Questions/Comments on the Quran

Thanks, I like to be concise. I guess I could have added "...which if added back in would likely cause problems for your view hence I'm wondering if it was omitted on purpose." ;D My point was you could have pointed out what was missing IYO... Are you here for verbal gymnastics and debate competition or learning and helping others to learn? Also, verses that you have used in your article and other threads to claim a contract with witnesses is necessary for marrying "To have the marriage contract/oaths witnessed " First off, there's quite a difference between an oath and a contract. 2282 deals with recording debt and even says trade doesnt need to be recorded - of which a dowry is neither, and definitely far from debt. 2282 has nothing to do with marriage. Dowry is sadaqat. Thats also why the god is leaving it up to the huband/wife to settle half the return in case of divorce before sex. 652 deals with divorce, not marrying! That is more careless on your part than I'd expect. If we leave aside 'uqdatu al-nikah, 421 and absence of kitab (decree/something of legal nature/contract) or verb form thereof (writing, contracting, decreeing) for nikah "causes problems for your view." So back to my main question for anyone reading this To what does "'uqdatu al-nikah" refer? It is used differently across translation and even within a given translation. 2235 is not relevant to marriage of women that arent in a waiting period. What I think 'Uqdata literally means knot. In 2235 it talks about tying the knot of marriage ("'uqdatu al-nikah&quot which basically means committing to the marriage, going through with it, etc. 2237 says something different - it says "the one in whose hand uqdata al nikah" is. (The fact that it uses the singular alladhi negates this referring to a witnesses or contract holders. Either way, witnesses either dont hold contracts or there would be more than one person.) Hand is obviously used figuratively, as in many verses and can mean resources or actions. Here it means the one among husband and wife who initiated the divorce. Thus, Rashad Khalifa's and Shabbir Ahmed's translations make the most sense for this verse.

in my opinion Zina only happens between a Married woman and a man (doesn't matter married or not). one part should be a married woman unless its not zina, for example a relations between a married man and a single woman is not Zina. and where I get such condition? hmm from reading these verses And those who accuse the independent females, then they do not bring forth four witnesses, you shall lash them with eighty lashes, and do not accept their testimony ever; and those are the wicked. * And those (men) who accuse their spouses, but they have no witnesses except for themselves, then the testimony of one of them is to be equivalent to that of four witnesses if it is sworn by God that he is being truthful. * And the fifth shall be the curse of God upon him if he is of the liars. * And the punishment will be averted from her if she bears witness four times by God that he is of the liars. * And the fifth shall be the curse of God upon her if he is speaking the truth. (244-9) there is no mention of accusing men even from their spouses, and accusing an unmarried women (accuse only mentioned for Mohassenat not for Nessah). what do you think? Exactly. See here https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609922.msg411370#msg411370

Ayah 50 comprises of 69 separate words. In English language, it is called a paragraph that is around seven to ten sentences long. The paragraph form refers to its overall structure, which is a group of sentences focusing on a single topic. There are three main parts of a paragraph Topic sentence - it has the main idea Supporting sentence - details that relate to and support the topic sentence Concluding sentence - a brief reflection or statement about the main idea The topic sentence is The relationship - identification of the exalted wives of the exalted Messenger before wedding

Verse 4129 has nothing to do with (discouraging) polygamy. See https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg411300#msg411300 4128-129 If one woman has experienced from her husband ill-treatment/uprising or desertion, then it is not undignified for the two to reconcile between themselves; and reconciliation is better. (Greed is ever-present in human consciousness. If you do good and are prudent, then the god is expert over what you do. You men will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort.) So do not sway* too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. If you reconcile* and are prudent... The god is forgiver, mercy-giver. *male plural

Progressive 1983 2285 The messenger has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and so did the believers. They believe in God, His controllers, His law, and His messengers "We make no distinction among any of His messengers." They say, "We hear, and we obey. Forgive us, our Lord. To You is the ultimate destiny." People have been mislead to form erroneous perceptions because of patently incorrect translations that are just copy and paste of that done by George Sale and Rodwell. We do not seclude a single one in the Galaxy of Messengers.

Peace, Words don't have different meanings in different contexts. A clear, consistent text requires clear, consistent language. Context does not change meanings, it simply shows what a consistent meaning should be applied to. Imraan Agreed

From a religious viewpoint. I don't have a problem with lard. I firmly understand the distinction between 'pig meat' specifically forbidden and pig fat. But since all your options mention pork in direct or indirect contact with lard, I chose none of the above. My reason being that pork may contaminate anything it contact, given its high microbial content Did the pig fat not come into contact with pig mear prior to or during extraction? (Pork = pig meat, not fat) And "none" would mean that if i took tongs to touch pork, then used the tongs to touch some paper and the paper was the wrap for or touched your food, you wouldnt eat it? If someone ate pork and touched a door handle, you wouldnt eat with your hands unless washed if you touched the door handle?

Sincere people are invited to study this post including the Youtube links. And Noon in particular is reminded that attacking one point does not negate the argument, even if he can't fathom letting go of the "taghy"/tyrany of NASA and other government manipulation. Remember online "Quran Alone Islam's" favorite verse 1736 Do not reach conclusions about that of which you have no knowledge. (Because surely, the hearing, the sight and the mind ? all of them ? have a responsibility with regard to this.) Watching TV and looking at CGI is not having knowledge. Peace, in Arabic l-samwtu is everything (see 1744); guess makes me a "tyrant" since NASA, Lawrence Livermore, Fermi labs, etc., are former customers which they have educational tours; suggest get out of the house visit verify yourself. https//s7.postimg.org/jxrv4qd9n/MA_VI_165_Quran_ch17v35-46.jpg

Salamun alaikum, Try to find out what is a "legal exception/exemption". General Rule Exception Forbidden to eat -> Can eat flesh of swine flesh of swine (Emergency) (2173) (2173) Cannot kill -> Can kill a person (War) (22.39) One wife -> Multiple wives (3350) (orphans) (43) and so on.. Terrible comparison. Eating pork and killing a person/existence is "haram"/inviolable/forbidden - and one can only do these in certain conditions. Marrying more than one wife is nowhere stated as being inviolable/forbidden. In fact it is talked about as something that happens, e.g. 423. Also, the exception in 3350 that does not apply to al mu'mineen is if a mu'minatan woman gave herself to the prophet - by forfeiting the dowry - the prophet may marry her without a dowry, if he so wishes. That is all. Notice that only "mu'minatan woman who gives herself to the prophet" - i.e. without a dowry - has a "wa" and the other categories of people do not. Then right after that it says that this is not for al mu'mineen. The exception that prevents polygamy is given directly in 43, namely if you men have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then one or "ma malakat aymanakum." It is also stated in Sura (4129) "..you will never be able to be equal between wives, even if you should strive.." (4129) Basically it means it will never be just to marry more than one and it is against Islam, UNLESS it can bring justice to the orphan and wives (lesser). It will bring more justice if they are able to benefit the orphan and at the same time, are able to be equal between their wives. It is only in this situation Allah made it lawful to marry more than one woman. Peace. Common distortion, short-sightedness and twisting of the almighty god's words to appease certain "shayateen" - rebellious desires and people - in this case feminists. It is noteworthy that those who argue about plural forms used to somehow discredit polygamy (earlier in this thread) do not step in here. Let us read in context 4128 If one woman has experienced from her one husband ill-treatment/uprising or desertion, then it is not undignified for the two to reconcile between themselves; and reconciliation is better. (Greed is ever-present in human consciousness. If you do good and are prudent, then the god is expert over what you do.) Clearly this is about being unfair to a wife, not about discouraging polygamy! 4129 (You (male plural) will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort.) So do not sway (male plural) too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. If you reconcile and are prudent... god is forgiver, mercy-giver. People fail to realize that asides are used in the reading. The clause "you (male plural) will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort" is an aside and a fact given by the god, while "so do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. If you reconcile and are prudent... god is forgiver, mercy-giver." is a continuation of the problem and reconciliation in 4128. "Do not sway" is in male plural form, showing that this - as are all commandments regarding relations between men and women - is addressed to men in general when dealing with one/each wife. Together, in context and understood properly, it reads as follows (with main clauses bolded for clarity) If one woman has experienced from her husband ill-treatment/uprising or desertion, then it is not undignified for the two to reconcile between themselves; and reconciliation is better. (Greed is ever-present in human consciousness. If you do good and are prudent, then the god is expert over what you do. You men will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort.) So do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. If you reconcile and are prudent... god is forgiver, mercy-giver.

Peace Blake, It is the same work (word for word). The only change is in the title "The Great Qur'an" and cover design as "The Message" may not have the same reach due to readers searching for keywords.

Salam Noon Walqalami, What do you mean by this "see context they may take human form although not like human given power to punish, etc". I read your comment and related verses but could not understand your point. Please clarify that they were humans or angels?. Traditional interpretation is that they were angels to destroy the nation of lot. Peace, read "in context" 2931-34 and/or entire chapter likewise cross-reference with other chapters; they i.e. l-malaikati/the controllers (angels if you like) "appeared" in human form although are given power to punish, etc. Ibrahim and Lot both were prophets at that time then why did God not convey the message directly instead of sending angels (according to traditional interpretation) to convey message to Ibrahim and then travelled all the way to Lot. 2218 ... the god doeth what yashu/willed likewise see below... 162 descended l-malaikata/the controllers with the spirit from directive his upon whom yashu/willed 2275 the god designated from/among l-malaikati/the controllers messengers of and from/among the humankind indeed the god hearer seer

I think that the translation for "junuban" as "ceremonial impurity" is an invention so as to turn "purity" into something ritual. On the other hand, what I gather from the text itself is that 4.43 do not approach the "Salawaa" intoxicated, ten?is que saber lo que dec?s. ni "junuban", wash. furthermore if you are sick, travelling, or came from offices of nature, or been with the women and do not find water, then do with clean earth... 5.6 if you are going to the Salawaa, wash your faces and your hands to the elbows, an rub your heads and feet to the ankles if you are "junuban" purify furthermore if you are sick, travelling, or came from offices of nature, or been with the women and do not find water, then do with clean earth... Different is 1. which in 4.43 it says that if you are intoxicated do not fulfill aSalawaa until you know what you say, but on the other hand does not say anything about washing, but in 5.6 it does say to wash whenever you prepara to fulfill as-Salawaa. Sop we see that the ayas complement each other. On the other hand in 5.6 nothing is said about approaching as-Salawaa intoxicated, but we are told so in 4.43, therefore we should take both ayas a complementing each other. We are not dispensed from washing in 4.43 any more than we are dispensed of not being intoxicated in 5.6. so much in 5.6 as in 4.43 we are told that if you cannot do it with water for whatever reason do it with clean earth. Regarding 2. in 4.43 we are told not to attempt to fulfill as-Salawaa if we are "junuban" till we wash ourselves In 5.6 we are told that we cannot fulfill salawaa till we wash. So what is junuban? It cannot be ritual or cermeonial impurity because nowhere in the Qur?n or ayas it has been said that there is such a thing as ritual or ceremonial impurity, that such a category exists. Such category, according to the interpreters is to be attributed to the things, that are mentioned in both ayas as coming from toilet, having touched the women or if you are ill or on a journey, but that cannot be junuban, because junuban is in both cases treated as something different form the other things mentionned, different from being intoxicated and different from coming from te toilet. etc. And in one case in 5.6 it is said "till you purify" and in another it is said, "till you wash" in 4.43. I guess it is from there that the equation has been construed that aghsilu is a sinonyme of ittaharu. But that cannot be because at any rate we are already told in 5.6 that we always must wash (aghsilu) when we propose to fulfill as-Salawaa, so the aghsilu part is already included, with or without "junuban". So, what would be a logic al assumption is that the "aghsilu" part in this case may be the means or one of the means whereby those who are "junuban" can purify themselves. The means may be the same as for all those who come to fulfill Salawaa, but it is clear that "junuban" is a particular case and nto any of the other cases mentionned, and it is also clear that purify is one thing and that "aghsilu" is something else. Bear in mind that in the Qur'an not a single time apart from this confusion with the aghsilu for asSalawaa, not a single time is purify understood as washing of any kind. To wash is not to purify, although for some things or occasions we might feel purified by washing. But washing is not purification, nor purification ever can be understood as washing. So then, what is "junuban". If we look at 4.43, it comes right after "intoxicated". If you are intoxicated, do not do as-Salaww till you know what you are saying. Might "junuban" be not intoxication, but something akin like being distracted with the mind far away of what you intend to do of fulfilling salaww. We all know that sometimes we cannot direct our thoughts and our state of mind, to what we have at hand. When we try to commune with God, to join Unity, with our being, a great difficulty is to reign our thoughts, that does not mean that we are impure in general, but the we are impure for what we intend to do, which is to commune with God, because we cannot concentrate on that and live it with our whole being. That is a difficult circumstance to get rid off, but washing may indeed help. We always when we purify us or something it is to some standard, for some purpose. Purity or impurity are not ritual states, but th econdition we are for something, may be to meet God, may be to meet a friend, may be to eat wholesome food, may be for some demanding task. Salaam

Thanks good logic, it?s good to see you are still around. One phrase I wrote keep sticking in my mind. ?True monotheism? which is no corrupted by false doctrines or abuse of clerical power. This is found in the Quran and to lesser degrees in the Torah and Gospels.

I am so so happy to see you say that the study should be done subject wise. But can you use easier words or put the definition of theirs underneath the videos? I am talking about the English ones. Thanks. I have noted it. This will be done.

Peace, I understand 6145. However why is only blood mentioned in the other verses and what does "inna ma harrama alaykumu" mean? I see an issue with "only forbidden you" In 6145 it is about the feed lying on your table that one usually eats. It can include a glass filled with liquid blood. The blood that is present within the flesh lying roasted on our table does contain blood but it is not visibly the part of the food lying on table. The point stands clarified what is meant by including blood in the prohibited list. http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0000.%20Haroof%20particles/02.%20C%20Inna%20plus%20ma%20Innama/1.gif This is a particle of limitation or restriction . It stands at the beginning of proposition and the word or portion which is effected by it is placed at the end for the sake of emphasis. This comes after the . It is a particle and it stops these from carrying out their typical grammatical influence. In the case of especially, even the meaning is altered from ?indeed? to that of restriction. He the Exalted has forbidden upon you people specifically the dead corpse-mammal who has died a natural death, and the blood, and the meat of swine - pig flesh? And that mammal which has been slaughtered pronouncing the name of someone other than Allah the Exalted However, for desperate reason of quiver-shudder , one will not be held guilty of sin for eating any of the forbidden things provided he had no urge and liking for it, and further, that he transgresses not the limit of relieving the state of quiver/shudder from hunger. It is a fact that Allah the Exalted is repeatedly Forgiving-Overlooking, the fountain of Mercy.

You do realize this is a contemporary translation? -\ They put no there whether they see lam-alif, not convincing. I do my own translation; why l/not translate it for us? wmawl l-kalalati l yghaaba 4711 mawl 22 l (likewise provide meaning 809 occurrences in context?) 4176 l-kalalati 249 ghaaba (when written with "ya" becomes yghaaba/angered/gets angry) The rest of the verses you cited you have no clue about anyways. then why l/not translate those verses and these? 538 and the male thief and the female thief fa-iqau aydiyahuma/hands (i.e. actions) theirs dual recompense in what earn dual nakalan/shackle of from the god and the god mighty wise 539 so who turned from after wrong his (i.e. said person) and reconciles so indeed the god turns in forgiveness on him/said person indeed the god forgiver merciful 1275 said they of recompense its who found in bag his so he recompense its like such we recompense the wrongdoers

I think kaffirs can say ok ish things but still act wrongfully. The word is said to mean one who conceals and is concealed from the truth, covered, like how the Qur'an says about a covering over hearts so they can't really understand or do the right thing except unintentionally or on occassion. That Iblees which seems to stem from the word despaired as in who causes one to lose hope (by offering false hope that is demonstrated as a mirage like in the Pagan Battle against Muslims) and loses hope or has lost all hope so is on a spiral of evil counsel all the way to hell. He too is concealed from the option or truth of forgiveness, repenting truly and turning back. The Qur'an says he is a race of being called a jinn which were made before human beings out of a different central substance but is thus as real as a person is real but made out of fire rather than mud or clay. He seemed to have wanted jinn to be the special dominant species rather than put under the dominion of the human mud people. There were no 'pagan' battles against anyone, since Muhammedians are pagans themselves. But if we speak of Eblees as a devil, which I state is not correct, but if we do, there is no way such force can be deluded either. I am just trying to make others think, if there really is a bad guy whose sole purpose in life is to distract you, or perhaps it is you who are deluded? This is also the question of responsibility. Once we are responsible for our own actions, and do not try to blame them on somethign else, this is when we become thinking beings.

The thread is now locked. Please don't derail threads. PM the mods for clarification. Thanks.

Peace, It seems you did not understand the first point I highlighted, so I will provide a clear example from your initial post You talk about "restricted period" but the Arabic of Quran says "masajid" only. Fair enough. Still time does not fit as well. I also said the following regarding that point How can you physically destroy a time period? Why would God want those who bar his masajid to only enter them in fear if it refers to a peaceful time? If we insert the interpretation of a an institution or physical temple it makes more sense. Still "masjid" will be a time of acknowledgement/submission. So those who bar masajid will enter a time of submission in fear? Do they change their mind and submit now instead? As I said, this interpretation fails when compared to place of sjd. I think that "place of sjd" fits better than "time of sjd" for masjid. And lastly, I do not expect someone to write a refutation of the article in order to have an opinion BUT if a person reads the article addressing several possible meanings with their problems then makes a post advocating one of the options discussed therein and IGNORES the problems mentioned then I have to ask myself why? It's almost as if they want things to stay the same so ignore the challenges. That's exactly what I referred to before your status quo bias. It seems you did not understand that term. It is when you set a reference point (your article) and view any deviation from it as more critical than you would if you analyzed it for its own merits.

Like many other disciplines,it is good for our body and soul. Can you make any sense of other physical movements that humans do in all sorts of other sports/games...etc? Both our body and mind need exercise and nourishment. Our Creator knows our needs in both our physical and spiritual bodies. GOD bless you. Peace. Of course. http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00024.%20Salat%20Suad%20Lam%20Waw/25.gif It is Gesture-speech, highest communicative dynamism Sublime submission of servitude and allegiance; (a) Standing; manners for this posture; (b) Suspension of physical protocol in certain situations (c) Segmental shortening of protocol in certain situations (d) Kneeling Gesture of surrender and submission of Spinal Cord. (e) Prostration Gesture of Surrender of granted state of http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.030/01.Khalifa%20Kha%20Laam%20Fa/1.gif self-governor enjoying free will of self rule-governance. highest communicative dynamism