Salaam Alaikum Everyone.
-
Welcome group and peace peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Peace JSS and welcome to the forum. Its good to think criticaly. May I ask are you more of a liberal in your interpretation of the Quran or more literal?
Thanks
-
My approach to attempting to interpreting the Qur'an is to utilize a transliterated text that offers Arabic, English and transliteration so I can research if a word might have multiple meanings or may mean something other than what has commonly been assumed. So I first look at the literal translation and try to determine if the literal meaning is conducive to symbolism or not.
I am not opposed to a literal translation if it makes senses within the context of the surah and the surah's place within a historical framework.I am particularly curious as how to translate 'Maqam Ibrahim,' because maqam, in addition to standing place, can also mean 'station' as on a caravan route or 'grave' as in Ibrahim's grave at Macpelah in the area of Hebron. If Layth's theory were correct and I believe Layth offers some solid criteria for consideration, then after circumambulating Kaaba, one goes to the maqam Ibrahim. This could mean from Jerusalem to Hebron area. Considering how important Ibrahim's example is to Prophet Muhammad (saw), it seems very logical to me that after circumambulating the Kaaba, the Prophet would pay his respects to Ibrahim at his maqam (grave).
Also, if we knew more about the areas where the revelation took place, we might choose more accurately among several possibilities in interpretation. If Mecca were in a different place than tradition asserts, this does not destroy the message of the Qur'an at all in my opinion. It only makes us ask further what happened in history that would prompt scholars to place the events in a different location.
I simply try to figure out what may have actually occurred and will consider all possibilities whether literal or metaphorical.
-
Thank you for your welcome loxbox.
The problem is there is too many contradictions between the quran and history, one of them is right, the other is wrong
For example, how can we prouve that jerusalem existed before 2000 years ago ? it existed only in the bible, but not before jesus, actually jesus himself there is no record that he existed except in the scriptures, so we cannot rely on scriptures to verify , we don't have the original torah, we don't have an ancient torah, the quran is older than the torah we have now, so , what about mecca and becca ? why is becca not mecca? because we don't like sectarians? mecca is mentionned in the quran so it does exist , or at least it existed, who can prouve that Abraham was in jerusalem? the only archeological find is sodom wich is in the desert around the dead sea, north arabia, some people say the 1st muslim quibla was jerusalem, i still don't know where did they find it or how did they know, unless they go for hadiths, maybe the first quibla was India , why not? no one can prouve anything, and one more thing, how come they invented a city called mecca ? there is no record of older mecca or another mecca, i believe if mecca isn't in arabia , it has to be on the african side, ethiopia , jerusalem is definitaly ruled out, jerusalem didn't have prophets or mesengers, to me it's an invention of ancien sects, specially romans, well, the more i discuss about this , the more it doesn't make sense, too many theories, and no clear proof , do i gave up, i accept a city called mecca, it's in the quran, and i accept a messenger called mohamed, he's in the quran, other than that, i just read and change my mind evey few weeks, i debate with u now that mecca is in saudi arabia, next month i might tell u mecca is in south africa or who know ! LOL
Peace