Messages

According to best interpretation from the Quran! The Quran are Allah's words. But when they are interpreted through the minds of fallible humans, differences of opinions will result! This is not rocket science. Its bound to happen. Such differences would have always existed .......even with those that followed the Tawrat. They even exist with traditionalists that try to interpret the Quran.

Even the Books of Hadith don't provide an interpretation of every verse in the name of the Muhammad (saw). They are opinions of men! That is all. Why can't you see that?

We are talking about an approach - as long as the approach is Quran focused then that is the most important thing.....

Today there needs to be learned men and women - even people like you who obviously have the brains but not the direction who should focus their energies in trying to understand what the Quran is saying rather than defending spurious hadith and spending a large part of their lives doing it! What wasted effort imho!

It's a shame they got to benefit from his interpretations, while we are stuck trying to guess what to do with the hand of a thief.

Not really. Traditionalists like you need to follow his approach. Rather than abandoning the Quran for interpretations from Hadith, we need to apply the Quran to our circumstances like the Prophet (saw) did to his.

As far as cutting or not cutting is concerned, Muslims need to understand the best  meaning from the Quran .... yes there might be differences of opinion - but so what? are you telling me traditionalists agree on everything? They even bring in punishments like stoning which have no proof in the Quran.!!!!

It is only a shame for those that think the Quran is useless (Maaz'Allah) on its own.

No, the difference is that Qur'an Onlyism claims and teaches that the Qur'ans interpretation is explicitly clear independent of a divinely sanctioned interpreter.

I am not sure if that is what many Quranic minded people say. I don't and I don't think people like bro Joseph others even claim this either. We recognize that Muhammad (saw) was a divinely sanctioned interpreter at his time with the circumstances he had to deal with.

What you are doing is 'extending' this to say that Hadith you have today full of absurdities is the Divinely sanctioned interpretation in the name of the Prophet! Why else would you mention this? That is the difference I think .... the amazing leap!

it is clear that to physically cut off the hand or hands of the thief is not the only possible understanding and taking into account the law of equivalence would perhaps only be reserved for significant theft which led to harming others, hence harming the perpetrator.

And that's the problem with Quran Onlyism. Thanks.

So the many serious differences in traditionalist views, sometimes enough to justify killing each other (Shia and Sunni / Barelwi / Deobandi  etc etc) .... provides evidence that Traditionlism is even a bigger problem and therefore to be rejected?

I said Joseph can't say that the surrounding towns spoke the same dialect, since the Qur'an is silent on that and he refuses to appeal to history in order to investigate that.

Bro Joseph rightly says >>>

The initial recipient of the Quran was the Prophet himself. The Quran arguably was revealed in his dialect which would have been the dialect of his immediate community / mother town and those around it (waman hawlaha)

This is a forceful view and suggestion from bro Joseph as Allah could have said the Quran was revealed in Arabic and then full stop!!! Why did Allah say "surrounding towns" in 42.7? Wasn't the Quran meant for everyone that spoke Arabic? Why the restriction??

So  I do not think any further proof needs to be given as even where I am from the local areas and surrounding areas have a certain dialect but as you go out more from our city, the accent and dialect changes. I think this is a good standard position that bro Joseph takes from a Qurans view. Thank you.

Shalom / Peace all. A good discussion and I would like to thank both debaters very much.

I take it then we have no proof that the Quran was revealed in 7 Ahroof or qiraat  to Muhammad (saw) until we believe what the faulty history / hadith tells us? But then, the faulty hadith tells us all kinds of things and then we rely on more opinions of human beings who don't always agree!!

Although I am not sure that bro Joseph gives all the evidence that is possible from the Quran, but he does say a lot of convincing things. His position seems very stable. He also gives the only argument from a Qurans view and in that he is the most persuasive over a Hadith view!

It seems that bro Bassam is often only nit picking because I think he has to prove his position from Hadith at no matter what cost ......which were not collected properly after the death of the Prophet 100 of years later. So bro Bassam will possibly do anything to destroy any view that comes from the Quran as he does not accept this view...... But I do think his questions were responded to quite well!...

Who has the better evidence? I think it is obvious for me. I would trust any view that comes from the Quran first!!!! Thank you.

I believe we need to see how traditional Muslims understood the hadith of the ajwa dates. They don't believe that the power of protection is in the dates themselves, but rather it's a means taken, while the ultimate power is in Allah.

It's kind of like Allah saying in the Qur'an "Make dua to Me and I shall respond". Could we then take this verse and challenge people to ask Allah for a Ferrari and expect it to then turn up miraculously in our garage? No, I don't think so.

I think we need to sometimes look at the spirit of things in their proper context and not at the letter of things in isolation of their context.

ya if we look at the spirit of things may be ajwa dates may cure the diseases of many. I used to give vitamin tablets to my grandmother whenever she complains about one thing or other and she used to feel completely cured most of the times!

almost like a placebo effect?  Shalom / Peace

Shalom / Peace Bassam,

I found out today from bro Joseph's facebook page that you had joined the forum. Nice to see you here. I have a question for you please if you be so kind to answer.... Did you ever get a chance to respond this blog? ... if you did can you point me to the response please?

http://primaquran.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/bassam-zawadi-muslim-apologist-bukhari-isnt-100-accurate/

I am not sure whether you actually said what is claimed here but I would be really looking forward to hearing from you directly on this forum. Thank you

Shalom / Peace all


I wonder if inciting religious hatred which leads to violence = ''Fisaad" or corruption on earth? Does the Quran leave room for interpretation for 'Fisaad'?

Thanks Hope.  How the meaning of jihad is so misunderstood by many!

To assert an understanding of 'jihad' as a holy war against non-Muslims has no warrant from the Quran. In its primary Quranic context, 'jihad' means to toil, struggle or to strive and labour in the way of God.

Whether one strives with patience, with their wealth or constantly struggles with their inner self to maintain justice, honour and truth, this would undoubtedly remain part of the Quranic understanding of 'jihad'.

047.031
"And We shall try you until We make evident those who strive (Arabic: mujahidina) among you and persevere in patience; and We shall test your affairs"

http://quransmessage.com/articles/jihad%20FM3.htm


Shalom / Peace

Shalom / Peace

I did a search on verse 2.187 on this forum and I find brother Joseph Islam's response on this quite convincing with the problem raised.

I think if the role of the mosque is understood properly (as brother JI explains) then there isn't a problem in interpretation I feel.

Please see >>>

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=274.msg848;topicseen#msg848

Shalom / Peace Joseph

Mr. Jason's statement that

"You would be hard pressed to find a manuscript of the Qur'an dated earlier than this time period that matches with what you have in your hand."

is unbelievable ...also makes me think he may not be familiar with your studies in this area. I know you provided evidence for earlier manuscripts which prove some of todays' recitation - like in the following article = http://quransmessage.com/articles/19%20FM3.htm  .... pity - I think no point continuing the debate

Shalom / Peace Joseph

I would be the first to disagree with you if I felt it was called for and although I respect your v. convincing academic works and great efforts, there are times (v.v.few though) when I have felt maybe a different opinion. However, I am amazed at this critique > quite honestly which I agree totally with Hope - is borderline hypocrisy! Personally I wouldn't waste any more time with this individual as his attitude says it all. His so called academic rebuttal is also a joke quite frankly. That attitude isn't going to take him very far and he will end up loosing a lot of well-wishers, I can tell you that. I also side by Truth seeker - I think he really needs to think about why he believes the Qur'an is from Allah. I sense some serious insecurities on his part. I really do!

Peace 

[Ana al-Haqq]

RUMI explained the fanna of Hallaj like this;

Pharaoh said 'I am the Truth,' and was laid low. Mansur Hallaj said 'I am the Truth,' and escaped free.
Pharaoh's 'I' was followed by the curse of God. Mansur's 'I' was followed by the mercies of God.
Because Pharaoh was a stone, Mansur a ruby,
Pharaoh an enemy of light, Mansur a friend.
Mansur's 'I am He,' was a deep mystic saying,
Expressing union with the light, not mere incarnation.

According to Rumi, his statement Ana al-Haqq as meaning, "God has emptied me of everything but Himself." According to him, Mansur never denied God's Oneness and was a strict monotheist.

Regarding Bastami:
His self is departed, and he has become the spirit.

Shalom / Peace Hope,

Honestly and I mean no disrespect to you. I can't believe what you are suggesting here. Where does Rumi get all these stories from? And who cares about Rumi's explanation of the term 'ana al-Haqq'? Doesn't it simply mean 'I am the Truth'? and how does he really know that Mansur's 'I' was followed by the mercies of God where it really matters like the Hereafter? Did He ask God??? (Tauba Nauzubillah / Ma'azAllah)

Honestly Hope, I am really surprised at your stance with these stories.

Anyway each to their own. I wanted to show that the quote existed and to other brothers and sisters on this forum. I am sure people will make their own minds about what is written in these books.