The Self-Serving Verses of the Qur'an

imrankhawaja

@ amanuel God bless you , and what project you are dooing my best wishes are with you always but atleast lets come and share with us , so that we will correct ourself in the light of logic,

and i did not rely on secterian interpretation, Allah give me some mind to think about it , i m agree with you there are secterian errors in interpretation, due to their own agenda, like jesus alive, and other stuff . but as soon we link other topics of quran with that disputed matter it comes towards you crsytal clear, secterians interpretors may be smart , but not smarter than God, where theere is a mistake quran will correct it , as i beleive the ultimate source of getting knowledge is only quran in field of language, logic, self repeating things, and lot more,

ok think for a while do you think its logical that Allah let the book in the hands of wrongdoers and what about the previous generatiions who dnt have anny access to any lexicon, internat, and other stuff, how they understand, quran if quran is claiming its easy to understand.
peace

imrankhawaja

Peace,

I'm also now remembering the verses that say one should not marry a woman because of her beauty or because of one's own desires. Following that, Muhammad could not have married Zayd's former wife because of simple attraction but there had to be some kind of connection there.

actually i think you are totally getting wrong what i try to say. i did not claim prophet was fancy to zayd wife, or any desire.

he did not do anything apart from Allah permission. the situation of arab at that time was very open, it was a tradition in arab women offer openly to every man for marriage. when the offer came to prophet, he was thinking about the tradition of old people , thats y Allah adress these ayats , and make it halal for people who want to get married with their adopted son wife.
and it was important becoz we beleive he was last messenger he need to fullfill the misconceptions as well so he did it,
historical records shows that all the marriages that done are happen when khadija the first wife of prophet died. and most probably these marriages are due to political and logical reasons. not for lust or desire. he was almost above fifty i think .

However, I still find it hard to remove anti-Qur'an theories that are in my mind about a Qur'anic verse. (I know people would refute the above understanding by saying Muhammad didn't have to follow his own rules and he could do whatever he wanted.)

he did not do anything apart from the permission of Allah, he cannot set his own rules, but Allah is not bound in rules and law , Allah do whatever he wills, and Allah made rules for prophet . and same like every student in class cannot become doctor, every human being cannot become prophet, if you deeply think why Allah forbids to get married with the wifes of prophet you will find a very reasonable answer, trust me.

Thank you Imran for your explanation. I really appreciate it.

Peace. peace

you always welcome my brother, God bless you, peace. if you want more logical understanding of prophet wives we can further discuss but i wanted you to think about it,

Man_of_Faith

Imran,

We are many victims of malicious clerics and it is hard to know what Quran really says. My reinterpretation project is not a bed of roses exactly. And just by looking at this forum we can see people are not consensual regarding what it really says even if the majority agrees briefly on the traditional "along the lines" which I argue against since I have seen not even that one is true.

But amidst my criticism I am glad that people are actually evaluating on their own and finding fault in the sectarian usual interpretation, although they actually need to realize it is worse than they seem to think, much worse.

The point people are skeptical about is that the result of my work indicates an often much different faith than the one in the common interpretation. However it gives coherence to some points in the Bible, particularly the mysterious utterance by God to Moses "I am that I am". It is hard for people to understand God is who God is, there is no deviation from absolute Oneness but one is inside of that Oneness, IF they exist at all which marks Being (Allah). Those who dissociate themselves with the imposed contradictory body and world can Be. That is the easy explanation/version.

Rabb is the count of everything in its entirety, Rabb is everything, but only conscious individuals have any independence within while the rest could be regarded as mindless slaves. Such who have consciousness are angels such as the original (for this universe cycle) Gabriel and Michael, but also new angels such as Abraham and Moses, and Yesaya et cetera. Those with such position are controllers of the timeline and course of direction for the whole 'Allahem' Grand Consciousness, this is why angels are called Maleikat in Arabic based on root Miim-Lam-Kaf which means 'to govern'.

Be well
Amenuel

mmkhan

Peace,

I see no mention of word Muhammed in any aayat quoted in OP.
Hence it was not related to Muhammed.

Recluse

I find these verses about Muhammed less problematic than the verses about Islamic belief and eternal Hellfire.

That none of the good deeds of people who are not "Muslim" will be accepted by God, and that they will burn in an eternal Hellfire.

I can't think of anything that is more unjust, irrational, totally ridiculous and repulsive than condemning billions of people to eternal Hell for their 'wrong' belief. Only because they were unlucky to be born and raised in some non-Muslim (Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist etc.) country.

No amount of rationalization can resolve this fundamental problem of the Qur'an. I seriously doubt the Qur'an's divinity based on this alone. I am no longer a victim of blind faith, self-delusion doesn't work for me anymore.

Comrox

Peace all,

I am at a loss to find ho any of these ayas mntionned are self-erving for the Prophet. By self-serving I understand to get personal undue advantag from whatever is "serving one". What advantage, that we know o, not that we surmise, did the prophet get from any of those ayas tht wa undue and esceptional for the prophet?

When it comes to history, I don't think it's really possible to "know" anything that happened with 110% certainty, that's not directly spelled out in the verses. I think in this case we would have to surmise.

IMO not all of these ayas appear to be "self-serving" if considered separately. Nevertheless, I included all of these because if someone entertains the possibility for a moment that whoever was delivered the message of the Qur'an made it all up, then it makes sense (to me at least) that this particular "author" would ensure they had protection, would not allow people to go against him, would try to ensure war success, and give himself the right to do whatever he wants (under a claim that it's God telling him to do such). IMO, all these verses taken as a whole could be interpreted in such ways. This person in question would be allowed this control if he possessed or believed himself to possess something of Divine nature. (For the sake of the discussions on this thread, I won't mention Muhammad's name explicitly.) In this thread, I'm trying to be as skeptical as possible here to examine every possibility and all my thoughts and doubts. I hope I have not or will not offend anyone with my skepticism. I believe in the divinity of the Qur'an, and because I do I believe it is necessary for me to ask myself the questions that are (for me) difficult to answer.

Asthe fifth of any gains fro war, it is not anything exceptional at all. When you undertke fighting war which you have not provoked and on the contrary ha been mposed upon you, whatever fais you get from it hey normally go to the general welfare of the state, those mentionned were ot for muhhamad rivat prso but for the Prophet as the appointd perso in charge of the state or public affairs. Just s th royal fifth in any war was a universal practice and the proceeds were nnot for the privaate person of the king, but to the royal treasury. A comppleely differnt matter is how it is publically employed or whether there are devious actions concerning the administration of thoe monies.

That makes sense. It's a logical conclusion and one that I can agree with.

As to the rgards for the privacy and the comfort of th prophet, I wonder how elf-serving ghey are. The fact that God has to stat them in the book on the contrary seems to show that he seemed to be loaded with a lot of dmands on his time and privacy to the point that a limit had to be put. Just the same with his wives or partners, the Qur'an says that eople sould ask anything from thm frombhind a curtain, why? what was the habit with those things? Did people coe anytime to the wivs houses and surprise them in whaver and never mind?

I haven't thought of it that way before. I think that's a reasonable explanation for 3353, as God specifically mentions, "This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you", which definitely implies that the behavior in question was on-going. However, I'm not sure this explanation can be used for all the other cases. For example, where meetings are discussed (2462), God clearly states that people can't leave the messenger without his permission. There is no part of this verse that suggests people were leaving meetings. Sometimes rules are put in place because a new situation arises which is in need of them, but other times, rules are established right from the start. I don't know that we can say with certainty that it was one way or the other.

When we get tangled with these kinds of nitpicking, we seem to accept the premise that "our" prophet whould be not just an exempalry person in his behaviour, but also that nothig, nothing at all in the world hould leave open the slightest possibility that he did something "wrong". That does not exist neithr for the Prophet nor for us nor for anybody at no time. And no person, neither rophet not or prophet will ever go ghrough this world without leaving a trail of conditions, choices, situations where no room will be left for anybody in the world to find fault. With all due consideratins for everybody we know or we do not know, we will find ourselves time and again in situations where we cannot please everybody without that meaning that we ar unjust of unconsidered or that we re seeking undue advantaage.

That's true. I know that the prophet was not infallible. It helps to remember that, as you said, no one will go through this world without leaving something behind that someone else in the world is going to have an issue (or issues) with.

Prophets ar human and leave in this world. And we who feel so much ready to demand explanations from Muhammad for hi self-serving many times are being brainwashed on the othr hand on finding a limitless self-offering Jesus as much superior to Muhammed because he was spotless and this and that.

I think you're correct here. It's easy to fall into this thinking. I've seen a lot of angry Christians on social media say, "Muhammad is to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians! Jesus was an amazing example for humanity! The Musilms' own Qur'an says Muhammad was the perfect moral example! But just look at the Qur'an and hadith to see what kind of person Muslims follow!" or something like that.

I'm thinking of the verse (4363 I think) that calls us to follow him as well.

Of course I amnot saying anything about the goodness of 'sa or anybody, because in fact it ha nothing to do with the prophets themselves but on the "image" their historical exploiters have articulated in order to manipulate people minds and feelings. Also 'Isa and Jesus were maligned and can be still maligned just on what is written or said about them whether by God or by whoever. If we want to goby the "guilty" until proved innocent, we are fre to do so. Whthr that will be good for us is something else.

Salaam

History is tough. I just want a time machine so I can go back in time and figure out what really happened so we can all stop our arguing and our disagreements about the past. -\

I remember a few months ago I was briefly researching early historical sources on who Muhammad was seen to be in light of European(?) texts (at least, I think they were of European origin? Can't remember anymore). From what I remember of the sources' content, he was described as a man thirsty for war, who promoted himself through a strange and false faith, and who was "the Devil" himself. & brickwall

actually i think you are totally getting wrong what i try to say. i did not claim prophet was fancy to zayd wife, or any desire.

I apologize; I was unclear in my wording. I do not think that you yourself was claiming that the prophet desired Zayd's wife in any way. I only mentioned that because it seems to be a popular belief among people who reject the Qur'an's divinity on this basis.

he did not do anything apart from Allah permission. the situation of arab at that time was very open, it was a tradition in arab women offer openly to every man for marriage. when the offer came to prophet, he was thinking about the tradition of old people , thats y Allah adress these ayats , and make it halal for people who want to get married with their adopted son wife.
and it was important becoz we beleive he was last messenger he need to fullfill the misconceptions as well so he did it,
historical records shows that all the marriages that done are happen when khadija the first wife of prophet died. and most probably these marriages are due to political and logical reasons. not for lust or desire. he was almost above fifty i think .

I've heard this argument before, and had it explained to me most recently in a university class actually. It makes sense but I just have to drill that knowledge into my head. brickwall But if I can't drill it and the knowledge won't stick, I don't know, maybe that means I can't accept it. ( And also, don't we have to assume background knowledge aside from the Qur'an to know this though? Hm. I suppose one can assume that based on (Muhammad) being a messenger, he would be an important member of the community, so political or logical marriages could make sense.

he did not do anything apart from the permission of Allah, he cannot set his own rules, but Allah is not bound in rules and law , Allah do whatever he wills, and Allah made rules for prophet . and same like every student in class cannot become doctor, every human being cannot become prophet, if you deeply think why Allah forbids to get married with the wifes of prophet you will find a very reasonable answer, trust me.

Using the doctor comparison... A great doctor's tools/knowledge/skills/etc. for medical procedures won't just be passed on to another person who is unfit to be a doctor. So going back to the prophet's wives... are you trying to say that ordinary people are unfit to be with the virtuous women that the prophet's wives chose to become?

you always welcome my brother, God bless you, peace. if you want more logical understanding of prophet wives we can further discuss but i wanted you to think about it,

I'm a sister. Thank you brother, God bless you too and peace. peace

Imran,

We are many victims of malicious clerics and it is hard to know what Quran really says. My reinterpretation project is not a bed of roses exactly. And just by looking at this forum we can see people are not consensual regarding what it really says even if the majority agrees briefly on the traditional "along the lines" which I argue against since I have seen not even that one is true.

But amidst my criticism I am glad that people are actually evaluating on their own and finding fault in the sectarian usual interpretation, although they actually need to realize it is worse than they seem to think, much worse.

The point people are skeptical about is that the result of my work indicates an often much different faith than the one in the common interpretation. However it gives coherence to some points in the Bible, particularly the mysterious utterance by God to Moses "I am that I am". It is hard for people to understand God is who God is, there is no deviation from absolute Oneness but one is inside of that Oneness, IF they exist at all which marks Being (Allah). Those who dissociate themselves with the imposed contradictory body and world can Be. That is the easy explanation/version.

Rabb is the count of everything in its entirety, Rabb is everything, but only conscious individuals have any independence within while the rest could be regarded as mindless slaves. Such who have consciousness are angels such as the original (for this universe cycle) Gabriel and Michael, but also new angels such as Abraham and Moses, and Yesaya et cetera. Those with such position are controllers of the timeline and course of direction for the whole 'Allahem' Grand Consciousness, this is why angels are called Maleikat in Arabic based on root Miim-Lam-Kaf which means 'to govern'.

Be well
Amenuel

Your posts always intrigue me.

Peace,

I see no mention of word Muhammed in any aayat quoted in OP.
Hence it was not related to Muhammed.

That's fine, as I explained earlier I don't think these verses have to be related to a particular person such as Muhammad, but it does sound like they are directed to help or ease the responsibilities of a single individual? Do you think differently?

I find these verses about Muhammed less problematic than the verses about Islamic belief and eternal Hellfire.

That none of the good deeds of people who are not "Muslim" will be accepted by God, and that they will burn in an eternal Hellfire.

I can't think of anything that is more unjust, irrational, totally ridiculous and repulsive than condemning billions of people to eternal Hell for their 'wrong' belief. Only because they were unlucky to be born and raised in some non-Muslim (Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist etc.) country.

No amount of rationalization can resolve this fundamental problem of the Qur'an. I seriously doubt the Qur'an's divinity based on this alone. I am no longer a victim of blind faith, self-delusion doesn't work for me anymore.

You can believe what you wish, but how is eternal Hellfire relevant to this topic of discussion?

huruf

Regarding the Prohets wives, somone in this forum a while ago put forward the question of how strnge it is that he id not hve ny children after thee first wife Khadija nd whethr that did ot mean that those wives were ot such wiv but some kinnd of social ad religious partners. That is a point tht also has struck me often. Why he did not have any more children. Could be that he became sterile, but it also could be some other reason, may be political, quite understandable. People all through history have made peace agreements based on political marriages. May be also to give a respectable public image to somebody. In societies where political marriages are not only allowed but in fact promoted, to refusse onne may be in fact a slap o the face of the proposer. At one time as shown in sura 33, the prophet is liberated from such burden be revelation so making any refusal to fall on God and not on Him. It is to be supposed that that happened when he had already ttained to some standing and power ad therfor did not have to fear any backlashing on himself or his people.

I do not think that either Muhammad or any of the prophets of God did ever anything selfserving. For them it wa burden. They have plenty of moral, social and political duties but very few rights. hey are servants of the people, faithful to God and their only authority comes from God.

In fact if we look closely to the Qur'an, God gives authority to none in this world, either to th parents over the children nor th spouses over the other spouse, authority is give by God only to his prophets. That is why they do not hesitate in serving the ppeople nor are afraid nor abuse their authority, because God does not make mistakes when ppointing his Prophets. They are always exemplary men or women. Of coure, the fact that they have authority from God does not means that such authority will be acknowledged by people. See what happened to Lut. But as long as they are faithful and abide by God's commands they are sure to act with all authority not matter what they may have to face.

Salaam

imrankhawaja

yeh huruf you are right, moreover if prophets wife get married with somebody else after prophet death, the history we see today could be 1000 times more violated than what we see today, and i dnt thhink so i have ever enconter that wife of any prophet get married with somebody else after the death of prophets from adam to muhammad, for example in quran its written somewhere the wifes of prohpet is different in rank other than normal believing woomen so they dnt suppose to desire worldy things something like that. when i think about it, there is also a logic behind it,

let say the wife of obama get an offer of job , is it really possible for her to do that job for the sake of money , i dnt think so at any cost she will accept this job niether for money purpose nor in obidence manner, as we know seniors of workplace are alwasy very nasty to juniors, even if somehow she agree to do that job, obama will never ever let him do it, becoz he thinks its a shame for me ,i m predisent i need fromm my wife to just give me commpany when i come home tired, bla bla and lot of reasons,

if the random president wife have lot of customs and traditional bans , so what people are expecting from the wives of prophet who Allah address umhat ul mumineen meaning the mothers of believrs , is it not nasty to get married with the women who rank is like your mother, i try to let her think , but i think (comrox) understanindg is not working to figure out things by it own, anyway best luck

imrankhawaja

I'm a sister. ) Thank you brother, God bless you too and peace. peace

my appology sister i did not notice it, may be due to your username, anyway peace and stay happy.

handshake

huruf

Salaam, Imraan,

I like your writings in general but I do not think I agree with all you said in this message.

No woman would ever think of marrying a widow of the prophet. It is not said anywhere that they are mothers of the male believers only, so I do not think the meanainng you give it is the right one or has anything to do with it.

Women believers are no less daughters of the wives of the Prophet than male believers. And I do not think the wives were there to assist him like a Michelle and not doing anything else, as you describe. The wives of he prophet were independent women. They were bound to lead an exemplary life but not a dependent life (No wife of any prophet was mant to do that.) They were there by their choice of God and his Prophet, just like all the believers, and the fact that they were not to marry afterwards might have been by the very simple and obvious reason that, were it otherwise, there would have been very nasty fights for the "succession" of the prophet, whoever got his wife(ves) got the succession.

They were mothers of the believers not in order not marry any man afterwards, because then it would have said mothers of the male believers (beside, the non marriage after is already provided for in clear terms, not deviously, in another aya, so no need to double the injonction with such an n unclear device), but because of their choice of rennouncing worldly parading and money and choosing unworldly virtue and the giving up of luxury when after a life of poverty and struggle they could have indeed started to lead a life of luxury and appearances.

They were not serving a husband, they were serving God and his Prophet. This is very clearly stated in the Qur'an and not to be compared with Michelle Obama nor any other "first lady" nor confused with such figuring.

They were not "first ladies", they were believers and followers of God and his Prophet and asummed a very heavy duty of restrain when verybody else could live as they pleased as life got easier. They got double reward too by their Sustainer. They were not glorified servants of a husband but partners, or as has been handed down in muslim terminology, compannions, which, by the way, is indeed a very nice and warm term.

Bear in mind that it is clearly stated in the Qur'an that the Prophet is not a father of any personality nor is he by himself said to be the father of anybody, but on the other hand his wives are appointed by no less than God as mothers of the believers, the whole of all believers, no less. What does that say? What did they do that made them deservers of such a title, and what does it mean for each of us to be children of the wives of the prophet?

As far as I can ascertain, what it means is freedom of choice. Nothing was ever exacted from the wives of the Prophet except choose the life of this world or the life of the hereafter. They were not ordeered to smile to the people, nor to cook for the prophet, nor to look nice for th9 sake of the Prophet, nor to give a good image, nor to be subservient to him, nor to be deppendent of him. They were asked to choose the life of this world or the life of the hereafter. Those who wanted to leave the Prophet could do so with a good provision, those who stayed were to live thinking of the hereafter. Rennounce a life of glitter after having gone through a life of hardship.

They choose the hereafter, that is what it means to be children of the wives of the prophet, to choose the hereafter, not not to be able to marry any of them.

Salaam

imrankhawaja

huruf ,

actually i was giving an example of the wives of todays kings, how society and other things influence on them just becoz they are wives of so called people. at the timme of prophet it was different circumstances comaperd to todays life.

They were mothers of the believers not in order not marry any man afterwards, because then it would have said mothers of the male believers (beside, the non marriage after is already provided for in clear terms, not deviously, in another aya, so no need to double the injonction with such an n unclear device), but because of their choice of rennouncing worldly parading and money and choosing unworldly virtue and the giving up of luxury when after a life of poverty and struggle they could have indeed started to lead a life of luxury and appearances.

thats what i try to describe.

and we can get lot more reasons why its forbid to get married with wives of prophet after death. like the issues of kids, as we know allah already told us prophet is not a father of anymen , propbably becoz all of his 2 or 3 sons died in innfanty.

but in the life of prophet if they wanted to get seperate ALLAH already gave them offer to decide whatever they want and prophet of God will end up with them in a nicely way,and they are fee to do whatever they want,

imrankhawaja

about umhat ul mumineen , honestly i did not research the words . but i can understand its rank or position to respect the wives of prophet as you respect your mothers.

huruf

Rspect of course, but they are mentionned as already having chosen to addressed when they already have had to hold onn to the Prophet and the life of hereafter, in tht sense and in the formulation I see it as a spiritual timeless bond. Teh same as today if you hold allegeance to hte prophet it is not to the flesh and blood man but to what he means spiritually, so the mothers of the believers are also an spiritual bond if we want it.

Salaam

imrankhawaja

Rspect of course, but they are mentionned as already having chosen to addressed when they already have had to hold onn to the Prophet and the life of hereafter, in tht sense and in the formulation I see it as a spiritual timeless bond. Teh same as today if you hold allegeance to hte prophet it is not to the flesh and blood man but to what he means spiritually, so the mothers of the believers are also an spiritual bond if we want it.

Salaam

w salam agree,

but see some people specially historical one how they present the views of prophet wives.

peace

huruf

w salam agree,

but see some people specially historical one how they present the views of prophet wives.

peace

Can you be more specfic?

I have learnt (at least a little) toforget about hearsay an stick to the Qur'an and what it doe not say. There has been lot of interest trying to extract things fromthe Qur'n when the Qur'an keeps silent on precisely those things. Iam sure there is a reason for the Qur'ans silences. God does nto forget, but why should God give too much string so we ca hang ourselves? Comingo to the prophet wives, I do find that when God ays they are the mothers of the believers He is saying tons, but we want not that ton we want some "gossip". Well God does not give us "gossip". Why should he. Why doesn't God say, that the women believers re like wives of the prophet. No, does not say that, but says that, but4 some have tried to make thee mothers of the believers a rule for all women when the Qur'an clearly states that they ar not like any other women, precisely because they ar restricted onn some clear rights tht assists all othr human beings, ad because they gave up those rights, they get a higher reward. And they are not mothers of male believers only to the exclusionn ofthe femle, nno are they mothers only of the females to the exclusion of the males. The fact spiritually we have a legacy of struggle for spiritual improvement, for choosing for God's sake.

Another legacy to be cquired throgh the mothers of the believers is freedom. We are ot given particulars of any of them. For all we know, from hte Qur'an, they could be fat, they might snnore, they might be ill tempered, they might be anything. Does nto matter what matters is they choe God and gghe Prophet. No conditions attached to attaining God's faavour as far as particulars are concerned. No woman has to be sweet or beautiful, enough that she chooses God, same with the male believers. It seems,from extra qura'nic sources that oe of the wives of those who chosee God, was a real witch in terms of character. So othig wrong with tht either. If somebody wants sweetness he can mmarry or keep to the company of some kilos of sugar or honey, or stevia.

Women set very much the tone of societies. By having he widows of the prophet to be austere what was robably averted at least for a time was a fully decadent society of luxuries and debauche in the first times of the spread of islam. Those times came all right but not so fast.

Salaam

virginia

Unfortunately not, 'Muhammed' the word has not come up yet in the project. However, just like many other names, many Semitic names could both be used as a normal word and a name. (Muhammed) is not impossible to use as a standard word in a phrase.

Be well
Amenuel

welcome bravo rotfl yay

imrankhawaja

welcome bravo rotfl yay

lol whats this

virginia

Well at some point i started doubting the existance of Muhammad himself, take his name and make it a simple noum, and it makes sense. Anyway it is not somwthing I have been searching, not at all! Just an idea once crossed my mind. I was happy other person thinks like this, like a confirnarion I'm not crazy

virginia

Sorry for the typing, mobile problems....

Comrox

Regarding the Prohets wives, somone in this forum a while ago put forward the question of how strnge it is that he id not hve ny children after thee first wife Khadija nd whethr that did ot mean that those wives were ot such wiv but some kinnd of social ad religious partners. That is a point tht also has struck me often. Why he did not have any more children. Could be that he became sterile, but it also could be some other reason, may be political, quite understandable. People all through history have made peace agreements based on political marriages. May be also to give a respectable public image to somebody. In societies where political marriages are not only allowed but in fact promoted, to refusse onne may be in fact a slap o the face of the proposer.

Interesting. I did not know about how disrespectful it is to refuse a (political) marriage in some societies. I wonder sometimes about why he did not have children after his first wife too.