quran434.com
-
Peace Neptin.
I put this quote of yours in a separate post if you do not mind"I thought the Qur'an suppose to answer these questions. The Qur'an invites people to it without any prerequisite".
Does it not? Qoran indeed answers them questions for me. You are welcome to study it brother and find out if it does for you.
Or is your statement ironic?
Apologies , but the statement required the blunt answer aboveGOD bless you.
Peace. -
peace burhan,
Thank you for your reply.
you are welcome.
- I never once used the word "contradiction" in my analysis of these verses.
I know ) just wanted to get it on record.
5245-47 it seems "duna" commonly means "other than"
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=dwn#(52475)791 says nothing about malaika nor souls
4046 doesn't say before, and likely refers to the greatest punishment they will get.
7125 is probably the best counter-example you have, although some take it as, quote Asad "Lit., "and were made to enter the fire" - the past tense indicating the inevitability of the suffering yet to come (Zamakhshari).".
Those are fair criticisms.
His main objection coincides with mine.
Yes I get that part, but I don't understand your translation.
Is your view that after slaughtering the cow, a murder occurred in close proximity to the dead cow and those disputing about it were doing so beside the dead cow and murdered corpse?
Do you know what the name of the chapter is?
Obviously, It's not the same cow. Just as it's not the same cow in 254. It's not even the same set of people. That is the whole point of Idh. It connects stories that are about Moses, his people, and their relationship to cows separated by time.
The chapter is called the The Cow.
254 A calf is take for worship
267 A cow is commanded to be slaughtered.
273 Part of A sacrificed cow is used to identify the murderers.Not the same cow.
Is this your translation of the two words idribuhu bibadiha?
"cite, point out, assign, indicate..... him with some of it (the murder)"
Firstly, the it possessive pronoun is a feminine it/her in Arabic. Are you saying murder (qatal) is feminine? It's not, it's masculine.
Second, so God asked everybody to point out the murderer to expose the murderer. They were doing that already. How did God add value to the process?
There is a you-plural subject pronoun but a it-singular/him object pronoun on idrib. The object of DRB is a single person or thing.
Even your English translation doesn't convey the message that the blame is to be shared.
It reads as, "assign a single person with some of the murder."I can see your predicament. You are hamstrung by the Arabic and you simply can't produce the English translation without adding new words to the Arabic. By all means use brackets to clarify the subject/object - you still won't be able to produce a translation, without resorting to your tafsir.
you strike him (corpse) with some of it (part of a cow) is a perfectly clear translation that doesn't require paragraphs upon paragraphs to explain it.
Also the next part about resurrection fits perfectly where as you have to then twist it's meaning too.
This whole episode is supposed to be a miracle. A victim rises from the dead to accuse his murderers.
Your version is just mundane.
I don't want to get off-topic but the Quranic text we are using could be wrong. We know many versions of the text exist with not just vowel difference but consonants, gender and order differences. Sometimes a different word is used. E.g Kasir instead of Kabir in the alcohol verse. This kind of can't-see-the-wood-for-the-trees analysis makes us both look silly.
-
Is this your translation of the two words idribuhu bibadiha?
It's not just two words, literally it says DRB him/it with some (of) her/it. In my translation for DRB I gave several options which have similar meanings "cite, point out, assign, indicate...".
Are you saying murder (qatal) is feminine? It's not, it's masculine.
No, I simply used what The Quran is using as the reference, which I discuss (i.e. fiha). Re-read what I wrote and see usage of terms in 532.
Second, so God asked everybody to point out the murderer to expose the murderer. They were doing that already. How did God add value to the process?
It seems you either dont understand what the verse is saying or my analysis of the verse. I make it perfectly clear what is going on
When we re-read the context of 272-73, it becomes obvious the perpetrators were accusing each other (i.e. pointing the finger at each other, so to speak) to conceal the truth that they did it, so God was to bring forth what they were concealing so We said "point out him with some of it (the murder)". The only ones doing the pointing/accusing were the guilty. Thus, whomever of them (i.e. of the ones accused) was pointed out by the others also accused was assigned some part/responsibility of the murder. In this way, they could not escape what they had done, and indeed, God exposed them and brought out what they were concealing. The end result was that they took collective responsibility, each of him a part. Sharing of a sin/crime if a group were responsible is mentioned elsewhere in The Quran, e.g. 2411.
I can see your predicament. You are hamstrung by the Arabic and you simply can't produce the English translation without adding new words to the Arabic.
My translation is simple and easy. The brackets are there to help the English reader unfamiliar with what the Arabic is conveying
"cite him (i.e. each individual) with some of it (the murder, which they were disputing in)"
Your version is just mundane.
LOL. You cant even admit it makes perfect sense and is what every civilised society does these days, i.e. assigns part of the crime/blame to each individual involved in that crime. I guess to you it is just one big coincidence it fits.
Also the next part about resurrection fits perfectly where as you have to then twist it's meaning too.
No twisting. You probably didn't bother to read the references I gave.
This whole episode is supposed to be a miracle.
"miracle" is not mentioned, that is your interpretation.
I don't want to get off-topic but the Quranic text we are using could be wrong.
Finally we get to your achilles heel. When I asked you for a Qurqanic example for what you are claiming in 273 you didn't provide any and now you say the above. So, let's be clear, for your interpretation to work the Quran text we have must be wrong.
Interesting.
-
Peace Neptin.
You want some specific answers that apply to all?
Fine, then it means "beat the wife" if it makes some happy . Regardless of what others give as meaning, some will not budge and they will justify it to "beat the wife" or ridicule Qoran.
So does that mean it is GOD s fault for putting words that need pondering to bring people s character/convictions to the open?Sure Qur'an 434 does brings out motives and character of the reader. I do not dispute.
My point, and the point you're missing is that Qur'an 434 also does prove that an objective reading of the Qur'an is near impossible and that the interpretation of the text is deeply influenced by the reader's culture and generation.
Your assumption that any fair minded Muslim reader of the Qur'an will not support wife beating undermine the influence of the prevailing culture and norm on the Muslims' interpretation of Quran.
Or what do you mean by, quote
Wow, it will be that easy for you? What about the women out there that have been victim of application of this verse?
OK. What I mean is that - Will rejecting the wife beating translation and moving on with your life and doing your own path with regards to your wife be easy? Especially knowing fully well that Muslims out there persist with the wife beating translation and so there are plenty of wives who have been beaten in the name of this verse.
-
"cite him (i.e. each individual) with some of it (the murder, which they were disputing in)"
The Arabic for "cite him" and "cite each individual" is very different.
Even in English "cite him" can never mean "cite each individual"."forgive him" can't mean "forgive each individual"
"pay him" can't mean "pay each individual"Using your methodology any sentence can be re-interpreted as anything. Let's change every verb that has a singular possessive pronoun to mean "each individual".
You would have to use "kul" = each, or look at the construction of 276
meaning "one another". There are many other examples
http//openburhan.net/ob.php?word=%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%B6%D9%87%D9%85Look at each other
Turn to one another
1819
Question one another
For you interpretation to work;
a) Give me the Arabic using an object pronoun on the verb for when you want to cite one person?
b) Show me another verse in the Quran where a singular masculine possessive pronoun is used to imply an action of the verb on multiple people?Finally we get to your achilles heel. When I asked you for a Qurqanic example for what you are claiming in 273 you didn't provide any and now you say the above. So, let's be clear, for your interpretation to work the Quran text we have must be wrong.
How is it my Achilles heel if I clearly stated it's off-topic, criticizing all such analysis when nobody can even be sure of which text out of the 30 odd versions is the correct one. We may find a version that say la udribuhunna in 434 and that would make both of us look silly.
If 434 never existed I bet you'd never have re-translated the cat-2 verses. Think about that.
Now we come to the crux of the matter. You have inserted a baseless claim into the Arabic to make your rendition work. In Arabic, like probably all languages, a pronoun is used as a reference to something/someone discussed in the past/context. To give any credibility to your claim you will have to provide at least one similar example in Quran wherein it uses a pronoun to clearly refer to an unmentioned object in the past context, i.e. without which the sentence wouldn't make sense.
Who said it's unmentioned. What an odd thing to say. A murder usually results in a dead body.
What if I produce an example, it won't change your mind. I think I've posted enough for people to make up their own mind.
-
My point, and the point you're missing is that Qur'an 434 also does prove that an objective reading of the Qur'an is near impossible and that the interpretation of the text is deeply influenced by the reader's culture and generation.
Every generation of humans looks at the previous and is horrified by some of the accepted norms. The next generation will look at some of our actions that we think are in accordance with the Quran and will be horrified. They will then have to reinterpret.
When slavery was acceptable the Quran did not contradict it.
When misogyny was acceptable the Quran did not contradict it.
When homosexuality was a sin the Quran did not contradict it. Now that we are becoming more acceptable of it we are seeing the new interpretations.
One day people will claim Quran was a champion of gay rights just as it is now a champion of women's rights.
Tomorrow, we will take a different view on another topic and Quranists will rush out with new translations and claim 2019 Quranists had it wrong.Neptin, sadly no one here will see your point.
-
Peace Neptin.
I put this quote of yours in a separate post if you do not mind"I thought the Qur'an suppose to answer these questions. The Qur'an invites people to it without any prerequisite".
Does it not? Qoran indeed answers them questions for me. You are welcome to study it brother and find out if it does for you.
Or is your statement ironic?
Apologies , but the statement required the blunt answer aboveGOD bless you.
Peace.Here is what you said;
So what are the traits of a true believer?
It is only after we answer these basic
questions -About how to be/behave as a
human according to the one who created us-
that we can really move forward with Qoran.Perhaps am wrong but I feel you are asking us to take a step from Qur'an for a while and determine the trait of a true believer. But my question was rhetorical as I don't see the need for what you ask.
-
Peace Neptin.
I am not asking anyone to do anything apart from study the Qoran deeply. Look at all the verses and context.So if you think 434 is instructing to beat the wife,explain how to do it ,with what and how many times?
Or do you expect Qoran to give the freedom how to carry out this beating?Since "DRB" has many other meanings,why should we not try out other than beating to see if it fits?
May be you are looking at what traditional Muslims do and make out of Qoran and this is affecting your judgement of the words of Qoran.?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace Neptin.
I am not asking anyone to do anything apart from study the Qoran deeply. Look at all the verses and context.So if you think 434 is instructing to beat the wife,explain how to do it ,with what and how many times?
Or do you expect Qoran to give the freedom how to carry out this beating?Since "DRB" has many other meanings,why should we not try out other than beating to see if it fits?
May be you are looking at what traditional Muslims do and make out of Qoran and this is affecting your judgement of the words of Qoran.?
GOD bless you.
Peace.Peace. I have to admit that I do look at traditional interpretation. I think it is important to listen to every side of the issue. That said, the wife beating interpretation is not merely from traditionalist perspective.
You must be aware that prominent advocate of Qur'an alone or God Alone like Rashad Khalifa, Asad Sirohey, Sam Gerrans translated the verse as literally "Strike them". From my own observations both translators, especially Rashad did their best to study the Qur'an deeply.
I do indeed, consider 'separate' or 'cite' to be probable interpretation and I'll never hit my wife in the name of 434, nor will I advise any man to hit his. But I'll at least conceed my favorite interpretation could be wrong and that the Qur'an may imply literal wife beating.
-
In fact as it turns out in none of the cases of daraba in the Qur'an is hit the only meaning nor the best meaning or most fitting.
In 4.34 it is just ludicruous. Nobody has done anything wrong.
Believers are being addressed, believers in general, females and males. It is believing people who is being addressed, not males. Look carefully at the pronouns, males are mentionned as third person masculine plural, just as women who are mentionned as third person feminine plural, but the addressee is second person plural retorical gender, that is, inclusive gender, the second person generic plual is addressed just as in previous ayas and just as in the following ayas. At no time is the addressee changed, beliebers in general are addressed all along.The whole idiocy of of this aya being taken as tellen men to do something to women is an insult to rammar, common sense and the logic of the whole aya. If nobody has done anything wrong, how can anybody speak in terms of punishment rebuke or whatever.
It is absolutely discouraging when one sees people, suposedly belieeving people and supposedly educated people or people who want to understand and fail to see the most elementary grammar and most elementary logic.
So who is going to hit who because the people fears that some females may do something, but nohting has been done?
Some here speak about grammar, but grammar tells you that what you interpret is absolute nonsense. Some might like the Qur'an to say nonsense so they feel vindicated in their prejudices, but the fact is that it does not.
This is absolutely depressing.
Salaam
-
254 A calf is take for worship
267 A cow is commanded to be slaughtered.
273 Part of A sacrificed cow is used to identify the murderers.you strike him (corpse) with some of it (part of a cow) is a perfectly clear translation that doesn't require paragraphs upon paragraphs to explain it.
peace, separate episodes wa-idh not wa-idha e.g.
211 wa-idha/and when (time adverb; present/future) stated to them not thou corrupt ye of in the land ?
230 wa-idh/and when (time adverb; separate episode) ?
234 and when ?
249 and when ?
250 and when ?
251 and when ?
253 and when ?
254 and when ?
255 and when ?
258 and when ?
260 and when ask drink moses for folk his so said we of i'rib with staff your the stone ?
261 and when ?
263 and when ?
267 and when ...
272-73 and when slew you soul of so disputed you therein and the god evictor what be you concealing so said we of i'ribhu bibaiha like such gives life the god the dead and shows you signs his perhaps you understanding
283 and when ?
284 and when ?
293 and when ?
2124 and when ?
2125 and when ?
2126 and when ?
2127 and when ?
2260 and when ?I don't want to get off-topic but the Quranic text we are using could be wrong. We know many versions of the text exist with not just vowel difference but consonants, gender and order differences. Sometimes a different word is used.
same words; difference earliest manuscripts verse counts (man-made) offset
https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/2/vers/72?handschrift=163
-
Peace Neptin.
I agree with your take , even though I differ in that "Rijal" can sometimes imply to a responsibility among the household rather than a gender.
Sometimes we ignore the context and connection of certain verses to others.
434 , in my opinion has a connection to 432A mutual relationship goes with an agreement in roles. Husband and wife agree the terms , sharing the work together. Whichever way they choose who does what. That agreement is a binder and any rebellion from either side is breaking the terms.
GOD has given each individual and each gender certain qualities . Qoran encourages .us to use these qualities to compliment each other and help one another in all sorts of relationships
If rebellion from either side arises ,then the steps are there in case.
So I do not see "hit/strike". I see seperation as a last resort if things get that bad.
Seriously ,does one really think "hit/strike" solves problems. Qoran for sure does not, according to its general/overall message. Why have divorce laws if "hit/strike" solves the issues!!!
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace all...
I am really afraid that anyone who still claim that God advise hitting woman then that person really should check his mentality. ...
Why this much confusion.... God says He is fair... If God allow men to hit women, what kind of fair God He is...
No simply no... Something is wrong in your Arabic and knowledge in understanding it...
Just take a look at the below beautiful verse..
4128
"And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them - and settlement is best. And present in souls is stinginess. But if you do good and fear Allah - then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted."In 434 and 4128 Fear is imperative... What is this fear? I think now that this fear is not man or woman has some sexual relationship.... I also thought but it is not... I think this is kind Serious I'll conduct which doesn't suit to the other partner... Simply one partner cannot hold anymore the behavior of the other... That's what fear is all about... If the woman has had sexual relationship with another man while married... Hitting is not the law given in QURAN... It has different law... Do I need to say what is it? Everyone knows... Husbands or wife's solo witness is enoigh against his her partner... So, punishment should be 100 lashes.. Not husband hitting....
Here it is only mischievous conduct which husband cannot bear and she doesn't reform....
And same in 4128 she fears about her husband. She would have waited for long but no option rather than separation.. God didn't give the same advice as 434 what is given to man... Coz it is far from reality... That advices to husband who has illconduct or keeping him away from bed... That's only suit as advice to a good believing man... while for a good believing woman 4128 suits... Coz she can't tolerate with him for no reason...
Just tell me now... Still you want to hit your wife... OMG... That's insane.... You want to hit your sisters and mothers and any woken under your dependence for their illconduct.... Then why only wife? That's bizarre man quality.... That's not a man... That's a coward.. -
For you interpretation to work....
I disagree, and let me explain why. This is how I picture what's happening
Masculine plural are repelling each other (i.e. accusing each other) in it (the murder). So, lets say we have the following
Bob is accusing Jim
Jim is accusing Alex
Alex is accusing BobGod exposes what they are concealing (that they did it together) by stating to them all "cite (or point out) him with some of it (the murder)". It is NOT saying to them to "cite each one" because that may not fit into what was happening earlier, because that would mean Bob/Jim/Alex would change whom they were previously addressing blame to, from one person to each one, i.e.
Bob now accuses Jim and Alex
Jim now accuses Alex and Bob
Alex now accuses Bob and JimAlso, you will note it says "averting/accusing/repelling each other IN it", and they are obviously not literally averting/accusing each other whilst physically IN the dead corpse so to me it is obviously referring to the murder. As I said see 532 for similar usage.
But I think this is an ok objection
"Show me another verse in the Quran where a singular masculine possessive pronoun is used to imply an action of the verb on multiple people?"
In my opinion nowhere near as bad as the problems with your interpretation. I haven't researched the above point so cant comment. -
Peace all...
I am really afraid that anyone who still claim that God advise hitting woman then that person really should check his mentality. ...
Why this much confusion.... God says He is fair... If God allow men to hit women, what kind of fair God He is...
No simply no... Something is wrong in your Arabic and knowledge in understanding it...
Just take a look at the below beautiful verse..
4128
"And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them - and settlement is best. And present in souls is stinginess. But if you do good and fear Allah - then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted."In 434 and 4128 Fear is imperative... What is this fear? I think now that this fear is not man or woman has some sexual relationship.... I also thought but it is not... I think this is kind Serious I'll conduct which doesn't suit to the other partner... Simply one partner cannot hold anymore the behavior of the other... That's what fear is all about... If the woman has had sexual relationship with another man while married... Hitting is not the law given in QURAN... It has different law... Do I need to say what is it? Everyone knows... Husbands or wife's solo witness is enoigh against his her partner... So, punishment should be 100 lashes.. Not husband hitting....
Here it is only mischievous conduct which husband cannot bear and she doesn't reform....
And same in 4128 she fears about her husband. She would have waited for long but no option rather than separation.. God didn't give the same advice as 434 what is given to man... Coz it is far from reality... That advices to husband who has illconduct or keeping him away from bed... That's only suit as advice to a good believing man... while for a good believing woman 4128 suits... Coz she can't tolerate with him for no reason...
Just tell me now... Still you want to hit your wife... OMG... That's insane.... You want to hit your sisters and mothers and any woken under your dependence for their illconduct.... Then why only wife? That's bizarre man quality.... That's not a man... That's a coward..Actually I can't bear what's being discussed here by few supporting hitting...
Take the two verses 434 and 4128 ...
If a woman says my husband is aggressive and hitting me so I need divorce as per 4128 ... Then husband can say in 434 it is allowed for me to hit her... Pls stop this nonsense... Common sense is vest to understand any book what's written in it...Pls everyone don't overcook this topic... Without your knowledge some may take what you say as advice and hit wife... Don't be part of violence by instructing with lack of knowledge....
God guard all beliving men from this mean task of hitting wives... brickwall elektro -
Tehre are no husbands or wives in the aya. There are males, en general, women in general, and ten there are some women respecting which the community may fear something, not the husbands.
Women exist regardles whether yhere is a husbando or there is not.
This mentalisty is so self-male centered that if women are mentionned at all it must from the point of view that they belong to some man.
This is very deressing and unQura'nic. You ll are forbidding the Qur'an to speak of women without belonging to a male. The Qur'an does not mention any particular man or men regarding those women about which the ommunity may fer something.
What about poor women which may have children and o support and may resot to prostitution?
Oh but in islam there is no prostitution. Everything is perfect, it has always been perfect and the only thing that can be feared from women or for womn is that they may not please their husband owners.
DEPRESSING
Salaam
-
Every generation of humans looks at the previous and is horrified by some of the accepted norms. The next generation will look at some of our actions that we think are in accordance with the Quran and will be horrified. They will then have to reinterpret.
When slavery was acceptable the Quran did not contradict it.
When misogyny was acceptable the Quran did not contradict it.
When homosexuality was a sin the Quran did not contradict it. Now that we are becoming more acceptable of it we are seeing the new interpretations.
One day people will claim Quran was a champion of gay rights just as it is now a champion of women's rights.
Tomorrow, we will take a different view on another topic and Quranists will rush out with new translations and claim 2019 Quranists had it wrong.Neptin, sadly no one here will see your point.
Not bad. But the writing is on the wall. Until few months ago, I thought my own interpretation was right, unbiased and as objective as it could get. I was an advocate of Islamic Reform(I still am, only less so), because I thought we could read the Qur'an objectively, recover and spread the pristine, progressive message that traditionalists have distorted or buried.
Believers are being addressed, believers in general, females and males. It is believing people who is being addressed, not males. Look carefully at the pronouns, males are mentionned as third person masculine plural, just as women who are mentionned as third person feminine plural, but the addressee is second person plural retorical gender, that is, inclusive gender, the second person generic plual is addressed just as in previous ayas and just as in the following ayas. At no time is the addressee changed, beliebers in general are addressed all along.
huruf, the verse won't work that way. It is dealing with marital issues that is still between the husband and wife. The believers only intervene in the next verse. The believers do not forsake the women in bed, unless they are her husband.
The second person plural pronoun works for men as well and just because in the early part of the verse the third person masculine pronoun was used doesn't mean in the latter part second person plural can't apply. Your argument would be stronger if the entire verse was one long sentence, rather than multiple sentence broken apart with punctuation.
Actually I can't bear what's being discussed here by few supporting hitting...
Take the two verses 434 and 4128 ...
If a woman says my husband is aggressive and hitting me so I need divorce as per 4128 ... Then husband can say in 434 it is allowed for me to hit her... Pls stop this nonsense... Common sense is vest to understand any book what's written in it...Pls everyone don't overcook this topic... Without your knowledge some may take what you say as advice and hit wife... Don't be part of violence by instructing with lack of knowledge....
God guard all beliving men from this mean task of hitting wives... brickwall elektroPeace jkhan.
I've made it clear that I prefer the 'separate' or 'cite' interpretation, so where do you get the impression that I condone hitting wives?
Your exegesis is similar to goodlogic and I commend you both. But I'm afraid it won't amount to anything. Wife beating, provided no physical injury is caused - is justifiable to some people and they won't think twice about the traditional interpretation of 434.
-
Tehre are no husbands or wives in the aya. There are males, en general, women in general, and ten there are some women respecting which the community may fear something, not the husbands.
Women exist regardles whether yhere is a husbando or there is not.
This mentalisty is so self-male centered that if women are mentionned at all it must from the point of view that they belong to some man.
This is very deressing and unQura'nic. You ll are forbidding the Qur'an to speak of women without belonging to a male. The Qur'an does not mention any particular man or men regarding those women about which the ommunity may fer something.
What about poor women which may have children and o support and may resot to prostitution?
Oh but in islam there is no prostitution. Everything is perfect, it has always been perfect and the only thing that can be feared from women or for womn is that they may not please their husband owners.
DEPRESSING
Salaam
Peace...
Are you sure what you say in your first para.....
Are you losing your memory with time... I wonder...
How come one share bed ?... How come God orders not to share bed....
Can we keep a women from sharing bed before marriage..... Lol.... -
No Neptin, be thourough. The addresse is second person plural retoric gender which goes back to the "ya ayyuha alldhina amanu" in aya 29. An there is not mention whatsoever of husbands or wives or any such relationshipp, if you see husbands or wives in the aya but do not see the addresse, I cannot see any use inyour reading th Qura'n, it is as good if one makes it up straighy as one pleases. There are third person masculine plural which stand for males and third person femimine plural which stand for women, not husbands o wives.
Teh rest of your message I have not read. Just the start is too depressing ofr me to carry on any further.
I really do nto hold much hope for any renewal of qura'nic islam in "quranists" circles. A certain stage hs been reached where everybody seems to be as immovilist as anybody has ever been. This far, not more, beyond, like in the world charts of the 14th century "there be monsters".
I still look some posts because one never knows where one might come accross something that may lead to some interesting work, but really like int he gospels one feels like the sentence "let the dead bury their dead".
Salaam
-
Peace All.
It is not by coincidence that we are discussing Qoran and having disagreements and wide views about it.
Nor it is just this generation that is doing so. History is littered with thousands of books about this book that differ and argue and....Hundreds of sects have been trying to enforce their understanding on others but the analysis of the book continues...So why is Qoran not straight forward to some, an enigma for others, old fables to another group, a miracle to... and so on...?
What is it about the book that keeps generation after generation searching its meaning and still finding room for improvement/still disagreeing most of its contents?
What is it about the book that keeps surprising many about its secrets?
Don t you find this odd everyone? This book keeps advertising itself in a new way to each generation why?Then there are these other types of questions
Why do we need any agreement from others on what we understand through our own effort of the book?
Why do we need to "force" our understanding of the book on others?
Why do we need to read the book over and over again and still find new information on it?
Burhan, Neptin, brothers and sisters ,what we are doing here is normal as far as Qoran is concerned.
Some see this book with a lot of issues,some follow others understanding on it, some want to really understand this book by themselves and are giving it the benefit of a doubt, some want to work on their own issues befiore they can really tackle understanding this book properly, some believe this book is from GOD and our standard of understanding needs evolving and help from the author before we can grasp it, some do not care about the book...and so on...
There is no doubt that the book is a puzzle ,a wonder puzzle that needs "something" to unlock its secrets,if we ever get to unlock all its secrets.
Speaking for myself, I have known this book since late 1990 s , I have skimmed it for years . I took it seriously since 2009/2010 and I am amazed at how little I know about it now.
Why can t this book be straight forward like an instruction manual or a novel? I mean less difficult?Brothers Burhan and Neptin, I have been there and understand your concern and take on Qoran, but I disagree that the book itself is the issue. People s take on it is the issue.
Of course the basic of try our best to be good humans , do good deeds and have good morals is crystal clear in it. The minimum requirement for GOD s approval.
But the devil is in all the other details. I mean the force that is driving the majority behind this mystery.
Of course I never exclude myself from those who may deluded.
This is ongoing brothers and sisters and it will carry on along the line until GOD puts the stop sign on that day.
Happy discussions.
GOD bless you all.
Peace.
