Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. General Issues / Questions
  3. Questions/Comments on the Quran
  4. Question to all Muslims and Quranists

Question to all Muslims and Quranists

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Questions/Comments on the Quran
21 Posts 5 Posters 55 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • B Offline
    B Offline
    bkanwar2
    wrote on last edited by
    #11

    A friend who is still struggling with meaning of , as "neither there is,nor shall be a deity for worship and adoration, save, One who, neither is, nor shall be, a deity for worship or adoration".

    Asked me as if this is a complete sentence, or may it would be better explained by words before or after. Hence, I searched the great reading few times. This expression is no where to be found in Quran in this order. This likely makes it an expression that could not be attributed to Rabb. My question is whose expression is this and why? And if it not required by our Rabb, how come it became the first article of Muslim faith?

    Badar

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • B Offline
      B Offline
      bkanwar2
      wrote on last edited by
      #12

      This is the closet verse to first part of 1st article of faith. Let me work on it's translation to see what it actually means?

      3537

      Peace,

      Badar

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • B Offline
        B Offline
        bkanwar2
        wrote on last edited by
        #13

        Just a correction, the verse above is 3735.

        Peace,

        Badar

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Offline
          M Offline
          Mazhar
          wrote on last edited by
          #14

          Let me make it easy to readand translate

          What was said, narrated to them

          what was their response

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • B Offline
            B Offline
            bkanwar2
            wrote on last edited by
            #15

            Thanks Dear Mazhar, for your kindness. Please, share some rules of Arabic syntax that lead you to break down this verse in this order.

            Badar

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • M Offline
              M Offline
              Mazhar
              wrote on last edited by
              #16

              Thanks Dear Mazhar, for your kindness. Please, share some rules of Arabic syntax that lead you to break down this verse in this order.

              Badar

              Translation may suffice
              http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/037.%20As%20Safaat/37.35.gif
              Indeed they were the people who when it was said for them,
              http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/037.%20As%20Safaat/37.35a.gif
              "there is absolutely no iela'aha except Allah"
              http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/037.%20As%20Safaat/27.35b.gif
              they used to make themselves demonstrate arrogance of grandeur,

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • B Offline
                B Offline
                bkanwar2
                wrote on last edited by
                #17

                Irrespective of translation original question was this

                Dear all, when there is any critique about themes of Quran. Most often the defense put forward by all Muslims/scholars is that "the text should not be taken out or interpreted out of context". It should be seen in context with verses before and after. I fully understand and concur with this line of reasoning. However, my question is that why this very principle should not hold in regard to very first principle of faith of traditional Islam?

                Why this text is used out of context? It is no where to be found in this order in Qur'an. Could someone give logic for this, to this illiterate?

                Badar

                This still remains unaddressed. Both these instance of occurance of first part of Kalma, are not the whole verses. But are expression taken out of context and put with another out of context verse to make the first article of faith. Question remains why and who did it? Can it be defended, based upon logic of not quoting verses, out of context?

                Badar

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M Offline
                  M Offline
                  Mazhar
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #18

                  No one calls it a verse. When someone says this he is making two statements independent of each other. And both two facts are mentioned in the Qur'aan.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • B Offline
                    B Offline
                    bkanwar2
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #19

                    Dear all, when there is any critique about themes of Quran. Most often the defense put forward by all Muslims/scholars is that "the text should not be taken out or interpreted out of context". It should be seen in context with verses before and after. I fully understand and concur with this line of reasoning. However, my question is that why this very principle should not hold in regard to very first principle of faith of traditional Islam?

                    Why this text is used out of context? It is no where to be found in this order in Qur'an. Could someone give logic for this, to this illiterate?

                    Badar

                    JUST TO REMIND THIS IS THE QUERY

                    BADAR

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Mazhar
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #20

                      Believers pronounce the above two statements. Why?

                      {refer 5728]

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • B Offline
                        B Offline
                        bkanwar2
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #21

                        Believers pronounce the above two statements. Why?

                        {refer 5728]

                        This is the linguistic understanding of this part of 5728. Radically different from which is being questioned above.

                        O you sleepy inadvertent, whom ever want to be safe and secure. Be cautious of the fact that, One, is not a deity for worship and adoration. And in order to safe guard and secure yourself, come and be with the message and communication from the One and Only.

                        Badar

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Users