Peace everyone. Thank you for commenting on my post.

The pronoun "hu" refers back to something in the context, as mentioned in the article

The author of the article sees 591 as a continuation of 590 and since 591 mentions "shaytan" the author concludes the "hu" is referring to "shaytan". Personally I would say it makes it more likely and not conclusive like the article suggests.

Thanks, yes, I feel it is not conclusive. But there has to be a way to conclusively understand it.

Peace...

To be precise.. God clearly has meant by using HU to directly refer to word Amal/work...

Thank you..

Hello, welcome.
590=92 have to be taken as one context

Intoxicants , Gambling, games of chance...i.e A bad habit that is harmful and clouds the intellect is to be avoided

O you who believe, intoxicants, and gambling, and the altars of idols, and the games of chance are a bad habit/abomination/harmful act. from the devil; you shall avoid it, that you may succeed.
يٰأَيُّهَا الَّذينَ ءامَنوا إِنَّمَا الخَمرُ وَالمَيسِرُ وَالأَنصابُ وَالأَزلٰمُ رِجسٌ مِن عَمَلِ الشَّيطٰنِ فَاجتَنِبوهُ لَعَلَّكُم تُفلِحونَ

The devil wants to provoke animosity and hatred among you through intoxicants and gambling, and to distract you from remembering God, and from the Salat. Will you then refrain?
إِنَّما يُريدُ الشَّيطٰنُ أَن يوقِعَ بَينَكُمُ العَدٰوَةَ وَالبَغضاءَ فِى الخَمرِ وَالمَيسِرِ وَيَصُدَّكُم عَن ذِكرِ اللَّهِ وَعَنِ الصَّلوٰةِ فَهَل أَنتُم مُنتَهونَ

You shall obey God, and you shall obey the messenger, and beware. If you turn away, then know that the sole duty of our messenger is to deliver the message efficiently.
وَأَطيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطيعُوا الرَّسولَ وَاحذَروا فَإِن تَوَلَّيتُم فَاعلَموا أَنَّما عَلىٰ رَسولِنَا البَلٰغُ المُبينُ

GOD represents good. GOD loves righteousness. Obedience to GOD leads to benefit to the soul.
The opposition/ Devil/ bad self...represent bad. The devil/bad self loves wickedness.obedience to them is disobedience to GOD. . Leads to harm to the soul.

i.e Do not cloud your mind and loose control and responsibility. Keep your mind clean.

GOD adds in 593

Those who believe and lead a righteous life bear no guilt by eating any food -and drink-, so long as they observe the commandments, believe and lead a righteous life, then maintain their piety and faith, and continue to observe piety and righteousness. God loves the righteous.

Directly the"Hu is for _the Rijs,- The bad habit- which is Min-from- Chaitan/ bad self.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Okay so let's try to understand. This is my understanding only. Some of the translations are my own so they might not be accurate. Disclaimer Please don't rely on my analysis, I have probably not considered every possibility, neither do I necessarily think any of these interpretations are right and I probably did miss something.

590 describes 4 different things (intoxicants, game of chance, sacrificing at altars, divining arrows). They are dirt/an abonimation from the devil. "So avoid it/him so you may succeed".
591 describes that the devil intends to use two of these things (intoxicants and gambling) to cause hatred, prevent the remembrance of God and prayer. "So will you then abstain?" Here the word "muntahuna" is used. Maybe someone who has a better understanding of Arabic grammar than me can explain what part of the sentence this word refers to?
So 590 describes 4 of them as rijs, 591 continues to also describe 2 of these 4.
592 "And obey Allah and obey the Messenger and beware! So if you turn away, then know that upon Our Messenger is only to convey clearly.
593 "Not on those who believe and do the good deeds (is) any sin for what they ate, when they fear and they believe and they do the good deeds; then they fear and believe; then they fear and do good; and God loves those who do good"
So a couple of points
1a) If "hu" in 590 refers to the devil rather than khamr, along with the 3 other things are still listed as rijs (dirt/abonimation) from the work of the devil. The question then is does this mean that khamr is rijs? All 4 things are called rijsun, I am not sure if I can use an analogy but what if for example Blue cheese is a delicacy from the making of the cheesehouse. So in that case blue cheese is still a delicacy. But is there a possibilty I am misunderstanding this? In another verse God says there is some good in khamr, here it is called rijs. Or are both possibilities, i.e. they are rijs and there is some good in it?
1b) 591 "So will you then abstain?" What does this refer to, abstain from gambling and khamr, from Shaitan (unlikely based on the sentece?) or from hatred and enmity
2a) 590 if "hu" refers to rijs, then we need to avoid the rijs. Again, here the question is, are all 4 things mentioned rijs? If yes then we shall avoid them.
2b) 591 This verse could then also mean to reinforce the message from the previous verse to abstain from 2 of those 4 previously mentioned things. I.e. khamr and gambling are rijs, avoid them, the devil uses them to stir hatred and emnity, will you not abstain?
2c) 592, depending on the interpretation of the word "فَٱجْتَنِبُوهُ" in verse 590 (e.g. just avoid or shun) may relate directly to the previous verses in case of the latter interpretation as in obey God for the previous commandment of shunning the aforementioned things?
2d) 593 may then relate to prior to the prohibition of khamr, gambling etc, however, God uses the word "ate" "طَعِمُوٓا۟" and I don't know if this can be used in this relation to the above.

Just looking for some critical input here.

Peace,

First of all thank you for your response. Second, I see the word shaitan is the same but what I am wondering is, why does the pronoun hu refer to shaitan and not to rijs? The word hu is not in 591. Am I missing something?

G-S-L means to relief, to relax, to drain and so. Form VIII is reflexive, so its subject and object are the same. If one's taking a bath this can be named by this root if his goal is to relax, but if he wants to be clean that T-h-r root is used as can be seen in 56 in وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا (and if you've been junub then clean youselves).

Salaat in both cases is a connection with other people, in 443 in drunk state, in 56 in general. G-S-L here is about removing tensions in relations.

Agree with Euphoric. There is no way the word ghusl can be interpreted in this way in this verse. Given the context alone it is clear that it means washing.

Thanks to both of you. Are we able to actually analyse what this word means? The root ghsl means to wash, afaik. I do not understand how the prefix "ta" makes it more severe. Isn't it like the word walk, coming from the root مشي, whereas the prefix "ta" (تمشي) would make it mean you walk? Similarly, using this logic (thaghtasil) تغتسل would mean you wash. But this is coming from my limited Arabic, and I am open to other input of course. My primary question would be if it was truly meant to mean to wash fully/completely why this was not made more clear. I do understand that there is a difference though in 56, using the word غْسِلُو, meaning to wash and I am trying to understand the difference. I do assume that this is a deliberate difference, and I might not have a sufficient background in Arabic to understand this. Thank you )

I think his point is that the words in both 443 and 56 mean the same thing.
What evidence do we have for the word in 443 to mean to bathe or wash fully?

Thank you everyone, that answers my question. I really appreciate how this forum doesn't seem to have much of the usual halal police police

The verse youre referring to does not use the word "this book" it says 'Al kitab' or 'The Book' which is not equivalent to Al Quran/ The Recital.

Al Quran is described as a tafseel of Al Kitab so I don't think it's accurate to equate the two though it is a common mistake made in both traditional and modern interpretations.

Thank you too! So does that mean the Quran is complete or not? Is there any other verse referring to this or the message?

Peace,

The best way to handle a ‘hadeether’ is to ask them firstly whether they believe in the punishment of stoning an adulterer to death. Make sure they answer that question clearly.

If they say yes they believe it, then they are accepting hadeeth as law. If they say no, then they are disbelievers of the hadeeth and if they can ditch the stoning, they can ditch the entire compendium like a rock.

As for using anything as a reference, the problem with using Classical Arabic dictionaries or millenia old stories is like consulting the books of Galen for information on treatment of medical disease today. Or consulting the manuals for COBOL or Fortran when faced with a modern web application.

It is outdated and represents the tradition of forefathers.

The Koran is a live text for humanity. Let those who wish to advance study it for themselves in the context of their time rather than their forefathers.

So the question for you is, what do you think about stoning an adulterer to death?

Thanks. Unfortunately, sometimes they will come up with a million ways to not see the point you are making, completely ignoring your arguments, e.g. Him "You agree the prophet was perfect, the best human?"
Me "I don't know that"
Him "How can you say that?"
Me "The Quran doesn't say he's the best human but it says that there is no difference between prophets"
Him "We're talking about God's prophet, do you think God would choose someone who isn't perfect?
Me brickwall
I know there's no malice involved but it is hilarious how some take the role of a missionary while completely rejecting any rationalism with regards to the one (and in their opinion main) text of islam.

Hello!

I was reading this article from the free-minds website. It concerns 590 and the word faitjanibuh, whether it relates to rijs or Shaitan.
Verse يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَا ٱلْخَمْرُ وَٱلْمَيْسِرُ وَٱلْأَنصَابُ وَٱلْأَزْلَـٰمُ رِجْسٌۭ مِّنْ عَمَلِ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنِ فَٱجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

It states

The word in question is the Arabic faijtanibuh. Nearly all translators (and even Arabic speakers) automatically relate this word (which means avoid / stay-away) as addressing the subject of alcohol quoted in the beginning of 590. What is obvious to a careful reader is that the wording ends with the H which is in Arabic called dhameer and is referring to a singular.

Agreed.

Now, the verse in question has two singular items that it may be referring to 1. Rijs/Uncleanness, 2. Shaitan.

While the majority have obviously selected the Rijs to support their theory of alcohol being avoided, the verse is correctly referring to the Devil Shaitan as can be seen in the very next verse

"The devil only wants to cause strife between you through intoxicants and gambling, and to repel you away from remembering God and from the Salat. Will you be deterred?" (591)

The correct translation therefore becomes

"O you who believe, intoxicants, and gambling, and sacraments, and fortunes are foul tools used by the devil. You shall avoid him so that you may be successful." (590)

I don't understand how the author concluded it means Shaitan rather than rijs. The next verse talks about the devil but I don't see any way, from that verse, to infer that the pronoun "hu" is referring to Shaitan? Please help ) Thank you

What is everyone's understanding of verse 443 and 56 regarding ghusl? I don't understand the rationale behind excessive cleaning after sexual activity. The word in arabic is ghusl, but many translations, including the one here on free minds says bathe. Ghusl means cleaning but can also mean complete cleaning, according to Sam Gerrans. Do we need to bathe completely or is washing the dirty area sufficient? Thanks.
His comment regarding 443 says
The instance here of the form VIII of the verb ghasala is the only one in the text. This fact makes it vulnerable to the Traditionalist’s practice of ascribing highly specialised values to rare or unique terms — values which have no explicit Qur’anic basis — and this opportunity has not been overlooked. The objective facts are these the gh-s-l root occurs a total of four times (443, 56, 3842, 6936). Certainly, the gh-s-l root means to wash; and in Arabic today the form VIII verb has a reflexive sense both of to wash and to wash completely. The Traditionalist, for his part, generally claims two types of ‘religious’ washing ghusl and wudhu. By ghusl he means a full-body wash (which is what he claims at this verse). By wudhu he means the washing method (with some embellishments of his own) outlined at 56. He has criteria for when either ghusl or wudhu should be done. These criteria do not correlate with the scenarios given at either 443 or 56 (for example, he claims that what he calls ghusl is needed after contact with women but not that it is needed after defecation). The terms ghusl and wudhu are nowhere found in the Qur’an. These are verifiable facts. My understanding based on the methodology here is this what is meant by unclean is made clear in the sentence following the expression then find not water (namely after illness, a journey, defecation or sexual intercourse). This is a concession — what to do when one does not find water. What, then, is to be done in the case where water is to be found? That instruction is given at 56. The correlating verse at 56 does not use the form VIII of the verb ghasala to describe the washing process; it bears no relation to the non-Qur’anic word ghusl. It uses another expression purify yourself (based on the ṭ-h-r root). What purify yourself means in the context is, likewise, understood by inference from the concessive allowance at that verse, one which is identical to that at 443. On this basis, my conclusions are these the words for washing at 443 and 56 mean the same thing; the washing requirement for both cases (given access to water) is outlined at 56; the terms ghusl and wudhu have no Qur’anic basis (there being no case in which ghusl as understood by the Traditionalist is a Qur’anic requirement, and his requirement for what he calls wudhu exceeds that mentioned in the Qur’an). I am not arguing against washing fully after sexual contact; I am arguing against ascribing to the revealed word of God values it does not contain. Human washing practices and requirements over and above what is specified in the text are a matter of personal taste and judgment, and not of revealed imperative.

Hello,

I was in a discussion with a Sunni today about, guess what, Quran alone muslims which I am. His arguments made little sense to me and we were going around in circles until he came up with following argument in response to me saying the Quran is complete, as is said in 638 "We did not leave anything out of this book".
He said that it is complete but came up with following analogy If a bucket is filled with water and this represents being complete, and then said bucket is emptied there will always remain a drop or some remnant of water in it, in other words there may always remain some knowledge in it that I did not understand due to my own wrongdoing. After all, I am not perfect, only God is. So I would take in other sources to complete my knowledge, this may in some cases be a dictionary to understand a word, historical sources or the Hadith.
In that way the Hadith are nothing other than an additional resource to extract knowledge from it and would not mean it is an additional source of Islamic law. Considering I would give it the same scrutiny as any other source and do NOT regard it as an additional source of law but rather as a resource to extract further meaning that I did not first understand from the Quran (which could potentially result in further law that was not immediately understandable), would there be anything wrong with that?
Of course God says that the Quran is the best explanation and asks us which other Hadith we want to use other than the Quran, obviously the answer is none. However, in that case we wouldn't be following the Hadith but use it as a resource to extract meaning, similarly to when we look up words in dictionaries to understand their meaning.
I feel like I might have went wrong somewhere in this logic but I cannot find a problem with this argument. What do you think?

Also, if you have time, what do you think about this? https//primaquran.com/2020/09/17/nothing-left-out-of-this-book-the-manipulation-of-the-quran-only-religion/

Thanks