Questions/Comments on the Quran

Qur’an 4:137 — A Structural Reading Beyond Belief and Disbelief Abstract Qur’an 4:137 is often misunderstood as a theological warning about apostasy and divine punishment. This article argues that the verse is neither legal nor theological, but systemic. By redefining its key terms—belief, disbelief, increase, Allah, forgiveness, guidance, and path—we show that the verse describes the collapse of a cognitive-moral system through repeated rejection of alignment, not a limit on mercy or chances. The verse diagnoses a point of irreversibility in human orientation toward truth. 1. Clarifying the Core Terms (Non-Theological Definitions) Before interpreting the verse, all inherited religious meanings must be stripped away. The Qur’an speaks in functional language, not doctrinal slogans. 1.1 Belief (īmān) Belief is not conviction, faith, or acceptance of dogma. In Qur’anic structure: Belief = active alignment with what one recognizes as true It is a state of coherence between: perception understanding action Belief is dynamic, not static. It exists only while alignment is maintained. 1.2 Disbelief (kufr) Disbelief is not “non-belief” or atheism. Disbelief = conscious suppression or covering of recognized truth Kufr occurs after recognition, not before it. It is an active act, not ignorance. 1.3 Increase (izdiyād) Increase does not mean “more sins” or “more disbelief” in quantity. It means: deepening structural commitment to misalignment Each increase: reinforces internal justification reduces receptivity to correction strengthens resistance to truth This is path-dependence, not punishment. 1.4 Allah Allah here is not a character or judge. Allah = the governing order of reality, truth, and balance When the verse says “Allah does not…”, it is: not emotional not retaliatory not selective It is descriptive, not punitive. 1.5 Forgiveness (maghfirah) Forgiveness is not legal pardon. Forgiveness = concealment of error through correction Errors are “forgiven” when: they are corrected they do not harden into structure alignment is restored No correction → no forgiveness possible. 1.6 Guidance (hudā) Guidance is not information or preaching. Guidance = the internal capacity to orient, correct, and realign It requires: openness responsiveness humility toward reality Guidance cannot operate in a sealed system. 1.7 Path (sabīl) The path is not a religion. The path = the viable trajectory of alignment with reality To be “on the path” means: correction is still possible balance can still be restored 2. The Verse (4:137) “Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe, then disbelieve, then increase in disbelief—Allah will not forgive them, nor guide them to a path.” This is not a legal ruling. This is a diagnostic statement. 3. What the Verse Is Actually Describing The verse outlines a cycle, not a crime. Stage 1: Belief Initial alignment with truth occurs. Stage 2: Disbelief Truth is consciously rejected. Stage 3: Return to Belief Correction is still possible. The system remains open. Stage 4: Repeated Disbelief Rejection becomes habitual. Stage 5: Increase in Disbelief Misalignment becomes structural. At this point: error is no longer seen as error correction feels like threat truth triggers hostility 4. Why Forgiveness Ends Not because Allah refuses. But because: There is nothing left to forgive Forgiveness requires: acknowledgment of deviation willingness to correct Once disbelief becomes identity: error is defended correction is resisted concealment (maghfirah) is impossible 5. Why Guidance Ends Guidance is not blocked externally. The receiver is destroyed Repeated rejection: dulls perception filters out corrective signals auto-rejects truth At this stage: guidance cannot land even truth appears false even correction feels hostile 6. No “Two Chances” — A False Reading The verse does not say: “You get two chances” “After that, Allah punishes you” It says: Repeated conscious rejection eventually collapses the capacity for alignment The threshold is structural, not numeric. 7. This Verse Is Universal, Not Religious This mechanism applies to: individuals institutions ideologies civilizations Any system that: recognizes truth suppresses it repeatedly then builds identity on suppression …will lose navigability. 8. Final Synthesis Qur’an 4:137 is not about belief and disbelief as religious categories. It is about: how truth-resistance becomes irreversible Allah does not withdraw mercy. Reality does not bend. The verse simply states: Once alignment-capacity collapses, neither correction nor direction remains possible. One-Line Summary 4:137 describes the death of guidance—not by punishment, but by repeated self-inflicted closure.

In addition to the previously mentioned verses, the following verses clearly show that only those whose faith is accompanied by good deeds will be rewarded with Paradise (2:81-82, 7:42-43, 11:23, 18:107, 19:60, 29:58 and 40:40).

@centi50s please check lane's lexicon. Or other classical lughat.

https://www.academia.edu/143711241/Superlative_Force_of_Wusṭā_and_Awsat_in_the_Qur_an_Linguistic_and_Contextual_Insights

Peace Fusion. Never mind being a prisoner of the current phase of knowledge now, some are stuck in the phase of the time of the prophet or just after. I should say, like when Traditional Islam took over. Anyway, some brothers were asking me to answer"The Christian prince" a long critic of Traditional Islam and the Qoran s interpretation of some so called scholars . My reply to them and to "The Christian prince" is that I will wasting my time and theirs. I hope people now see the problem of all human interpretations and their debates with one another. Yes, it is all pointless. Whistling under the wind. and ongoing aimlessly. May be we should learn to look at the "man in the mirror" and to "change His/her ways". Indeed "prisoner of our past/current phase" apply to all of us. GOD bless you. Peace.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/comments/1cuwvum/what_you_should_and_shouldnt_do_according_to_the/

Qur’anic Arabic ≠ “Arabic of the Arabs” Arabs claim that “the Qur’an was revealed in our Arabic.” However, archaeological and epigraphic evidence from pre-Islamic and early Islamic periods clearly proves the opposite. Pre-Islamic Arabs already used diacritical dots and grammatical markers in their writing. Yet, the Qur’an’s rasm (script) was deliberately preserved without any dots or diacritics — which means it followed a different, intentionally geometric system, not the spoken Arabic of tribes. Below are 11 key inscriptions that expose this long-ignored fact: Raqush Inscription (Pre-Islamic, Nabataean–Arabic) https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/raqush Healey & Smith identify this as the earliest dated Arabic document with Aramaic archaisms. Diacritical points appear on د, ش, and ر — inconsistent, but present! Arabic article “ʾl-” occurs twice: ʾl-ḥgrw and ʾl-qbrw. Meaning: Diacritics existed before Islam/Quran. Jabal Ramm Inscription https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/jramm Contains diacritical dots on ج, ي, ن. Gruendler disputes the two-dot system for “ي,” showing diversity of diacritic usage. Meaning: Arabic orthography was already experimenting with dotting before Qur’an’s codification. Jimal Inscription https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/jimal Bellamy states the grammar is “straightforward Classical Arabic.” Its language is closer to modern Arabic than Shakespeare’s English to ours! Meaning: Pre-Islamic Arabic was grammatically and phonetically developed — not a primitive dotless tongue. Zebed Inscription https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/zebed Text begins with: “With the help of al-ʾilāh (الاله).” Not Allah (الله) — showing that the form “al-ilah” was common before “Allah.” Meaning: The theonym evolved later or not known to Arabs. Jabal Usays Inscription (528 CE) https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/usays The only pre-Islamic Arabic inscription with historical content. Uses the full “ی” form, not the simplified ے shape of dotless Uthmanic script. Meaning: Arabic scribes already knew dotted forms a century before Qur’an’s standardization. Dumah 1 Inscription https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/dumah1 Text reads: “May al-ilah (الاله) remember Ḥgʿb son of Salama…” Meaning: “Allah” was not the form in use — “al-ilah” remained dominant. Sakaka Inscription https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/sakaka Shows a mix of Arabic and Nabataean characters with dots on ب, ت, ن. Meaning: The diacritic system was already part of Arabic script before the Qur’an. Yathrib (Medina) 1 Inscription https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/yathrib1 Reads “س ل م” but includes a Nabataean “ش” form and distinct “Dal.” Meaning: Even in Yathrib, diverse letter shapes and dots were known — so the Qur’an’s dotless form was a conscious deviation. Kufic Saud Inscription (24 AH, time of ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab) https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/kuficsaud One of the earliest dated Islamic inscriptions, with dots on ن, ز, ت, ف,ش. These match the contemporary usage of diacritics in the mid-7th century. Meaning: Dots were not “invented later for non-Arabs” — they were deliberately omitted in Qur’anic script. PERF 558 Papyrus (Early Islamic, bilingual Arabic–Greek) https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/papyri/perf558 Government record showing extensive dotting on ج، خ، ذ، ز، ش، ن. Meaning: Arabic administration used dotted writing while Qur’an remained dotless — a strong sign of intentional preservation of a separate system. Conclusion All this evidence converges to one unavoidable fact: Pre-Islamic Arabs were used to use dots and diacritics. Early Islamic administration used dots and vowel markers. Only the Qur’an remained intentionally dotless. Therefore, Qur’anic Arabic ≠ spoken Arabic of the tribes. The Qur’an’s writing system followed a distinct, geometric “Arabic Jazm Script,” not the Nabataean–Syriac hybrid used by Arabs. Later grammarians added dots and diacritics, overlaying their dialectal interpretations onto a pure symbolic text — effectively veiling its original semantic logic. “The Real Protected ‘Dhikr’” What was protected, therefore, was not the Arab dialect, but the dotless geometric structure of the Qur’an — the only preserved linguistic artifact of its kind in human history. In simple words، Arabs had the tools and knowledge to write dotted Arabic, yet the Qur’an remained dotless — showing that the Qur’anic script was deliberately preserved differently from everyday Arabic.

@Emre_1974tr so what do you understand about the 2:54. Killing people because they chose not believe like is not right at all. I take the term is to kill your ego God bless All

سبحنالله

Hi Everyone... Allow me to continue this topic.. I am in chapter 7 and I found the truth in that chapter that you may never have found.. You can debate, if you wish.. 7:54 Indeed, your Lord is the Divine—the One who created the heavens and the earth through a state of imputation of episodes, subsequently He stabilized upon the framework. He engulfs the night, as the day prosecuting its uninterruptedness, yet the sun, and the moon, and the constellations are insulated by its fixities. Unquestionably, for Him, the proportion and the dictation. Steadied is the Divine, Lord of the identities. There is NO 6 days of creations, there is no 2 days of creation or 4 days.. All mistranslated depending on some other people's understanding of previous revelations.. Just cus they got the cream and the essence of the words wrongly, Quran translators also depended on Bible translations, same as Crucifixion while there is NO Crucifixion ever mentioned in Quran.. Divine never would ask 'Do you disbelieve in the Divine who created the Heavens and the Earth in SIX DAYS'.. That's bizzare.. what is the point asking 'DISBELIEVE' and mention the number of DAYs.. SItta is taken as 6 since it is the easiest root meaning.. nope.. The Divine did not create in 6 days.. The root for SITTA here in the above verse is IMPUTE.. And AYYAM is Episodes not related to DAYS.. How many exact days it takes is not what the Divine mentions here.. 'the One who created the heavens and the earth through a state of imputation of episodes' ... This phrase has a deep meaning.. What difference it makes if the verse states 6 days or 60 days..

Hi... The etymology of every word in the Quran is pivotal when translating or understanding verses of the Quran.. If you have read my translations of chapter 3, you might have noticed the contrast that I have approached to the verse.. 3:7 He is the one who originated upon you the ordainment, through its explications, a state of judgment—they are nurture of the ordainment, yet progressions are a state of relativity. So, as for the ones who are concerned about their thoughts swerving, then abide by whatever is related, out of it, deserving the temptation, even deserving its sources. While not revealing its sources, except the Divine. But the deep-rooted ones concerning the revelation, state, ‘We concurred concerning it—each from the basis of our Lord.’ Yet not consider, except the intellects’ core. 3:8 ‘Our Lord! Do not swerve our thoughts, once as You have guided us. Yet be generous as for us, from your end; a state of mercy.’ Indeed, You! You are the generous one. This verse describes a system of guidance that has both fixed, objective core principles and fluid, subjective areas of application. It warns against the human tendency to project uncertainty onto what is clear, and it praises those who can hold both the fixed and the fluid in a state of balanced, humble understanding. The Ordainment (The Fixed Core): The foundational, explicit principles. These are the stable, unchanging rules. They are to be actively nurtured, developed, and promoted. The Progressions (The Relative Manifestations): The dynamic, emergent understandings and applications that arise from the core. These are relative—dependent on context, capacity, and time. They cannot be forced or "nurtured" into existence; one must wait for their season for them to become clear and applicable… You cannot "nurture" a progression like you nurture a principle. If I give you an analogy, you can't force a fruit to grow by pulling on it. You must tend to the tree (the ordainment) and wait for the right season. To try to prematurely codify or dogmatize these "progressions" is to misunderstand their nature and to risk serious error. Let’s address the two groups elaborated in the verse… Those with "Swerving Thoughts": They fail to make this distinction. They take the relative "progressions,"; which are meant to be contemplated and awaited—and treat them with the same rigid, nurturing energy as the core "ordainment." In doing so, they "deserve the temptation" because they are building on sand, creating dogma out of ambiguity, and causing division over matters that are not yet fixed. The "Deep-Rooted": They understand this dichotomy perfectly. They are firmly grounded in the core "ordainment" (the roots), which gives them the stability to handle the relativity of the "progressions" (the branches) without swerving. They don't fight over the unfolding meanings. Instead, they say, "We concurred concerning it-each from the basis of our Lord." This means they trust that all genuine understanding, as it unfolds in its own time for each person, originates from the same Divine Source. They are patient. They use their "intellect's core" not to seize and control the progressions, but to perceive their connection to the root and await their full manifestation. In a nutshell, … You have been given a set of core, clear rules. Work on these; promote them; make them strong. But the deeper meanings and future applications that emerge from these rules are relative and unfold over time. Do not try to force these deeper meanings or treat them as fixed dogma before their time. If you do, you will fall into error. The truly wise are those who are rooted in the core rules and are patient, knowing that deeper understanding will come in its own right season from the Divine.. The verse followed by 3:7 is an influential plea.. 3:8 Is the Solution, it is the prayer that the "deep-rooted" ones would utter to protect themselves from becoming people with "swerving thoughts." It is a plea for stability and ongoing divine support.. This prayer is the heartbeat of the "deep-rooted" person. It is the ultimate safeguard against the arrogance and confusion that comes from believing we own or fully control divine truth. It is an active practice of relying on the Divine for both initial guidance and ongoing, correct understanding...

https://rifkyy2020.wixsite.com/expressandlearntruth/blog Hi.. I have completed chapter 6 translations, and if anyone is interested in, you may check this link.. No compelling, just for info.... have a good day

Sorry brothers. GOD chooses different words for the creation of the human: A-Word one: We were nothing "Awalam Yara Al Insan Anna Khalaqnahu Min Qablu Wa lam Yakun Chaiia" We created the human- Min Qablu- Before that- i.e right at the beginning- and he was nothing- Not dead ,here the word used is nothing. This means our first creation. B- Word 2,This "Kuntum Amwatan" in 2:28 the word does not mean nothing/from scratch.. i.e One can only become dead if they were alive before that. Otherwise GOD would have said "We were nothing" . Therefore GOD is saying we put you to death then gave you this life. Similarly GOD will be put us to death. then resurrect us for the final time. Every word in Qoran is meticulously and deliberately chosen by GOD to convey a true consistent ,non contradictory narrative. GOD bless you both. Peace.l

Salām, Allah promises the hypocrites that He will expose them (9:64). Hypocrites are recognized by their hypocritical speech (47:30). Allah exposes the hypocrites with 63:1. This Shahada is therefore the Shahada of the hypocrites. What the hypocrites say is hypocritical speech, because God truly knows that the Prophet is already His messenger, ...And God knows that you are truly His messenger...' (63:1). God doesn't need someone to confirm to Him what He already knows about His own messenger! The Quran says: "We have sent you as a messenger and God suffices as a witness..." (4:79). This is exactly what the messenger told the people. There is no need to testify to the messenger, as God has already done so and it suffices. ...God repeats this important message again in 4:166. And again, this is what the messenger told his companions: God suffices as a witness. God even denies attempts to testify to other messengers (28:44). So, people cannot testify to the messengership of the messengers. We were not witnesses. To repeat: God says, He will truly expose the hypocrites (29:11). God then says that the messenger can recognize them by the manner of their speech (47:30). If the hypocrites now come and insist on testifying to the messenger (63:1), they expose themselves as hypocrites. God said that His own testimony suffices (6:19).

I found this: Fall "to the chins" in prostration ... It's the most humble type of prostration, where even your chin tucked in touching your upper chest, curled up in humility If it said "on their chins" then yes that would be strange. Their are prostrations of submission, repentance, reverence, inanimates, etc Here it is about added humility "and they fall right to their chins weeping, and (He/it) increases them in humility" Have you never seen a person praying and prostrating while really crying, shaking and balling their eyes out? They curl up into a ball in prostration almost into the foetal position. Look at pictures of the foetal position, best description of it's humbled position is "chin tucked in" I think. Anyway, that's what I believe the Qur'an is describing. This natural position of extreme humility and vulnerability.

Y

Salam to everyone, I think one very important point Jkhan has raised and that we can not just brush aside is the question of ṣalab and translation. In verse 5:33 almost all translations say God prescribes “crucifixion” as a punishment. But that raises a serious issue: was God really advocating a Roman/Persian-style torture method that Arabs themselves may not have even practiced? Or did later translators import that meaning because crucifixion was already cemented in Christian history? If Jkhan is right then the whole way we have been reading verses like 4:157 might be colored by New Testament influence. That is not a small claim folks but a challenge to check whether we are reading the Quran on its own terms or through someone else lens...... I do not think this closes the debate, but it is definitely a strong question: If ṣalab never meant Roman-style crucifixion then maybe we are debating something the Quran itself never actually mentioned. Worth reflecting on. What strikes me in this whole debate is that most of us myself included end up defending the Quran through the lens of translations handed down to us. I dont mean to say those earlier scholars were unintelligent far from it, they were brilliant people as well but even among Quranists today we often unknowingly carry the same conventional assumptions. The word ṣalab being rendered as “crucifixion” is one example. What Jkhan has done is unusual: he tried to translate it afresh with his own reasoning and because it clashes with the familiar version, it sounds odd at first. But folks is it not true that we are all influenced by others? For instance, GoodLogic may be influenced a bit by Rashad Khalifa, I myself by Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, and so on. The challenge Jkhan raises is whether we are really letting the Quran speak on its own terms or whether we are filtering it through later history and theology. That is a question that should haunt us and yet, as GoodLogic said in another thread perhaps what ultimately matters most is the Quran’s message: to live righteously, to do good. These debates are valuable but the certainty lies only with Him.

@Fusion said in Beyond Polygyny: My Final thoughts on An-Nisā’ 4:3: Salam all Quran 43 is often quoted but its main concern is very clear. The verse begins with if you fear you cannot deal justly with the orphans. It then says if you fear you cannot be just, then one. And it ends that is more suitable so that you do not commit injustice. Three warnings about justice in one verse. In the time of the Prophet many widows and orphans were left after battles. Polygyny already existed in that society, and in earlier traditions as well such as Abraham, David, and Solomon are all mentioned with multiple wives historically. The Quran did not introduce the practice but restricted it by tying it directly to justice, and by placing the safeguard if you cannot be just, then one. It is also important to remember that the Quran always spoke to people in their real circumstances. In those days tribes fought even over water and when one side was defeated women and children were often taken captive. There were many social ills. The Quran did not ignore these realities but responded to them step by step regulating them and giving rights to those who had none. That is why it spoke about orphans, widows, slaves, and captives bringing justice where injustice was common. For today this means we should acknowledge that the Quran permitted polygyny in principle but that permission was tied to a specific context. The timeless principle is justice and in our circumstances monogamy is the safest way to secure that justice. The message of 43 is that marriage is not about privilege but about fairness compassion, and protection of the vulnerable. To go beyond this, or to be more loyal than the King Himself, is not fairness to the Quran’s own reality. Peace Salam brother, I agree with you that the central concern of 4:3 is justice – the verse warns three times about it, which shows that fairness is the main principle. However, based on my MQD (Universal Jazm Cipher) work on the dotless rasm, I would like to share a slightly different angle: The word "nisa" in the Qur'an does not always mean "women" in the biological sense. In this context, it refers more broadly to socially vulnerable dependents – those who were weak or in need of support (such as widows, captives, orphans’ caretakers). The word "fankihu" is not limited to marriage/sexual union. Its root sense is to contract, to unite, to take responsibility in a binding way. Here it is about forming responsibility bonds, not necessarily marriages. The numbers "mathna, thulatha, ruba’a" (two, three, four) are not prescribing multiple wives but scales of responsibility: i.e., taking in 2, 3, or 4 dependents alongside orphans. The final clause, "fa-in khiftum alla ta’dilu fa-wahidatan" is a logical safeguard: if you fear you cannot maintain balance/justice, then limit yourself to one manageable unit. This is a mathematical principle of balance, not simply a marriage law. So, in short: Classical reading = restriction of an existing practice of polygyny with emphasis on justice. MQD reading = establishing a system of responsibility balance between orphans and other vulnerable groups, where marriage is incidental but not the focus. Both approaches agree that the timeless principle is justice. The difference is that MQD shows the verse is not primarily about privilege in marriage, but about ensuring fairness in all social responsibilities. Peace.

Where is the proof dear? You are equating masculine with feminine while Qur'an says they are NEVER same. Move with acceptable logic. Are you serious dear ? The word Quran doesn't appears in s. 97 or 98. But god gives us signs to understand. Quran = a clear proof for people, a messenger from God reciting leafs prurifed, In them writtings righteous. In 2185 the Quran (masculine and singular), a guidance for mankind and clear proofs (feminine and plural)...

Gh-Lam-Miim = excited with lust, stirred up, tumultuous, period from birth to the seventeenth year, youth, young man, boy. a stranger who wishes to migrate with Ibrahim...