Quote
?If this is what Dr. Qamar is, he seems to have entered into the shoes of GA Pervez.?

That was a mis-statement of the century. Both the gentlemen are oceans apart in their level of intellect and evolution.

All Pervaizis hate Dr. Qamar Zaman, just as you do, only because all of them are stuck in time, in the year 1985, the year the great man closed his eyes in eternal peace. They are on sleeping pills. No movement. No research or investigation. No quest or pursuit of knowledge. Pervaiz was the last word for them. I respect the gentleman. Was my first teacher in Quranic studies. He never asked people to freeze their minds. He hated conformism and persistently advised against it.

You are a label paster and a foulmouth, friend. A Quranic Mulla, suffering from self delusion. All you need is a running brook of thought, not your present stagnant and dead pond of smelly water. Your ugly demeanour has precluded any more logical or rational discussion. A Quranic research, when introduced for discussion, is a ?scum? for you.

All reflections of friends are interesting for me and I hold them in high esteem. The topic deals with basic convictions and cannot easily reach its target without a lot of discussion and debate.
Right now, I reproduce my post to Sarah here, as I believe it did not go through to her due to some error in the link that was supposed to be addressed by me.
Sorry Sarah, this reply had to reach you that's why I take the liberty to reprint it here. Please feel free all, to deliberate and reflect. Of course without adopting the extremist Mulla's role. I respect you all.

Salaams to you Sarah,

No need at all to be sorry. We all make mistakes of this minute nature. I make bigger ones.
Your Quote
Well everyone is accountable for their own behaviour the harassing attitudes aren?t nice or acceptable. I guess people get emotional about what they believe in. and as an individual you can shine by showing a greater example and being the better one.

The only point of worry is that these Freeminders claim to be Quranists. What attitude and what manners of Quranists they are showing to the new entrants in their Blog, and to the world?

Your Quote
People?s ridicule happens everywhere unfortunately not just on the free-minds.

There are many many webs and blogs where decency prevails. And they are not only Muslim Blogs, but Christian Blogs too. www.aastana.com is one of them. Again, at least, Quranists never have to be sharp of tongues, abusive and insulting, as it is totally against the tenets of Quran.

There are scholars at www.aastana.com whose mission is to complete the great task of exploration and discovery of genuine Quranic interpretations. This task was started around 150 years ago, with the worldwide "Back to Quran" movement. They are trying to clean up the element of myth, miracles, dogmas, irrationalities and rituals of worship. They believe that Quran is dealing with values and ideals which, when put into practice by a state machinery, affords absolute PEACE to the humanity, and a life free from fear, want, exploitation, tyranny and hunger. Quran is a Constitution for Humanity that must be enforced by a Quranic Elite in order to be effective. For this purpose it requires a massive political movement.

Nobody is required to agree with them. People get furious at them. They reply with Quranic and linguistic argumentation. No sharp words or filthy language is ever used. The message is spreading fast.

Yes, Ashaab al-Feel, means, according to lexicons, the pompous ones, the ones who have high claims, who speak loudly and boast, but are in reality fools. Feel means to make loud and pompous claims. The myth of "an army of elephants" travelling in the desert and mountains, all the way from Yemen to Macca, and the other myth of swarms of small birds, holding stones in their beaks, etc. etc. have been authentically eliminated. And you must have noted rationality and logic brought in, without violating any linguistic rules.
Now you can present this translation before this scientifically advanced, logical and intellectual world. And they will not laugh at you. And that alone is not the sole purpose. It is believed with reason that before Jews infiltrated and corrupted the meanings, Quran was understood in this very purely rational way.

It was the Banu Umayyad and Banu Abbas tyrants who, with their vested interests, had managed to do away with the genuine interpretations of the great Quran. For their ulterior motives, they had employed and sponsored the Jewish scholars. They could not go along with the Quranic tenets with their autocratic dynastic rule. So they transformed its constitution radically.

Another translation is introduced to you in keeping with the most recent research

SURA 111

1. All powers (Yadaa) of instigator of the fire of enmity (Abi lahabin) have been smashed (tabbat) and perished is he (tab).
   2, Of no avail to him was his wealth and domain.
2. To burn (naaran) in the fire of hatred (zaat-a-lahabin) will be his disastrous fate (sa yasla).
3. And his false pride/honor (Imra?atuhu) responsible (Hammaalah) for inciting the hatred (al-hatab),
4. would stand tied to a strong rope (hablum mim masad) around its high neck (jeedihaa).(would stand humiliated)

Running translation

?All powers of the instigator (of the fire) of enmity have been smashed and he is destroyed. Of no avail to him was his wealth and domain. To burn in the fire of hatred will be his disastrous fate. And his false pride/honor responsible for inciting hatred would stand tied to a strong rope (a yoke) around its high neck (simply meaning that he is doomed to stand humiliated).?

Quran does not deal with personalities (except His Rasools) or places. So there was no particular person called "Abu Lahab" that was targeted in this Sura. On the contrary, the Sura targets the general frame of mind of the enemies of God, His messenger and His Guidance.

Dr. Qamar Zaman is the prominent scholar who is bearing the great responsibility of discovering the genuine interpretation of Quran out of the debris and rubble of great Jewish counter revolution against Islam. He can be contacted through his website and blog, www.aastana.com.

Of course, you are absolutely free to form your opinion. We would always respect you.

God bless you.

QUOTE
Rape is NOT Zina, since consent i.e. desire for nearness to sexual intercourse is not there for one party. In rape also the effect will be the same as is in the case of consented illicit sexual intercourse, but in rape punishment can be extended by the state to capital punishment, but not in case of Zina. Some stupid coined the term Zina bil jaber. Once force is applied, by either party, it is not Zina.

I have already put a question Where is the differentiation between ZINA and RAPE?
Where is RAPE mentioned as against ZINA? What is the punishment for RAPE in Quran, while punishment for "ZINA" is clearly mentioned?

Do we have to go after the "edict" of a Quranic Mulla here? What authority has he to prescribe "capital punishment" for a "sin" that is not even mentioned in Quran?
Nothing but the same hollow verbal acrobatics!! A tunnel vision! Harsh and indecent words. A violent Quranic Mulla, eh?

Mazhar, Reformer and others,

Still no response against or rebuttal to my arguments. Still intent on hollow verbal confrontation. Asking me to cool down. But still furious and explosive on an intellectual difference of opinion. Leave Quran alone. As I said, you people are "Quranic rogues". A curse on Quranic community.

You are sick brothers. And I beg protection of Almighty from sicknesses of this kind.

God bless you all.

For Mazhar and other brothers/sisters

QUOTE FROM MY LAST POST
?consented illicit". Is a blatant violation of God?s words, WHO only said ZINA and no suggestion or implication is there for ?consented illicit Zina?. You have no right to adulterate Quranic text with your wishful thinking, be it to justify a fabricated meaning.
(NO answer given)
Had the meaning of ZINA been sexual intercourse, Quran must have differentiated between Zina Bil Jabr and Zina bil Raza. Both kinds of acts of Zina are being committed in our daily lives. There should also have been two different punishments for them respectively. There are none.
(No answer given)
Moreover, Zina and Shirk have been declared equivalents. Read carefully the Ayat 24/3

The traditional Jewish translation
?The Zani does not marry except with Zania or Mushrikah, and the Zaniah, no one marries her except Zani or Mushrik??.?

The following questions arise

1. Is that Statement true or false? It is false, as we see that even the most corrupt man won?t marry an adultress. The most corrupt man would like his wife to be chaste and faithful to him.
2. What is the common value between a Zani and a Mushrik? Think very deeply. There is no common value between a Zani and a Mushrik. Zina, with your meaning, is a physical act corresponding to your frame of mind, your desire and your lust. Shirk relates with your faith, conviction, belief, etc.
3. Is a Zani always a Mushrik? No.
4. Is a Mushrik always a Zani? No.
5. A man or a woman can be a non Mushrik and can still be a Zani.
6. On the other hand, a Mushrik can easily be a non-Zani.

So brother, the old traditional Jewish translation of the word, as well as your rhetoric, is a conjecture and portrays an irrational and illogical picture of the Quranic text.
(No answers given)

Since all the above logical argumentation has fallen on deaf ears, I can rightly assume that this Forum is devoid of intellectual sensibilities. A childish stubbornness and arrogance is manifest. Brothers here seem more intent on, and satisfied with, ?verbal acrobatics? of the sharpest kind. Insults and slander is the order of the day here.

What kind of a Quranic Forum it is brothers, where people are looking for confrontations and verbal fire exchanges, rather than being receptive to new explorations of Quranic meanings and ideology? Where have you lost the basic value of ?respect for humanity? that Quran declares as mandatory?

?Fahash? is following one?s own desires and lust, as against the divine Guidance. So, if it is equated to SHIRK, what is your problem there? The important thing here is to discuss the newly exposed basic meanings of the word; and make a research into its validity. And to accept it, if found authentic, as it rationalizes the Quranic philosophy and answers all the anomalies that are pointed out in the above quote ? that you were unable to answer. That?s the way of evolution brothers.

I am sorry that I only find ?Quranic rogues? on these pages??say, ?Quranic extremist Mullas?, if you like ?..assuming an air of final authority and issuing edicts. Disgorging words like ?scum? from their ?Quranic mouths?, without any provocation.

So brothers, I leave your foolhardy, haughty Blog, allowing you a 20-year grace period to grow up and learn Quran afresh, till your mentality is straightened and a research oriented demeanor is manifest in your characters. You are devoid of the civility and the politeness of manners and still, very strangely, are out to teach Quran to infidels!!!!
What a shame?

Read this excerpt also and please do look into a mirror. You will sure cry in disgust

The moment I joined the forums of free-minds.org and posted the first message about the FIVE PROJECTS (not five prayers!) we were working on, my faith was questioned by several people and I was immediately challenged regarding my opinion on SALAT. On any subject I wrote, I was harassed and demanded to indulge in their favorite argument. It seems that several people were so excited from freeing their minds and their bodies from performing a ritual; they just wanted to PROHIBIT such a ritual in the name of God. According to these people, anyone disagrees with their INTERPRETATION, INFERENCES and SPECULATIONS on some Quranic verses or words, or someone prays differently, he or she must be a MUSHRIK or DISBELIEVER. According to them I should not spend much time to think and study their claims. They did not even recognize a right for me to spend time on anything else in my life. I was expected either to reject their position IMMEDIATELY or accept IMMEDIATELY. Studying their argument was either a luxury, or evasion of absolute truth! I should have had acted reflexively, with a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps like they have done it.

God bless you.

Quote from Mazhar
"The issue was that Dr. sahib said Fahashi is Shirk."

Brother, where has Dr. Sahib said that Fahashi is Shirk? He only said that Fahashi is ?the pursuit of one?s own lust/desires, as opposed to the divine ideology?. Utmost care is required while God?s words are discussed since it is a matter of universal guidance. Misquotes always mislead.

?The verse quoted unimbiguously shows that his assertion is mere conjecture and scum.?

It would be only reasonable if you try to ?show? and prove that ?his assertion is mere conjecture and scum?. To use such words without bearing the burden of proof, is felony of the worst kind dear brother. Not appropriate for a Quranic sudent.

"consented illicit". Is a blatant violation of God?s words, WHO only said ZINA and no suggestion or implication is there for ?consented illicit Zina?. You have no right to adulterate Quranic text with your wishful thinking, be it to justify a fabricated meaning.

Had the meaning of ZINA been sexual intercourse, Quran must have differentiated between Zina Bil Jabr and Zina bil Raza. Both kinds of acts of Zina are being committed in our daily lives. There should also have been two different punishments for them respectively. There are none.

Moreover, Zina and Shirk have been declared equivalents. Read carefully the Ayat 24/3

The traditional Jewish translation
?The Zani does not marry except with Zania or Mushrikah, and the Zaniah, no one marries her except Zani or Mushrik??.?

The following questions arise

1. Is that Statement true or false? It is false, as we see that even the most corrupt man won?t marry an adultress. The most corrupt man would like his wife to be chaste and faithful to him.
2. What is the common value between a Zani and a Mushrik? Think very deeply. There is no common value between a Zani and a Mushrik. Zina, with your meaning, is a physical act corresponding to your frame of mind, your desire and your lust. Shirk relates with your faith, conviction, belief, etc.
3. Is a Zani always a Mushrik? No.
4. Is a Mushrik always a Zani? No.
5. A man or a woman can be a non Mushrik and can still be a Zani.
6. On the other hand, a Mushrik can easily be a non-Zani.

So brother, the old traditional Jewish translation of the word, as well as your rhetoric, is a conjecture and portrays an irrational and illogical picture of the Quranic text.
Kindly re-consider and feel free to ask questions.

God bless you.

QUOTE
" "
And they do not indulge in consented illicit sexual intercourse,

What is the basis of "adding" the word "consented illicit" herein, may I ask?
I do think this is what is called "Tahreef" in Quran.
And I do think Quranic students have to be research minded not "label pasters". It is better than to pull a sorry face later on.

Why can't it be "And they do not "distort the Quranic ideology"? Arabic lexicons support this meaning.

God bless you.

Brothers Afridi, Mazhar,

Please follow this link - You will find it in 12th reply, 2nd paragraph, by Dr. Qamar Zaman

http//www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?MID=4&SID=21&QID=65

God bless you.

Dear friends,

May I suggest the most up to date meaning of "Fahash", according to the research of Dr. Qamar Zaman of "www.aastana.com". That is

"THE PURSUIT OF ONE'S OWN PERSONAL DESIRES AS AGAINST THE DIVINE DISCIPLINE."
Hence "Fahash" becomes equal to "SHIRK", making it one of the most serious offenses.

I do think the interpretation is compatible/applicable at all places where the word is mentioned.

The word "ZINA" which relates closely with the word "Fahash" has also been investigated into, in the quest to explore and discover the genuine interpretations of Quranic terminology. And Lo, the meaning is

"TO DISTORT THE IDEOLOGY". Al-Zani is the one who "distorts, changes, twists, alters shape, bends, forces a change into" the divine ideology. Al-Zania can be a female, or a group, community, gang (Jama'at), as any Jama'at in Arabic is a "feminine" and has a 't' of 'tanees' in the end.

I would very much like to read friends' opinions.

God bless you.

Sorry Moderators,

I don't mind you sent my last post to trash. May be I was wrong to assume you wanted to get a riddance from a rude guy.
If you are happily going along with that nonsense, it's OK for me.

Good luck.

Sorry friends, I do witness a lot of time being wasted here on topics that are otherwise very crucial and thought-provoking.

Someone is putting a question without a purpose and with no head or tail thereof. And all the Free Minds just flocking around the guy and chirping meaningless rhetoric endlessly. Affording superfluous importance to meaningless dogmas.

The guy is a shaky pot with no base to stand upon. Propagating supposed concocted personalities with a lot of hear-say being ascribed to the Prophet. Claiming to be a Hadith follower. A follower of "Cat" (Abu Huraira) and "Dog". A Mushrik. As the following that is prescribed is just of the Book and the Rasool. Not of those who "report" through generations and sources, what Rasool had said two and a half centuries back. What Rasool said or done, was Quran wholly and solely, as he was bound to act acc. to nothing but Quran. And Quran is "Detailed, authoritative and narrates all that is needed for guidance". The bloody worship "Namaz" is nowhere prescribed or detailed therein. What have we to do with that "Namaz"? We have Salat - "the following in letter and spirit of the tenets of Quran".

Don't play in the hands of a Mushrik's speculative verbiage. I am sorry for this label but it is just in reciprocation of his identical labelling.

Of course everyone is free to speak here and it is a pass-time. However, a leisure time too must be constructive and rewarding, rather enjoyable - not sickening.

God bless you all.

"Suppositions" friends, cannot become the basis for any serious discussions on the topics of Quran, Rasool and His commandments.
The questions arise from your "One Question for Quranists" are -

1. Why do you indulge in this kind of useless verbiage?
2. Do you think this is the only way to judge people's loyalties towards Rasool?
3. Why would the Rasool ask me to do something which is un-Quranic?
4. Why wouldn't one do as asked to do by the Rasool himself?
5. It is the command of a divine ruler with a divine mandate to establish Kingdom of God. Why wouldn't every Muslim obey?
6. Are you being asked to obey or to give your opinion about the right or wrong of a command?
7. It is not a consultation, but a direct command by your Ruler. Do you have justification to argue?
8. Where and why Hadith comes in the picture here? Hadith was concocted and compiled in 2nd/3rd century AH? By enemies of Islam!

God bless you.