Messages

Peace,

The original Qur'an is contained within all of those versions. You don't know how the Quran was revealed to the prophet Muhammad (saas). It could very well have been revealed in a way that allowed for all of those versions. In the end the meaning is the same and the wording exact for the majority of the Qur'an. The existence of the versions doesn't bother me because He preserved the meaning despite the versions (which some may see as errors) and that indeed is a miracle.

I am done talking to you about this or anything else to be honest. I find you to be very narrow minded and dogmatic in your approach and thinking process. Forgive me for making this observation.

Peace.

Peace,

If you do not understand it, do not follow it. That is what 'Do not follow what you have no knowledge/discernment of' means. How can you disagree with that? It is as clear as day.

We have an excuse through the Sunnah/Uswah of the prophet Muhammad (saas) found in the Quran not to follow the parts of the Qur'an that we do not understand. The Quran commands the prophet Muhammad (saas):

و لا تقف ما ليس لك به علم

Do not follow what you have no knowledge/discernment of.

Surah Al-Israa, verse 36.

So if you don't get it God tells you not to follow it and it is okay. That doesn't mean that we don't believe in the whole book from the other parts we have read and been convinced of. Most importantly, believing in the whole book means not understanding certain verses in a way that makes them contradict with other verses.

I do not believe in abrogation and the verse that mentions it I believe is saying that God would not abrogate his revelation, not that he does. By improving on previous revelation God is obviously smart enough to incorporate what he previously said or his previous commandments in a way that we end up following the old by following the new. That is my take.

Salam

Peace,

If I were you I would open your mind up a little bit more about the form and manifestation of that master tablet.

Yes, Praise be to God.

God bless you as well.

The verse can also be taken to mean not to hide or publicize that you pray.

Salam

Peace,

I'm not sure where you got that quote from, but the Uthmanic text being the original text is very debatable and to state such a thing is grossly untrue according to what we have of Islamic history.

Salam

Joseph,

I found your following statement excellent and the epitome of logic and sound rational capacity:

"The question of the authenticity of the Ahadith corpus IS NOT founded on the unreliability of the CLASSICAL ARABIC LANGUAGE in which it is transmitted. Rather, it is founded on questionable content (matn) and transmission. The mere fact that the veracity of a particular hadith can be 'questioned' is PROOF that the ancient Arabic language in which the Ahadith is transmitted is accepted as RELIABLE.

One cannot reject a particular hadith if the language that underpins it, remains questionable.

Therefore, the rejection of a particular hadith only LEGITIMISES the general knowledge of the classical Arabic language in which the Hadith was transmitted.
Subsequently, the reliability of the Ahadith corpus and lexicons as a source to understand classical Arabic language has never been in doubt.

Lexicographers may advance different shades of meanings and discuss words but to INVENT NEW MEANINGS for Arabic words which were never understood by ANYONE remotely familiar with Arabic is a baseless assertion and surpasses the thresholds of incredulity."

There is one circumstance where meanings are invented and that is in the theological sphere, and it is quite common. However, the lexicons are VERY good at identifying them as belonging to certain limited groups or being associated with certain Imams' statements and citing those statements, where the twisting becomes evident. For instance, zakaah as charity, taqwaa as righteousness, jizyah as a tax on Christians and Jews and even Islam as submission to God are all post-Quranic theological meanings associated with certain Imams or groups who gave them these meanings as derivatives of their original meanings. A good example of this is how most Christians understand the term 'rapture' to mean the return of Jesus (saas) despite its original meaning of 'joy' and the context of the verses where it is mentioned actually being about the rapture or joy associated with the return of the Messiah (saas).

Zakaah originally means goodness, purity and growth; the idea behind the new meaning is that charity (saduqah) purifies. This idea is found within the Quran.  Taqwaa originally means protection or prudence; the idea behind the new meaning is that righteous deeds protect one from God's wrath.  Jizyah originally means a sort of compensation; the original idea in the Quran was paying damages for the wars Christians and Jews launched and caused against the Muslims. Later on, the new meaning came to encompass compensation for living under the protection of Muslims. The Arab Muslims considered charging the non-Arab Muslims living under their rule the jizyah for living under Arab protection.

Islam originally means making peace, submission in general and becoming safe or saved in general. Its new meaning of submission to God's will is a Shafi'i interpretation based on its meaning of submission and the contextual implications to be found often in the Quran associated with the idea of 'submission.' Islam as a nickname for all who have allegiance to the Quran as God's message and Muhammad as God's messenger (saas) may have its origins in 'becoming safe/saved' with implications of having believed in God's messenger and being safe from Hell, just as many Christians use it today.  I have not seen evidence of this however. It could just be based on the followers of the religion misinterpreting Al-Islam as a name for their new religion when the Quran says that he chose for us Al-Islam, instead of understanding its innate Classical Arabic meanings within the context of that phrase. The original sense would be peace-making or making things sound and whole being the way God has chosen for us, or submission (the context implying to God) being the religion that God has chosen for us. Most Muslims still misunderstand the Qur'an's usage of the terms Islam and Muslim. It seems that either the followers of Muhammad (saas) were anxious to give themselves a new proper title or their opponents and by-standers were anxious to give them a title. Islam and Muslim took, in complete disregard to its original linguistic usage. Nevertheless the explanations trying to connect it to its original usage with flowery and imaginative embellishments have been abundant.

This is idea of theological definitions based on theological interpretations is the only exception that I make concerning the soundness of Classical Arabic linguistic sources as valid secondary sources to be used in our understanding of the Quran, in addition to meanings only associated with other post-Quranic events. A good example of this is the Al-Aqsaa Mosque being built after the death of the prophet Muhammad (saas) and not being the Most distant pace of worship (Al-Masjidul-Aqsaa) mentioned in the Quran.

It is actually ironic that when some Quranists fabricate meanings based on their selective validation of the established meanings of Classical Arabic words to be found in the Quran (they don't challenge the meanings basic prepositions, conjunctions or words whose meanings they find of no importance to their theological agendas) they are in essence guilty of what they accuse earlier Muslims of. That is, distorting the language in order to inhibit a proper understanding of the Quran.

I oppose all theological interpretations being accepted as valid definitions of words and believe that the Quran needs to be read with the established meanings of its words that the pre-islamic Arabs who were alive and well just prior to Muhammad's messengership could have understood. Nothing more and nothing less.

I hope that was clear. Forgive any spelling or grammatical errors.

Salam

10 of the Qur'an's readings are mutawaatir. Mutawaatir hadeeth are historically sound (unless contradictory), but there certainly ARE NOT MANY mutawaatir hadeeth. There actually are VERY few, and there are some that are just rumored to be but it is not provable if they are or not. Of course anything that contradicts a sound understanding of any issue within the Quran is totally false.

I think generalizations always allow for exceptions. But I think a valid question is whether jinn are really hayy or not.

"Surely We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains and they refused to bear it and feared from it, and man bore it. Surely he is ever unjust ignorant" (33:72)

The heavens, the earth and the mountains are not alive to accept or refuse anything, so this makes me wonder if we can really consider jinn hayy. If God views these things as entities but not as hayy that says something. From hayy we have hayawaan meaning animals and things that are active. I'll have to look into the definition of hayy in the dictionaries. I'm sure it has something to do with movement and growth, but I'm not sure. At this point, and as always, Allah knows best.

Salam

Forgive my spelling mistakes and typos. I meant to say 'does not mean any' in that last post instead of 'does not many any.'

Salam

Sakar means WINE because it is defined as intoxicant.

Please take the above sentence and strike it. Sakar is defined as khamr in its capacity of wine. Wine being defined as what intoxicates from the juice of grapes, as well as from dates, honey or other substances.  Sakar has some other meanings as well being food (possibly referring to sugar here), anger, fullness, and nabeedh, which is also another word for wine.

I hope with my previous post I proved the use of Al-Khamr as inebriaton/drunkeness/intoxication and that khamr does not many any intoxicant. This is what I set out to show you and then to posit that given that we are not to pray while drunk and that sakar, in its meaning of wine, can be good provision that intoxicants are not what is forbidden in the Qur'an but rather intoxication.

Salam

If :

There is only one Qur'an,
The indisputable conclusion that the Qur'an was not tampered with.

How can one  deduce: There is no way of figuring out which was the original.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Who said there is only one Qur'an? There are many versions of the Qur'an and all the ones that are mutawaatir are equally authentic. There is no way of figuring out which is the original. It is easy to see this as coming from reciter or copyist error. However, the most important thing from what I have seen is that they all coincide in meaning. And that is actually the goal whenever comparing one reading to the other for further clarification. So it does not matter which was the original and as I said this is impossible to figure out. If you take it from the 7 ahruf theory then many different variations of the same Qur'an were revealed with synonymous but slightly different vocabulary and pronunciations. Besides what is the point of trying figure out if the original Quran actually said wa instead of fa in a certain place? The differences are that slight which is why I am a bit confounded by your aversion to me showing you how one reading has na7aroohaa for dhaba7oohaa. Additionally the differences are a small percentage of the entire Quran.

But I guess you hadn't heard of the different readings of the Quran and that this was a first. In that case I can understand why you are perturbed. It perturbed me at first too because it goes against all the lies we have been taught and all the lies we wanted to believe. It's clear even from the Yusuf Ali translations if we read his commentary that there are at least 2 most popular versions, being Hafs and Warsh. I haven't looked much into what the Quran has to say on its own about its variations. I need to do that.

God bless you as well,
Peace

Sakar does not mean drunkennes. I never said that sakar means drunkenness in 16:67. It also does not mean intoxicant according to Lisanul-Arab either.

والسَّكَرُ الخمر نفسها.
والسَّكَرُ شراب يتخذ من التمر والكَشُوثِ والآسِ، وهو محرّم كتحريم الخمر.
وقال أَبو حنيفة: السَّكَرُ يتخذ من التمر والكُشُوث يطرحان سافاً سافاً ويصب عليه الماء. قال: وزعم زاعم أَنه ربما خلط به الآس فزاده شدّة.
وقال المفسرون في السَّكَرِ الذي في التنزيل: إِنه الخَلُّ وهذا شيء لا يعرفه أَهل اللغة. الفراء في قوله: تتخذون منه سَكَراً ورزقاً حسناً، قال: هو الخمر قبل أَن يحرم والرزق الحسن الزبيب والتمر وما أَشبهها.
وقال أَبو عبيد: السَّكَرُ نقيع التمر الذي لم تمسه النار، وكان إِبراهيم والشعبي وأَبو رزين يقولون: السَّكَرُ خَمْرٌ.
وروي عن ابن عمر أَنه قال: السَّكَرُ من التمر، وقال أَبو عبيدة وحده: السَّكَرُ الطعام؛ يقول الشاعر: جَعَلْتَ أَعْرَاضَ الكِرامِ سَكَرا أَي جعلتَ ذَمَّهم طُعْماً لك.
وقال الزجاج: هذا بالخمر أَشبه منه بالطعام؛ المعنى: جعلت تتخمر بأَعراض الكرام، وهو أَبين مما يقال للذي يَبْتَرِكُ في أَعراض الناس.
وروى الأَزهري عن ابن عباس في هذه الآية قال: السَّكَرُ ما حُرِّمَ من ثَمَرَتها، والرزق ما أُحِلَّ من ثمرتها. ابن الأَعرابي: السَّكَرُ الغَضَبُ؛ والسَّكَرُ الامتلاء، والسَّكَرُ الخمر، والسَّكَرُ النبيذ؛ وقال جرير: إِذا رَوِينَ على الخِنْزِيرِ مِن سَكَرٍ نادَيْنَ: يا أَعْظَمَ القِسِّينَ جُرْدَانَا وفي الحديث: حرمت الخمرُ بعينها والسَّكَرُ من كل شراب؛ السَّكَر، بفتح السين والكاف: الخمر المُعْتَصَرُ من العنب؛ قال ابن الأَثير: هكذا رواه الأَثبات، ومنهم من يرويه بضم السين وسكون الكاف، يريد حالة السَّكْرَانِ فيجعلون التحريم للسُّكْرِ لا لنفس المُسْكِرِ فيبيحون قليله الذي لا يسكر، والمشهور الأَول، وقيل: السكر، بالتحريك، الطعام؛ وأَنكر أَهل اللغة هذا والعرب لا تعرفه.
وفي حديث أَبي وائل: أَن رجلاً أَصابه الصَّقَرُ فَبُعِثَ له السَّكَرُ فقال: إِن الله لم يجعل شفاءكم فيما حرم عليكم.

If you search through the above you will see that sakar does not mean intoxicant. If you are using circular logic please don't. Sakar does not mean intoxicant because it is defined as khamr. Sakar means WINE because it is defined as intoxicant. When I see khamr mentioned with other roots i do not define those roots using the meaning of intoxication/inebriation because I know what is meant is the more popular meaning of wine.

The meaning for khamr as general drunkenness/inebriation comes from the following also in Lisanul-Arab:

ورجل مَخْمُورٌ: به خُمارٌ، وقد خُمِرَ خَمْراً وخَمِرَ

A man that is makhmoor is effected by Khumaar and he khamira khamran, i.e. has become effected by khumaar. Khamran is the indefinite, accusative (nakirah mansoobah) of Al-khamr. So here Al-khamr is 'to be effected by khumar.'

وخُمارُها: ما خالط من سكرها

khumar: What befalls of drunkenness/inebriation.

I still disagree with khamr as general intoxicants despite the fact that it seems that part of its etymological logic is from it covering one's mind. Here is why. Lisanul-Arab says:

والخَمْرُ ما خَمَر العَقْلَ، وهو المسكر من الشراب

Al-khamr is what covers the mind; it is drinkable inebriant. So at best we can call any drink that inebriates khamr...so marijuana tea or opium tea can be called khamr but not other intoxicants.

The best that Mu'jam Al-faadh Al-Qu'ran gives us is by saying "For some people it is a name for any intoxicant." When he says 'for some people' he is saying that this is not how the word is generally understood because this is not what he states whenever defining a word straight out. He actually doesn't define khamr in its capacity of wine or alcoholic drink at all. He assumes that everyone knows what it is and give its etymology.

Salam

Good logic,

1- I was simply stating my opinion. To me, when it is a  choice between what others say and what Qoran says, I choose Qoran that s all.

And it is an extreme oversimplification.

2-There is the question: What word did GOD use originally in [2:71]  " Naharooha" or " dhabahooha"? I would have thought this is very important.

There is no way of figuring out which was the original. All Mutawaatir readings are equally the most authentic. Mashoor and other readings are not although they can serve as tafsirs for the Mutawaatir readings when consulting all of them still results in a lack of clarity on an issue.

Do you know about the readings (Qir'aat) of the Qur'an?

Please read the links found here: 

http://quranists.proboards.com/thread/60/links-readings-quran

Al-Kalalah and the pertinent verses; 4:12 and 4:176


The use of Al-Kalalah here has created a lot of confusion and even Yusuf Ali chooses to interpret one as dealing with uterine siblings only and the other as paternal siblings. He didn't invent this as this can be found in Lisanul-Arab as one of the interpretations of these two verses. Ibn Mandhur essentially gives a tafsir with this meaning with the following:

فجعل الكَلالة ههنا الأُخت للأَب والأُم والإِخوة للأَب والأُم، فجعل للأُخت الواحدة نصفَ ما ترك الميت، وللأُختين الثلثين، وللإِخوة والأَخوات جميع المال بينهم، للذكر مثل حَظِّ الأُنثيين، وجعل للأَخ والأُخت من الأُم، في الآية الأُولى، الثلث، لكل واحد منهما السدس، فبيّن بسِياق الآيتين أَن الكَلالة تشتمل على الإِخوة للأُم مرَّة، ومرة على الإِخوة والأَخوات للأَب والأُم

This states: "He (God) has made (the inheriting siblings for) Al-Kalalah here the sister from one's mother and father and siblings from one's mother and father (in general). He gave half to the lone sister and 2/3 for the sisters (to share) if they are more than one. For male and female siblings all of the wealth (is to be shared) between them with the male's share being double that of the female. He (God) gave the (lone) maternal brother or sister in the first verse (that mentions Al-Kalalah) a third and (he gave them) a sixth for each if they are two of them. In the context of both verses Al-Kalalah pertains to the maternal siblings in one place and siblings from both the deceased's mother and father in the other place."

This is a tafsir of why Al-Kalalah is different in one verse and different in another and not a definition of al-Kalaalah.

The most pertinent definition of Al-Kalalah is the following:

واختلف أَهل العربية في تفسير الكَلالة فروى المنذري بسنده عن أَبي عبيدة أَنه قال: الكَلالة كل مَنْ لم يرِثه ولد أَو أَب أَو أَخ ونحو ذلك

This says that the scholars of Arabic have differed about the explanation of Al-Kalalah but Al-Mundhiri related, using Abu 'Ubaydah as support,  that: Al-Kalalah refers to anyone whose son OR Father OR brother doesn't (exist to) inherit him.

What has caused confusion with the term is that most understandings understand Al-Kalalah as one who is left without both a parent and a child as an inheritor. But if one has a parent and no child or a child and no parent or any combination of missing parent, child or sibling then all of these can be considered Al-Kalalah.

Given the specification of 4:176 specifying no children in addition to Al-Kalalah and it allowing a brother to inherit the full inheritance of his sister it would seem that Al-Kalalah here and in 4:12 is talking about Al-Kalalah where there is no parent to inherit. When there is no child to inherit the Quran just says 'laisa lahu walad.' So in 4:12 there are children and the Al-Kalalah mentioned refers to no parents as inheritors and in 4:176 again the Al-Kalalah refers to no parent inheritors, while specifying in addition to the term that there are no children to inherit either. This explains why there is less for the siblings in 4:12 and more for them in 4:176.

I hope this has provided some clarification to this very confusing issue which at face value seems to present the Qur'an as contradicting itself, and which can get even more confusing given the more popular meaning of the word and the various subtleties of of the term.