To Ichepren : Belated Response - Is Al-Quraan for all Time

ichephren

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?

mquran

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&#039 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.

unknownuser

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.

ichephren

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&#039 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?

unknownuser

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

unknownuser

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

unknownuser

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

mquran

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 below

if 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 )

unknownuser

Peace mquran. And you say i run from questions?........

savage_carrot

Peace, Let's keep to the topic and real debate before a downward spiral starts. Thank you.

mquran

EnquirerPeace mquran. And you say i run from questions?........

I do. I think you're a fake. You've never studied a thing in your life and you try to fake your way through. 25 years of Arabic and you think al-quraan is interpreted just be internal reference. Really, its quite paper-thin, the facade you pull. Of course, if you like, you can prove me wrong.

And you must be quite blind as I answered Ichipren with the salaat. Lets now see if she reacts as she's expected to.

So will you now answer my question about your 'morality' stuff ? )

How bout it, man ? I answer one of hers and you answer one of mine. Fair deal ? Or will you keep up your road runner style discussion.

mquran

SCeace, Let's keep to the topic and real debate before a downward spiral starts. Thank you.

Well, Enquirer's predatory nature is such that, like Lote-Tree, he lurks in the shadows, comes out for what he thinks are smart remarks and disappears again. This is why we need to have a mandatory rule for whoever disparages al-quraan. Either defend your view or rescind or leave.

savage_carrot

Peace, This is why I ask people to stick to the topic and the substance of the debate. It does not do any one any good to make comments that are antagonizing to the other and have nothing to do with the topic that is being discussed.

mquran

Well, I await Ichepren's response.

unknownuser

Peace mquran and savage carrot... Mquran; Repeat a falsehood enough times,and you might convince (or brain-wash.) yourself,my friend.....
Savage carrot; I am responding back to a comment directed about me,so it is relevant to the topic...

unknownuser

Peace all. Im going to have a break from replying to mquran for a while,as its got to 'unreasonableness' once again...

mquran

EnquirerPeace mquran and savage carrot... Mquran; Repeat a falsehood enough times,and you might convince (or brain-wash.) yourself,my friend.....

You must have learnt the above through experience. We keep on hearing the words 'moral' and 'humanistic' but this special someone keeps shying away from explaining it. I wonder why?

eace all. Im going to have a break from replying to mquran for a while,as its got to 'unreasonableness' once again...

Short break like the last time or more than a day, this time?

ichephren

Peace,
MQ That's EXACTLY what you're assuming. Lets recap your positionSince 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 across1. A guy who studied for 25 years but doesn't know of external and internal verification
2. a person who claims the inheritance law doesnt work but doesnt know of writing of wills
3. 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'.
Ichephren You obviously did not read what I said. I said that my definition of "we" comprises of those who have most definitely studied the Quran, namely Parwez, the Mutazilites, etc. none of who had the same idea of what the Quran means by certain issues. I do not care about who said what on this forum, so it's time to stop that argument...

MQLets recap the whole exchange againa. 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 below if this is not your purpose of asking me, what is your purpose please?
Ichephren ok, then a way to verify your claim is if the interpretation of a verse agrees with other verses of the Quran, is correct in the arabic dictionary and if the interpretation makes sense given all circumstances and the context. If there is more than one interpretation of a verse, the most reasonable interpretation should be given that agrees with other verses and does not create conflict within itself and logic.

MQ So really, what you're seeking for is a Tv-dinner style religion where you get your beliefs.
Ichephren That is an unfair statement. Why would you say that? Your ability to debate a topic is completely diminished by your insistence on destroying character. Why? Why can you not have a civil discussion about a topic w/o making judgements about the person with whom you are debating?

MQ 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.
Ichephren Yes I did say that. It was an out loud process of thinking about why it is so hard to grasp what the Quran is trying to say. I did not make an unequivocal statement that the Quran is obsolete, yet you are trying to make it seem as if I said that it most definitely is, which is a deliberate twisting of my original sentiments.

MQ 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.
Ichephren First you define Huda as ? God's interjection into the course of ones life towards the direction of the evolution of the nafs? then you immediately assume that such Huda must be given by Quranic laws. If Huda is general guidance, then such Huda can be given by a remembrance of the truth, which is what the Quran gives us. Its guidance can be given without adherence to specific laws like ex. Not eating pork. Not eating pork is a law, but whether one does or does not will not bar a believer from heaven if he/she believes in God and does good.

MQ 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.
Ichephren Actually it has much relevance considering that you claim that the Quran is understandable. So, you think that salat is the sunni salat meaning 5 daily salats, etc. Proving 5 salat is a question of interpretation of many verses of the Quran that can have multiple meanings. How do you know that yours is the correct one?

I have to say that I am tired to conversing with you and will end it here. If you wish to continue, do so at your own choice. I think that you are more concerned with winning than in having a discussion and your belligerence is off-putting. I don?t know how you intend to converse with someone while twisting their words to make you ?win? more easily. I did not even intend for my post to create this much discussion since it was more like an ?I wonder if...? post...I will refrain from doing so in the future as some members apparently cannot understand the concept of questioning.

mquran

Ichephren You obviously did not read what I said. I said that my definition of "we" comprises of those who have most definitely studied the Quran, namely Parwez, the Mutazilites, etc. none of who had the same idea of what the Quran means by certain issues. I do not care about who said what on this forum, so it's time to stop that argument...

Ok. So you've now changed the definition of 'we'. Good. That means our exchanges haven't been in vain. Lets focus on Parwez and Muhammad Shiekh who weren't contemporaries (Parwez died in 85, Shiekh started his work in the 90ies). Parwez and Shiekh both have the same ritualistic view of as-salaat with one exception, Parwez also believes that 'as-salaat' is the 'socio-economic' system'. Since you've done a serious study of al-quraan, can you show me how Parwez is wrong or right?

Ichephren ok, then a way to verify your claim is if the interpretation of a verse agrees with other verses of the Quran, is correct in the arabic dictionary and if the interpretation makes sense given all circumstances and the context. If there is more than one interpretation of a verse, the most reasonable interpretation should be given that agrees with other verses and does not create conflict within itself and logic.

Not a way but the way put forward by al-quraan itself. This book which people claim cannot be understood by contemporary man has seen to it that every angle is covered.

MQ So really, what you're seeking for is a Tv-dinner style religion where you get your beliefs.
Ichephren That is an unfair statement. Why would you say that? Your ability to debate a topic is completely diminished by your insistence on destroying character. Why? Why can you not have a civil discussion about a topic w/o making judgements about the person with whom you are debating?

Hmm, do you think the word 'squirm' is free of judgemental value? I'm entitled to my opinion and so far I've seen that in the people who deem al-quraan's laws irrelevant

one doesn't know the difference between verbs (after a 25 year study)
one didnt know of a verse ordering writing of wills
you didn't know of verification

yet ALL of you complained that agreement could not be reached about Quranic concepts. So what am I supposed to think, please? How can you make such an assertions without knowing fundamental principles of tafseer?

MQ 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.
Ichephren Yes I did say that. It was an out loud process of thinking about why it is so hard to grasp what the Quran is trying to say. I did not make an unequivocal statement that the Quran is obsolete, yet you are trying to make it seem as if I said that it most definitely is, which is a deliberate twisting of my original sentiments.

Oh no, I am challenging your position. If you don't wish to stand by it, there's no problem at all.

Ichephren First you define Huda as ? God's interjection into the course of ones life towards the direction of the evolution of the nafs? then you immediately assume that such Huda must be given by Quranic laws. If Huda is general guidance, then such Huda can be given by a remembrance of the truth, which is what the Quran gives us. Its guidance can be given without adherence to specific laws like ex. Not eating pork. Not eating pork is a law, but whether one does or does not will not bar a believer from heaven if he/she believes in God and does good.

I defined 'huda' as per Quranic usage. The structural realities of the concept must be investigated the context of how it's used, not YOUR definition of huda works. With due respect, I prefer to allow Allah to tell us how to achieve huda. Al-quraan calls itself 'bayyinat min al-hudaa' or clarification of al-hudaa and al-quraan clearly gives laws.

Ichephren Actually it has much relevance considering that you claim that the Quran is understandable. So, you think that salat is the sunni salat meaning 5 daily salats, etc. Proving 5 salat is a question of interpretation of many verses of the Quran that can have multiple meanings. How do you know that yours is the correct one?

Sorry, you haven't answered my question. Can you please tell me what you will do with my interpretation. When you've answered this, I can show you method of interpretion.

I have to say that I am tired to conversing with you and will end it here.

It's not so easy to debunk al-quraan, is it?

If you wish to continue, do so at your own choice. I think that you are more concerned with winning than in having a discussion and your belligerence is off-putting.

And I think that you are after a book which will tell you whatever your hawaa desires. So make your own reality about al-quraan but in a public forum, please don't expect people who believe the entire al-quraan is totally relevant to take it lying down.

I don?t know how you intend to converse with someone while twisting their words to make you ?win? more easily. I did not even intend for my post to create this much discussion since it was more like an ?I wonder if...? post...I will refrain from doing so in the future as some members apparently cannot understand the concept of questioning.

Kindly show me where I've TWISTED any of your words and I will verify and apologise if you're truthful.

And some cannot understand that interrogation of their questioning shouldnt ruffle their egos.

wildguest1956

Peace ichephren,

Are these posts on faithfreedom.org (under the name "Unknown 184&quot from you ?

http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=6626
http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=7132
http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=7443

Peace