Questions/Comments on the Quran

Salam, Thank you for the link, it is a whole new rule for me. Some islamic scholars think that Quran has its own grammar, that some Quranic grammar may be applied in Arabic but not vise versa. If this rule is applied in Quran it is gonna be confusing and difficult to understand it. Your questions is very important indeed. Regards, Yes indeed, it will have long lasting ramifications. I have applied this rule in my other post "Alif Lam Miim" in deciding the meanings of word Salaat. Please see, how smooth the translation is gotten and coherent as well. Regards,

Salaam, Everyone is going to die sooner or later. They can only delay but not prevent it. If now the translation is accurate... I find the logic and rhetoric in the passage to be a bit dull. A quick glance at it and I dismiss the traditional interpretation and translation. Ah well... Salaam

Why did you reply to this, 5 years later? To answer your question, the chapter refers to the Year of the Elephant there are two interpretations of the birds throwing rocks, one is literal as you seem to have understood it and another is it is a literary metaphor for a disease known as smallpox. The latter is supposed to be most plausible, but this is not a subject for religion, but history - the event predates Islam and it was supposed to show how God doesn't like war in his Sacred City and how he ended it.

Peace, What I am replying you is my own understanding as per my research for the past 15 years. I have no intention to deviate any one from their believes in the Quran. The Quran is from ALLAH THE ALMIGHTY. Be patience, for ALLAH is the ONLY way. THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR - YOURS AND MINE 3RD CENTURY CE PRESERVED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT SOMEWHERE IN YEMEN TO BE EXACT IT WAS WRITTEN IN A PROTECTED TABLET IN AN ELOQUENT TONGUE. TRANSLATED INTO 7 DIFFERENT TONGUE, ARABIC IN CURSIVE MUSNAD WAS ONE OF THEM. PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS A PROPHET AND IF THERE ARE TO BE ADDITIONAL OR EDITION OF DIRECTIVES, IT IS A JOB ASSIGN TO A PROPHET SOMEWHERE IN THE LEVANT WHERE THE BLESS LAND IS. EDITION OF DIRECTIVES SINCE WHAT IS LEFT OF THE QURAN IN THE ARABIC VERSION, IT IS VERY HARD TO SAY AS PER MY ANSWER NO 9

Peace Abdulaziz Mohammed. People with different dialects read things wrong most of the time. The meaning of what one reads is the most important . If one does not understand what they are reading ,of course it does not matter! However if one says /reads the pronunciation wrong ,but understands the meaning of what they are reading, the aim is achieved. Most of the time ,if they seek the understanding, they will be corrected to read it right. GOD bless you Peace.

I'm not sure why this thread is still going on. Are those who are still active in it really so naive they think they can convince flat earth-believers with rational argumentation? Yeah right

Salaam alta, You are right. The Hereafter will look very different from what the sectarian doctrines teach. Salaam

Thank you very much. God bless you. - Islamo-Aleikum. Peace.

I didn't complete that last sentence.... just ignore it hahaha

Peace Islamo-Alaikum@ To my knowledge, Ms? (QA ) was not a "Jew" . As for his real homeland, instead of "Ancient Egypt" ~ try understanding mr () as Mesopotamia. SLM

They just love to make things haram forbidden while the word itself means "goodly/sanctified" and if you put "annema' before (haram) it means "It is not goodly...", i.e. it is not advised or recommended since everything is a spiritual guidance to have a safe and sound soul. Anyway, superstition and conjecture is mainly detrimental for your own sake if you put faith in untrue things. Salaam Perhaps when Muslims say 'Astrology is haram', they are referring to the use of forecasting the future and the cheesy horoscopes from newspapers. Most of people do not know what natal charts is anyways. Its true that they refer to prediction. But the problem is that the way they describe it is fully wrong. They tag the entire Astrology as based on "predictions". Why not first understand the subject before declaring whether it is forbidden or okay? This is really irritating. The most ignorant comment I ever read Astrology (not to be confused with Astronomy) is haram in Islam, like all Magic and Communication with the Jinn world (Demonic entities or "Spirit World" as it is called in our generation)http//www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?299850-Is-Astrology-permitted-by-Islam Of course, they have fake hadith to go with it Al-Bukhaari said in his Saheeh Qutaadah said ?Allaah created these stars for three purposes to adorn the heavens, to stone the devils and as signs by which to navigate. Whoever seeks anything else in them is mistaken and does not benefit from them, and he is wasting his time and effort in seeking something of which he has no knowledge.? (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, Baab fi?l-Nujoom, 2/240) Thats how astrology is made haram by Sunnis. But if you just reread that pathetic para you will see that it forbids space travel, space stations, research satellites and above all, NASA. We can't use the planets "at home". Space travel is done specifically to study the stars and space. We don't exactly get much out of it and we have less knowledge about them. Hence, according to the hadith above, they are all forbidden, I suppose? Salaam Reel, I think if we really start to believe in and especially the future predictions, then it can be bad. My friend and I often check astrology. The natal chart, and the signs. It is fun. The sun, moon, etc signs and their descriptions about personality, etc are so fun to read. Some of it seem so true as well. We don't check out the future ones. They seem not true and also because we shouldn't be believing in it. I know that future predictions are stupid. But I don't see how it is wrong to check natal charts. Hmm..I wondering if anyone here tried synastry chart.... Me yay and it worked. I went by my 7th house first. But synastry chart later confirmed I was on the right track.

peace hk, Thanks for the reply. In case you are wondering why I am asking you these questions, it is because I am pondering over the reasoning/framework being used. Re 1) Should ( ) clean the impurity or ( ) wash the impurity. NO NEED OF TAYAMMU I agree that TYMM is not necessary in this instance. Let's say a person is ill, e.g. has a cold - what do you imagine them washing? I know it would be different from person to person, but I would imagine at least their hands and face. The difference therefore, in your understanding, between "wudhu" upon waking and my example above is perhaps wiping of feet/head. In other words, not much difference. Re 2) I agree that when in a state of JNB and "Aabireen sabeel" an exception is granted. However, two points it is clear from the verses that their entire purpose is for cleansing/purifying - that is the preference/aim thus according to the verses, if in a state of JNB and NOT "Aabireen sabeel" one cannot undertake salat if they do not wash/purify - i.e. that is so significant, it is a deal breaker. Thus, logic would dictate, to opt for the preference/aim if in a position to do so, and/or default to the lesser standard if in a position to do so. See 6416. Thus, for example, if in a state of JNB and "Aabireen sabeel" with access to clean soil (or even some water but not enough to bathe in) one can opt to do what one is able - they do not have to but they can if they wish. I would imagine however, that many would have access to some spare water or clean soil. Thus, I am considering if this reasoning/framework is unmentioned but implicit. This may also help if considering where the Traditional understanding stems from. I haven't concluded on these verses yet.

The Qur'an does not confuse anything at all. The Maryam in the Qur'an is indeed sister of Harun and 3isa is her son, the Prophet. On t his question there are the conclusive works by our friend Pazuzu. Seek in his posts those related to Maryam and 3isa. Muslims and christians have been the object of a tremendous fraud on those counts. Salaam

Arman, Or perhaps I said the will of my Creator. It was not arrogance. You are not arrogant if you know the truth and express it. I am not better, but I have come to a realization. Salaam

Salaam Mike, If Solomon was going to attack the queen's realm that was in a liberation attempt for its citizens and not an act of greed for more. The narrative reveals that Satan made their acts look seemly to them and it can beyond doubt be inferred that its government was doing some deeply erroneous deeds. The Jinn person (simply faithless/worldly human) with limited wisdom yet able to think within the box suggested that with brute force he could bring down her dominion very quickly. But the one with insight into knowledge had a better suggestion and had devised a plan of diplomacy instead which was fairly unique during this time some thousand years ago. So the wise man claimed that he could bring down her rule in no time with little effort by instead demonstrating the blessings of the Sustainer without the wicked deeds of her community. In external sources it indicates that the queen and Solomon became good friends after the incident and there was no conquest. This rule of Solomon was based on the layout similar as the Achiemedian Persian empire where there was a central "King of Kings" and then independent provinces with their own kings and queens. The first kind of more advanced society. The righteous "kings of kings" did this because of their faith in the Sustainer and to do good, even if there was really bad ones. Often the provinces were satisfied with this system and it was a testament of more modern civilization with better organization. The Roman Empire worked in a similar way although not as righteously in my opinion. I think the Roman Empire has often been underestimated and exaggerated in evilness. It was simply on its level of progression in human development and unrighteous people always exist. It is not like our contemporary communities are as innocent as sheep either but only that it is not as visualized today. If there was an "Islamic Golden Age" it was simply the Persian Empire in disguise with rebelling leaders against the Old Persia. Persia was left mainly intact and kept culture after its "defeat" and it is more that it was brought into submission. The religions Zoroastrianism and Judaism are basically the same one as Islam just with sectarian variations. They worship the same image and retain similar rites and rituals (invented) while they have forgotten or rejected the teachings of tbe prophets. Old Persia had citizens all over its former empire and probably also had domestic enemies who would wage "civil war" using religious pretenses. I doubt highly the sudden rise of a united force against Persia with its resources and cultural influence but I find it as a treason within its borders. The Shia-Sunni conflict is an aftermath of that. Shia is the Persian-influenced part of "Islam" while Sunni is the uprising based in northern Arabia and part of modern Iraq. They never had any real permanent victory against the other but it has remained a stalemate for thousand years. And both argue about conjecture and why the Sustainer does not give permanent victory to the other. Importantly it is Persian clergymen (Jewish/Zoroastrian) who shaped modern Islam and are the foundation of this sect with its denominations. It is mostly a ripoff from Zoroastrianism based on that you can treat Allah as an image (a person) and thus can apply Middle-Eastern customs in worship of it by claiming that prostration is part of a Paganistic behavior. Prostration does not come from religion but it is an ancient custom in the Middle-East just like you today shake your hand to be polite except that prostration shows emphasized humbleness towards. Salaam

Salaam, Yeah it is really good and helpful. I know that it is not compiled by StudyQuran nor Corpus.quran. May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr mmKhan

Mazhar, I have already addressed your concern, which is entirely built upon your interpolations. Please post your concerns and prove your interpolations on the actual thread for the article http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9765.0 I have done nothing. Just asked a simple question about the sentence. A conditional sentence alongwith apodosis clause does not mean commanding some body as is your basic argument in the link under discussion.

Grand Qur'aan concatenates facts in perfect sequence and chronological order. Its first word in isolation literaly means "Beginning is with a name; name is the recourse-resort to activation" vividly indicates at the outset about superb concatenation-consistence-contiguity and colligation in the contents of the Book in hand. This is the First scientific-physical fact of the physical-material world. The creation and for created ones the initiation of the process of learning-knowledge is but the "code/name". The human memory and that of computer can save nothing without knowing or assigning a code/name to a thing-object-phenomenon. Our knowledge is dependent upon the existence of matter and awareness of its name/code which verbally mirrors it through words comprising letters, consonants and diacritics of a language making us cognizant of it. Cognizant is he who can verbally mirror the image of that thing for others. This being the ground reality, We cannot say with certainty regarding whether thought-idea-image-name-word mirroring the physical object is the first in existence, or the object mirrored by that thought/word was the first in existence. Grand Qur'aan has clarified for us in simple words that the idea, thought, Wish and the Will of a Living Being precedes the emergence of a physical reality. The idea, thought and perception of the thing precedes its taking physical existence.

www.islamawakened.com/quran has lots of translations for each verse to compare and other useful tools including a search engine connection.

Hi there folks, I have had many doubts and questions in my mind and since I have joined this forum, i believe that those doubts are being answered to my satisfaction by the people who others called Quranists. I also read the free minds version of Quran which helps a lot. During Turkey visit by some of my friends, they came back talking about historical buildings and concubines and how they were captured from different parts of the world and were brought for Sultans. I have been in arabia since my childhood and now in my professional life met with some of the people who are educated but still are Bedouins. The concept of MMA is the same for them as explained by Rameez and some of the thoughts about women and the behavior led me to belief that what Aabdul posted as the last post of this thread makes more sense to me. Basically what am trying to say is that Quran has set a very high standard of morality such that I would be totally dishearten if indeed Quran meant exactly as Rameez has said or what ISIS is doing in the name of MMA. However when i see the reality on the ground I see people around me in majority having the same traditional beliefs about everything that we normally see or hear from say 99.99% of the muslims of present and even past. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim The military strategy had been outlined by Hajjaj in a letter sent to Muhammad bin Qasim My ruling is given Kill anyone belonging to the ahl-i-harb ; arrest their sons and daughters for hostages and imprison them. Whoever does not fight against us...grant them aman and settle their tribute as dhimmah ... I think that all islamic history or on a broader scale human history is filled with wars and during wars violence involving injustices to the oppressed nation (raping of women, imprisoning the children and converting them by force and training them to fight for the king etc). I also believe that Allah knows all this and that he would also know that we as humans would never reach to the high standards set in Quran for example, yet that does not mean Quran will allow slavery. For sure when Maha talks about raping the other person wife etc... I would feel the same.. I would never wanted such things to happen to my family by the other party on the name of MMA. It is NOT RIGHT. God would not approve that. As a principle I like to think like that. BUT the reality from historical events prove otherwise. There were slaves, they were, killed and God knows what other cruel things happened. As Aabdul explained that Quran recognizes the ills of the arab society and encourages muslims then to free slaves and other good things gradually. In the end, I can say I am happy I know there are folks out there who think with an honest and pure heart, yet the reality on the ground of past and present is totally against what was asked by God through his messengers and books. Cheers for rameez, maha and aabdul