Messages

This link might interest you:

https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/12/10/the-quran-claims-the-jews-say-ezra-the-son-of-god-but-what-jew-ever-believed-that/

[Had We made it a Non-Arabic Quran, they would have surely said, its verses are not elucidated. Non-Arabic or Arabic, say, for those who are faithful, it is a guide and a healing. As for those who have no faith, there is deafness in their ears and they are blind. It is as though they are being called from a far away place. [41:44]]

Salaam,

True! God can guide people with or without scripture. God can also guide through the previous scriptures.

Yet, God sent down the Quran, the last scripture, with wisdom and enlightenment, as a beacon and a guide for all of humanity. And for all time to come. For Arabs and non-Arabs. And God has not reserved this light only for those who have mastered Arabic, leaving all those who do not know Arabic grappling in the dark. This is just an excuse made by the 'Ulama, both traditionalist and new-age, to claim exclusivist access to the Quran, and sell their fabricated theories.

Had We made it a Non-Arabic Quran, they would have surely said, its verses are not elucidated. Non-Arabic or Arabic, say, for those who are faithful, it is a guide and a healing. As for those who have no faith, there is deafness in their ears and they are blind. It is as though they are being called from a far away place. [41:44]

Obsession with intricacies of Arabic and its lexicon and grammar has become the new fad. This methodology of pretending not to know the meaning of Arabic words, creating a parallel language by claiming to be an "Arabic expert", ripping apart Quranic verses, phrases and words to shreds, and trying to reconstruct the meaning of words from this "jumbled mess" (thanks video!) is not very different from the methodologies of Qiyas, Ijthihad etc. that gave us Islamic Jurisprudence. The works of these new-age scholars are also secondary sources besides the Quran, and have be rejected according to 45:6.

Sorry for being this blunt, but I would be a hypocrite if I am critical of only the traditionalist secondary sources, and give a pass to the new age variants.

Quran is a simple book. Read it cover to cover, and God is its Teacher. No need for such gymnastics or secondary sources to "interpret" it. Quran is its own best interpretation (25:33).

Peace,
niaz

If we can't use the root dictionaries, then what should we use? The books written by people such as bukhari or shaykh ala shaykh?

Common sense.

Quran's message is very simple. Its commandments are very simple. It is accessible in any language. All we have to do is "hear and obey".

Using simple, common, obvious, evident meanings that are clear in most translations. And not splitting hairs and asking irrelevant questions (like Moses' people did in the event of slaughtering the heifer).

God is not a racist, and has not made mastering Arabic a prerequisite for salvation. If that was true, then the greatest Arabic scholars have been traditionalists, and not the internet wannabes thinking they mastered Arabic by poring through lexicons. They have become modern day Islamic Jurists, creating their own new age Hadith and Sunnah. In the process, the Quran's message has been rendered into a joke.

Sorry for the outrage.

Peace,
niaz

And I believe the answer lies in 29:1-7, 4:142. Its easy to say "we believe", but takes striving to perform the salat cheerfully, without being lazy or without trying to show off. We show our appreciation for all the blessings God has given us, to grow our souls, and get closer to God, with our mind and our bodies.

When we lower ourselves close to the ground, we get closer to God (96:19).

Peace,
niaz

http://tadabbur.org/front-page/salat/

Peace,
niaz

even these trivial things are not stated explicitly and clearly and paving road to disagreement between the followers of islam. but quran says it is crystal clear then i guess something is wrong...

[3:7] He is the One who revealed the scripture to you, part of it contains straightforward verses which are the essence of the book and others are allegorical. Consequently, those who have a disease in their hearts follow the allegorical parts, seeking disorder and they seek its explanation. And no one knows its explanation except God.  Moreover, those who possess knowledge say, we believe in it, all of it is from our Lord.  And no one takes heed except those who possess vision.

Nothing is wrong.

Peace,
niaz

Sad to see the sway flat-earthers hold over the Quranist community.
Sad to see Quranists chasing wild conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with commemoration of God and worshiping God alone.

Peace,
niaz

[month of Ramadan]

Salaam,

Although interesting, I see that the fact that the Quran was revealed to the prophet in a specific night in the month of Ramadan is established in the Quran itself. The need to celebrate the anniversary of this night could be attributed to 'popular Islamic thought'.

[2:185] The month of Ramadan is the month during which the Quran was revealed ...

[44:1-3] Ha Meem. And the proven scripture. We surely revealed it during a blessed night ....

[17:1] Glory to The One who transported His servant during the night from the Sacred Mosque to the Ultimate Mosque, where We blessed its surroundings in order to show him some of Our Signs. Indeed, He is The All Hearer, The All Seer.

[54:4-18]
It is only an inspiration that was inspired.
The Ultimate Power taught him.           
Possessor of power of creation, absolutely equitable.           
While he was in the highest horizon
He then moved down and came closer.            
He then came as close as a couple of bow lengths or even closer.            
He then inspired to His servant what was to be inspired.
The mind did not make up what he saw.           
Are you then doubtful of what he saw?            
And indeed he saw Him on another descent.           
By the lotus tree at the ultimate point.             
Where paradise exists.             
While He covered the lotus tree as it was to be covered.           
The eye never wavered, nor did it ever look away.            
Indeed he saw great signs from his Lord.

Peace,

I did not provide the translations. These are major available translations of the Quran and the meaning from almaany (the default dictionary used for the word-by-word translation of the Quranic Arabic Corpus project).

When the night starts, there is the "early part" or "first hours" or "beginning" or "approaches" of the night, when darkness gradually "approaches" before total darkness sets in. Then the rest of the night is total darkness. This already make perfect sense, and I do not see any need to "test" these translations any further.

"Near" does not appear to be the best English word to convey this - but you can look at it as the "near" or "closer" end of the night if you wish, i.e., the first part of night you encounter at night fall.

Peace,

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D8%B2%D9%84%D9%81%D8%A7/

Original Text: زُلْفًا   |  Meaning: Early parts [Koran Words]

https://www.almaany.com/quran/11/114/5/

[النسخ بالإنجليزية] wazulafan [المعنى بالانجليزية] and (at) the approach

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=11&verse=114

Sahih International: .... and at the approach of the night.
Yusuf Ali: ... and at the approaches of the night:
Shakir: ... and in the first hours of the night;
Muhammad Sarwar: ... and at the beginning of the night.
Arberry: ... and nigh of the night;

Early part(s) | approach(es) | first hour(s) | beginning are all accurate translations of زُلْفًا. I get your point about Arabic plural, but an accurate translation is one that the conveys the nuance of meaning in a particular context accurately, not necessarily one that attempts to captures all parts of grammar, while failing to convey that meaning.

I am not suggesting that your translation is not "accurate", but cautioning against hair splitting.

salaam miracle114,

There are my thoughts ...

First, my understanding of "what is dedicated to other than God" (2:173, 5:3)  is an offering made or dedicated to an idol (not necessarily physical). For example, some religious traditions practice making "offerings" to idols or deities besides God. If food has not been dedicated to such an idol, it does not come under this category. Further, this applies to all food (whether veg or non-veg), and the religious beliefs or identity of the person serving the food does not matter.

Second, any meat from animals [besides pig] that has been slaughtered by means other than those listed in 5:3 is lawful to eat. And we should mention God's name upon all food that we eat, whether veg or non-veg (6:118-121). And also mention God's name when we hunt or slaughter animals ourselves (5:4, 22:36). And give thanks to God for the food that He has provided (2:172, 16:114). The onus is on the eater to mention God's name upon food that he/she eats. I do not see this as necessitating a religious test on the slaughterer or audit whether he would have also mentioned God's name (or on the  fisherman or the farmer for that matter). For example, God says that the food of the people of the scripture is lawful (5:5). There is no requirement to check whether they mentioned the name of God at the time of slaughtering an animal.

Third, the term muslim in the Quran is a descriptive word for anyone who has faith in God and leads a righteous life, without associating partners with Him (2:62, 2:112, 5:69, 3:67). The religious or faith tradition that the person came from does not matter. The classical definition of a Muslim is anyone who testified that "there is no god except God and Muhammad is a messenger of God". The first part of this testimony is indeed the Quranic testimony (3:18), while the second part is described as testimony of hypocrites (63:1) and is not a requirement for salvation. The 'kalima' mentioned in the Quran is consistently la ilaha illallah in various forms, without any creation's name attached to it (37:35, 47:19, 21:25, 2:255, 59:22-23, 21:87 and numerous others). 39:45 describes the disease of the heart of being unsatisfied when God alone is mentioned, and being happy only when others besides God are also mentioned.

My point is that a person who is "Muslim" by the classical definition does not necessarily be one who submits to God by the Quranic definition. Similarly, a person who is "non-Muslim" by the classical definition could well be one who submits to God by the Quranic definition. Ornate, ornamental calligraphy of Muhammad's name, or the graves of Muhammad or saints, or the black stone that people fight to kiss, are not any less of idols than those we normally identify in other religious traditions. There may be people who appear outwardly idolatrous, while having faith in their hearts. God knows the secrets in everybody's hearts, and what they reveal and what they conceal. We should be cautious against being prejudiced against communities that do not carry the label of "Muslim". I do not see a restriction in the Quran to eat only  "halal" meat as advertised  by people identifying as "Muslims" according to the classical definition.

Peace.

Salaamun 'alaikum,

Thanks Joseph for the well written post. I agree with almost all of it (except that I also believe that God continues to manifest His proofs).

I wanted to look at another aspect of this issue. In that post, I saw the permeation of many of the preconceptions, prejudices and biases inherited from medieval scholarship. Understanding the Quran requires us to shed these preconceptions, and approach the Quran with fresh eyes. To avoid projecting these biases onto the Quran, instead of understanding what God's message is from the Quran.

For example, the notion of "Islam" being inherently a legacy of Muhammad. So when medieval conquerors that emerged from the community of Muhammad after his death, attacked and invaded distant lands without provocation, they are seen as vanguards of "Islam". But the hapless subjects of those lands who became subjugated by these invaders are seen as "Kuffar". Because they emerged from faith traditions associated with prophets other than Muhammad (like Moses or Jesus). Although technically, the sects they belonged to are also "Islamic" in the same sense, i.e., their founding prophets were equally muslim.  We like to delay the advent of the distortion of the religion after the death of Muhammad by "centuries", and do not question the events in the immediate aftermath, and the actions attributed to his direct companions [including the so-called "rightly guided" caliphs], seeking a period of the "golden age" before things went awry.

So before starting off with a premise like "if it werent for offensive qital, Islam would not have spread from Makkah to France", an unbiased evaluation of what the term islam means in God's message is in order. And how much these invaders represented "Islam" vs. the victims of these invasions. 2:62 or 2:112 would be a good place to start.

Similarly, I see subscription to the Classical Jihad Doctrine invented by medieval "Islamic" jurists to justify the expansionist activities of their "Muslim" rulers. The writer appears to be reading the Quran through the prism of this doctrine, when accusing Muhammad of indulging in the same doctrine, or similarly accusing Solomon of having attacked Sheba for "worshipping the sun". And echoes of the validity of "Islamic Rule", "jizyah" as a tax levied upon the "non-muslim" subjects under "Islamic rule", punishment for "blasphemy" [which was invented to achieve the "preservation of faith" objective of the Sharia], etc. are borne out abundantly throughout the post - all doctrines that are inventions of the medieval jurists.

The writer acknowledged that God decreed "defensive qital" in the Quran, but then goes on to claim that God also decreed "offensive qital" elsewhere. It is illogical that God should prescribe mutually contradictory doctrines. Classical jurists piggy-backed on the "theory of abrogation" that they invented, to negate the clearly laid out principles of fighting prescribed in the Quran [summarized v. well above by Joseph]. The post did not clarify why the alleged "offensive qital" should replace "defensive qital". But the projection of "offensive" warfare into verses which did not prescribe it, was also the work of classical jurists.

I found it interesting that these preconceptions and prejudices were repeated exactly as we inherited them; the only thing that changed is the claim of being "Quran alone".

Peace.

Salaam,

Hope this helps ...

• Enter the place where you live in https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
• It gives the time the new moon will occur in your local time.
• At this time you would witness the new lunar month.
• After the new moon has occurred, you don't start any new fasts.
  • Whichever fast you would be on during / just before new moon occured would be your last fast.

Peace.

Salaam,

Hmm ... thats interesting. I had not read it like that, but I see how it can be read as addressing the prophet, in the context of the following verses (23-25). Now that you described it, I understand what you were asking. That also looks like a valid way to read it, and if we do, it is intriguing what v. 22 could mean.

Just a thought - as a metaphor (just like blind vs. seer, darkness vs. light, shade vs. heat) - living vs. dead would mean those who are guided and spiritually alive vs. those who have shut their minds to the truth and spiritually dead. Then the prophet had no power to make such people hear the message of God (who were metaphorically "in the graves" as far as their spiritual health was concerned).

God knows best.

Peace.

[clearly lists primarily]

Salaamun 'alaikum,

Thanks Hamzeh. Looking forward to your comments. Just one clarification regarding the classical definition of day, in response to Duster.

I've referred you to the classic definition which clearly lists primarily when the day starts i.e. Fajr You pick and make reference to an 'also'. Fine by me but it's not convincing. Sorry.

Lane provides different usages of يَوْمٌ. One is as a synonym for nahar (daytime or daylight hours), when "the sun is above the earth", from sunrise [or dawn] to sunset. I am not debating that yaum has this usage as a synonym of nahar. And it is interesting that in this usage, 'daytime' clearly ends at sunset.

I am talking about the other usage as the 24-hour calendar day, for one full rotation around the earth (which Lane refers to as "a civil day"). The question is what is the definition the "civil day"? I claim that the classical definition, which predated the Quran and common to Arab and Jewish traditions, is "sunset to sunset" and "night preceding daytime". Lane did not mention a specific definition for the "civil day". The definition from Ibn Arabi I quoted confirms that this is the classical definition. Even the article agreed that this is the standard (or "popular" as it liked to call it) definition.

يَوْمٌ A time, whether night or day; (Mṣb;) time absolutely, whether night or not, little or not: this is the proper signification: (Kull, p. 390:) and day, meaning the period from the rising of the sun to its setting; (Lth, TA:) the time when the sun is above the earth: this is the common conventional acceptation: (Kull, ubi suprà:) and the period from the second [or true] dawn to sunset: (Mṣb, Kull:) this is the legal acceptation: (Kull:) and a civil day: the period of the revolution of the greatest firmament. (Kull)

Again, I was trying to communicate my disagreement with the approach/method of interpreting/understanding the Quran in the article (link below), not the conclusion per se. So I went down the path of a detailed critique, I was not trying to "attack" for the sake of it as Duster seemed to suggest. And it was not my intention to upset or offend anyone.

Peace.

When does a new day begin?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1338.0