart , but not smarter than God, where theere  is a  mistake quran will correct it , as i beleive the ultimate source of getting knowledge is only quran in field of language, logic, self repeating things, and lot more,

ok think for a while do  you think its logical that Allah let the book in the hands of wrongdoers and what about the previous generatiions who dnt have anny access to any lexicon, internat, and other stuff, how they understand, quran if quran is claiming its easy to understand.
peace

[imrankhawaja]

Peace,

I'm also now remembering the verses that say one should not marry a woman because of her beauty or because of one's own desires. Following that, Muhammad could not have married Zayd's former wife because of simple attraction but there had to be some kind of connection there.

actually i think you are totally getting wrong what i try to say. i did not claim prophet was fancy to zayd wife, or any desire.

he did not do anything apart from Allah permission. the situation of arab at that time was very open, it was a tradition in arab women offer openly to every man for marriage. when the offer came to prophet, he was thinking about the tradition of old people , thats y Allah adress these ayats , and make it halal for people who want to get married with their adopted son wife.
and it was important becoz we beleive he was last messenger he need to fullfill the misconceptions as well so he did it,
historical records shows that all the marriages that done are happen when khadija the first wife of prophet died. and most probably these marriages are due to political and logical reasons. not for lust or desire. he was almost above fifty i think .

However, I still find it hard to remove anti-Qur'an theories that are in my mind about a Qur'anic verse. (I know people would refute the above understanding by saying Muhammad didn't have to follow his own rules and he could do whatever he wanted.)

he did not do anything apart from the permission of Allah, he cannot set  his own rules, but Allah is not bound in rules and law , Allah do whatever he wills, and Allah made rules for prophet . and same like every student in class cannot become doctor, every human being cannot become prophet, if you deeply think why Allah forbids to get married with the wifes of prophet you will find a very reasonable answer, trust  me.

Thank you Imran for your explanation. I really appreciate it.



Peace.

you always welcome my brother, God bless you, peace. if you want more logical understanding of prophet wives we can further discuss but i wanted you to think about it,

[Man of Faith]

Imran,

We are many victims of malicious clerics and it is hard to know what Quran really says. My reinterpretation project is not a bed of roses exactly. And just by looking at this forum we can see people are not consensual regarding what it really says even if the majority agrees briefly on the traditional "along the lines" which I argue against since I have seen not even that one is true.

But amidst my criticism I am glad that people are actually evaluating on their own and finding fault in the sectarian usual interpretation, although they actually need to realize it is worse than they seem to think, much worse.

The point people are skeptical about is that the result of my work indicates an often much different faith than the one in the common interpretation. However it gives coherence to some points in the Bible, particularly the mysterious utterance by God to Moses: "I am that I am". It is hard for people to understand God is who God is, there is no deviation from absolute Oneness but one is inside of that Oneness, IF they exist at all which marks Being (Allah). Those who dissociate themselves with the imposed contradictory body and world can Be. That is the easy explanation/version.

Rabb is the count of everything in its entirety, Rabb is everything, but only conscious individuals have any independence within while the rest could be regarded as mindless slaves. Such who have consciousness are angels such as the original (for this universe cycle) Gabriel and Michael, but also new angels such as Abraham and Moses, and Yesaya et cetera. Those with such position are controllers of the timeline and course of direction for the whole 'Allahem' Grand Consciousness, this is why angels are called Maleikat in Arabic based on root Miim-Lam-Kaf which means 'to govern'.

Be well
Amenuel

[mmkhan]

Peace,

I see no mention of word Muhammed in any aayat quoted in OP.
Hence it was not related to Muhammed.

[Recluse]

I find these verses about Muhammed less problematic than the verses about Islamic belief and eternal Hellfire.

That none of the good deeds of people who are not "Muslim" will be accepted by God, and that they will burn in an eternal Hellfire.

I can't think of anything that is more unjust, irrational, totally ridiculous and repulsive than condemning billions of people to eternal Hell for their 'wrong' belief. Only because they were unlucky to be born and raised in some non-Muslim (Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist etc.) country.

No amount of rationalization can resolve this fundamental problem of the Qur'an. I seriously doubt the Qur'an's divinity based on this alone. I am no longer a victim of blind faith, self-delusion doesn't work for me anymore.

[Comrox]

Peace all,

I am at a loss to find ho any of these ayas mntionned are self-erving for the Prophet. By self-serving I understand to get personal undue advantag from whatever is "serving one". What advantage, that we know o, not that we surmise, did the prophet get from any of those ayas tht wa undue and esceptional for the prophet?

When it comes to history, I don't think it's really possible to "know" anything that happened with 110% certainty, that's not directly spelled out in the verses. I think in this case we would have to surmise.

IMO not all of these ayas appear to be "self-serving" if considered separately. Nevertheless, I included all of these because if someone entertains the possibility for a moment that whoever was delivered the message of the Qur'an made it all up, then it makes sense (to me at least) that this particular "author" would ensure they had protection, would not allow people to go against him, would try to ensure war success, and give himself the right to do whatever he wants (under a claim that it's God telling him to do such). IMO, all these verses taken as a whole could be interpreted in such ways. This person in question would be allowed this control if he possessed or believed himself to possess something of Divine nature. (For the sake of the discussions on this thread, I won't mention Muhammad's name explicitly.) In this thread, I'm trying to be as skeptical as possible here to examine every possibility and all my thoughts and doubts. I hope I have not or will not offend anyone with my skepticism. I believe in the divinity of the Qur'an, and because I do I believe it is necessary for me to ask myself the questions that are (for me) difficult to answer.

Asthe fifth of any gains fro war, it is not anything exceptional at all. When you undertke fighting  war which you have not provoked and on the contrary ha been mposed upon you, whatever fais you get from it hey normally go to the general welfare of the state, those mentionned were ot for muhhamad rivat prso but for the Prophet as the appointd perso in charge of the state or public affairs. Just s th royal fifth in any war was a universal practice and the proceeds were nnot for the privaate person of the king, but to the royal treasury. A comppleely differnt matter is how it is publically employed or whether there are devious actions concerning the administration of thoe monies.

That makes sense. It's a logical conclusion and one that I can agree with.

As to the rgards for the privacy and the comfort of th prophet, I wonder how elf-serving ghey are. The fact that God has to stat them in the book on the contrary seems to show that he seemed to be loaded with a lot of dmands on his time and privacy to the point that a limit had to be put. Just the same with his wives or partners, the Qur'an says that eople sould ask anything from thm frombhind a curtain, why? what was the habit with those things? Did people coe anytime to the wivs houses and surprise them in whaver and never mind?

I haven't thought of it that way before. I think that's a reasonable explanation for 33:53, as God specifically mentions, "This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you", which definitely implies that the behavior in question was on-going. However, I'm not sure this explanation can be used for all the other cases. For example, where meetings are discussed (24:62), God clearly states that people can't leave the messenger without his permission. There is no part of this verse that suggests people were leaving meetings. Sometimes rules are put in place because a new situation arises which is in need of them, but other times, rules are established right from the start. I don't know that we can say with certainty that it was one way or the other.

When we get tangled with these kinds of nitpicking, we seem to accept the premise that "our" prophet whould be not just an exempalry person in his behaviour, but also that nothig, nothing at all in the world hould leave open the slightest possibility that he did something "wrong".    That does not exist neithr for the Prophet nor for us nor for anybody at no time. And no person, neither rophet not or prophet will ever go ghrough this world without leaving a trail of conditions, choices, situations where no room will be left for anybody in the world to find fault. With all due consideratins for everybody we know or we do not know, we will find ourselves time and again in situations where we cannot please everybody without that meaning that we ar unjust of unconsidered or that we re seeking undue advantaage.

That's true. I know that the prophet was not infallible. It helps to remember that, as you said, no one will go through this world without leaving something behind that someone else in the world is going to have an issue (or issues) with.

Prophets ar human and leave in this world. And we who feel so much ready to demand explanations from Muhammad for hi self-serving many times are being brainwashed on the othr hand on finding a limitless self-offering Jesus as much superior to Muhammed because he was spotless and this and that.

I think you're correct here. It's easy to fall into this thinking. I've seen a lot of angry Christians on social media say, "Muhammad is to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians! Jesus was an amazing example for humanity! The Musilms' own Qur'an says Muhammad was the perfect moral example! But just look at the Qur'an and hadith to see what kind of person Muslims follow!" or something like that. 

I'm thinking of the verse (43:63 I think) that calls us to follow him as well.

Of course I amnot saying anything about the goodness of 'sa or anybody, because in fact it ha nothing to do with the prophets themselves but on the "image" their historical exploiters have articulated in order to manipulate people minds and feelings. Also 'Isa and Jesus were maligned and can be still maligned just on what is written or said about them whether by God or by whoever. If we want to goby the "guilty" until proved innocent, we are fre to do so. Whthr that will be good for us is something else.

Salaam

History is tough. I just want a time machine so I can go back in time and figure out what really happened so we can all stop our arguing and our disagreements about the past. 

I remember a few months ago I was briefly researching early historical sources on who Muhammad was seen to be in light of European(?) texts (at least, I think they were of European origin? Can't remember anymore). From what I remember of the sources' content, he was described as a man thirsty for war, who promoted himself through a strange and false faith, and who was "the Devil" himself.   

actually i think you are totally getting wrong what i try to say. i did not claim prophet was fancy to zayd wife, or any desire.

I apologize; I was unclear in my wording. I do not think that you yourself was claiming that the prophet desired Zayd's wife in any way. I only mentioned that because it seems to be a popular belief among people who reject the Qur'an's divinity on this basis.

he did not do anything apart from Allah permission. the situation of arab at that time was very open, it was a tradition in arab women offer openly to every man for marriage. when the offer came to prophet, he was thinking about the tradition of old people , thats y Allah adress these ayats , and make it halal for people who want to get married with their adopted son wife.
and it was important becoz we beleive he was last messenger he need to fullfill the misconceptions as well so he did it,
historical records shows that all the marriages that done are happen when khadija the first wife of prophet died. and most probably these marriages are due to political and logical reasons. not for lust or desire. he was almost above fifty i think .

I've heard this argument before, and had it explained to me most recently in a university class actually. It makes sense but I just have to drill that knowledge into my head.  But if I can't drill it and the knowledge won't stick, I don't know, maybe that means I can't accept it.  And also, don't we have to assume background knowledge aside from the Qur'an to know this though? Hm. I suppose one can assume that based on (Muhammad) being a messenger, he would be an important member of the community, so political or logical marriages could make sense.

he did not do anything apart from the permission of Allah, he cannot set  his own rules, but Allah is not bound in rules and law , Allah do whatever he wills, and Allah made rules for prophet . and same like every student in class cannot become doctor, every human being cannot become prophet, if you deeply think why Allah forbids to get married with the wifes of prophet you will find a very reasonable answer, trust  me.

Using the doctor comparison... A great doctor's tools/knowledge/skills/etc. for medical procedures won't just be passed on to another person who is unfit to be a doctor. So going back to the prophet's wives... are you trying to say that ordinary people are unfit to be with the virtuous women that the prophet's wives chose to become?

you always welcome my brother, God bless you, peace. if you want more logical understanding of prophet wives we can further discuss but i wanted you to think about it,

I'm a sister. Thank you brother, God bless you too and peace.

Imran,

We are many victims of malicious clerics and it is hard to know what Quran really says. My reinterpretation project is not a bed of roses exactly. And just by looking at this forum we can see people are not consensual regarding what it really says even if the majority agrees briefly on the traditional "along the lines" which I argue against since I have seen not even that one is true.

But amidst my criticism I am glad that people are actually evaluating on their own and finding fault in the sectarian usual interpretation, although they actually need to realize it is worse than they seem to think, much worse.

The point people are skeptical about is that the result of my work indicates an often much different faith than the one in the common interpretation. However it gives coherence to some points in the Bible, particularly the mysterious utterance by God to Moses: "I am that I am". It is hard for people to understand God is who God is, there is no deviation from absolute Oneness but one is inside of that Oneness, IF they exist at all which marks Being (Allah). Those who dissociate themselves with the imposed contradictory body and world can Be. That is the easy explanation/version.

Rabb is the count of everything in its entirety, Rabb is everything, but only conscious individuals have any independence within while the rest could be regarded as mindless slaves. Such who have consciousness are angels such as the original (for this universe cycle) Gabriel and Michael, but also new angels such as Abraham and Moses, and Yesaya et cetera. Those with such position are controllers of the timeline and course of direction for the whole 'Allahem' Grand Consciousness, this is why angels are called Maleikat in Arabic based on root Miim-Lam-Kaf which means 'to govern'.

Be well
Amenuel

Your posts always intrigue me.

Peace,

I see no mention of word Muhammed in any aayat quoted in OP.
Hence it was not related to Muhammed.

That's fine, as I explained earlier I don't think these verses have to be related to a particular person such as Muhammad, but it does sound like they are directed to help or ease the responsibilities of a single individual? Do you think differently?

I find these verses about Muhammed less problematic than the verses about Islamic belief and eternal Hellfire.

That none of the good deeds of people who are not "Muslim" will be accepted by God, and that they will burn in an eternal Hellfire.

I can't think of anything that is more unjust, irrational, totally ridiculous and repulsive than condemning billions of people to eternal Hell for their 'wrong' belief. Only because they were unlucky to be born and raised in some non-Muslim (Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist etc.) country.

No amount of rationalization can resolve this fundamental problem of the Qur'an. I seriously doubt the Qur'an's divinity based on this alone. I am no longer a victim of blind faith, self-delusion doesn't work for me anymore.

You can believe what you wish, but how is eternal Hellfire relevant to this topic of discussion?

[huruf]

Regarding the Prohets wives, somone in this forum a while ago put forward the question of how strnge it is that he id not hve ny children after thee first wife Khadija nd whethr that did ot mean that those wives were ot such wiv but some kinnd of social ad religious partners. That is a point tht also has struck me often. Why he did not have any more children. Could be that he became sterile, but it also could be some other reason, may be political, quite understandable. People all through history have made peace agreements based on political marriages. May be also to give a respectable public image to somebody. In societies where political marriages are not only allowed but in fact promoted, to refusse onne may be in fact a slap o the face of the proposer. At one time as shown in sura 33, the prophet is liberated from such  burden be revelation so making any refusal to fall on God and not on Him. It is to be supposed that that happened when he had already ttained to some standing and power ad therfor did not have to fear any backlashing on himself or his people.

I do not think that either Muhammad or any of the prophets of God did ever anything selfserving. For them it wa  burden. They have plenty of moral, social and political duties but very few rights. hey are servants of the people, faithful to God and their only authority comes from God.

In fact if we look closely to the Qur'an, God gives authority to none in this world, either to th parents over the children nor th spouses over the other spouse, authority is give by God only to his prophets. That is why they do not hesitate in serving the ppeople nor are afraid nor abuse their authority, because God does not make mistakes when ppointing his Prophets. They are always exemplary men or women. Of coure, the fact that they have authority from God does not means that such authority will be acknowledged by people. See what happened to Lut. But as long as they are faithful and abide by God's commands they are sure to act with all authority not matter what they may have to face.

Salaam