Questions/Comments on the Quran

thank you zenje )

i use this unknown entity called a quran study tool, more specifically, a phonetic search.

Peace JM, Saim Bakar's understanding does not change anything. The sign would still mean MARRY OFF in MULTIPLE groups.

peace, takaathara is to bring about abundance Thanks for the clarification brother Anwar. I forgot about that aspect of the form. Wakas

Salaam, In 217-20 an example/mathal is given of such people mentioned in the prior ayatin/signs. The people start or build up on a system of beliefs which gives them a particular perspective about the world. They do not percieve that this system is wrong. The rejectors fear to hear anything of that which is from Allah. The system of Allah befuddles or confounds them except where it lies in conformity with their own system. Otherwise they do not understand and heed it not even though they have the means of perception. In 214-16 an unprofitable trade (straying for guidance) is one which the mockers delve in, but they in fact are mocked by this self-deception. Or Allah pays them back in mockery by leaving them to traverse a path which is not worth any gain. Joe

Somebody brought this up in a forum I'm in. http//skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html Could be interesting. Lots of misquoting, though. Which forum? I have read this site. It does show very unpallatable stuff. Are going to show us how they have misquoted? Regards,

thanks mz357... The So called errors you copied from a Muslim propaganda site will be researched and addressed one by one over the coming weeks and the List in the Christian Forum will be updated accordingly. But try to keep to the rules of this Forum and post in the right section

Yes! , , they are all acceptable meanings and can fit in all of the above- stated contexts I discussed. And you're welcome, Taj. ( There's more coming your way). )

Peace Noor, Zenje, All... this is a tough one and may be that's why zenje's post is so bumpy... lol I decided first not to answer and see if more skilled arabic speakers could give more details? Please! Personal understanding concerning the will, was that Gods distribution was to be applicated in case there was no will left....but that's not clearly what i understand reading diverse translations. Real tough one, 'cause to be absolutely honest - i wouldn't like to give my son more than my daughter - specially that there's no way nowadays of dreaming of my daughter "taken care of" by some prince on a white horse... may be a case of ijtihad ? LK

PEACE, ASHUURA, Answer the question. Did GOD authorise you to ask a question? You said your understanding=qur'an. Show us in the Qur'an where GOD asked you to ask such a question? Where? Don't ask silly questions, thanks. I thought you believed guidance was from Qur'an Alone, so why did we need your question to find guidance? To, hopefully, jar you out of denial. I think you did, but let everyone come up to their own conclusion with the following Good deal. You said Wakas, you are the only hold out. Are you now ready to simply answer "no" to the above question? People look to you, and rightly so, for information. By your not answering no the above question, can only reflect badly on your credibility, hence, setting the condition for people to look suspiciously at things you say. Consequence You advocate saying "no" implies reliability, and not answering unreliability. Therefore, you gained/ tried to gain advantage over the word of Wakas. Hence, him you marked by suggestion. Supposition. Can he be unreliable AND be a believer?? Depends in what area. Why did you say this to Wakas? What was your intention? I have great respect for Wakas, always have, however, when he refused to answer my question, which btw, is an obious no, both shocked and disappointed me. I expect better of him and, in my opinion, is a valuable resource and, as such, his response was incongruous and out of character and this bothered/s me. How do you describe someone who does not answer your question? As being in denial of Hell.

Peace be upon you, OK ok... as I quoted above Salaamun, Salaaman, etc.. for one or more people are different. Can we translate all of them just to Peace? Yes, why not? Peace be upon you brother Kyle, You might be right... But I am waiting to get clarified from Allah, inshaAllah. Regards, MMKhan

Peace be upon you, Ancient cultures believed that the solstices, the winter and summer solstice, were times when your spirit was most receptive, so it was a time of programming the spirit. If you are unaware of this and just going about your day and night wathcing reality TV, arguing, drinking and smoking, etc then that is what will be programmed into your spirit. It seems to me that would be a real trial. I offer that just for thought.

Let us look to the Koran and ask what it says about circumcision. Very strangely, there is no reference at all to either male or female circumcision. Muslims generally ignore this fact. The word "circumcision" does not exist in the Koran, and this book does not even mention Abraham's circumcision although it does honor Abraham as the first Muslim and the model of the believers. Practice of Circumcision is barbaric regardless if scripture proscribes it or not! What does God want with human foreskins? -) Though circumcision is also performed for medical reasons and that may be acceptable! How did this bloody practice get into rituals of Abrahamic religions still is a mystery. Regards,

I'm just being careful. There is nothing absolute in science; all are tentative and can be changed if new research and observations demands change. Khi- Salam. I think i mentioned be4 tht theres a difference btw a scientific theory n an established scientific fact. In case of the latter there is no change. It may only be possible tht further details r added 2 a more micro level. Sure, some verses in the Qur'an talk about embryology. But there are many more aspects in science that is not included in the Qur'an. Khi- I know tht. Therefore nobody, including Bucaille, claims the Quran 2 be a book of science BUT a book of SIGNS. The Message of the Quran is written in a way 2 convince ppl of It's Truth. GOD Bless!

peace Layth, Thanks for the reply. Coincidentally, today I cam across 1264, which proves that 'Al-Raheem' means 'The Merciful' beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that it is 'arham' that means 'most merciful' (which makes sense because it is the superlative). I always thought that was the case. As a result, it should be changed in the QT, unless it can be disproven. Today, I carried out a small review of my other suggestions, and it seems you have not taken into consideration most of them, with no reasons given. Why is that? Wakas

Peace be upon you, I do get most of what you say, however there are some questions I have to ask... idolfree1 wrote My understanding is that the "level" of being Isa, son of Mariam, is when you become awake(annointed). Do you mean that this refers to the jewish tradition of anointment or is it just a slightly funny way of putting it with the reference of Tanakh? I am not learned in the jewish tradition enough to answer that, but I have studied the systems before judaism and Isa coincides with Heru(Horus) of older traditions which was the personification of the WILL of man. idolfree1 wrote When your start to use your WILL as oppossed to imitating(tradition/following what fathers followed). We see the symbolism that Mariam had to leave her family(tradition) and place a screen between her and them. This is how our Will is born(virin birth) and we become annointed. Why exactly "anointed"? Why not just reborn, and how can we see that this anointed context fit on us as it does with Jesus? I am not sure why "annointed", I will try to get better info. idolfree1 wrote The article "Al" indicated the ONENESS we must achieve. For example, there are verses where we hear people say " I am the FIRST to peacefully submit", yet they are not referred to as the First people in history to submit. What it is indicating is that we must rise to the level where we are all part of the ONE. Well, in my understanding it's simply what the arabic grammar provides us with. It has not yet anything to do with a oneness, but there's something in the full context I can agree with you on. Yes, the full context helps us to see that everything is interconnected, like cells to the human body.

Peace, It is not the proof of the quran in action. It's just that people are following the guidance of the quran. Likewise, following the bible is not the proof of the bible either or following the hadith is not the proof of hadith and so on... Anwar Azim Peace Anwar, I think you are missing the point for a tangential issue. On the tangential issue you are in fact missing an important point per your post. If you like we can pick it up in a different thread, but I like to keep this focused on the main point follow the Quran and do not engage in vain talk rather ignore it. That is the winning approach. Peace.

Greetings St?phane, Thanks for your reply? Ok, whatever. I still don't see no support that the NT would be written in greek but it seems we've reached a dead end situation here anyway. With all due respect, the only ?dead-end? is your lame assertion for an Aramaic NT? Perhaps, in the future, you will be more prepared to back-up your assertions when you are called to do so? I belive that the documents you just refered to are not from the time of Jesus. They are no different from any other word of mouth as it is in the case of "hadiths". What language are they written in?..? Apple Pie wrote Quote Apple Pie wrote Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran? What exactly is the issue?? The issue is that the concept of Messiah (hebrew moshiyakh) does not have to do with a son of God as it is described in the NT. There are 6 specific criterias for the ha-Moshiyakh or "the annointed ONE" to fulfill. Jesus DID fulfill the first one but failed on the next 5. Please bring forth the classic Arabic definition for ?Messiah??.and we will see how Jesus fits in with the Biblical definition? I'm not concerned about the biblical definition of Jesus. And by biblical definition I assume you mean NT one? I clearly asked you regarding the classic Arabic definition for ?messiah??..and you are already telling us that you don?t care about the Biblical definition of Jesus?.?! Who mentioned the Biblical definition of Jesus?.? You need to understand the Hebrew, Greek. And Arabic ?messiah? definitions before you can even begin to entertain what is ?right or wrong? regarding it? Thanks?

PEACE EVERYONE and thank u for your replies . Khi- Once again here i must say tht IT IS THE INTENTION WHICH IS IMPORTANT 2 GOD N NOT THE ACTION ITSELF WHICH IS PART OF GOD'S PLAN ANYWAY. So if a person tries 2 kill u n gets killed by u as a reflex action of urs without u PRE-intending 2 kill him thts fine. But if he wants 2 kill u n u in ur mind say 2 urself 'ill show him n kill him 1st' by which u indicate pride n arrogance thereby forgetting tht life n death is al within GOD's control then ur doing wrong. hi khizar , both conditions u told above are the same except that i dont understand how one can be killed as a result of reflex action with out pre-intending to kill . then in both conditions we are forgetting God ? I hope u understood this very important pt. As regards 2 war tht is a totally different case n there r a lot of Quranic verses which clearly command 2 fight the enemy in such conditions. The above is a situation of two individuals or civilians whereas war is done by the army which is a disciplined n controlled unit. The verses u quoted above do NOT relate 2 war under any circumstances. A nation cannot be civilized if ppl take upon self justice. The case in case of civils has 2 appear be4 court so intentinal killing even if the other strikes 1st is unacceptable 2 GOD, imo. GOD Bless! the point was that even in war we are not supposed to strike first ? specially nowadays in an era of nuclear bombs . what if we fear the enemy will strike first . acc. to 528 God fearing people will not strike first .

Peace zachlipset, You're right. A covenant is required (agreement), which is what i stated earlier about agreeing upon the ujoor, but I'm sorry, there is no written contract here, and so this goes back to Shams' point, that coming together is an agreement too. There is no formal, physical contract required that has to be signed infront of witnesses. 2236 clearly contradicts what you are saying 2236 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives. As Sytalls pointed out there is clearly a guardian over the marriage contract which clearly shows that there has to be a witness, making it a formal, physical contract. As I said in my earlier post, one should not invent lies about The God. These verses are concerning widowed women First of all it does not matter if 2233 is about widows because the general subject is about divorce from 2225 onwards. Divorce after marrying a widow is the same as divorce after marrying a non-widow. 2234 is about widows because of the words "these women" and talks about proposing the widows and fulfilling the interim after becoming widow, before getting married. 2235 again talks about divorce in general, the same subject that started from 2225 onwards, which is clear from the words "the women" 2225 For those who are discontent with their wives, let them wait for four months. If they reconcile, then God is Forgiving, Most Merciful. 2226 And if they insist on the divorce, then God is Hearer, Knowledgeable. 2227 And the divorced women shall wait for three menstruation periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And their husbands would then have just cause to return together, if they both wish to reconcile. And for what obligations the women are owed, so similarly must they fulfil their obligations. But the men will have a greater responsibility over them in this. And God is Noble, Wise. 2228 The divorce is allowed twice. So, either they remain together equitably, or they part ways with kindness. And it is not lawful for you to take back anything you have given the women unless you fear that they will not uphold God's limits. So if you fear that they will not uphold God's limits, then there is no sin upon them for what is given back. These are God's limits so do not transgress them. And whoever shall transgress God's limits, then these are the wicked. 2229 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until she has married another husband. If the other husband divorces her, then there is no sin that they come back together if they think they will uphold God's limits.These are God's limits, He clarifies them for a people that know. 2230 And if you have divorced the women, and they have reached their required interim period, then either you remain together equitably, or part ways equitably. And do not reconcile with them so you can harm them out of animosity; whoever does so is doing wickedness to his soul; and do not take God's revelations lightly. And remember God's blessings towards you, and what was sent down to you of the Scripture and the wisdom, He warns you with it. And be aware of God and know that God is Knowledgeable in all things. 2231 And if you divorce the women, and they have reached their required interim period, then do not prevent them from remarrying their husbands if they amicably agree amongst themselves out of what is best. This is to remind any of you who believe in God and the Last Day, this is better for you and purer; and God knows while you do not know. 2232 And the divorced mothers are allowed to suckle their children two full years, if they wish to complete the suckling. And the man for whom the child is born is responsible for both their provisions and clothing equitably. We do not burden a soul beyond its means. No mother shall be harmed because of her child, nor shall a father be harmed because of his child. And for the guardian is the same requirement. So if they wish to separate out of mutual agreement and council, then there is no sin upon them. And if you want to hire nursing mothers, then there is no sin upon you if you return what you have been given equitably. And be aware of God, and know that God is watching over what you do. 2233 And for those of you who pass away and leave widows behind, then their widows will have a required interim period of four months and ten days. So when they reach their required interim, then there is no sin upon you for what they do to themselves equitably. And God is Expert to what you do. 2234 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say. And do not consummate the marriage until the required interim is reached in the Scripture. And know that God knows what is in your souls, so be aware of Him, and know that God is Forgiving, Compassionate. 2233 and 2234 about widows and how to propose and marry them, 2235 back to divorcing the women 2235 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before committing to what was agreed for them. Let them have recompense, the rich according to his means, and the poor according to his means. Recompense which is in goodness, a responsibility for those in kindness. 2236 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives. And if you forgive, it is closer to righteousness. And do not forget the favour between you; God is Seer over what you do. Widows or non-widows is irrelevent to the point I was making. The point is that one can be married and not had intercourse yet, and is still considered married. That is obvious from the words "if you divorce them BEFORE having sexual intercourse. So the marriage contract, or the state of being married has nothing to do with sexual intercourse or consummation of marriage. thats why i said that marriage is after someone has intercourse as the word consummation itself means "fulfillment" or "achieving a goal". The underlined part of your statement is completely wrong and off the mark. Please see my point above. Marriage is AFTER the marriage contract, and not after sexual intercourse, so theoretically one could get married and never have sexual intercourse, but one is still considered married. Marriage is BEFORE sexual intercourse. So according to this, if you have intercourse with a woman, all that is required of you is to pay her wage, so there is no fornication as long as you pay the wage, and if you don't pay the wage, and you've already agreed to it, then it is "zina" as i stated before. Again complete presumption and conjecture in the underlined portion of your statement. I will reiterate one should not invent lies about The God. According to 421 and 422 there has to be a binding marriage contract before getting intimate i.e. getting married before "enjoying". Then there is a list of women that a man is forbidden to marry. In 425 the topic started in 421 and 422 is continued. In 425 when The God mentions "enjoyment", that "enjoyment" is AFTER the binding marriage contract already mentioned in 422. The point is that AFTER THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT if one has "enjoyment" but has not given the ujoor yet, then one should give the ujoor soon after "enjoyment". Ideally one ahould have given the ujoor before "enjoyment" (AFTER GETTING MARRIED) but if one has not done so then ujoor can be given after "enjoyment" to fulfil the obligation already defined in the marriage contract. FOR SEX TO BE LAWFUL BOTH CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE MET MARRIAGE AND GIVING UJOOR. Read all the ayat from 421 onwards carefully and see the context 421 And if you wish to replace one wife instead of another, and you have given one of them a large amount, then do not take anything from it. Would you take it by falsehood while it is clearly a sin? Here The God is talking about replacing one WIFE instead of another, clearly showing the wife being divorced is ALREADY MARRIED. The God is saying do not take back the dowry that you gave your wife when you divorce her. 422 And how can you take it when you have become intimate with each other, and the women have taken from you a strong covenant. Here The God is explaining the reason why you cannot take back the dowry. The "becoming intimate with each other" mentioned in this ayat is AFTER marriage, i.e. after the women have taken from you a strong/firm/binding covenant/contract, and after the dowry has already been given. Then after that is the list of the women forbidden for a man to marry 423 And do not marry what your fathers had married from the women, except what has already been done. It is a lewdness, and an abhorrence, and a bad path. 424 Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your fathers' sisters, and your mothers' sisters, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters residing in your homes from your wives which you have already consummated the marriage with; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and the wives of your sons that are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful. 425 And the already married from the women, except those who become widowed; God's scripture is over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be protected and not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with them, then you shall give them their wage as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise. Here when The God is talking about the woman "who you already had joy with" is the same woman mentioned in 421 and 422 i.e. the WIFE, the one who already has the strong/binding/firm covenant/contract. It is the continuation of the same topic from 421 and 422. What is being said is that SEX IS LAWFUL ONLY WHEN BOTH CONDITIONS ARE MET MARRIAGE AND GIVING UJOOR. 426 And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the believing independent women, then from the still dependant believing young women. God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their wage in kindness; to be protected, not for illicit sex or taking lovers. If they become protected, then any of them who comes with lewdness shall have half the punishment of what is for the independent women of the retribution. This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful. 426 clearly mentions marriage first, then the ujoor. So one could be married and has not given the ujoor yet and has not had sexual intercourse yet. The marriage contract includes mentioning and defining the ujoor and agreeing to give the ujoor. The ujoor becomes obligatory AFTER the marriage. For sex to be lawful both conditions have to be met marriage (the physical, formal, legal marriage contract involving a witness) AND giving ujoor. Not just giving ujoor. 2235 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women BEFORE having sexual intercourse with them, or BEFORE committing to what was agreed for them. So one can be married and has not had sex yet, and has not given ujoor yet. Again 2236 And if you divorce them BEFORE having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry This clearly shows that marriage (the marriage contract) includes agreeing to the dowry; the dowry is given AFTER marriage. So one can be married and has not given the ujoor yet, and has not had sexual intercourse yet. Regards, Tanveer