Questions/Comments on the Quran

Salaam Mazhar, Can you explain how a creature made of fire looks like? What about its consistency? God bless you http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/055.%20Ar%20Rehman/55.15a.gif Ar'Reh'maan, the Exalted has created the Man from sand mixed crinkled clay alike the baked admirable/ excelled/outstanding pottery. However, He the Exalted created the Jinn from a part of jouncing/fidgety/disconcerting mingling flame from fire. http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/25.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%2025/5.%20Maraja%20Meem%20Ra%20Jeem/4.gif It is Active participle Indefinite; singular; masculine; genitive. In simplest manner of translation, it means flame. But, we will have to see the Flame to adjudge whether it possesses the perception and signification infolded in its parent Root. We visually see the flame as something jouncing/fidgety/disconcerted and mingling. Why is he invisible to human eye? Root

Thanks goodlogic; wish you a happy and restrained within the Book life.

Salaam, We are so obsessed with the cemetery when the souls have already departed from the bodies. It is basically nothing there to mourn for. But of course it can be comforting to go to some stone to remember your relatives, but do not think the place is any "magical" or haunted. God bless you

Salaam, You need to remember puberty is not just an instant change into fertility but the physical change takes place still for some years after the early teens. The body is not optimally ready for a pregnancy for another few years. You know some features of the woman body are there to support her pregnancy and delivery. The puberty has more than only physical changes involved but also psychological. There is still a rapid growth in a pubescent child and it would still be making a child pregnant to have a teenager conceive. They might be cocky, teenagers, but they are not as ready as one may think. Late teens seems okay but a mature mother is desirable. God bless you

One of my cousins went to the mosque to have a marriage contract signed by the imam. He took with him his brother and adult sister as witnesses since he was under the impression that two witnesses would suffice. Do the courts in your country accept and rely upon the witness of a borther and sister in economic disputes in favour of their brother?

I think there is a hadith. Of course nothing of the sort is in the Qur'an where nowhere is it stated thst women are more emotional nor any of that garbage psychology. Salaam Thank you, huruf. I didn't think so either. I'm curious to know what funeral traditions are like for other Muslims. Where you come from, do women stand with the men at the burial of a family member?

salam brother Thanks for the link. It is very helpful.

Salaamun alayka brother, The messenger DOES NOT teach AlQuran. There is a clear difference between AlQuran and AlKitaab. Salaam, Bender I am beginning to understand now, I think. So "the book" (Al Kitab) refers to what exactly? And Al Quran refers to what exactly?

Sorry, lack wisdom. She is a feminine; caller of wisemen is a male. Let us ponder about another aspect Know it; a guide is deputed for all people. Whom you consider as your ?

Peace AZ, Ok thnx. It's just that the verse is always used by the salafi's to prove we have to obey king saud, the king of morocco,.... The word "Salafiyun" itself does not exist in the great reading nor in any of the Hadith books, but it's a modern word. There are other words derived from the same root in the great reading though, but they seem to convey something different from what the inventors of the term "Salafiyun" intended. More specifically, this is what we find in the great reading when we look for the word "salaf" Those who consume usury do not rise except as one being influenced by the devil's touch. That is because they have said "Trade is the same as usury." While the god has made trade lawful, and he has forbidden usury. Whoever has received understanding from his lord and ceases, then he will be forgiven for what was before this/"salaf" and his case will be with the god. But whoever returns, then they are the people of the fire, in it they will abide eternally. And do not marry what your fathers had married from the women, except what has already been done/"salaf". It is a lewdness, and an abhorrence, and a bad path. and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done/"salaf". O you who believe, do not kill any game while you are restricted; and whosoever of you kills it deliberately, then the recompense is to value what was killed against the livestock, which shall be judged by two equitable persons from you, and to make it as a donation to reach the kaaba. Or, its expiation shall be in using it to feed the needy ones, while he abstains from it; that is to suffer the results of his deed; the god forgives what has past/"salaf". And whosoever returns, then the god will seek vengeance on him. The god is noble, capable of vengeance. Say to the rejecters "If they cease, then what has passed before/"salaf" will be forgiven to them, and if they return to it, then the example of the previous generations has already been given." As we can see very clearly, the word "salaf" in the great reading always refers to something ugly and abhorrent from the past. It is always linked to ugly, reprehensible and forbidden customs like usury, marrying what the fathers married of women, joining between two sisters, violating the forbidden and what the rejecters did in rejection. Is it a coincidence that all signs that mention "salaf" in the great reading, without exception link this term to something ugly and abhorrent? In addition to that, the almighty god describes the transgressing people of pharaoh as "salaf" 4351-56. And pharaoh proclaimed among his people "O my people, do I not possess the kingship of Egypt, and these rivers that flow below me? Do you not see? Am I not better than this one who is despised and he can barely be understood? Why then are not golden bracelets bestowed on him, or the controllers are accompanying him?" He thus convinced his people, and they obeyed him; they were a wicked people. So when they persisted in opposing us, we sought revenge from them, and drowned them all. We thus made them a thing of the past/"salaf", and an example for the others. According to Classical Arabic dictionaries or any dictionary for that matter, "salaf" simply denotes something from the past. Linguistically and logically this is indisputable. And even the Sunni scholars knew this. Therefore, when they talked about a particular "salaf" they called it "salaf-u-saalih". Why do they call it such? Because they know that there is also corrupt "salaf", which by the way is intended every time the word "salaf" is used in the the great reading, and therefore this extra classification was needed. Either way, the term "Salafiyun" does not exist at all in the great reading nor in the Hadith books of both Sunnis and Shiites. PS a loose translation of a section from ayman's . Abdelilah

Grace and peace be unto you my brethren, Yuliana my sister, thank you for voting and sharing your thoughts on the topic. Appreciate it ^_^ Mazhar my brother, I don't understand urdo! Please explain in English (if possible) - Be precise PS Thanx Earthdom.

What do you say is the definition given by Qur'an? It's a documented bond between two people 2433 (which I believe requires witnesses) It is not for the sake of lust or sex. It is for the sake of maximally becoming mu'inna (424). I think that the more muhsinina someone is (being muhsinina is not exclusive to marriage), the more mature and guarded they are from harm, suffering, or just a lack of purpose in life. Any relationship that aims for a strong quality of unity, brings with it a serious but rewarding challenge. Being maximally intimate with another human (which in my opinion entails being exclusive), brings with it the maximum level of bond and unity possible for a human. The best of relationships, where love and affection are maximally present and both individuals in the relationship are excellent characters (wise, patient, understanding, rational, cooperative etc.,) and deeply intimate with each other, bring out the best of both individuals. In such a case, it is always going to be better for the two individuals to be together than to not be together. Overall they are a stronger force together in comparison to if they were apart (they can achieve more together etc.,). That's why I think the goal of marriage is to maximise being muhsinina. You are most guarded when you have someone to share pretty much every aspect of yourself with. I can only see that happening successfully and effectively in the best of relationships. When two people are in such an excellent relationship, then marriage is essentially making it official and both are putting everything on the line by becoming legally bound to each other exclusively for life. When a Quranist makes a proposal for marriage, then it should only be because he/she seeks that maximal level unity with someone else (to become further muhsinina/guarded). But there is nothing wrong with achieving a high level of intimacy before making it official and legally binding. From a logical perspective, no matter how strong a relationship is, a marriage certificate will make it stronger and more guarded because to be legally wed to someone else, is an extra manner of being guarded (legally guarded) therefore no matter how strong a relationship is, the proposal of marriage adds to it in a positive manner.

The title suggests that there is a translation of Luxenberg; there isn't. As for his theories, complete baloney. Before I read any recension, I decided to study Syriac and analyse Luxenberg's work myself. In short; The book 'A Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Quran', does not treat the whole quran. Its about a theory which hypothesizes that the quran is based on christian texts written in a hypothetical language, which should have been an intermediate form between Syriac and Arabic. It is claimed that the quran was written by people who had this hypothetical language as a mothertongue, and translated their texts into classical Arabic to try to convert them. It is claimed the religion of these people was a christian sect deemed as heretic by the catholic church called 'Arianism', which states Jesus is only human. It is claimed that during the translation process, many Syriac concepts and words didnt have a clear Arabic counterpart, so words were used to approach them. Later on when others made copies of copies (etc.), Arabs who didnt understand the original texts or meanings, couldnt recognize the Syriac influence and its implications on the text, and came up with alternative spelling and interpretations for words or sentences they supposedly had difficulties with to understand. Later on, Persian philologues and historians would make up lots of words, and manipulate the meaning of others in the corpus of Arabic vocabulary by writing dictionaries and poetry which they attributed to pre-islamic writers. While this is true, it has nothing to do with Luxenbergs theories, but with legitimizing traditionalist interpretations of words in the quran, so they could link it to their teachings (guided theological, political and cultural contamination of the vocabulary, or terminologization). Serious flaws Uses medieval and contemporary dictionaries. Syriac (even Hebrew) is contaminated by classical Arabic, due to the fact that its first grammars were produced in the islamic period No language which can be classified as an 'intermediate form' of Syriac and classical Arabic has been proven to have ever existed. The work does not live up to academic criteria; it has been called a 'nightmare' and has been seriously and mercilessly debunked in recensions by prominent (virtually all western) professors of Arabic, semitic languages, history of islam, etc. Its not a surprise that Arabic has similarities and influences with Syriac, or any semitic language. They are member of one and the same language family, and the product of very related culturo-historical developments. Lots of so-called 'discoveries' are well known facts. Luxenberg's work contains christian polemical remarks, which betrays bias from a suspected christian background. Luxenberg too, despite of him being a revisionist, falls in the trap of accepting some traditionalist historiography at face-value, by referring to them to make his point, while rejecting others and not justifying this by presenting a sound methodology.

Fare thee well, I am certain that the verse about women's dress code would be more detailed if this factor was that essential. If there was explicitly supposed to be a cover for the head the Quran would have mentioned the word for head and it does not as far as I know. And as we know God said that His book is very thorough on what is important for us to know. As I said in a previous post, the verse about clothing is in conjunction with the verse which says that women should not strike their heels to attractively shake their bodies and with traditional muslim women clothing this is not possible since nothing will be revealed anyway. That is why I believe the whole "Islamic" clothing to be a hoax and more about ancient traditions. A woman, as far as my understanding goes, should not provoke 'unnecessary' sexual arousal and cover private parts. This is what I think Quran wants to convey in terms of information. The almost same command was issued for men too and there is not much difference really. Women seems to have been more directly targeted because of an innate desire to be attractive and this slight difference is present in Quran. The whole hijab thing is an invention as much else in the man-made religion Islam. God only told people to have a decent appearance and no hocus pocus. However, more clothes can undoubtedly cause a person to seem more modest and provoke less attraction, but God hardly meant for women to dress like ghosts to barely be recognized. Lengthen the garments was told in Quran and I suppose this is the whole purpose of the verses. I get a feeling that where the Quran was written, the women used to dress in very revealing ways and act quite immodestly and it was to get the community's women to dress more decently that Quran pronounced that garments should be lengthened. This was later abused and became more and more absurd to include so called Burqa, Niqab and (Iranian) Chador. So from to have been called to stop the women from being inappropriately immodest the clergymen made it into extremism with oppressive dress codes instead. So from have been uttered by God to tell women to stop being too loose it was over-interpreted to suppress women completely and say women's mere beauty is immoral and sinful. Humans have a tendency to always exaggerate everything that they do and it is also true for religion. It is dangerous when humans start with conjecture. Reason is strangely not allowed in religion. When it comes to spirituality humans are very mentally unstable. God bless you

Peace This need a new thread to discuss . This thread is about and not about . In my post I said "example".I used that janaba for example. Red If you believe so, then we don't have anything to discuss on any topic. Without text how will you understand its message? Of course we need a text, because text is part of human language and how we communicate each other.So that's why Nabi Muhammad and his sahabat wrote it in text.And because this Arabic Quranic text is autharized by God and Nabi then this Arabic Quran labeled as the main legalized text for guidance for mankind. The main reason of I said "The real miracle of the Quran lies within it's message not in it's text" is because some people believe in misconception if Quran Mushaf have some miracle like code 19, magic healing etc. And this is also for refute your claim if Quran Arabic's structural is special and different.I just wan to told you if Quranic text written in ordinary Classical Arab, so it's okay if used Classical Arab dictionaries to understand it. Ok I will not confuse ths in this thread because off topic, but if you want discuss about this you can create a new thread or by PM.

I started this topic because I'm looking for an answer, and I'm glad some of you take the time to share their understanding with me. But please don't start make this a Quranist vs. Sunni topic. Stay ontopic and share your point of view so we all can benefit from it. The answer is the website I provide above this post. Peace

Dude I have already refuted your website in my previous posts.... But you still haven't given me any evidence for why 'beat them' isn't beat them despite all translators agree upon that... It's funny how a dude from Pakistan thinks he knows Arabic better then ALL Arab translators and all Arabs ;D Sorry old post. This is an argumentative fallacy. This dude Sunnah-hero used Argumentum ad Populum "appeal to the majority" to refute people and prove his point.

. At the time the culture of JAAHILLIAH was full of man-made paradoxes. Peace brother Khalil. Regarding term Jahiliyah, pleace can you help me in http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605748.0

The inherent concept of Allah(The Brain) enshrined in the following ayah of Al-Quran was grossly wronged by the scholars of the previous scholars and they misconstrued as Allah is one of three (i.e. HU) or Trinity (i) - (The captioned message embedded in Quran) Understood as below "Start the proceedings with the permission or the volition of Allah - (i) The Chair (ii) The Rahman (iii) The Raheem" The above verse(2163) understood as below " The Authority to take instructions from to follow by you all is a unit. None is worthy of worship (taking instructions to follow) except the Chair the Rahman the Rahim." Persistent Misconceptions relating to the term - 'Al-Raheem' "Hindus misconstrue Raheem as 'Mata Rani' (Karuna ka saagar) whereas the Christians misconstrue as Mary (The merciful mother) and the label Muslims misconstrue as a distinct adjective of Allah understood as 'The Most Merciful'." Quran has denounced the misconception of division of Allah(The Brain) and re-confirmed it as an inseparable unit 4171 - (i) Say not... three, ("Namely, God, Jesus, Mary....) (ii) Actually Allah(the Brain) is worthy of worship (taking instructions to follow) as a unit. 517 - (i) Denounces the misconception of division of Allah(The Brain) as the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus). 5116 - (ii) Denounces the misconception of division of Allah(The Brain) as the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus). 723 - (iii) Denounces the misconception of construing (HU) as a separate entity detached from (a) The Rahman (b) The Raheem 587 Dr. Shabbir Ahmad has understood the above verse as follow "Do you not realize that Allah knows all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. There is no secret meeting of three but He is their fourth, nor of five but He is their sixth, nor of less than that or more but He is with them wherever they may be. And ultimately, on the Day of Resurrection, He will inform them of what they truly accomplished. Verily, Allah is Knower of all things." (587) To the best of my acumen, I have understood the verse as below (i) Be mindful, actually Allah(The Brain) is aware of all the happenings in the system of governance of your body from head to toe (i.e. from top to bottom.) (ii) It captures all the incidences take place within the system and gives you the news, whenever you recollect. (iii) Verily, Allah(the Brain) possesses knowledge of everything. Chapter 112 of Al-Quran has put to an end of all the guesses and conjectures as follows Dr. Shabbir Ahmad has understood the above verses (1121-4) as follows "Say, "He is Allah, the One! Allah is Absolute, Eternal, Unique, Self-Sufficient, Perfect, Independent, the Uncaused Cause of all that exists, Besought of all. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none that could be comparable unto Him." (1121-4) To the best of my acumen, I have understood the verse as below (i) Say, the Chair (HU) and Allah(The Brain) is one and the same. (i.e. inseparable unit as a whole) (ii) Allah(the Brain) is sovereign. (iii) Nothing can be added or subtracted from Allah(the Brain). (iv) And there is no comparable unit for the Chair(HU) In order to better conceptualize the holy doctrine of Allah(the Brain), look at the construction of a 'Bat'. It consists of (a) Handle i.e. the Chair (b) Upper House i.e. stable or the least moved (Al-Quyyum) (c) Lower House i.e. most active part (Al-Haiyyu). When the three parts (a), (b) and (c) are coherently put together it starts working as a tool (The Rab). If you separate any of the perceived three parts of the 'Bat', it will not work as it intends to and will become burdensome. Just think on it. This is again I have tried to present the above mentioned out of the box understanding to the best of my acumen, for wider consultation of the respected Ulul-Albab members of the Forum. If you do not like this, just ignore it. If you want to contribute with corrections and suggestions, you are most welcome. Salaam!

+salaam brother Alkitab Excellent article. I am amazed at how much our conclusions are the same on so many points so far. I think it should be 90% +. Your username is not Alkitab for nothing in my opinion. +salaam Salam , May Allah bring us all ( members ) to the one true comprehension in all debated topics and one way of conduct and avoid us confusion , enmity and hatred I am about to suggest a new rule when debating may the moderators and administrators take it in consideration .