Hi Guys,

Am having discussions with a Shia friend of mine about Quran Alone etc..

Arguments FOR Quran Alone rely heavily on verses which include the word "Kitab". For example 1689 and 638 both refer to al-Kitab as being FULLY DETAILED & COMPLETE.. However, my friend is pointing out that we must examine all the uses of the word Kitab in the Quran and understand what is meant by them.

He has referred me to this link

http//www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_kitab.htm

I don't know how to respond to this, particularly verse 110 of Surah 5, where God is speaking to Isa and saying that he has taught him the Kitab as well as Hikma, Tora & Bible (Injeel)... it appears from that verse that Kitab is something different to the Scriptures.. and the Shias are saying that here it refers to Shariah..

I've also heard the interpretation that al-Kitab is a heavenly "Book" containing all knowledge in detail, and that the Quran in our hands is a pale reflection of that book and that in 1689 & 638 it is referring to that heavenly book...

Can y'all respond pls..

Thanks,

HR

(SORRY ABOUT THE LAST MESSAGE I ACCIDENTALLY PUSHED SUBMIT BEFORE I COMPLETED THE MESSAGE!)

Salams,

This message is mainly directed to Layth

Awhile ago I started a thread called "The Messenger's job Proclaim AND Explain?"

This is what I wrote

1644 (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

The word used in the verse is 'tubayyin', meaning to explain/make clear. It is not the same as deliver/proclaim (balagh). It goes beyond that level. Does this verse not indicate that part of the Messenger's job was to also EXPLAIN the Book?

Does this not 'authorise' going to sources outside the Quran to see exactly how the Messenger explained things?

There are other verses which say that if you ignore/reject him, then the Messenger's sole job is to proclaim the message (balagh). But reading 1644 alongside these verses could indicate that if you accept the Messenger, then his job includes explaining to the believers what the Book says/teaches.

---

Layth responded by highlighting the audience

"Look at who the audience is...

43. And We did not send any except men before you whom We inspired, so ask the people who received the Reminder if you do not know.

44. With clarity and the Psalms. And We sent down to you the Reminder to make clear to the people what was sent to them, and perhaps they will think."

---

Layth (or anyone else who knows) I would like to clarify your response

Are you saying the word "ilayhim" in "unzila ilayhim" refers to the Ahl al-Dhikr or the people of the Messenger or both?

And since the word used in "tubayyin", which implies explanation, does this not still imply that the Messenger's job is to explain as well proclaim?

Thanks,

HR

Salams,

Am discussing with a traditionalist and he is raising the following verse

1644 (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

The word used in the verse is 'tubayyin', meaning to explain/make clear. It is not the same as deliver/proclaim (balagh). It goes beyond that level. Does this verse not indicate that part of the Messenger's job was to also EXPLAIN the Book?

Does this not 'authorise' going to sources outside the Quran to see exactly how the Messenger explained things? wink

There are other verses which say that if you ignore/reject him, then the Messenger's sole job is to proclaim the message (balagh). But reading 1644 alongside these verses could indicate that if you accept the Messenger, then his job includes explaining to the believers what the Book says/teaches.

Would appreciate your input guys,

HR

Salams,

I may be totally wrong in what I say below so let me know...

I was reading the following two verses the other day (681-82)

"And how should I fear what you have set up (with Him), while you do not fear that you have set up with Allah that for which He has not sent down to you any authority; which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know? "

"Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with iniquity, those are they who shall have the security and they are those who go aright. "

These two verses, where Abraham is speaking to his polytheistic people, made me think the following

• The people were doing something that was not authorised by God worshipping other 'gods'. Abraham says that he essentially fears unauthorised actions more than anything anyone other than God could ever do to him.

• He then asks who is in a safer position the people who do something unauthorised by God, or those who believe and do not mix up their faith with 'iniquity'? The word here in Arabic is 'Dhulm', literally meaning oppression. His opinion as to who is safer is obvious in the second verse.

• Now, I think it's reasonable to say that that which was considered to be 'oppression' in the second verse was that which was unauthorised by God in the first verse. Specifically it relates in this case to worshipping other than God (shirk).

• And I believe that it is reasonable to argue that in general these two verses are telling us that we are 'safer and more worthy of security' and more rightly guided if we just stick to that which God has authorised and not mix up our faith with that which has not been authorised.

• When discussing the hadith issue we can apply the same logic of these two verses. When and where did God authorise the use of hadith? If it is no authorised, then using them is tantamount to what Abraham's people were doing.

I may be way off, but...

Just a thought,

HR

Hi guys,

Am having a discussion with a traditionalist and wanted to bounce something off you all...

The Book refers to itself as Clear (Mubeen).

However, by its very nature language involves the possibility of multiple meanings and the use of the intellect in order to discern the appropriate/intended meaning. Use of the intellect implies 'adding' something external to the Book.

For example, God says that he who is blind in this world will be blind in the next. Clearly, this is not refering to physical sight... but to say that I have used my intellect and clarified that it is a figurative use of the word blind etc..

But if it needs clarification then how is it Clear? If it needs external input how is it Clear? Is it contradicting itself?

In what sense is it Clear?

wassalam,

HR

Salams,

I'm new to this forum. I have read almost all the material on free-minds.org. I have a suggestion for a mini-article which would be useful when presenting evidence from the Quran itself in support of Quran Alone.

The longest surah in the Book is The Cow. It takes its name from a story about Moses and his people. They were asked by God, through Moses, to kill a cow. No details about the cow were given. Instead of simply killing any cow, the Jews continuously asked Moses to keep going back to God to ask for more details about the cow. Eventually they killed a cow.

The lesson from this story is that God does not wish to complicate our lives unnecessarily and if he does not give details about something then that is intentional. The Jews insisted on more and more details which God did not specify or require. This only complicated their own lives unnecessarily. The longest surah in the Quran takes its name from this story. It's a critical lesson for us.

The same lesson can be used when talking to Traditionalists who say that there are certain issues which the Quran does not spell out in detail and that we therefore need to go to hadith in order to extract those details. In other words WE NEED MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN US!

God is very detailed when He needs to be, and very vague when He needs to be. He doesn't need us to remind Him and prompt Him to give us more detail.

Just a thought,

HR

Salams,

I'm almost there! I've only recently come across Quran Alone, and I'm stunned (pleasantly!). Can't believe how brainwashed I've been! I'm almost done undoing it all, but I have one question for you guys..

I've studied the verses that the Traditionalists put forward in defense of Tradition-following and I've read Quran Alone refutation of those verses made perfect sense to me... only one verse continues to confuse/bug me. Unfortunately, I can't remember the verse, but the gist of it was

Fas'alu ahl al-dhikr in kuntum la ta'lamun (So ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know).

I have been a Shia Muslim my whole life and the traditional interpretation of this verse (obviously supported by a hadith wink ) is that the Ahl Al-Dhikr are the Ahlul Bait (Prophet's Family) and so we should ask them when we do not know.

What's confusing me is what is meant by this verse? Who are these people? And why are we being asked to go to them if we don't know? Is it the Prophet? Would he (alone) be refered to as 'Ahl'?

This is essentially my last hurdle.. so I hope someone out there can come up with a reasonable, precise explanation. (Please don't just brush it aside be detailed).

Thanks,

wassalam,

HR