Questions/Comments on the Quran

Qur'aan was gradually and intermittently revealed. With every fresh piece of revelation, the sequence-arrangement of the format of the book was but to keep changing. Even in those days people alleged And when We changed-shifted the textual location of an Ayah to location of another Ayah--- --and Allah the Exalted fully knows about that which He the Exalted is gradually revealing-- they-the non believing ruling elite alleged; "You are indeed one who diligently manipulates-redrafts the text".No, you have not sequenced-redrafted-organized it, but the fact of the matter is that most of them do not understand it. Read with 2105 and 2106

SAlaam thanks for post, nice compilation Mirjamnur Well i think we can include more then economic/money for wife/bride and do not reduce dowry to only money offer... EX in my marriage my partner gave more importance and acepted/asked for my heart and kindness as dowry..that doesnt mean i dont provide for her..it means that she value more my inside than my m,oney in time of mariage. I think realy depends on both parts man and women to get/reach a comon agreement /vow/promisse. SAlaam to all peace pr

The 'evolution' on the meanings of ancient-proto-semitic word "Dien" from "Judgement/Opinion/Attitude" into "Debt" is an evidence that arabic language (just like any other language) is an evolving language. But in Quran context (and also Torah / Nevim / Tanakh context) the semitic word "Dien" mean "Judgement/Opinion/Attitude". Another reference Among Israelites, the Judicial Court is being named as "Beyth Din" (The House where Judgement/Opinion are being passed to resolve an issue / conflict) It's certainly not fit if the word "Din" in "Betyh Din" means "The House of Debt" or "The House of Credit". http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_din Salam / Peace

Allah the Exalted does not approve-appreciate the public statements loaded with evil-defamatory-character assassination implications except the outcry by a person who has been wronged-met with injustice. And Allah the Exalted is eternally The Listener, The Absolute Knowledgeable; Knower of visible and invisible. Syntactic analysis ? ? ? ? ? . ? ?

I only know that the verb "Rab" means "to teach (someone) good manners; to discipline (someone)".

.

Hmm..this is interesting stuff. Thanks!

Selam!! My understadning of this verse is that God is addressing the polytheists and He's asking them to revert to the straight path, basically. Every person is born muslim, i.e. on the straight path, and as he gets older and makes different life choices, he either remains on the straight path (a muslim) and goes to Heaven or doesn't and goes to Hell. Either way, as this verse indicates, God and His Messenger are innocent of which path a person chooses or polytheists choose, in this case. So to answer your question, i think they're being asked to revert back to the correct way of live (Islam) or, in other words, come back to God and righteousness in order to attain true salvation. I hope that helps! )) I agree with you http//islamicartdb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tumblr_m9blh5uf8f1rahmvco1_500.jpg

144 has stumbled me a lot. Quran clearly states that 'We never sent forth any rasul (messenger) except in the tongue of his people....' None of the classical interpretations in English have satisfied me, and enemies of Islam have used this to further their own aims. Essentially there are two explanations that I am inclined to explore further... Mohammed Asad in his footnotes for this Ayat writes; Since every divine writ was meant to be understood by man, it is obvious that each had to be formulated in the language of the people whom the particular prophet was addressing in the first instance; and the Qur'an - notwithstanding its universal import (cf. note 126 on 715 - is no exception in this respect. Here M Asad's explanation depends on the use of 'in the first instance' - not entirely satisfactory. The second explanation hinges on the definition (and difference) between nabi (prophet) and rasul (messenger). The quran supports a difference in meaning here, and the most convincing (thus far to me) difference put forward is that Nabi brought a scripture/message (Prophet Muhammed, Moses & Aaron, Jesus, ...) and the role of the messenger is to clearly explain that message. I believe knowing this distinction helps understand a lot of verses of Quran, which have perplexed me otherwise, and I also believe it may put you on the path of answering your questions! I don't want to ever write anything that may mislead anyone hence I've left my remarks rather open ended for your research, but nonetheless felt compelled to write because I think your answer is in the second explanation (the use of word rasul). Qamar

peace Richard, With the link I gave, I meant to highlight that WHOLE thread. I recommend reading all posts and links within it.

Bender, I cannot accept that Muhammad was the Paraclete promised by Jesus (Islamic polemics state that Muhammad was the Paraclete called Ahmad). However I can accept him as a special prophet of God. By accepting the variant qiraat in place of the standard text for 616 the problem disappears. Thanks, Richard Salaam Richard, I am not sure what Paraclete means. But 616 says that Ahmed is a messenger not a Paraclete, I think that is very clear from 616. It even doesn't say he is a nabi (if that is what you meant with prophet). Suppose The Quran said Ahmed is the Paraclete what is then exactly your problem with it. Why you don't accept him as the Paraclete? Not that I say that Ahmed was the Paraclete (as I am not even sure about the meaning of that word) but I am just curious why you don't accept it. Salaam, Bender

It could be about Medina but if you look at the Quran the sword verses are talking about the pagans of Mecca who forced the believers into exile. Some of the Jews there are refered to as their allies. In Medina we had no conflict of this sort although the Jews there rejected the prophet. We are told in the Koran (9.13) that the people who were fighting Muhammad were the same ones who forced him and the believers into exile. There were hypocrites mentioned in Medina in the Quran but these are the ones who often sided with the meccans whenever it was convenient. There is only a very brief reference in the Quran of Muhamamd fighting the Jews (33.26 - 27) probably because the meccans were dominated by the pagans with the Jews being the side show. The vast majority of the war verses in the Quran is talking about the pagans. As far as Medina charter I think it has to do with the source this charter is found. "Scholars do not possess the original document but rather a number of versions can be found in early Muslim sources. The most widely read version of the Constitution is found in the pages of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah (see wikisource), while alternative copies are located in Sayyid al-Nas and Abu ?Ubayd's Kitab al-Amwal. Most scholars accept the authenticity of the document." http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#Sources The problem is Ibn Ishaq narrations does not have the same clout for Sunnis as Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawood or Ibn Majah. I think this is why it does not hold a strong place for Sunni Islam. Salam Bigmo You have to enlighten me here........ Surah 59 is called "The Mustering". Other names normally used are "Mobilization", "Banishment" and "Exile". It speaks of the "immigrants" referring to the muslims that left Mecca and settled in Medina 598 For the immigrants who are poor and were driven out of their homes and deprived of their properties; they were seeking a grace from God and acceptance, and they supported God and His messenger; these are the truthful ones. 599 And those who provided them with shelter, and were believers before them; they love those who immigrated to them, and they find no hesitation in their hearts in helping them, and they readily give them priority over themselves, even when they themselves need what they give away. Indeed, those who overcome their desires are the successful ones. Before Medina there were no muslim immigrants because you have migrate to become an immigrant. Most historians including non-muslims tend to agree the surah came about in Medina. To me, this is pretty strong evidence the surah is from the Medina period. There is no evidence that prophet Muhammed were ever betrayed by the Meccan jews. By betrayal I mean the jews in some fashion promised/made a contract/signed an agreement with prophet Muhammed/the muslims which they later broke. The Medina Jews however did sign the Medina charter but did not honour it. There is no evidence that prophet Muhammed ever attacked Mecca. On the contrary, he was true to islam and only practiced defensive warfare. Surah 59 speaks of the jews sitting behind strong walls, thinking that they were safe against harm (meaning someone is attacking them) 592....and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from God. But then God came to them from where they did not expect, and He cast terror into their hearts. They destroyed their homes with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So learn from this, O you who possess vision.. The "attack" had not much to do with religion, it was simply enforcing the law of Medina. Therefore it could hardly be the Meccan jews but the Medinan jews surah 59 is referring to. Please show me if there is any evidence that surah 59 is speaking of the Meccan jews. Anyways, a lot more interesting topic is the Medina charter. I will leave you with this which I find "in a nutshell" why Sharia and Saudi Arabia are soooo unbelievable out of islam Mark Graham writes Muhammad?s brilliance lay in politics as well as spirituality. One of the most extraordinary events to take place during this time was the drafting of the Covenant of Medina (Sahifat al-Madinah), what some consider to be the world?s first constitution. It was a treaty and city charter between the Arabs and Jews of the city. All groups (Muslims, Jews, and non-Muslim Arabs) pledged to live in civic harmony, governed by mutual advice and consultation. The Covenant bound these varied groups into a common defense pact and stipulated that the Jews of the city were one community with the Muslims, that they were free to profess and practice their religion and that they were entitled to all the rights pertaining to the Muslims. This amazingly foresighted document was a revolutionary step forward in civil government. Despite the ultimately tragic end of Muslim and Jewish cooperation in Medina, this blueprint of interreligious tolerance would serve Islam and its subject peoples well in the future. Mark Graham. How Islam Created the Modern World. Amana Publications, 2006. Pages 21. Read more http//www.themuslimtimes.org/2011/11/islam-a-religion-of-peace/the-constitution-of-medina-the-first-written-constitution-of-the-world#ixzz2JlWKnmG8

Salaam, I was looking around and found this interesting video from traditional muslims who call Quranists unbelivers, basing it on many Quranic verses http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGk2YoSGH_0 I know that many of the Quranic arguments which are given are already refuted, but some of them seem to be new. Maybe someone can check them out. I think Quranists should make a short summary of EVERY single Quranic verse which can possibly be misinterpreted as a list in an article on Free-minds. Peace all They don't deal with the issues for the most part. The question is what role does the Quran has in Islam. Sunnis believe The Sunnah and it's place in relation to the Holy Qur'an The Sunnah can be divided into three parts Confirming Sunnah. This is the part of the Sunnah that confirms what is in the Qur'an, and reinforces it. Explanatory Sunnah. This part of the Sunnah explains the holy Qur'an and the various Shariah injunctions that come in the holy Qur'an. It includes four parts expanding on what is mentioned only briefly in the holy Qur'an, explaining difficult verses or issues, putting limits on general statements in the Qur'an and finally specifying generalities in the Qur'an. Sunnah that brings new legislation. This part of the Sunnah is the one that brings new legislation, and new Shariah that is not in the holy Qur'an Another website put it this way The Sunnah comes in agreement with the Quran. It explains the meanings of what is unclear in the text, provides details for what is depicted in general terms, specifies what is general, and explains its injunctions and objectives. The Sunnah also comes with injunctions that are not provided by the Quran, but these are always in harmony with its principles, and they always advance the objectives that are outlined in the Quran. http//www.islamreligion.com/articles/655/ Two things catches our attention. "The Sunnah comes in agreement with the Quran" "The Sunnah also comes with injunctions that are not provided by the Quran but these are always in harmony with its principles" The problem is that this can only work if you accept the verses of the Quran are abrogated and therefore obsolete. Because the Sunnah in many ways contradict the Quran and are not in harmony with its verses. If you look at it carefully in the end the Quran has been made meaningless. So its not the Sunnah that should be discussed but what role does the Quran have when we talk about Islam. For the sects the Quran has no legal role, its a book to be recited and maybe memorized. It has a spiritual role but not a legal one. At most some of the verses can be used as a reference but only when there is an agreement between the Quran and Sunnah. In many cases there are contradictions. They solve that by abrogating the Quranic verses usually the Muhamedan ones since these are the ones that usually have direct commands to the believers. But they insist that the Quran is the first source of Islam. That is what they tell Muslims all the time. But we know they are not being honest.

Salam jtc i think personally, it can have two meanings either it points to the 'Sabbath' as youm al Gumua , that we should celebrate with a Salat (worship), but in contrast to the Sabbath, as it is practiced, the Quran don't suggest an absolute ban on working. I do not mean Sabbath= Saturday - it is the 'seventh' day from the beginning of a new lunar cycle and shifts so through the gregoranic calendar within a week. the other meaning The 'day' means 'time' and the 'meeting' points to the annual gathering of Hajj. In this interpretation, however, there are problems with the second part of the verse, and by the fact that only a Salat is mentioned. also then the hajj would have to be limited - the Qur'an however states that it can be made within four months. Another unsolved problem I see with a look of the mention 'the great Hajj (al hajj al akbar)' - there is also a smaller Hajj? And what is this small Hajj and at what time? i'am sure other people have different opinions peace

Salam mohf what is my conclusion, that the Dua can be a part from the Salat- the Salat is mentioned two times daily and linked with zikr Allah 2. reading /ponder over the Quran So after all the discussion about Salat i think the traditionell SALAT is not sooooooooooo wrong, if we imagine how the prophet propably hold it- a public session two times on day with recitation from the Quran and explanations- and a common prayer with DUA and SABIH . For me it's quite possible, that the people after the ministry of the prophet introduced the five daily prayers - even God mention two SALAT and to remember him special times... the two words are linked but not the same - a SALAT don't must contains Dua but can. this is only my personal opinion. See other views Salam and peace

Salam Everyone; I know I'm very late to reply but I stumbled upon this post while googling the meaning of the mentioned verse . I found my answer while looking in Arabic dictionaries. Arabic is my mother language and that's why I'm hoping to be of help to those who may not have found an answer yet. The literal meaning of the word yuthkhin (root th-kh-n) is to intensify, solidify, strengthen, or thicken. The word also means to beat, defeat or overcome. Verse says "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them (athkhantumuhum), then making fast of bonds." - Pickthall The meaning of the word 'athkhantumuhum' here is to route and defeat which requires to be the stronger party. This is the meaning provided in both Pickthall translation and the Arabic dictionary. It also has the same meaning in other translation Yusuf Ali to subdue Shakir to overcome Dr Ghali to subjugate, and he adds a note saying (Wrongly understood by Arberry and others to mean "slaughter&quot Now lets get back to the verse in question. It says "It is not for any prophet to have captives until 'yuthkina' in the land." The Arabic dictionary explains it in this context by giving two meanings. One is to slaughter, and the other to subdue the land after a battle. And if we look at different translations we see Pickthall to make slaughter in the land Yusuf Ali to subdue the land Shakir to fight and triumph Dr Ghali to subjugate the enemy in the earth Taking the second meaning, which is the same meaning of the word when it occurs in verse it becomes "It is not for any prophet to have captives until he has subdued/triumphed in the land." Which makes sense. You win the battle and take captives. You can find the Arabic dictionary on this link http//www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=%D8%AB%D8%AE%D9%86 And the different translations here http//quran.com/8/67 Hope this helps

I think the question here is whether there will ever be a Quranic nation where the citizens are predominately Quranist or whether Quranist will always be a minority in different countries. As far as democracy is concern the main desire for Quranist will be freedom and equality especially if they are a minority so other religious traditions cn not be imposed on them and they can practice and preach their religion freely. A non Quranist democracy might have some laws against the Quran but not that many. A Quranist state and a democracy are very similar in many ways. I can not see how a Sunni nation can be a democracy. There is too much contradictions between the two systems. So it seems the real question is what are the simlarities and differences between a Quranic state and a demoracy.

Salaam 22 This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous. 23 Those who Yoominnoun in the unseen, and hold the SALAT, and from Our provisions to them they spend. 24 And those who YOOMINOUN in what was sent down to you, and what was sent down before you, and regarding the Hereafter they are certain. Have you noticed that sallama means "give" and that Muslim Lillah coud means who receive from God and only from God. AMN means security. Respect the AMANA means to take care of what you received. For that, in should enter and be protected in our hearts. When i see how people take care of what they was given by God, i regret to have accepted the AMANA. Insan (same root as nasiya=forget) took the amana as a game and use the free choice to pollute it or throw it and not believe in it. Others than insan rejected to have the responsability of the AMANA and accepted to follows (yasbahouna) laws of God (physical, bological) dumbly, without free choice. Peace salaam If I may give my humble opinion, it may help you, if you first make a note of something very basic; which is that the Qur'an means 'the reading', whereas al-kitaab is mentioned in 2;2. It is there, in the aiyaat=letters, or haruwf, of the Quran (the reading). Please keep in mind that the letters, put togehter, makes a reading and unless you learn the letters first you can not learn to read. For example my husband can not read the Qur'an in Arabic. He has now learned the letter/haruwf/signs/ayaat in the Quran, and I must have repeated several times to him that next stage is once you learn to use the harakaaat/vowls of Arabic you will be able to read the Qur'an. simple steps you learn the sign/aiyaat/letters which makes the Book next step is to read 'the reading'. Even if you do not want to agree with me, if you read the above post, with this structure in mind, you would understand what the above surah is all about inshah allaah. salaam

Peace Noon, You keep plugging things in. I did that and it didn't always make sense. Well, it didn't make sense most of the time, to be perfectly honest. So, what I've realized, is that they are actually reexamining the entire text word by word. Let's just wait for their English translation, and then we'll all meet back here sometime in the future.

Shirley the scholar on AnNisa said Such scholars keep talking in air and issuing verdicts. When it comes to specifics, they say we ignore. How naive! The above four occurrences are not yet disputed that they signify this word as women. We move forward and see AnNisaa as an entity with whom intercourse is done. denotes that sexual act which a man does only with a women. It needs enterance point. And that is specific only to women. All members of the forum belong to what is denoted by Arabic word AnNaas. But they are further divided into men and women. Have a look on the signs appearing under their names. A woman cannot be a man and a man cannot be represented by similar sign. See AnNisaa means only and only women. Those scholars who are starting afresh should tell who are these with whom you have "entered"?