The Self-Serving Verses of the Qur'an

clashncruz

Assalamu Alaykum all,

Not sure if you have all ever heard of this before, but the Golden Ratio number in the Qur'an is mathematical proof of its astounding accuracy. Have you ever heard of this before?Based on mathematical correlations there is truly no possibility that any of these verses are misplaced. Just look at the math

This is the gist The Golden Ratio is the number 1.61803398...
this number is found all over nature and plays into the aesthetic aspects of beauty, from our faces and arm length, to the flowers and fresh pines we love to smell, all is aesthetically and mathematically placed as such.

Onto the Qur'an which contains a total of 114 Surahs of varying lengths. Well if you add the Surah number like Al-Fatiah (1) and the number of verses in the surah (7) you will get 1 + 7 =8. 8 is the Surah Value. If you do this will all Surahs you will notice that some numbers repeat and some numbers do not.

Now, place all of the Surah values in an excel sheet and separate them in two columns, the ones with two or more of the same value and the ones with only one unique value. Now add all the numbers in each column.
You will get 7906 with the same value, and 4885 with a unique value. Do the math 7906/4885=1.61842375...

This is an incredibly accurate book, not only morally, logically, linguistically, and practically, but also mathematically. Subhan'Allah.

I have copied here the Excel table I used to confirm these calculations. I urge others to do the same.

Verses Value Same Unique Total Same Total Unique Quranic Ratio Golden Ratio

1 7 8 73 8 7906 4885 1.61842375 1.61803398
2 286 288 73 56
3 200 203 77 62
4 176 180 77 65
5 120 125 80 66
6 165 171 80 67
7 206 213 82 74
8 75 83 82 75
9 129 138 83 78
10 109 119 83 81
11 123 134 88 85
12 111 123 88 86
13 43 56 95 90
14 52 66 95 93
15 99 114 95 97
16 128 144 100 98
17 111 128 100 99
18 110 128 101 104
19 98 117 101 112
20 135 155 102 117
21 112 133 102 121
22 78 100 102 122
23 118 141 103 123
24 64 88 103 126
25 77 102 103 127
26 227 253 106 130
27 93 120 106 132
28 88 116 106 134
29 69 98 106 138
30 60 90 106 141
31 34 65 107 144
32 30 62 107 152
33 73 106 107 155
34 54 88 109 171
35 45 80 109 180
36 83 119 110 203
37 182 219 110 213
38 88 126 110 219
39 75 114 110 253
40 85 125 110 288
41 54 95 111
42 53 95 111
43 89 132 111
44 59 103 113
45 37 82 113
46 35 81 113
47 38 85 114
48 29 77 114
49 18 67 114
50 45 95 114
51 60 111 114
52 49 101 115
53 62 115 115
54 55 109 115
55 78 133 115
56 96 152 116
57 29 86 116
58 22 80 116
59 24 83 118
60 13 73 118
61 14 75 119
62 11 73 119
63 11 74 119
64 18 82 119
65 12 77 120
66 12 78 120
67 30 97 120
68 52 120 125
69 52 121 125
70 44 114 125
71 28 99 128
72 28 100 128
73 20 93 133
74 56 130 133
75 40 115
76 31 107
77 50 127
78 40 118
79 46 125
80 42 122
81 29 110
82 19 101
83 36 119
84 25 109
85 22 107
86 17 103
87 19 106
88 26 114
89 30 119
90 20 110
91 15 106
92 21 113
93 11 104
94 8 102
95 8 103
96 19 115
97 5 102
98 8 106
99 8 107
100 11 111
101 11 112
102 8 110
103 3 106
104 9 113
105 5 110
106 4 110
107 7 114
108 3 111
109 6 115
110 3 113
111 5 116
112 4 116
113 5 118
114 6 120

Again, I did not discover this, I am just passing along the information.

"And if you tried to count the favors of God , you could not enumerate them. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." - 1618 Golden Ratio Verse, as the Golden Ratio number is infinite; it can never be counted completely.

Salaam,

Clash

virginia

Salam,

of course i am not talking about the free-minders, just saying...

Why are we always reading these verses with suspicion?? we have some verse and people all are always like "oh you see? you see? so Muhammad was "this" afterall!". We have some verse with no historical context, and we are supposing things and always ending up with the idea that Muhammad was allowed this and that. God wanted the Quran to be preserved with no historical context.

For example about Zayd. They say the prophet wanted Zayd's ex wife so Allah gave her to him. What is that, brothers? You know? that's the point why many women in the world don't accept Qur'an although they would believe in it. Stop.

We don't have the context. We don't know what happened in those concrete moments, and if God did not explain the context Himself in the Book is because

It is not important
Don't mess it up with hadiths, guys
God might be testing exactly this how suspicious we are about His Book when we read it.

I have many theories for these verse, but the most I read the most I realize that God is actually making Muhammad to sacrifice No matter what he tries, HE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE DESCENDANTS. Muhammad's offspring ruling the religion is not in God's plan and God knows how importat lineage is for human beings. Islam won't be a lineage, it's a system for humanity. Muhammad won't have progeny and God cuts it off in every single way.

At some point I think the prohet thought of Zayd like the only thing he would have as a son in this life. After all he was a human being, he would have thought of him like a real son. Now God makes the prophet marry Zayd's ex wife. Nowhere it is said that Muhammad wanted her (what prophet is this lusting every single skirt who passed by him???). In those years this divine order would have mean clearly HE IS NOT YOUR SON SINCE YOU ARE GOING TO MARRY HIS EX WIFE. This is the strongest and loudest NO i have ever heard. No one is hurt but Muhammad himself.

The whole ummah back then and Humanity afterwards will know that Muhammad was not to leave a lineage. That's the point. The same about his other wifes.

Why do we have to read it like Muhammad wants the girl, God gives the girl. What God and what Prophet are these? Why can't we read it in other way attending to the fact that we have not the context, with a clean mind and keeping in mind that he is "the Compassive" and women were not objects for gift to any prophet, not back then and not today.

I am sure Muhammad should have had to struggle with this fact. A lot. Wasn't he a human being? God never tested His prophets? Of course God was testing Muhammad too!!! Maybe God tests His prophets more than He tests the rest of us.

Qur'an was written for women too. Why do we read it otherwise?

Huruf, sister, your post was inspiring as always.

Salam!

have an inspiring Friday!

huruf

It is a good insight, virginia. On the hother hand there was Fatma, and although the Qur'an did not push for a hereditary thing nd she died young and did not seem to be anything but very pious and alien to worldly ambitions, her husband and children were indeed involved in some power struggle seemingly unwillingly. However, I do think that had there been a male descendant things would have been much, much worse and may be history much much worse too.

There is a lot of things that would seem symptomatic of a will to divest the world of much of the arbitrary male power in the world and the Qur'an also points that way. However the inability of humas to walk that walk seems to hve trumped, till now, any measures in that direction.

Salaam

In that sense

Comrox

Salam,

of course i am not talking about the free-minders, just saying...

Why are we always reading these verses with suspicion?? we have some verse and people all are always like "oh you see? you see? so Muhammad was "this" afterall!". We have some verse with no historical context, and we are supposing things and always ending up with the idea that Muhammad was allowed this and that. God wanted the Quran to be preserved with no historical context.

I can only speak for myself, but I think we read certain verses with suspicion because for some, when taken individually, verses can sound like they're for Muhammad's own gain. There were some great responses and explanations in this thread that I am thankful for. group

Other verses sound really ambiguous, or like they are meant for a certain people. The verse about Zayd is very specific to the prophet. We don't have a prophet now. We don't know who Zayd is. It is clear that that verse was addressed to a certain person at a certain time. Many people are naturally curious, and they'll want to know what the historical context is, if there's any, that's behind the verse. You may not care who Zayd is or his wife and their relationship with Muhammad, and that's fine, but I do.

For those of us who were brought up in traditional Muslim households, or even for those of us who are converts, we've all been introduced to hadith at one point. When we're not being careful, or aware of which information comes from which source, we can mix up or incorporate hadith information with the Qur'an, either knowingly or unknowingly.

There's also a lot of anti-Islam/anti-Qur'an information on the Internet. It can be difficult to ignore, especially on social media where people love to attack religion in the comment sections. Personally, I don't want to ignore it if it's new criticism that I haven't thought about before. I believe I'm a pretty skeptical person. I'd rather embrace the criticism, and think about it, and work it over in my mind until I come to a satisfactory answer to the criticism. (If I can't, I post it here to debate it with you all. ;D) This way I'm not harboring doubts and allowing them to grow. I can't live with that kind of blind faith. I want to be firm.

There's also the commonly quoted hadith with Ayisha reporting to Muhammad, "My Lord hastens in fulfilling your desires" or something along those lines. When originally writing up this thread, that hadith was difficult to forget, even though I don't believe in hadith.

I guess for me I occasionally entertain the thought of "what if we're wrong?" and I know I've seen threads on here that have shared the same concerns. It's hard for me to accept that there are things we don't know at all about whoever brought the physical message of the Qur'an. I just want to know! Where did they live? What kind of person were they really? What did they do in their free time? Etc. But eventually I have to come to terms with and accept the fact that I don't know everything, and I won't know everything about the prophet, and I never will. giveup

For example about Zayd. They say the prophet wanted Zayd's ex wife so Allah gave her to him. What is that, brothers? You know? that's the point why many women in the world don't accept Qur'an although they would believe in it. Stop.

We don't have the context. We don't know what happened in those concrete moments, and if God did not explain the context Himself in the Book is because

It is not important
Don't mess it up with hadiths, guys
God might be testing exactly this how suspicious we are about His Book when we read it.

I have many theories for these verse, but the most I read the most I realize that God is actually making Muhammad to sacrifice No matter what he tries, HE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE DESCENDANTS. Muhammad's offspring ruling the religion is not in God's plan and God knows how importat lineage is for human beings. Islam won't be a lineage, it's a system for humanity. Muhammad won't have progeny and God cuts it off in every single way.

At some point I think the prohet thought of Zayd like the only thing he would have as a son in this life. After all he was a human being, he would have thought of him like a real son. Now God makes the prophet marry Zayd's ex wife. Nowhere it is said that Muhammad wanted her (what prophet is this lusting every single skirt who passed by him???). In those years this divine order would have mean clearly HE IS NOT YOUR SON SINCE YOU ARE GOING TO MARRY HIS EX WIFE. This is the strongest and loudest NO i have ever heard. No one is hurt but Muhammad himself.

The whole ummah back then and Humanity afterwards will know that Muhammad was not to leave a lineage. That's the point. The same about his other wifes.

Why do we have to read it like Muhammad wants the girl, God gives the girl. What God and what Prophet are these? Why can't we read it in other way attending to the fact that we have not the context, with a clean mind and keeping in mind that he is "the Compassive" and women were not objects for gift to any prophet, not back then and not today.

I am sure Muhammad should have had to struggle with this fact. A lot. Wasn't he a human being? God never tested His prophets? Of course God was testing Muhammad too!!! Maybe God tests His prophets more than He tests the rest of us.

Qur'an was written for women too. Why do we read it otherwise?

Huruf, sister, your post was inspiring as always.

Salam!

have an inspiring Friday!

Good rest of your post, I liked it.

Peace!

virginia

Salam, Comrox

Other verses sound really ambiguous, or like they are meant for a certain people.

You said it "like they are meant..." The thing is that they are in the Qur'an. 1400 years later those verses are in the Qur'an and they were meant to be read by us too. That's my point. God wouldn't spare in His last Revelation to Humanity some verses to Muhammad and just Muhammad. Surely He would not spare verses for the satisfaction of Muhammad's taste in women!!!

The verse about Zayd is very specific to the prophet. We don't have a prophet now. We don't know who Zayd is. It is clear that that verse was addressed to a certain person at a certain time. Many people are naturally curious, and they'll want to know what the historical context is, if there's any, that's behind the verse. You may not care who Zayd is or his wife and their relationship with Muhammad, and that's fine, but I do.

God did not want us to have this background. The Qur'an is clear and explains itself. Let's cut the trees that don't let us see it clear.
I understand the curiosity, it starts everything, good and bad, and all of us are here because at some point we were curious, in the good sense.
There is no background here, nor in the other self-serving verses. Qur'an tells that you don't need the historical background, Qur'an says you that God is Justice and Merciful. We have to think a little more because obviously hadiths don't make sense with the rest of the Kitab. They stain the Book! They infect even the verses about the Paradise symbolism and gives us a god whose reward is sex and terrenal pleasures in Paradise! Come on! I don't know you, but if I am coming to Paradise (May God gorfive my all sins and my bad character and my wrongdoings) where I am coming by the hand of my last husband (becasue everything in hadiths is gentlemen first ) to see him have fun with a dozen sex "spiritual" or whatever companions but... oh women of the tradition, it is ok, you will be fine, it is Paradiseeee... i'd rather go to hell! Not because of jelousy but because of unjustice.
Their Muhammad and the Muhammad in the Qur'an can not be the same person, neither any of the sayings of Muhammad (counting good and bad deeds to have a final count to see if you go into Paradise or not, I am sure this was an accountant who made this hadith up trying to make a new product to launch to the market). Anyway I am trying hard to stay in the subject, not an anti hadith post here, sorry.

For those of us who were brought up in traditional Muslim households, or even for those of us who are converts, we've all been introduced to hadith at one point. When we're not being careful, or aware of which information comes from which source, we can mix up or incorporate hadith information with the Qur'an, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Maybe that is the point, I was not raised in a Muslim home, so I can only see the bad point of the hadith traditions. Since I have a personal issue with these traditions, I really can not see their "good" side. I started with only Qur'an. And yes, sometimes I found a hadith or tradition about, and every single time this hadith or tradition was making me feel the most miserable person in the world.

There's also a lot of anti-Islam/anti-Qur'an information on the Internet. It can be difficult to ignore, especially on social media where people love to attack religion in the comment sections. Personally, I don't want to ignore it if it's new criticism that I haven't thought about before. I believe I'm a pretty skeptical person. I'd rather embrace the criticism, and think about it, and work it over in my mind until I come to a satisfactory answer to the criticism. (If I can't, I post it here to debate it with you all. ;D) This way I'm not harboring doubts and allowing them to grow. I can't live with that kind of blind faith. I want to be firm.

I would say there is a lot of anti sunna view of the Quran, and given this, as you say, I find those sites even logical! Looking at tradition from the eyes of a western woman, for example, this criticism has to be done, it is logical and it is even necessary.
Anyway, may God guide us, sister, guide and give us the light we need to be able to read it as it has to be read, as free, independent and strong women of the XXI century, because the Qur'an was written for us too.
I use to talk about "making justice to Muhammad". We can make it, we can escape and look at him as he is given in the Qur'an. He was a good man who followed and recited the Qur'an, he sacrificed his wellbeing too fulfill God's mission for him, and if you read it properly, you will see that there are not favours to him in the Quran, but exactly the opposite he is sacrifiying even more. He was really a muslim, he submitted in all senses. This man and the Muhammad of the hadiths are not the same. And here it comes the greatest sacrifice of Muhammad after his life he became a worshipped idol himself. He gave it all, even this. He gave even his afterlife reputation and status. Did he understand at some point in his life, watching at his people, that this would happen? I think he did, he was really intelligent. I think he doubted, I think at many moments he was scared to death. I am sure he even actually heard traditions/lies/misunderstandings about himself. And he kept doing his job. I don't think any other man would have done so.

So, he deserves some justice. And it will be done when any single human being who's seeking the truth and reading the Qur'an will see a Muhammad who is far away from a womanizer, a pederast, a "let's lapidate" defender to whom the Book of God is making favours!!!

There's also the commonly quoted hadith with Ayisha reporting to Muhammad, "My Lord hastens in fulfilling your desires" or something along those lines. When originally writing up this thread, that hadith was difficult to forget, even though I don't believe in hadith.

I won't talk about Aisha. This fictional character takes out the worst of me, really brickwall

I guess for me I occasionally entertain the thought of "what if we're wrong?" and I know I've seen threads on here that have shared the same concerns. It's hard for me to accept that there are things we don't know at all about whoever brought the physical message of the Qur'an. I just want to know! Where did they live? What kind of person were they really? What did they do in their free time? Etc. But eventually I have to come to terms with and accept the fact that I don't know everything, and I won't know everything about the prophet, and I never will. giveup

We all are curious. God wanted us to research better or God is just telling us it is not important. Anyway, you see? When He says he is going to preserve the Book? He made it! And it is one of the reasons why we have the Qur'an alone, with no historical context in it, he is telling us to stay free and don't confuse them.

Good rest of your post, I liked it.

Anyway and in any case, how can we know that these so called self serving verses are addressed to Muhammad? Everythime the Quran says "Oh Prophet" is that for Muhammad?

I want so badly to read free women hypothesis about the self serving verses... please post if you have, or email me or whateveeeeer!!

Have a great day!

huruf

When God considered appropriate to reveal some verses to tell the prophet to tell his mates to not giver rise to problems for him as a messenger, it says it all.

The prophet, even in cuestions pertaining to his missionn as messenger, did not seem too ready or willing to oppose his mates, and God then intervenes to set things clearly for them only in so far as his missionn as messenger is concerned not as a particular man. Which goes to show that, as a male mate, God does not intend to favour him or any other male, but that as a messenger he must be followed even if you ar a mate of his.

As to Zayd, I guess it is one of those quandaries which happen in life I think to all of us where we must choose between conflicting principles or feelings of rectitude or loyalty, things where we may see very clearly whe it touches somebody else, but not whe it touches us. As the red Indian saying goes, don't judge anybody before you have walked so many miles in her shoes.

That kind of thing is obnoxious. May be the teaching of the zayd ayas or one of the teachings is to know that we have to stop somewhere when we want that absolutely everything be clear for us because if not there is a pea under our mattress.

I confess that of the question about Zayd or zayd, I do not get a clear picture of any particular situation, though I may imagine some, but also I do not care. I mean, has God lied to me over and over in the Qur'an and therefore I am suspicious? No. I do not think I have been lied to but think that the Qur'an as a whole is very truthful and does not pander to whims nor prejudice nor pollitical correctness nor to peas under the mattresses; that it defies marketing speach and speaks to me as a sincere person and as a personn capable of accepting REALITY as it is, without sugar added.

I already know beforehand that I amnot allpowerful (it is so obvious) nor allknowing, so what if I cannot explain absolutely everything of what is said in the Qur'an? Nohting, I don't loose breath nor hunger nor any of the things that make me a rather satisfied person.

May be one day unexpectedly something will tell me the "mystery" of the zayd passage. Great. It has hapenned many times with themes of the Qur'an, that suddenly through this or that person, some of those times here in this forum, I have read something that has made the light on some of the "misteries" the Qur'an, many of them conrived by the very people.

However it may be, The overall feeling of relief left by the Qur'an in the mind and the feelings is, for me, the overriding matter. EXISTENCE MAKES SENSE and I and all and everything are part of it.

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

EXISTENCE MAKES SENSE and I and all and everything are part of it.

Yes, yes! And the word for existence (Being) is Allah by the very word alone. Allah means being.

And your creator is called Rabb in Arabic and is an esoteric symbiotic phenomenon you are part of. By that, Rabb encompasses more (are greater) than you since every being is a conscious or unconscious mind within, you can only steer in consensus depending on the realization (growth) of your person which determines whether you are conscious or not.

Be well
Amenuel

Hizbullah

For example about Zayd. They say the prophet wanted Zayd's ex wife so Allah gave her to him. What is that, brothers? You know? that's the point why many women in the world don't accept Qur'an although they would believe in it. Stop.

We don't have the context. We don't know what happened in those concrete moments, and if God did not explain the context Himself in the Book is because

It is not important
Don't mess it up with hadiths, guys
God might be testing exactly this how suspicious we are about His Book when we read it.

I have many theories for these verse, but the most I read the most I realize that God is actually making Muhammad to sacrifice No matter what he tries, HE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE DESCENDANTS. Muhammad's offspring ruling the religion is not in God's plan and God knows how importat lineage is for human beings. Islam won't be a lineage, it's a system for humanity. Muhammad won't have progeny and God cuts it off in every single way.

At some point I think the prohet thought of Zayd like the only thing he would have as a son in this life. After all he was a human being, he would have thought of him like a real son. Now God makes the prophet marry Zayd's ex wife. Nowhere it is said that Muhammad wanted her (what prophet is this lusting every single skirt who passed by him???). In those years this divine order would have mean clearly HE IS NOT YOUR SON SINCE YOU ARE GOING TO MARRY HIS EX WIFE. This is the strongest and loudest NO i have ever heard. No one is hurt but Muhammad himself.

The whole ummah back then and Humanity afterwards will know that Muhammad was not to leave a lineage. That's the point. The same about his other wifes.

Why do we have to read it like Muhammad wants the girl, God gives the girl. What God and what Prophet are these? Why can't we read it in other way attending to the fact that we have not the context, with a clean mind and keeping in mind that he is "the Compassive" and women were not objects for gift to any prophet, not back then and not today.

I am sure Muhammad should have had to struggle with this fact. A lot. Wasn't he a human being? God never tested His prophets? Of course God was testing Muhammad too!!! Maybe God tests His prophets more than He tests the rest of us.

There are two different instructions, one for the Messenger and his people who Believes - 3337; and the other for the Prophet himself - 3338.

Nowhere in that verse mentioned the Prophet was instructed to marry Zaid's X!

If you read further verse 3338, it explicitly mentioned the Prophet and with that verse you will have to cross reference with 3350, which again explicitly shows who were the women that the Prophet could marry and who were the women the believers could marry.

Further in 3340 mentioned that the Prophet was not "the father any of your men" indication he NEVER made any men his sons, biological or not!

peace

truthseeker11

Peace Comrox,

The quran gives us a methodology to determine the truth, and this quranic methodology can be used to verify the truth of the quran itself (4153). The complete quranic methodology is using inner compass/conscience (3030), using mind/reason (numerous verses), knowledge (1736), and real world evidence (4153). You can apply this to any verse to determine if it is the truth, and if any verse fails to pass this verification methodology, it can be safely rejected as falsehood. Similarly, you can apply this methodology to any statement you come across in your life, of any origin, to determine its truth.

I am curious as to which verses out of your initial quoted verses are still troubling you, after the discussions with other posters. I will appreciate if you can post a fresh list of verses you are still not clear about.

I have been studying the quran in depth for more than 10 years now. I also used to have a lot of verses that troubled me but slowly I was able to whittle them down using the above mentioned methodology. However, there still are quite a few verses that I find troubling and which do not make any sense to me even after years of study, research and trying to understand them and discussing them with brilliant and extremely learned people on this forum and elsewhere. Since I have been unable to verify their truth after applying the quranic methodology, I am left with no option but to consider the possibility that some falsehoods might have crept into the current text of the quran (as opposed to the original text of al-quran). Some of those verses are in common with your list, viz. 3350, 3351 and 3333.

The prophet should have the same rights and privileges as any other human because he is supposed to be an example for other humans. Why does his list of women to be allowed for marriage per 3350 be different from that for any other human being? "privilege given only to you and not to the believers". This is discrimination.

3351 seems misogynous, unfair and discriminatory against women. No wife deserves such a treatment.

3333 seems misogynous, unfair and discriminatory against women. Is going out of home not virtuous? Men can go out of home but women should stay in?

Don't make any sense coming from a fair, just and wise infinite Creator.

Peace

Comrox

Peace truthseeker11,

Peace Comrox,

The quran gives us a methodology to determine the truth, and this quranic methodology can be used to verify the truth of the quran itself (4153). The complete quranic methodology is using inner compass/conscience (3030), using mind/reason (numerous verses), knowledge (1736), and real world evidence (4153). You can apply this to any verse to determine if it is the truth, and if any verse fails to pass this verification methodology, it can be safely rejected as falsehood. Similarly, you can apply this methodology to any statement you come across in your life, of any origin, to determine its truth.

I am curious as to which verses out of your initial quoted verses are still troubling you, after the discussions with other posters. I will appreciate if you can post a fresh list of verses you are still not clear about.

I have been studying the quran in depth for more than 10 years now. I also used to have a lot of verses that troubled me but slowly I was able to whittle them down using the above mentioned methodology. However, there still are quite a few verses that I find troubling and which do not make any sense to me even after years of study, research and trying to understand them and discussing them with brilliant and extremely learned people on this forum and elsewhere. Since I have been unable to verify their truth after applying the quranic methodology, I am left with no option but to consider the possibility that some falsehoods might have crept into the current text of the quran (as opposed to the original text of al-quran). Some of those verses are in common with your list, viz. 3350, 3351 and 3333.

The prophet should have the same rights and privileges as any other human because he is supposed to be an example for other humans. Why does his list of women to be allowed for marriage per 3350 be different from that for any other human being? "privilege given only to you and not to the believers". This is discrimination.

3351 seems misogynous, unfair and discriminatory against women. No wife deserves such a treatment.

3333 seems misogynous, unfair and discriminatory against women. Is going out of home not virtuous? Men can go out of home but women should stay in?

Don't make any sense coming from a fair, just and wise infinite Creator.

Peace

Interesting. How do you reconcile that belief (that falsehood exists in the Qur'an) with the statements in Qur'an that there are no contradictions, that the Qur'an is preserved, and that we must believe in all of it (as opposed to cherry-picking)? By thinking some verses are false, shouldn't that mean you don't believe in the statements I just mentioned, and thus question the Qur'an's divinity? Even if the original text was preserved, doesn't it still say something if it's not preserved completely now?

What verses are still troubling you? I'm not sure what specific verses I have issue with now. Members' contributions on this thread have helped a lot. I haven't thought about any verse problems I've had recently. I would have to think about it and come back to you on that, lol.

3351... I suppose it's the way you look at it, yes it could appear very misogynous. But other members having posted in this thread have had no problem with it or any other of the verses I mentioned.

3333 is addressing the wives of the prophet only, given the context of 3332. I also feel that 3332 gives them quite a status, as well as the other verse mentioned that says they are the mothers of the believers. But still, your point is something you should investigate more into.

The only issue I can think of now is more of a general one; I just wish some verses were clearer. I wish I didn't feel like I had to go through mental gymnastics to understand. If some verses were clearer, perhaps there could be more consensus, and less potential interpretations of unjust violence/misogyny/hate/discrimination/etc.

truthseeker11

Peace Comrox,

Interesting. How do you reconcile that belief (that falsehood exists in the Qur'an) with the statements in Qur'an that there are no contradictions, that the Qur'an is preserved, and that we must believe in all of it (as opposed to cherry-picking)? By thinking some verses are false, shouldn't that mean you don't believe in the statements I just mentioned, and thus question the Qur'an's divinity? Even if the original text was preserved, doesn't it still say something if it's not preserved completely now?

Two words

Circular reasoning (begging the question)

http//www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-the-question/

This logical fallacy of circular reasoning is a very dangerous trap in which I myself fell headlong for most of my life. Only recently have I learned to avoid this nasty trap.

Those verses you mentioned can also be seen in another way. Those verses do not necessarily mean that the current text of the quran has not been tampered with at all. The infinite Creator did preserve the message and does not allow any falsehood to enter or discrepancies to arise, and what that means is as soon as any falsehood enters or discrepancy is introduced by the negative entities, the quranic methodology I mentioned previously detects it immediately and you can easily tell which verses were tampered with. So those "protection" verses (159, 4142, 482) can be looked at from this angle.

Another way of reconciling those verses is that they refer to the original text of the quran still preserved in lawh mahfouz (8522) and there should be no discrepancy or falsehood in that text.

What verses are still troubling you?

I will have to make a list and bring them to your attention.

Of course even the current text of the quran has amazing and profound truths of divine origin. The fundamental truths of oneness of the Infinite Creator (the law of one), the last day (the day of harvest), and doing good deeds (service to others) are undeniably true and all that really matters (262, 569).

On my journey of truth seeking, I have come across a few other messages of divine origin that confirm these fundamental truths and are in line with the core quranic teachings. The most recent message was sent to humans in 1980s through a female! (the infinite Creator is not patriarchal or misogynist). In my opinion, this recent message passed the quranic methodology with flying colors and has very very few errors if any!

In my opinion, the same fundamental message was periodically sent to humanity for millions of years and every time it got corrupted by the negative entities whose agenda was control and manipulation of human race through fear based tactics.

If you study the Sanaa manuscripts which date from the time of the Prophet, they are unequivocal and indisputable archeological evidence of tampering with the original divine message. No wonder the Yemeni authorities allowed only 40 folios to be studied in detail by researchers and when evidence of this SIGNIFICANT tampering started to surface, they put the remaining thousands of parchments belonging to about 900 qurans under lock and key and refused any further access to them. Go figure. Question is, what are they trying to hide?

The quranic methodology mentioned in my previous post detects these falsehoods very easily and is the best way to ascertain any truth. I am eagerly awaiting the discovery of the original text of the quran which I am pretty sure is preserved somewhere on this Earth, in addition to the lawh mahfouz (8522 - the Akashic library).

MUST WATCH VIDEO

https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=OxjvNgjza6k&feature=youtu.be

I have downloaded this video because I am pretty sure it is going to disappear soon! This video is about the actual birth place of Islam according to undisputable archeological evidence and is one of the best videos I have ever seen on this subject. Towards the end of the video there is discussion and evidence of possible tampering with the original text of the quran.

The only issue I can think of now is more of a general one; I just wish some verses were clearer. I wish I didn't feel like I had to go through mental gymnastics to understand. If some verses were clearer, perhaps there could be more consensus, and less potential interpretations of unjust violence/misogyny/hate/discrimination/etc.

What you said above puts even more verses in the "troubling" classification!

This is a "clear" contradiction with the multiple assertions of "clear" revelations (299, 1015, 1973, 2216, 2272, 241, 2949, 3443, 4525, 467, 579, 6511). So either these "clear revelation" verses are tampered with to say "clear" or the unclear verses are the ones tampered with.

Peace

Comrox

Peace truthseeker11,

Peace Comrox,

Two words

Circular reasoning (begging the question)

http//www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-the-question/

This logical fallacy of circular reasoning is a very dangerous trap in which I myself fell headlong for most of my life. Only recently have I learned to avoid this nasty trap.

Those verses you mentioned can also be seen in another way. Those verses do not necessarily mean that the current text of the quran has not been tampered with at all. The infinite Creator did preserve the message and does not allow any falsehood to enter or discrepancies to arise, and what that means is as soon as any falsehood enters or discrepancy is introduced by the negative entities, the quranic methodology I mentioned previously detects it immediately and you can easily tell which verses were tampered with. So those "protection" verses (159, 4142, 482) can be looked at from this angle.

Another way of reconciling those verses is that they refer to the original text of the quran still preserved in lawh mahfouz (8522) and there should be no discrepancy or falsehood in that text.

I like the first way you put it, and I agree with it. That seems like a good angle to approach the situation. )

I will have to make a list and bring them to your attention.

I'll be waiting, if you wish to compile it that is.

Of course even the current text of the quran has amazing and profound truths of divine origin. The fundamental truths of oneness of the Infinite Creator (the law of one), the last day (the day of harvest), and doing good deeds (service to others) are undeniably true and all that really matters (262, 569).

I agree. peace

On my journey of truth seeking, I have come across a few other messages of divine origin that confirm these fundamental truths and are in line with the core quranic teachings. The most recent message was sent to humans in 1980s through a female! (the infinite Creator is not patriarchal or misogynist). In my opinion, this recent message passed the quranic methodology with flying colors and has very very few errors if any!

Could you elaborate on the above?

In my opinion, the same fundamental message was periodically sent to humanity for millions of years and every time it got corrupted by the negative entities whose agenda was control and manipulation of human race through fear based tactics.

If you study the Sanaa manuscripts which date from the time of the Prophet, they are unequivocal and indisputable archeological evidence of tampering with the original divine message. No wonder the Yemeni authorities allowed only 40 folios to be studied in detail by researchers and when evidence of this SIGNIFICANT tampering started to surface, they put the remaining thousands of parchments belonging to about 900 qurans under lock and key and refused any further access to them. Go figure. Question is, what are they trying to hide?

I've never studied them but I've heard there were some differences between those manuscripts and the Arabic text of the Qur'an that we have today.

The quranic methodology mentioned in my previous post detects these falsehoods very easily and is the best way to ascertain any truth. I am eagerly awaiting the discovery of the original text of the quran which I am pretty sure is preserved somewhere on this Earth, in addition to the lawh mahfouz (8522 - the Akashic library).

Peace

I like your approach to this Qur'anic methodology. ;D Insha'Allah one day the truth will be finally revealed to us through a proper understanding of the text, whether it be the one we have now or the original. But originals are always best of course.

truthseeker11

Peace Comrox,

It appears I added some comments at the bottom of my previous post while you were replying, so please go through them if you haven't. Apologize for the late edit but I had to watch the video first before posting it.

Thank you for the reply. I will reply in detail later by the will of the Creator.

Peace

Comrox

Peace truthseeker11,

Peace Comrox,

It appears I added some comments at the bottom of my previous post while you were replying, so please go through them if you haven't. Apologize for the late edit but I had to watch the video first before posting it.

Thank you for the reply. I will reply in detail later by the will of the Creator.

Peace

Thank you for alerting me. I may have missed the additions otherwise. No worries; I go back and edit a lot too, even a while after I've originally posted. Perfectionist, haha.

MUST WATCH VIDEO

https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=OxjvNgjza6k&feature=youtu.be

I have downloaded this video because I am pretty sure it is going to disappear soon! This video is about the actual birth place of Islam according to undisputable archeological evidence and is one of the best videos I have ever seen on this subject. Towards the end of the video there is discussion and evidence of possible tampering with the original text of the quran.

Ooh it's long, but I'll have to watch it tomorrow or the next day, Insha'Allah. I'm sure it's worth it.

What you said above puts even more verses in the "troubling" classification!

This is a "clear" contradiction with the multiple assertions of "clear" revelations (299, 1015, 1973, 2216, 2272, 241, 2949, 3443, 4525, 467, 579, 6511). So either these "clear revelation" verses are tampered with to say "clear" or the unclear verses are the ones tampered with.

Peace

Or maybe the only clear signs/verses are the ones that are necessary for our salvation?

Looking forward to your later replies. )

Timotheus

Yes, yes! And the word for existence (Being) is Allah by the very word alone. Allah means being.

And your creator is called Rabb in Arabic and is an esoteric symbiotic phenomenon you are part of. By that, Rabb encompasses more (are greater) than you since every being is a conscious or unconscious mind within, you can only steer in consensus depending on the realization (growth) of your person which determines whether you are conscious or not.

Be well
Amenuel

Peace,

Do you have any evidence for your view that al-llah means being?

mmkhan

MUST WATCH VIDEO

https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=OxjvNgjza6k&feature=youtu.be

Peace bro,

Thanks for the video bravo

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Do you have any evidence for your view that al-llah means being?

Yes. Look in ancient Classical Arabic lexicons and the form . It does not take much intelligence to see the word of has a attached to it as suffix. is the word claimed to mean a deity, but it is as simple as that it is the prefix, a little like saying "the" in English, and the Arabic third-person singular and linguistically it means (the) who/which. with its dual alters the meaning a little to say "(the) who that". Basically like I have written multiple times in the forum, this word is a third person simplified form of what Rabb conveys to Moses at their first "meeting" on the mountain which was "(who) I am - being/origin - (who) I am", in Hebrew "Heyeh ashar Heyeh" or in Arabic transliteration using Semitic letters although in Arabic is should be with Seen instead of Shiin (for the root).

Why I tend to translate that as "being" is an English adaptation to make sense when you make a rendition since "Who Is" would not seem fluent in English a lot of the time. Another choice is simply "is" and in English you do not need to write out the third person pronoun or rather predicate as the is used as in the word as you know you you are speaking about the subject. This is done in Arabic because Arabic is a perfectionist or exacting language not meant to be possible to be misunderstood (as long as you know the grammar and do not simply guess how it is constructed). Even words in Arabic can NEVER change their meaning and mean the same from day 1 and they have only one general meaning and cannot have two opposite/different meanings and they communicate using their very letters which form what the word like to say.

So when I say "Being" as translation I basically skip words to make the English more fluent whereas if more native to the language I would write "Who Is Being", however this is not required to mean the same in English as long as you know the subject in the context.

Morphologically, Allah goes like this " Is Like Like Who/Which.

The same morphology can be used on other words, see 'selam' for example " Spirit Like Thereof" for a word that means 'sound' where the "thereof" reference goes back to Rabb, i.e. the spirit is like Rabb's which implies soundness.

If you look in an ancient Arabic lexicon you can find the reference to God/Rabb within definitions found under the root for AL . The other claimed root, is not even a root and fundamental roots seldom end or start with a (this is true for other words too such as which in fact is a form of &#1609. Looking in Arabic lexicons of the past you can find very close connections to AL under Aleh.

Bonus knowledge for you is that the three letters of and and and all share the same group and in words they substitute each other depending on grammatical forms. Another example besides the one in within parenthesis in the previous paragraph is (al-mowt) which is a (ma) substituting the for a in order to give adhesion to the in the word, so basically consists of the word meaning 'not'. Together with it linguistically exact means "Without character" (i.e. lifeless). So is not its own root, either, but consists of the word for 'not'. Loads of roots in lexicons are given their own root while they are not, but different forms. An updated, more academic, lexicon would list word forms under respective fundamental root.

Be well
Amenuel

Timotheus

Yes. Look in ancient Classical Arabic lexicons and the form . It does not take much intelligence to see the word of has a attached to it as suffix. is the word claimed to mean a deity, but it is as simple as that it is the prefix, a little like saying "the" in English, and the Arabic third-person singular and linguistically it means (the) who/which. with its dual alters the meaning a little to say "(the) who that". Basically like I have written multiple times in the forum, this word is a third person simplified form of what Rabb conveys to Moses at their first "meeting" on the mountain which was "(who) I am - being/origin - (who) I am", in Hebrew "Heyeh ashar Heyeh" or in Arabic transliteration using Semitic letters although in Arabic is should be with Seen instead of Shiin (for the root).

Why I tend to translate that as "being" is an English adaptation to make sense when you make a rendition since "Who Is" would not seem fluent in English a lot of the time. Another choice is simply "is" and in English you do not need to write out the third person pronoun or rather predicate as the is used as in the word as you know you you are speaking about the subject. This is done in Arabic because Arabic is a perfectionist or exacting language not meant to be possible to be misunderstood (as long as you know the grammar and do not simply guess how it is constructed). Even words in Arabic can NEVER change their meaning and mean the same from day 1 and they have only one general meaning and cannot have two opposite/different meanings and they communicate using their very letters which form what the word like to say.

So when I say "Being" as translation I basically skip words to make the English more fluent whereas if more native to the language I would write "Who Is Being", however this is not required to mean the same in English as long as you know the subject in the context.

Morphologically, Allah goes like this " Is Like Like Who/Which.

The same morphology can be used on other words, see 'selam' for example " Spirit Like Thereof" for a word that means 'sound' where the "thereof" reference goes back to Rabb, i.e. the spirit is like Rabb's which implies soundness.

If you look in an ancient Arabic lexicon you can find the reference to God/Rabb within definitions found under the root for AL . The other claimed root, is not even a root and fundamental roots seldom end or start with a (this is true for other words too such as which in fact is a form of &#1609. Looking in Arabic lexicons of the past you can find very close connections to AL under Aleh.

Bonus knowledge for you is that the three letters of and and and all share the same group and in words they substitute each other depending on grammatical forms. Another example besides the one in within parenthesis in the previous paragraph is (al-mowt) which is a (ma) substituting the for a in order to give adhesion to the in the word, so basically consists of the word meaning 'not'. Together with it linguistically exact means "Without character" (i.e. lifeless). So is not its own root, either, but consists of the word for 'not'. Loads of roots in lexicons are given their own root while they are not, but different forms. An updated, more academic, lexicon would list word forms under respective fundamental root.

Be well
Amenuel

Peace,

Interesting points made there, i will certainly have to look into this, i guess i am comming to a point where i am questioning if my understanding is in fact correct, which i would think, much of it is not.

I have always wondered why, in the quran God is reffered to as allah when, in the previous scriptures he is reffered to as YHWH, and i would have though, he would use this name, to identify himself, as it would make sense. of course i would have to verify this, to the best of my ability, but if Allah does indeed mean 'is' / 'being', which i understand the concept of from the previous scriptures, this would definately make sense.

I was not aware that ha (i think thats a ha?) was also one of the group along with alif waw and ya.

I certainly do need to, if god has willed, increase my understanding of the language, and i have now made a commitment to do so.

I think quite often, arabic lexicons etc (and myself) have taken for granted the fact that, in my understanding, the three letter roots are derived from two letter roots, which in turn are derived from the individual concepts that are attached to the letters themselves, many of which, such as ab for example, originate far back in the history of the languages.

I do find it quite hard though to find materials to study on the ancient origins of theese words, letters, languages, and their development though.

very thought inspiring, and god willing, this will contribute to increasing my knowledge.

Peace

Comrox

Peace truthseeker11,

Saw a post of yours on another thread and thought to reply; for the sake of sparing the other one from derailment, I decided to post my own thoughts here.

This sign makes "the one committed to by your oath" lawful to the prophet.

I wonder about how the marriage process took place then. Was it Two young people > Oath > Dowry > Wedding Celebration > Sex to consummate the marriage?

And yet it is definitely possible that "the one committed by oath" is something entirely different.

What I cannot understand is why "wives" were mentioned as "made lawful", because "wives" are already lawful.

Specifically, the wives "to whom you have already given their dowries" (3350) were "made lawful." The inclusion of this phrase appears to imply that the prophet had wives whom he had not given them their dowries. My understanding this verse makes it clear that all the prophets' wives were entitled to some form of payment upon becoming married. If they didn't get payment, then it wasn't a lawful union (in the sight of God).

The verse only mentions the prophet and his wives so I can't comment with certainty on ordinary believing men with wives, but I would imagine the dowry is a necessity for those wives as well, unless noted otherwise.

One of the verses I found troubling in the quran; why is a prophet allowed extra privileges that regular mumineen are not allowed? The prophet should have the same privileges as everyone else since he is supposed to set an example for others.

The wives of the prophet were held to a very high standard - That automatically distinguishes them from other woman, and distinguish the prophet himself as a different man from other men. Huruf did a good job explaining this

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608444.msg386726#msg386726

Regarding the above and the verse which explains the wives are mothers to the believers (336), although the prophet is denied by God as being a father of any men (3340), I still don't understand myself why the prophet is mentioned as being "closer to the believers than themselves" in the beginning of that verse (336).

Additionally the following verses demonstrate that the prophets' wives had to hold themselves to standards that no other women did

"O prophet, say to your wives 'If you are seeking this worldly life and its vanities, then come, I will make a provision for you and release you in an amicable manner. But if you are seeking God and His messenger, and the abode of the Hereafter, then God has prepared for the righteous among you a great reward.' O women of the prophet, if any of you commits evident immorality, then her retribution will be doubled. This is easy for God to do. And any of you who is devoted to God and His messenger, and does good works, We will grant her double the recompense, and We have prepared for her a generous provision. O women of the prophet, you are not like any other women. If you are righteous, then do not speak too softly, lest those with disease in their hearts will move with desire; you shall speak in an honorable manner. You shall be content in your homes, and do not show off like in the old days of ignorance. You shall carry out the law-giving, and contribute towards purification, and obey God and His messenger. God wishes to remove any taint from you, O people of the shrine, and to purify you a full purification."

It was a life that the women of the prophet chose for themselves. It was a life in complete service to God. Because it was a path so difficult to follow, the prophet couldn't have married just anyone. The women had to choose it for themselves and be committed. I would imagine the women who chose this were rare indeed, if not near impossible to find. Maybe the prophet had difficulty marrying when he needed to (such as if he needed to maintain political or social peace, or needed more close companions to help him be a leader and example for the people), so when a woman came to him, it was something that shouldn't be passed over lightly.

The above understanding can still call into question why he needed multiple wives specifically, as opposed to people who were simply committed to working with him when he required assistance. Which brings me to the next point

Perhaps women sincerely gave or dedicated themselves to the prophet mainly because of the political benefits (the possibility of the prophet having political marriages was discussed earlier in this thread). A political marriage would serve as tying two peoples together and ensuring peace between them. In this understanding it would be wise for the prophet to marry the woman in question, but he - like her - has a choice and is not forced to do so.

About all the above points, though, it's worth noting I don't think we can soundly determine - without a doubt - from the Qur'an, that the prophet was a political leader or that his marriages had specific reasons behind them.

Timotheus