Questions/Comments on the Quran

No abrogation anywhere in the Qur'an, not even here. What was said in 2184 is about Siyaam of "those before you", this is why it's in a separate aayet. What was said in 2185 is about Siyaam for us. Šehru rameDaane is "revelation of lasting remedy". "A problematic verb" used is in a jussive mood, which gives some explanation in the context, in this case it's telling that whoever witnessed "revelation of lasting remedy" (ie. the Qur'an, which is the main topic here) he already made Siyaam, no need for it. But, whoever was on a journey or was ill (the reasons not to witness) then they'll do Siyaam other day.

Yes, based on this verse, the basic meaning of H-R-M may be of "comanding something, declaring something as inviolable...", as said before me, "al-Masjid al-Haram" whichs appears in 171 for example, is obviosuly not the "prohibited mosque" but the "sacred, inviolable... mosque". However in many cases H-R-M can have the meaning of prohibiting by itself, specially regardings to food. See verse 596, where fishing during pilgrinage is declared as legal (H-L-L root used here) in contrast with hunting, which is declared ilegal (H-R-M).

G-S-L means to relief, to relax, to drain and so. Form VIII is reflexive, so its subject and object are the same. If one's taking a bath this can be named by this root if his goal is to relax, but if he wants to be clean that T-h-r root is used as can be seen in 56 in وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا (and if you've been junub then clean youselves). Salaat in both cases is a connection with other people, in 443 in drunk state, in 56 in general. G-S-L here is about removing tensions in relations. Agree with Euphoric. There is no way the word ghusl can be interpreted in this way in this verse. Given the context alone it is clear that it means washing.

Word "maa" cannot be who(m), cause it's used for objects and it should be "what" or "that". Eymaan is a plural potential (what can be) from the root yay-mim-nun ي م ن . This root is very similar to elif-mim-nun and it talks about safety. If eymaan is related to hands then it's one hand which can be more safe to handle with, and it's for the most people right hand, but since it's not (always) about hands than it's something else which can bring some sort of safety. This is why these words are used for oaths and other forms of talk or signals that a parson can have some safety. Another proof that this word is feminine and it should be for objects is in a verb used, which is feminine and perfect tense (not imperfect). I would say that this phrase means "what your consciences instructed you" and this is something we thought we can do, by our conscience, ie. without knowledge.

Khamr in verse 2219 (and verse 590 by the same way) has nothing to do with wine, alcohol and other kind of intoxicants. In fact, there are two distinct uses of the word khamr in Qur'an. One use of khamr, corresponding to its usual Arabic meaning, means wine as in verse 4715. The other use in verses 2219 and 590 is not an Arabic word (or does not come from Arabic) and means something else that I will come to. Despite alleged Qur'anic claim that Qur'an is in pure Arabic language, Qur'an actually contains a lot of words from other origins. Such is khamr in verses 2219 and 590 which does not come from Arabic but from Syriac. In Syriac, the word khumra has different meanings, but the most interesting one is "amulet', see the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. https//i.postimg.cc/brMF5WzP/Capture-d-cran-2021-05-13-182922.png Amulet is exactly what Qur'an means in verses 2219 and 590, this meaning perfectly fits into the textual context where Qur'an despises magical practices. What is at stake here ? Despite what Islamic tradition alleges, the milieu of the Qur'an preacher was not a polytheist one (like e.g. Hindus or Ancient Greeks) but a Gnostic one. Gnostics belonged to Jewish and Christian traditions, though with some twists compared to Judaism and Christianity as we know them today. There are numerous hints to Gnostics beliefs in Qur'an, but the most important ones are that Gnostics believed that salvation happens through knowledge of the unseen (a belief that Qur'an rejects), Gnostics despised the (divine) Law (whereas Qur'an insists that the divine Law is fundamental to salvation), and Gnostics practiced Magic a lot, which Qur'an vehemently rejects. In fact, if you want to know what Islam before Qur'an looked like, it would probably have looked like marabout practices in Maghreb today, which is a mix of Sufism (which itself is a survival of the ancient Gnostic beliefs into Islam) and Magic. Also, contrary to what Islamic tradition alleges, Qur'an was written after Arabs started to found a kingdom in Near and Middle East, not before. The problem those Arabs were confronted to is how to rule those new lands. They didn't have a good basis and thinking to establish the Law (since, as Gnostics, they didn't devise so much on that topic). It is therefore likely that they sometimes resorted to Magic for legal matters. This is where Qur'an entered into the game by preaching and saying that they had to take the question of the Law, i.e. the Deen, very seriously.

There're two sees in Egypt, but el-Bahr means river Nile. Even Blue and White Nile are called by names with baHr. There's also Dayr-ul-Bahri (Monastery of Bahr), which is very far from both sees, but is on Nile. Musa used his stuff to measure river's depth, so they can safely cross it. It was a flood time and flooded Nile drowned pharaoh and his army. Nothing impossible here, just not expected by participants. Maybe best proof for el-Bahr is Nile is in word يَمّ yemm which is understood as river in relation to pharaoh's drowning. Yemm is used also with Musa in 2039 and 287 when his mother put him in the river. So, is it the same water by the same name, or it's sometimes Nile and on the other occasion it becomes some of 2 sees. Can we choose which one of sees is it?

254 is correctly interpreted as kill yourselves in Arabic is each other. That's the literal meaning. corpus quran site interprets Q-T-L as "to kill" exactly 100% of the time. Despite the fact that there are known alternative translations out there. This is precisely the problem. As mentioned, we have Lane's translation "to know". Don't forget that Lane is regularly cited as the 'gold standard' in Quranic arab - English lexicon by traditionalists when it suits them. Naturally they are deafening in their silence regarding this particular entry. And I'm sorry, but the interpretation "kill each other" in 254 is plainly absurd to me. Please be aware also that to interpret it as "kill only the guilty amongst you" requires you to insist that the Quran is saying something that just is not in the wording - which simply says "kill yourselves" - nothing more, nothing less. I can only assume that muslims get "kill each other (the guilty) from a combination of copying the Biblical story and Ibn Kathir's tafsir - who lets not forget stated that the number of those killed was no less than 70 thousand (even the Biblical version has only around 10 thousand). You going to plant your mast on ibn Kathir's obviously ludicrous claim?

Benu Israa'il are Gypsy (or. Gypty from el-gypty, meaning Egyptian). They are not one nation as their ancestors, but from different nations, nomadic people came to Egypt and settled there, during Hittite period. Israa'il means "wandering, traveling", and they were their ancestors, not one man. Progeny of Israa'il are Benu Israa'il. They landed with NooH after Flood in Mediterranean, then started to look for a land to settle. They lost their original land due to Flood. They were of high educated civilization (ie. Atlantean), and due to their potential Allah gave them a land to settle, after pharaoh (Akhanaton). Some of them settled before and didn't come to Egypt (called MiSr in that time). They are from NooH's qawm (commune), and Israa'il were most "criticized" (lowest) from that commune (1127). They were not relatives to NooH, but later on they made a progeny with Ibrahim's offspring (195, and got themselves a pedigree.

alKitaab is a guidance for alMuttaqeen Not "el-kitaab", but "that Kitaab" (dhalike-l-kitaabu). Weled is about breeding, rearing, educating, rising, helping a child. It can be born child, but it can also be adopted child, or just a child one take care of. Ibn is born child. Its root refers to something interconnected, as in word beyne ("between&quot, and is also used as a verb benaa, in sense of "to build" (or to connect parts, building something). So, ibn is begotten male child and bint is begotten female child. Ed`iyaa' are adopted kids (lit. "called children&quot. Weled stands for all of them. Similarly, waalid and other words include all parents, ones who begot a child or adopted or took care of some child. In relation to Allah, weled means that He didn't take anybody to rise (educate), we all have our own will, nobody's programmed to be special in that, even son of Meryem. Main proof for me for this is in 7127, when NooH's asking from Allah not to leave his people, because they won't RISE, except faajir, keffaar.

Salaam, Tradionally we understood that this refers to jews and Christains but then it should have said "People of the books" My question is, without referring to hadiths; who are people of the book? peace farida Ehl-ul-kitaab are Followers of the Book, where the Book is genus and can be any book or books. This is different from El-ledhiine oot-ul-kitaab (Those given the Book), cause they were given the Book from Allah (ie. Tewraat, Injeel, Qur'an). These Ehl-ul-kitaab could be called in English "bookish" (I think), since they're getting their knowledge from the Book. They're wrongly identified as Pharisees, as they are the Scribes. In the Qur'an they're some of the Jews and some of the Christians. One could say that the followers of the Qur'an are also Ehl-ul-kitaab, and that can be the case, but not the rule, even they're rather el-ledhiine oot-ul-kitaab. Ehl-ul-kitaab are only those who strictly follows the Book, no matter what. This should be no case for the Muslims, since we can use a convention (fully agree on something), we can think and make own decisions. The main issue with these people is that they have a rule on everything, so they cannot go by their own. This was done by their own writing of the Book they follow, and changing existing ones, no matter if these are from Allah or not. So called Hadeeth followers are of these people, those who think that Books arrange their lives in any matter. For example, I was listening a "scholar" saying that there's a rule even for a haircut of the people. Allah set His boundaries (Hudood), but left us a very huge area of freedom, where we can express ourselves. Ehl-ul-kitaab are not from some religion nor followers of some particular books, they're just people who strictly follow the rules from some books arranging their lives fully by them.

Let's the number speaks Safa and Marwa = Chapter 2, verse 158, l-ṣafā = 202, l-marwah = 282 Becca or Mecca = Chapter 3, verse, 96, Becca = 27, and 215820228239627 = 19 x 11358959381033 So Safa and Marwa are at Mecca Saudi Arabia. Peace,

We have 2 examples from the same case one - Allah returned (taabe) to Aadem, and the other - Allah cursed Iblees. Why? They both disobeyed Allah, but not for the same reason. Aadem was in self-delusion by sheyTaan, he tought that he's more worth then recognized. On the other hand, Iblees thought that he's better then Aadem. Aadem wanted to be better (melek or of khaalidoon), but Iblees didn't want to be better, he wanted to be better then Aadem. Iblees took himself as a reference level, and Aadem took himself. Their state is very similar. Aadem was proud of himself, but Iblees was arrogant. If we, for example, hit somebody trying to defend us (in defensive war, for example) or somebody else (as Moosaa did), even if we kill him, we should expect to get forgiveness if we repent soon after. But if we hit somebody for hating him or thinking that we're in any way better then him - we probably won't get it. If somebody do something against our honor and we react cause of our honor, it's not the same as if we start hating that person and react out of hatred made. Jaahiliyya is a state of pride, which should be clear from 3333, if we think about how most of the women, especially pretty ones, showing themselves in all ages.

In 2185, it's explicitly mentioned شَہۡرُ رَمَضَانَ الَّذِیۡۤ اُنۡزِلَ فِیۡہِ الۡقُرۡاٰنُ Shahr Ramadhan is that which the Quraan was revealed What about other times? Have you tried to think about other meanings of the word fi (in)? For example, you can say "I'm in my house", but you can also say "I'm in love".

Peace Almaz Welcome. when the prophet started his mission the number of followers started in small numbers then the movement was growing slowly, then with pace and many were joining the cause. 865 and 866 are talking about two different situations 865 O you prophet, you shall exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty of you who are steadfast, they can defeat two hundred, and a hundred of you can defeat a thousand of those who disbelieved. That is because they are people who do not understand. يٰأَيُّهَا النَّبِىُّ حَرِّضِ المُؤمِنينَ عَلَى القِتالِ إِن يَكُن مِنكُم عِشرونَ صٰبِرونَ يَغلِبوا مِا۟ئَتَينِ وَإِن يَكُن مِنكُم مِا۟ئَةٌ يَغلِبوا أَلفًا مِنَ الَّذينَ كَفَروا بِأَنَّهُم قَومٌ لا يَفقَهونَ God is talking about the faithful and sincere believers that joined the prophet with 100% commitment to the cause in earlier conflict. 866 Now (that many new people have joined you) God has made it easier for you, for He knows that you are not as strong as you used to be. Henceforth, a hundred steadfast believers can defeat two hundred, and a thousand of you can defeat two thousand by God's leave. God is with those who steadfastly persevere. الـٰٔنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّهُ عَنكُم وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فيكُم ضَعفًا فَإِن يَكُن مِنكُم مِا۟ئَةٌ صابِرَةٌ يَغلِبوا مِا۟ئَتَينِ وَإِن يَكُن مِنكُم أَلفٌ يَغلِبوا أَلفَينِ بِإِذنِ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ مَعَ الصّٰبِرينَ This time your number is more but some hearts are not with it. some have different motives or are double agents or... .i.e There are "Munafikeen amongst them, people with doubt...etc The trial of GOD for the believers must continue to weed out the true from the false believer.Hence the change of circumstance. God knew that this will happen according to His test for the people and generation. Note GOD s warning to any who wish to betray the prophet , or pretend O you prophet, tell the prisoners of war in your hands, "If God knew of anything good in your hearts, He would have given you better than anything you have lost, and would have forgiven you. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful." يٰأَيُّهَا النَّبِىُّ قُل لِمَن فى أَيديكُم مِنَ الأَسرىٰ إِن يَعلَمِ اللَّهُ فى قُلوبِكُم خَيرًا يُؤتِكُم خَيرًا مِمّا أُخِذَ مِنكُم وَيَغفِر لَكُم وَاللَّهُ غَفورٌ رَحيمٌ And if they want to betray you, they have already betrayed God. This is why He made them the losers. God is Omniscient, Most Wise. وَإِن يُريدوا خِيانَتَكَ فَقَد خانُوا اللَّهَ مِن قَبلُ فَأَمكَنَ مِنهُم وَاللَّهُ عَليمٌ حَكيمٌ The two verses are not talking about the same time and situation. Surely those who believe and give 100% to their submission to GOD and the cause of the truth have ben joined by some weaker /hypocrites when the numbers grew. This was A lesson and a test from GOD to the last generation and all generations. Look what happened to true Islam when the majority won. It became a false religion and GOD stopped supporting falsehood all together. My understanding. The same thing happened to all religions that got mixed up un till eventually the hypocrites and idol worshippers/people who chose men s authority, materials and men s words /systems have prevailed and changed GOD s system into their preferred and false systems/religions. GOD allows the test . Good and bad must mix so that GOD weeds out the true from the false. GOD bless you. Peace.

peace, total seems off 11406 86,976 ? verse counts uncertain; alif lam meem or طه ta ha or حم ha meem عسق ayn seen qaf etc., together with next verse in oldest manuscripts not separate until hundreds years later; see early 10th century or 300+ years still single verse. https//www.themorgan.org/collection/treasures-of-islamic-manuscript-painting/7#overlay-context=collection/treasures-of-islamic-manuscript-painting/7 291-2 الم alif lam meem (together with next verse) احسب do calculate الناس the people ان that ىتركوا left they of ان that ىقولوا sayeth they of امنا believe we of وهم and they لا not ىفتنون tested being 769 بَصْۜطَةٙۖ baṣ'ṭatan/extensively (denotes pl.) is correct with "saad" not with "seen" as 2247 بَسْطَةٙ basṭatan/extensively (denotes sing.) see 2nd word from left top line https//corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse-navigator/sura/7/verse/69/manuscripts/116/page/4r Exactly 769 بَصْۜطَةٙۖ 1217 22997

It is no longer available at that domain, however it can still be found here https//web.archive.org/web/20210612120815if_/https//quranverse434.com The domain may change in the future. If so, I will update in this thread.

peace, How do I test mine using yours, while we have different in basic understanding of AMAH, al ka’bah, al bayt. In my articles I frequently highlight information extracted from a verse and issues/questions that is poses. With such information one can test their own understanding to see if it makes sense or made to make sense. I will give you an example of what I mean from each article. From the following https//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html Under the summary and discussion section I give a brief summary of the information and then highlight issues for various understandings. It is relatively easy to run one's understanding through but most are too lazy. Your understanding seems novel and not fleshed out enough to apply the checklist but can still be useful. Similarly in this article https//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html In the summary and discussion section I provide a brief summary of the information which anyone can use to run their understanding through to see if it makes sense. You may disagree with how I have translated some terms and that's fine but what I often find is if one changes the meaning of one word to fit an incorrect view it requires changing the meaning of another word in another verse, which in turn requires changing the meaning of another word in another verse and so on, until it becomes inconsistent gibberish. As I said your view is not fleshed out enough for me to give it a proper analysis. At first glance I consider it weak.

PRACTICAL_GUIDE_FOR_RHETORICAL_ANALYSIS The example of Sura 69, "The Inevitable" Here is the link for a detailled and fully application of the structural analysis of the Quranic text (sura 69 as an example by the specialist M. Cuypers) https//reveniraucoran.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/GUIDE_PRATIQUE_POUR_LANALYSE_RHETORIQUE.pdf NB It is in french but for the lovers of the Quranic text it is easy to download and to translate it for free in english with different tools.

A root word may mean something for a noun but it can also mean something else for a verb or adjective / descriptive word. Yes rhm as in arham means womb/s ,but it can also mean carers/parents as in يٰأَيُّهَا النّاسُ اتَّقوا رَبَّكُمُ الَّذى خَلَقَكُم مِن نَفسٍ وٰحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنها زَوجَها وَبَثَّ مِنهُما رِجالًا كَثيرًا وَنِساءً وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذى تَساءَلونَ بِهِ وَالأَرحامَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كانَ عَلَيكُم رَقيبًا O people, observe your Lord; the One who created you from one being, and created from it its mate, then spread from the two many men and women. You shall regard God, by whom you swear/implore/ask, and regard the parents. God is watching over you.* So Rahman and Raheem can have other meaning to do with love, care and protection but also reverence and respect Think of parents role, it can have both mercy and discipline..In fact reward and sanction also play a big role with love and care in bringing up children. GOD bless . Peace.

What about warsh and hafs version peace, hafs died 796 CE warsh died 812 CE use cross-reference/context and oldest manuscripts e.g., 214 قل qul/say (hafs) OR قال qala/he said (warsh) context answer who said? it is obvious which is correct Tübingen, Universitätsbibliothek Ma VI 165 (649-675 CE 100 years before hafs) 214 see 2nd line from top 2nd word قل qul/say https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/21/vers/1?handschrift=107 e.g., warsh 5724 word هو he missing? 2264 الله the God لهو surely he الغنى the ample الحمىد the praiseworthy 3126 . . . . الله the God هو he الغنى the ample الحمىد the praiseworthy 3515 والله and the God هو he الغنى the ample الحمىد the praiseworthy 5724 فان so indeed الله the God هو he الغنى the ample الحمىد the praiseworthy 606 فان so indeed الله the God هو he الغنى the ample الحمىد the praiseworthy Berlin, State Library Wetzstein II 1913 (Ahlwardt 305) — 662-765 CE 5724 see 3rd line from bottom 1st word هو he https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/57/vers/24?handschrift=163 606 see 2nd line from bottom 2nd word هو he https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/60/vers/6?handschrift=163 which is the injeel? http//www.earlychristianwritings.com/ Berlin, Staatsbibliothek ms.or.fol. 4313 606-652 CE https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/5/vers/68?handschrift=15 https//i.postimg.cc/nhSdLqd0/ch5v67-76.jpg