To Ichepren : Belated Response - Is Al-Quraan for all Time
-
Salaamun alaikum,
Ichepren, my apologies for the delayed response but I was only shown your response this morning
- If you cannot answer the questions that I have listed in a way so as to make it certain when ex. ramadan is during the year, then how do you apply the quran's demands? The fact that you cannot answer any one of those questions is evidence enough that there is a problem.
The problem with your question is, you're unable to verify whether my inferred meaning is correct or otherwise. This is because the validity of your question is false.
Let us recap your position
The Quran is irrelevant because we cannot reach an agreement as to the details of its message.
As per the above statement, I ask you
Who is 'we' ? I don't know you let alone your credentials and vice-versa. Very few people know others in this forum in real life. Therefore, the 'we' in your proposition is very loose term indeed.
- If a book cannot be understood then it cannot be applied, regardless of the insistence on obedience. I think everyone here would like to be obedient to God, but if we cannot be certain as to what things mean then obediece is moot
Cannot be understood in absolute terms? Or just cannot be understood by yourself and those you consider part of the 'we' which you self-defined.
- You are right that separating laws and guidance is an illusion since part of the guidance are the laws. But that has never been my point. My point is that the Quran's guidance can be given irrespective of those laws, and perhaps the laws were only supposed to be followed by the people to whom the Quran was given b/c it was applicable to them and they could understand it.
Kindly provide evidence from al-quraan for this, the Quran's guidance can be given irrespective of laws.
- I am not saying that just b/c we don't agree on a topic that the Quran is wrong. I am saying that there is something disturbing to me about a book that claims to be clear but nobody can understand and thousands of sincere people have tried to understand. I am just pointing out the problem.
Once again, who is 'everybody' relative to the 'nobody can understand it'. You're pointing out a problem, sure, but is a problem or your problem?
- Generally, for everyone here who has a stance on what the Quran means by something, I think it might be better to go at the questions from a position of "what it isn't" rather than trying to find one answer. The Arabic of the Quraish is not something that we cna easily trace back and know for definite what a term might have meant to them.
Really? Have you tried? Perhaps you can demonstrate what you have discovered?
- I also think that there is a fear of Quranic interpretation...sometimes we fear what a term might actually mean. Ex. what if those who their oaths possess are slaves and men could sleep with their slaves...what would that say about the Quran, our faith and God? I think this line of thinking infuses much discussion in this forum, regardless of whether we are talking about salat, fasting, hajj, the house, virgin births...everything weighs down on our conception of God and the Quran.
It's very nice of you to speak for 'us' but would you mind not delving into the subjective? I have no fear of what al-quraan means because I trust it. If you don't, do speak for yourself and not others. It's your right to reject.
- OK, a last point is that I am truly not saying that the Quran is irrelevant. It still moves me whenever I read it, but I also am confounded by verses that just don't seem to be applicable and after years of study and worry, I am sure that I am not the only one who would like an answer to some hot button questions.
Your personal proclivities is no business of mine. Lets stick to the discussion, shall we?
-
Ichepren, my apologies for the delayed response but I was only shown your response this morning
There was really no need for creating another thread. Your response should have been appropriated in its original thread, delayed or not. Breaking up the flow of discussion in the manner presented, not only causes confusion but one has to revert back and forth other thread(s) from origin, unless the topic/subject is entirely different.
The Quran is irrelevant because we cannot reach an agreement as to the details of its message.
As per the above statement, I ask you
Who is 'we' ? I don't know you let alone your credentials and vice-versa. Very few people know others in this forum in real life. Therefore, the 'we' in your proposition is very loose term indeed.
Cannot be understood in absolute terms? Or just cannot be understood by yourself and those you consider part of the 'we' which you self-defined.
Once again, who is 'everybody' relative to the 'nobody can understand it'. You're pointing out a problem, sure, but is a problem or your problem?
It's very nice of you to speak for 'us' but would you mind not delving into the subjective? I have no fear of what al-quraan means because I trust it. If you don't, do speak for yourself and not others. It's your right to reject.
Your personal proclivities is no business of mine. Lets stick to the discussion, shall we?
These are the kind of 'statements' that gets degenerated and gradually becomes personal. Such unethical way of discussing matters is what makes me puke and 'hit and run'. So much for bellowing of 'moderated debates' (if that would genuinely work).
-
Danish There was really no need for creating another thread. Your response should have been appropriated in its original thread, delayed or not. Breaking up the flow of discussion in the manner presented, not only causes confusion but one has to revert back and forth other thread(s) from origin, unless the topic/subject is entirely different.
Agreed. I chose this route because it calls personally to the person at hand.
These are the kind of 'statements' that gets degenerated and gradually becomes personal. Such unethical way of discussing matters is what makes me puke and 'hit and run'. So much for bellowing of 'moderated debates' (if that would genuinely work).
You said it accurately there. It makes YOU react in a certain way. To me, I keep my responses short and this what comes out. Do you feel everyone has respond like you? 'Your personal proclivities are no business of mine' can also be taken as a statement which shows respect for a person to believes as he wills.
As for 'bellowing' for moderated debates, not to worry Danish. I never expected any of you to accept anyway. You guys are here for one reason to VENT. I was exceedingly polite to you the first time I addressed your 'essence of nature' position but you never responded anyway.
-
These are the kind of 'statements' that gets degenerated and gradually becomes personal. Such unethical way of discussing matters is what makes me puke and 'hit and run'. So much for bellowing of 'moderated debates' (if that would genuinely work).
There is nothing wrong in asking questions that clarify the other's position. These are questions like if someone say's 'we' believe...one would be justified and required to ask, who is 'we'. Secondly, if someone see's a problem in a book that they are unsure about, it is justified to ask, especially if the other does not see it there...is it a problem with you (read your perception) or is it a problem in the text. It is about how people choose to react to what they read really...not everyone reads it the same way. -
Nadia,
The statement below is mighty clear. There was absolutely no reason to brag about it and make a fuss out of it and deter the subject. Do you understand or are we now going to talk about 'perception' (what does 'we' mean here).
The Quran is irrelevant because we cannot reach an agreement as to the details of its message.
As per the above statement, I ask you
Who is 'we' ? I don't know you let alone your credentials and vice-versa. Very few people know others in this forum in real life. Therefore, the 'we' in your proposition is very loose term indeed.
Then he brings about his own statement as such below with a 'we' in it? Must I start questioning it? There is no significance to such unethical way of discussing and this has nothing to do with quran nor the subject at hand. Gee, if people can take my 'advice' or concerns to become defensive, then there's no point discussing anything.
Your personal proclivities is no business of mine. Lets stick to the discussion, shall we?
-
Peace Danish,
In my understanding, mquran is referring to the former 'we' that had been brought up as asking let's keep it to ourselves and not to others who may feel that way...to me, it seems that maybe a better understanding can be found if kept directly between the two instead of something like 'lots of people feel this way'. The latter we is quite apparent as it's just the two of them. I take your point about him wording it better, but I don't see major issues. Do 'we' agree on this much? D
-
Danish Then he brings about his own statement as such below with a 'we' in it? Must I start questioning it? There is no significance to such unethical way of discussing and this has nothing to do with quran nor the subject at hand. Gee, if people can take my 'advice' or concerns to become defensive, then there's no point discussing anything.
Ichepren is welcome, nay encouraged to seek clarification for anything I say. Note my 'we' isnt crucial to the debate and if you didn't figure this out, you're right, there's no point in discussing anything (with you) as too much time would be spent clarifying.
-
These are the kind of 'statements' that gets degenerated and gradually becomes personal. Such unethical way of discussing matters is what makes me puke and 'hit and run'. So much for bellowing of 'moderated debates' (if that would genuinely work).
There is nothing wrong in asking questions that clarify the other's position. These are questions like if someone say's 'we' believe...one would be justified and required to ask, who is 'we'. Secondly, if someone see's a problem in a book that they are unsure about, it is justified to ask, especially if the other does not see it there...is it a problem with you (read your perception) or is it a problem in the text. It is about how people choose to react to what they read really...not everyone reads it the same way.I somewhat agree with you, but check this out one last time as to where he bought that 'we' from
The Quran is irrelevant because we cannot reach an agreement as to the details of its message.
As per the above statement, I ask you
Who is 'we' ? I don't know you let alone your credentials and vice-versa. Very few people know others in this forum in real life. Therefore, the 'we' in your proposition is very loose term indeed.
And then he further continues to vent out
Better define the 'we' for Danish's convenience.
Please, I don't expect to play around and discuss matters in such manners. He can't even understand the 'we' part, talk about discussing "Allah's Words". I am sorry to say, but its redundant, futile and baseless to discuss issues with mquran, period. He is truely very annoying. I shall pen out and leave him alone. >(
-
Please, I don't expect to play around and discuss matters in such manners. He can't even understand the 'we' part, talk about discussing "Allah's Words". I am sorry to say, but its redundant, futile and baseless to discuss issues with mquran, period. He is truely very annoying. I shall pen out and leave him alone.
Fair enough, you guys have your differences. I can understand. -
Danish Please, I don't expect to play around and discuss matters in such manners. He can't even understand the 'we' part, talk about discussing "Allah's Words". I am sorry to say, but its redundant, futile and baseless to discuss issues with mquran, period. He is truely very annoying. I shall pen out and leave him alone
Leave him alone? As opposed to your previous strategy of ....leaving him alone (i.e. not confronting the questions) ? )
-
Peace all,
Wow, a whole thread dedicated to me??? I should say that since the end of the last thread, my opinions have not stayed static, but for argument's sake, i'll continue this debate.MQThe problem with your question is, you're unable to verify whether my inferred meaning is correct or otherwise. This is because the validity of your question is false.Let us recap your positionThe Quran is irrelevant because we cannot reach an agreement as to the details of its message. As per the above statement, I ask you Who is 'we' ? I don't know you let alone your credentials and vice-versa. Very few people know others in this forum in real life. Therefore, the 'we' in your proposition is very loose term indeed.
Ichephren So, what you are saying is that the problem is with all of "us", not the Quran. I have already defined "we" and "us" as people who have read the Quran and try to understand it without external influences. I did not know that I need to know all forum memebers in real life in order for them to qualify as people inclusive in my "we" and "us." According to your logic, since I do not know you in real life, I cannot include you in a class of people, ever. I digress...I see that your basic point is that if one person(namely yourself) can come to a conclusion on an aspect of the Quran, then it is understandable and other people who do not understand have problems with their approach. That is an extremely self supporting viewpoint. My point is that a universal agreement among those who interpret the Quran speaks to its objective truth, as opposed to one person's subjective understanding. That is why I keep saying that "we" don't understand it.
I'd like to know, by whose judgement do you determine whether an understanding of the Quran has been properly reached? I'd just like to know.But once again, MQ, please answer my questions.
- when is ramadan?
- who are those to whom we are bound by oaths?
- what is salat and when are the times for salat? what does one do in salat?
Why do you keep squirming out of these questions, opting for semantics for the sake of arguing?
-
Wow, a whole thread dedicated to me??? I should say that since the end of the last thread, my opinions have not stayed static, but for argument's sake, i'll continue this debate.
Fine.
Ichephren So, what you are saying is that the problem is with all of "us", not the Quran.
No, I reject your term of 'all of us'. The problem is with 'some of us' (for clarification, 'us' is denoting people on the forum).
I have already defined "we" and "us" as people who have read the Quran and try to understand it without external influences. I did not know that I need to know all forum memebers in real life in order for them to qualify as people inclusive in my "we" and "us."
Really? So you empirically verify for a fact that all members of this forum have studied al-quraan in a serious fashion? Funny, in the all the times I studied al-quraan, I've never noticed you.
According to your logic, since I do not know you in real life, I cannot include you in a class of people, ever.
You can include me in a class of people you've never met (and thus should never make assumptions about).
I digress...I see that your basic point is that if one person(namely yourself) can come to a conclusion on an aspect of the Quran, then it is understandable and other people who do not understand have problems with their approach. That is an extremely self supporting viewpoint.
As opposed to your view which speaks for a load of people whom you've never met but a view that's objective nonetheless? What makes your view objective please?
My point is that a universal agreement among those who interpret the Quran speaks to its objective truth, as opposed to one person's subjective understanding. That is why I keep saying that "we" don't understand it.
I'm sorry, your 'we' is an artifact. There's no Quranic verification for your 'we'. You cannot verify it empirically. I don't know most people in this forum and thus I can only interact with their views. For me to assume that everyone here has studied al-quraan (like Enquirer has for 25 years but doesn't know the difference between 'min' and 'aainda' would do me a disservice.
I'd like to know, by whose judgement do you determine whether an understanding of the Quran has been properly reached? I'd just like to know.
Al-quraan is a book which functions externally and internally to verify viewpoints. Therefore, whatever view I carry has been checked to the best of my knowledge with the book itself.
But once again, MQ, please answer my questions.
- when is ramadan?
- who are those to whom we are bound by oaths?
- what is salat and when are the times for salat? what does one do in salat?
Why do you keep squirming out of these questions, opting for semantics for the sake of arguing?
I will answer your questions once you have proven to me that your statement 'we cannot understand al-quraan' is a verifiable fact. So far, I see that it is due to your own illusions that this is the case. As for 'squirming', that's quite rich coming from yourself who has yet to tell me
1.Kindly provide evidence from al-quraan for this, the Quran's guidance can be given irrespective of laws.
2.Cannot be understood in absolute terms? Or just cannot be understood by yourself and those you consider part of the 'we' which you self-defined.
3. Also , provide a methodology with which you will verify my views.When we've done this, we can talk of my views in the appropriate threads, inshaa Allah.
-
I will answer your questions once you have proven to me that your statement 'we cannot understand al-quraan' is a verifiable fact
peace
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/
Now i too would like to know the answers to the 3 posed questions.
-
Peace all,
MQ I'm sorry, your 'we' is an artifact. There's no Quranic verification for your 'we'. You cannot verify it empirically. I don't know most people in this forum and thus I can only interact with their views. For me to assume that everyone here has studied al-quraan (like Enquirer has for 25 years but doesn't know the difference between 'min' and 'aainda' would do me a disservice.
Ichephren I do not assume that everyone here has studied the Quran. In fact, my group of "we" is not exclusive to free-minds. What about people like Parwez, Iqbal, Yuksel, the mutazilites, and as for members of this board(Wakas, Nabi, Layth, yourself, etc). You cannot pick two people out of that group who have the same idea of anything in the Quran, except that it is the word of God. It is fine if you reject my def of "we," I really do not care, but my point is that those who I know for sure have spent time dedicated to research do not agree with each other.MQ I will answer your questions once you have proven to me that your statement 'we cannot understand al-quraan' is a verifiable fact. So far, I see that it is due to your own illusions that this is the case. As for 'squirming', that's quite rich coming from yourself who has yet to tell me
1.Kindly provide evidence from al-quraan for this, the Quran's guidance can be given irrespective of laws.
2.Cannot be understood in absolute terms? Or just cannot be understood by yourself and those you consider part of the 'we' which you self-defined.
3. Also , provide a methodology with which you will verify my views.
Ichephren You have obviously not paid attention to anything that I have said so far. I never said that we cannot understand the Quran. I said that so far we have not, therefore there must be a problem, either with the text or our ability to understand it. As for your questions--
1.Since you enjoy games of semantics, what is your def of guidance?
2. I don't understand this question. Isn't this a rehasing of your previous points which I have already answered?
3. It is not for me to provide you a methodology by which you can verify your views. I am making an "extra-quranic" statement that maybe it is not for all time. You can solve this issue right here and now by providing an ayah that clearly states that the quranic laws are for all time and for all people. I am sure this will be easy for you since you are the best interpreter of the Quran, by your own understanding.
Now kindly answer my questions..................................haven't we all waited long enough? -
Hello
I would say, verse 690 says that the Quran is "Zikra Le Al Alameen" i.e. law for all people and all times since revelation till the JD
cheers
-
12104, 3878, 6852 and 8127 also tell us the same, and certainly 251 is very explicit that the Quran was sent for all people at all times
cheers
-
But as people cannot find a mutual understanding of it. its role as law for everyone, is a usefull as an astray on a motorcycle. Or perhaps the sunnis really are right, you DO need extra sources to find a mutual understanding. or a priesthood, who then become the actual rulers.
Are we to punish theifes by cutting of their hands, marking them, or taking back possetion. In what context does flocking fit in to any humane society? etc..These laws as you call them, raise more questions than they clarify.
peace
-
Ichephren I do not assume that everyone here has studied the Quran.
That's EXACTLY what you're assuming. Lets recap your position
Since al-quraan cannot be understood and agreement reached by the 'we', therefore Al-quraan's applicability is limited.
My response for the 'we' to have any credibility, they must have studied al-quraan intently. In the last few weeks, I've come across
- A guy who studied for 25 years but doesn't know of external and internal verification
- a person who claims the inheritance law doesnt work but doesnt know of writing of wills
- a person who doesn't know how meaning is verified (that's you, btw)
So to me, there's a serious problem with the 'we'.
In fact, my group of "we" is not exclusive to free-minds. What about people like Parwez, Iqbal, Yuksel, the mutazilites, and as for members of this board(Wakas, Nabi, Layth, yourself, etc). You cannot pick two people out of that group who have the same idea of anything in the Quran, except that it is the word of God. It is fine if you reject my def of "we," I really do not care, but my point is that those who I know for sure have spent time dedicated to research do not agree with each other.
So really, what you're seeking for is a Tv-dinner style religion where you get your beliefs. Can you demonstrate for me that these people you mentioned above
- have written on a particular concept
- have used al-quraan to verify their understandings
Just because you read divergent understandings, does it logically follow all these guys applied the right principles to get their answer?
Of course I reject your definition of 'we'. I don't know anyone here personally save a few but it really doesn't matter anyway, my job is to verify for MYSELF and not whine about lack of agreement when I don't even know how meaning is verified.
Ichephren You have obviously not paid attention to anything that I have said so far. I never said that we cannot understand the Quran.
Lets quote your previous statement, shall we
I have been thinking of this question for a while, but the recent discussions about the Quran have led me to really ask if the Quran is for all time. Perhaps it was only for people of that time. For at least 4yrs now we have been arguing about salat, chopping off hands, crucifixion, inheritance, those who our oaths bind us to, etc. but we have no conclusive decision.So that's exactly what you said.
I said that so far we have not, therefore there must be a problem, either with the text or our ability to understand it. As for your questions--
Hehe, yes, now you got it. The text itself cannot be accused of fallaciousness when you don't know who's been engaging with it nor the conformity of the methodology they implied. I am quite sceptical to listen to a person who doesn't know how meaning is verified and yet accuses al-quraan of being unble to be understood.
1.Since you enjoy games of semantics, what is your def of guidance?
I don't enjoy games of semantics, but I'm not about to let you get away with false semantics either. Huda or what you call as guidance is defined as God's interjection into the course of ones life towards the direction of the evolution of the nafs. Now, kindly show me Quranically how one acquires guidance while consigning Quranic law to the scrap-heap.
- I don't understand this question. Isn't this a rehasing of your previous points which I have already answered?
Lets forget this question because now you've admitted that its probable that its our ability to understand it which is at fault.
- It is not for me to provide you a methodology by which you can verify your views. I am making an "extra-quranic" statement that maybe it is not for all time. You can solve this issue right here and now by providing an ayah that clearly states that the quranic laws are for all time and for all people. I am sure this will be easy for you since you are the best interpreter of the Quran, by your own understanding.
Lets recap the whole exchange again
a. you asked for my views on various subjects
b. i'm asking you how YOU will verify the correctness of my views. Please see the example belowif this is not your purpose of asking me, what is your purpose please?
Now kindly answer my questions..................................haven't we all waited long enough?
Waited long enough? For what? This discussion is about your position vis-a-vis al-quraan's eternal relevance, not my views about certain interpretations.
However, I will play your game for one issue, that of salaat.
My view of salaat is that it's the ritual prayer followed by sunnis.
Your response please )
-
Peace mquran. And you say i run from questions?........