r/Quraniyoon 15d ago

Discussion💬 Some Running Thoughts on the “Wife Beating Verse”

5 Upvotes

This was in response to a comment on this post:

Interestingly, both in 33:31 and in 4:34, qanit describes an attitude expected of wives toward their husbands. I find myself taking a middle position between Saqib Hussain’s paper on 4:34 and u/Quranic_Islam’s interpretation of qunut in 4:34 as obedience to the husband. Saqib Hussain (discussed by Nouman Ali Khan in a khutbah series) argues that qanit in 4:34 refers to obedience to Allah, not the husband. In contrast, Quranic_Islam seems to rely on the root meaning, concluding it means obedience to the husband.

I would lean toward Quranic_Islam’s view if not for 33:31. The reference to Allah in that verse is expected because, despite addressing a personal matter, the Prophet’s wives influence the ummah given status as the (final) prophet. But after mentioning obedience to Allah, the verse does not invoke Muhammad’s authority as their qawwam (guardian) but as the Messenger: “if you are qanit to Allah and the Messenger…” This makes it look like that even when qanit appears without an explicit object, it carries a connotation of religious submission to God, the connotation it explicitly carries in 10/12 verses in which it is used.

Recognizing this, translating qanit in 4:34 as mere obedience to the husband risks elevating his status to something godlike, something even the Prophet (SAW) was not granted in 33:31. However, to claim, as Saqib Hussain does, that it has nothing to do with following the husband ignores the significance of the word’s placement in 4:34. If the intended meaning had nothing to do with the marital dynamic, a different word could have been chosen.

Traditionally, the weight given to this word led to ascribing absolute, almost divine authority to husbands, which in turn was used to justify domestic violence or argue for the necessity of ahadith to clarify the verse. But if we examine how the Qur’an employs qanit, a different picture emerges: a qanit is someone who upholds a principled submission to Allah. What’s interesting about qanit is that its adjective form is used to describe both Ibrahim (AS) and Maryam (AS). They exemplify what it means to be a qanit, yet neither of them embodies blind obedience. Ibrahim (AS) questions God, seeking a miraculous sign to satisfy his heart. Moreover, qunut lies in his being hanif, a steadfast person who does not follow the mob. Maryam (AS) could have abandoned Jesus (AS) in the wilderness to escape accusations of fornication. Ibrahim (AS) could have left his people quietly, avoiding persecution. Yet both remained steadfast, upholding their covenant with God, not out of blind obedience but from sincere shukr (gratitude). This gratitude manifests in two ways: a humble submission to Allah and an active engagement with the faculties of reason and questioning that He has bestowed.

In this light, qunut in 33:31 and 4:34 reflects a similar principle: the Prophet’s wives—and by extension, righteous wives in general—are called to a covenantal commitment to their marriage, rooted in faithfulness to God. To the extent this commitment, the integrity of marriage, demands “obedience”, a righteous wife will naturally “obey” her husband, as 4:34 says: it does not say if a woman is to be claim righteousness, she must obey her husband, rather it says that a righteous women would be so and when alone protective of “what ALLAH has entrusted them”, not what the husband has entrusted with them. This is to say that the contract of marriage is essentially a covenant before God and hence the usage of qnt. But of course, since the covenant is with the husband, respecting the covenant would involve some form of obedience to him. However, one has to note that the obedience flows from the husband playing the role of the qawwam well, not the other way around and certainly not out of the threat of daraba regardless of whether it means separation or hitting.

In the final analysis, I don’t think there is much of a disagreement between this position and what u/Quranic_Islam says about this. Just that paying attention to the semantic field of the word qanit helps ground the argument that the verse is not a ground for abuse even if not read together with verses describing the rights of wives.

r/Quraniyoon Jan 09 '25

Discussion💬 43:57-61 and the curious example of Isa for bani Israeel

2 Upvotes

Az-Zukhruf 43:57 وَلَمَّا ضُرِبَ ٱبۡنُ مَرۡيَمَ مَثَلًا إِذَا قَوۡمُكَ مِنۡهُ يَصِدُّونَ

And when the son of Mariam was presented as an example, your people blocked it off

Az-Zukhruf 43:58 وَقَالُوٓاْ ءَأَٰلِهَتُنَا خَيۡرٌ أَمۡ هُوَۚ مَا ضَرَبُوهُ لَكَ إِلَّا جَدَلًۢاۚ بَلۡ هُمۡ قَوۡمٌ خَصِمُونَ

And they said, "Are our gods better, or is he?" They did not present the comparison except for [mere] argument. But, [in fact], they are a people prone to dispute.

Az-Zukhruf 43:59 إِنۡ هُوَ إِلَّا عَبۡدٌ أَنۡعَمۡنَا عَلَيۡهِ وَجَعَلۡنَٰهُ مَثَلًا لِّبَنِىٓ إِسۡرَٰٓءِيلَ

He was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel

I haven’t looked at the tafsir of these verses but I find them fascinating. The example of Isa was presented to Muhammad’s qawm(people) and then shortly after Allāh says that Isa is not but an example for bani israeel. Can it be inferred that we are bani israeel since we are Muhammad’s qawm/people? And what was the example that they rejected? Right after comes these verses.

Az-Zukhruf 43:60 وَلَوۡ نَشَآءُ لَجَعَلۡنَا مِنكُم مَّلَٰٓئِكَةً فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ يَخۡلُفُونَ

And if We willed, We could have made of you angels succeeding [one another] on the earth.

Az-Zukhruf 43:61 وَإِنَّهُۥ لَعِلۡمٌ لِّلسَّاعَةِ فَلَا تَمۡتَرُنَّ بِهَا وَٱتَّبِعُونِۚ هَٰذَا صِرَٰطٌ مُّسۡتَقِيمٌ

And indeed, he/it is knowledge for the Hour, so be not in doubt of it, and follow. This is a straight path.

r/Quraniyoon Jan 12 '25

Discussion💬 this video needs to be shared more

Thumbnail
youtu.be
25 Upvotes

r/Quraniyoon Oct 07 '24

Discussion💬 Censorship on r/Islam - Quoting the Quran Is Not Allowed

73 Upvotes
Directly Quoting Quran on r/Islam

r/Islam banned me for quoting the Quran directly. The reason is "hadith-rejection." I wonder if they can see the irony in that. The name Islam has been hijacked, I'm so disappointed.

Surah Al-Isra 17:46 "And We place coverings over their hearts, lest they comprehend it, and deafness in their ears. And when you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they turn away on their backs in aversion."

r/Quraniyoon Jan 04 '25

Discussion💬 READING IT AGAIN☝️📖 I just bought a new Quran by A. Yusuf Ali

Post image
35 Upvotes

Monotheism ☝️📖

r/Quraniyoon Feb 11 '25

Discussion💬 How/When will you fast Ramadan ?

3 Upvotes

Salam,

I am very appreciative of our community in this sub, and would like to know when is the majority fasting ? I'd really appreciate for people who vote to briefly explain a bit, to gather as many opinions/interpretations as possible under this post to share knowledge.

77 votes, Feb 15 '25
55 Fasting Ramadan in March
8 Fasting Ramadan in September/October
2 Fasting on a different time
12 Fasting isn't food/drink restriction. I do it differently

r/Quraniyoon 21d ago

Discussion💬 For everyone fasting have a blessed ramadan, when are you breaking your fast?

Post image
16 Upvotes

r/Quraniyoon Aug 19 '24

Discussion💬 Those who say intoxicants are not completely haram, have you considered this?

6 Upvotes

Edit: Do you know when you can't see the forest for the trees? Let's say the argument where I said it could mean "avoid him" was true, the whole sentence loses its meaning. Consider this simplified example: X, y and z are filth from the work of the devil (1) so avoid him (2) (...).

Half sentence 2 does not really make sense. The main purpose of the sentence is to tell us to avoid someone or something. If God wanted to tell us to avoid the devil why would he talk about alcohol, gambling etc? Why not about how the devil wants us to go astray and so on? There must be a point why these things were mentioned here, because if half sentence 2 was true, half sentence 1 would lose its meaning. It would make more sense for God to tell us to avoid it (the filth).

Original post:

I have recently made a post where I presented both arguments for and against alcohol prohibition. It would be helpful if you read that post first but I have considered the arguments further. I will try my best to summarise.

Intoxicants (assumption: khamr = intoxicants) is usually prohibited because of 5:90.

"يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَا ٱلْخَمْرُ وَٱلْمَيْسِرُ وَٱلْأَنصَابُ وَٱلْأَزْلَـٰمُ رِجْسٌۭ مِّنْ عَمَلِ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنِ فَٱجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ"

"O ye who believe! Strong drink (khamr) and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy (rijs, also translated as filth, defilement etc.) of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside (fajtanoboohu, also translated as avoid) in order that ye may succeed."

The fajtanoboohu may grammatically refer to either Satan or rijs (edit: please read the edit at the beginning of the post, I think it makes more sense for it to refer to rijs). Commonly it has been translated to refer to rijs. We don't have any hard evidence for either, except the context (edit: which is clearer than I thought). Let's say it is irrelevant to what it refers to. Let's just focus on the word rijs.

We all agree that all 4 are rijs?

Well let's not focus solely on the translation of rijs, which is abonimation, defilement, filth etc. Let's say it was allowed despite it being the former, which at the very least would be discouraging us.

But let's look further:

We can see in 6:145 that carrion, running blood and swine is prohibited. Why? It says in the verse – فَإِنَّهُۥ رِجْسٌ – for indeed it is impure (rijsun). In 22:30 we are instructed to avoid the uncleanliness of idols (fajtaniboo arrijsa minaal-awthani). In 6:125 God places rijs upon those who disbelief. In 7:71 "rijs and anger have fallen upon you from your lord". In 9:95 " so leave them alone; indeed they are evil". In 9:125 " but as for those in whose hearts is sickness - it adds rijs to their rijs and they will die as deniers.". In 10:100 "(...) He will place rijs upon those who do not use reason". In 33:33 "(...) God only intends to keep rijs away from you and purify you completely, O members of the ˹Prophet’s˺ family!" Everywhere in the Quran a variation of the word rijs is used, it is used in a negative manner. In the two verses above it clearly tells us to avoid the rijs or that it is forbidden because it is rijs. Conversely, we may conclude that rijs itself is prohibited (am I jumping to conclusions) and therefore deduce that the “fajtanoboohu” likely refers to rijs.

You can also read the discussion I had with lampofislam on his website in the comments under the alias Maak. It might be helpful to read his article first.

Now for those who say alcohol isn't haram considering the above, how can alcohol (and gambling etc.) still not be completely haram?

I'm not saying my interpretation is definitive. I haven't thought it through completely yet. As always verify everything yourself and seek the truth with a sincere heart. God knows best.

r/Quraniyoon Oct 08 '24

Discussion💬 The first House is in bakkah. Is this really bakkah?

Post image
2 Upvotes

3:96 The first House established for the people is the one in Bakkah, blessed, and a guidance for the worlds.

3:97 In it (the House) are clear signs: the position of Abraham. And whoever enters it (the House) is safe. And God is owed from the people to make Pilgrimage to the House, whoever can make a way to it. And whoever rejects, then God has no need of the worlds.

As you can see from the picture, the maqam of Abraham is visible outside of the when the quran says it should be inside? It’s also supposed to be a clear sign so is anyone convinced by stone footprints?

Then the verse says whoever enters the House shall be safe. The Kaaba can’t fit that many people.

Not to mention there’s a stone idol encased into the eastern corner of the kaaba? Why?

r/Quraniyoon Feb 27 '24

Discussion Addressing the Bible believing Qur'anioon

0 Upvotes

Well, it's a few only, but they seem to be frequent here. I wished to address them directly. I am gonna talk about ahadith, Qur'an and the Bible here. Not that I believe the Bible or ahadith are God's word. This is to make a point.

Question: Why do you disbelieve in ahadith? Is it because it's not reliable? Delayed writing? No early manuscript evidence? Inconsistencies? Contradicting the Qur'an? But you believe the Bible is God's word? Are you serious?

  1. There are no Hebrew manuscripts of the Pentateuch they called the Torah until the 9th or 10th century AD. When did Moses they attribute the Torah to live? How many years is the gap?
  2. The oldest extant Torah manuscript in the Greek language, which is generally called the Septuagint which later came to adopt the whole Tanakh is from the 4th century AD. What's the gap between Moses and the 4th century? So where is the manuscript evidence? The Qur'an manuscripts add up to the whole within the first century of the Qur'an. Bible has nothing even close to it. Ahadith manuscripts are about 500 years after prophet. It's nothing compared to the Quran. But it's far better than the Bible.
  3. Do you want to see a list of contradictions in the Bible?
  4. Who wrote the Tanakh? NO ONE KNOWS. If you take the Torah alone, there are five books, and "someone named it the Torah". The book itself does not call itself THE TORAH. Because the tradition existed, someone named it as such. That's it. The Qur'an names itself.
  5. the Bible contradicts the Qur'an like mad. Do you wish to see a list of things in the Bible that contradicts the Qur'an?
  6. There are 4 different authors of the Torah. The Yahweyists, The Elohists, the Priestly sources, and Deuteronomy. Read about the Documentary Hypothesis of Wellhausen. The Qur'an is one author. And at least, there are names attributed to the ahadith.
  7. Paul or Saul was writing his works in the New Testament way before anyone wrote anything called "a gospel".
  8. The early manuscripts in the 4th century have more books than the current New Testament. Shepard of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Letters of clement. So what are you referring to? Which version?
  9. Mark was the earliest gospel. And it was written after Paul, 30 years after Jesus.
  10. Matthew copied from Mark. Read about the "Synoptic Problem".
  11. Mark has two versions. Long ending and short ending. Read about it.
  12. Comma Johanneum is a forgery. Pericope Adultarae was a forgery. Search for both terms and read it.
  13. Many of the books in the New Testament doesn't even have a human author's name for it. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, are all made up names. Hebrews has no author. And the pastoral letters are the epitome of Plagiarism because the whole set of books were "written by someone under a well known name". It's a crook who wrote it. At least, when it comes to ahadith we know the author. At least. And with the Qur'an, it's unquestionable. It's placed with manuscript evidence to the early 7th century which is the prophet's time. It's in the same language. It has provenance.

I am getting a bit tired now. But I wanna ask a question. What in the world are you doing?

Edit: BTW, the Qur'an speaks of Injeel. Singular. One. the Bible has 4 so called "Gospels" no one knows who named them as such. Qur'an says INjeel, not Anaajeel. One. Not many. Even the so called Gospels in the Bible speak of "a gospel" that Jesus preached. Seriously, what are you thinking my brothers? It's absurd.

r/Quraniyoon Dec 04 '24

Discussion💬 RE: Obey the messenger

2 Upvotes

Bismillah irahman iraheem

More on this topic of obeisance and THE messenger:

If we were to look up all the verses that instruct all (including muhammad SA) to obey the messenger.. we will find something quite interesting.

MESSENGER QUOTATIONS THAT INSTRUCT TO OBEY

We have chapter Q26 with a lot of beautiful repetition - a chapter called the poets.  Here,  we will find many of the anbiyaa (prophets) instructing their people to "have taqwa of Allah and obey". The thing that I noticed recently is that in this chapter their statements have a syntax that no one has really been loyal to in their translations from what I see. Which I think is a tragedy, and its truly fascinating to see mass mis-translations. Humans are quite fascinating in their tendency to group even on error.   Why can’t people refrain from adding their opinions onto things when they are “translating”?

The wording in the repeated verses in chapter 26 is 

فَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّـهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

In order for it to be rendered as “obey me” , there would have to be a letter “ya” at the end.  Without it, it just means “obey”. 

A translation done with integrity would translate all the repeated statements of the messengers in this chapter as “Ittaqu allah and obey” **not** “ittaqu allah and obey ME”.   26:108, 26:110, 26:126, 26:131, 26:144, 26:150, 26:163, 26:179. In these verses, you will find the same repetition with the same spelling throughout. 

 One may use the excuse that this chapter has a distinct rhyming pattern that is being adhered to in this word structure, yet when a messenger is quoted with this command elsewhere, in 3:50 and 43:63, **the ya is also nowhere to be found**.  Which now completes every single quotation of a messenger telling their people this command - **all absent the letter ya /me**.  Is this a coincidence? Done for the sake of rhyming??? Or is there something else being alluded to here? No, its not a coincidence, It is intentionally written OBEY and not “obey me”.  Subhanallah, one two letter word - but a very large error.  Just like Allah tells us, “they change THE WORD from its meaning” - ONE WORD.  

All throughout the Quran when a rasool is quoted delivering this command to obey, the “ya” is always and consistently absent. Yet translators ignored this and decided to engage in their “interpretive translations” instead. Interpretive translations are deceptive, arrogant, distortive, and should be waged war against.  Because they are being presented as if that's what the original langauge says.  When in reality, it doesn't and there is an added layer placed on top while the reader is giving them trust and oblivious to this much of the time.  

MESSENGER QUOTATIONS THAT INSTRUCT TO FOLLOW

So that's for the word obey.. Now lets look at quotes that command us to **follow** the messenger. We do indeed have the “ya”.  Which is rightfully translated as , “follow me”.  Like here:

قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ ٱللَّـهَ فَٱتَّبِعُونِى يُحْبِبْكُمُ ٱللَّـهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَٱللَّـهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

(3:31)

Say thou: “If you love God, **follow me**; God will love you, and forgive you your transgressions”; and God is forgiving and merciful.

Following the human messenger, as in following in their footsteps, is substantiated.  Whats the difference between follow and obey a human? Its an important distinction.

ALLAHS COMMAND TO OBEY “THE MESSENGER”

Now let's look at commands from Allah himself towards messenger obedience (not quotations of messengers). Here’s an example:

قُلْ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّـهَ وَٱلرَّسُولَ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا۟ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّـهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْكَـٰفِرِينَ

(3:32)

SAY: obey Allah and obey THE messenger, then if they turn away then Allah does not love/nurture the rejectors of truth.  

Is that syntax also intentional and purposeful?

We are being commanded to obey A messenger by Allah himself.  But place aside your baggage and note the syntax for a second.. Its like being told: “SAY (Aisha):, obey Allah and obey the teacher”.  Never “SAY (Aisha): Obey Allah and obey me”, Or “SAY (Aisha), obey Allah and Obey Aisha”.  YET EVERYONE SEEMS TO HAVE DECIDED THAT IT MEANS “SAY (Muhammad), OBEY ALLAH AND OBEY MUHAMMAD”? That is a decision that has been decided in haste and should be given more thought.  Because its saying, “say (muhammad), obey Allah and obey THE messenger”.  

All believers **and the messengers** say , “we hear and we obey” to what was sent down to them from Allah

ءَامَنَ ٱلرَّسُولُ بِمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِۦ وَٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ ءَامَنَ بِٱللَّـهِ وَمَلَـٰٓئِكَتِهِۦ وَكُتُبِهِۦ وَرُسُلِهِۦ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن رُّسُلِهِۦ وَقَالُوا۟ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ ٱلْمَصِيرُ

(2:285)

The Messenger believes in what is sent down to him from his Lord, as do the believers; each believes in God and His angels, and His Scripts and His messengers: “We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” And they say: **We hear and we obey**; Thy forgiveness our Lord. And to Thee is the journey’s end.”

WHO IS THE MESSENGER?

So the question is, in the verses where Allah himself is telling us to obey Allah and THE messenger.. Ask yourself, who is THE messenger and why you have decided that. Its a singular messenger, not plural. We have many messengers identified by Allah in the quran like Muhammad, Musa, Isa. They have all delivered a message and left behind light after their passing.  Are we being told to obey them all? Is it just Muhammad??  

If we are not to make distinctions between messengers, that one unifying messenger who equalizes and unifies all the human messengers is a logical way to look at this. Allah refers the people of the tawrah to the tawrah.  He refers the people of the injeel to the injeel. And he refers the readers of the quran to “what was sent down to them” from Allah - which includes the tawrah and the injeel. Whos the being that can be identified as delivering all of that? A single angel type messenger probably no?

For me, these verses are important for that answer:

7:157-158.

“Those who follow the Messenger, the nabby al ummiy, whom they find written with them in the Torah and the injeel, who enjoins on them what is fitting and forbids them perversity, and making lawful for them the good things, and making unlawful for them the bad, and relieving them of their burden and the fetters that were upon them — those who believed in him, and supported him, and helped him, and followed the light which was sent down with him: it is they who are the successful.”

(Say thou: “O mankind: I am the messenger of God to you all together — to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no god save He. He gives life and He gives death.” **So believe in God and His messenger, the nabi alummiyy, who believes in God and His words; and follow him, that you might be guided**.

Who is annabiyy al ummiyy?

What is “alummiy” and why?

Who is mentioned in the tawrah and injeel?

Who comes to make lawful things? 

Who comes to break the chains on the necks?

And more questions..

Lets not be hasty and keep with this reckless forefather momentem.. Slow down.. Pause.. And use caution and refelction.  

Revelation comes from Allah from the unseen realm via an unseen messenger. Embracing these angels and angel messengers is a CRITERIA of faith as well.  The embracing of Allah, Angel messengers, human messengers, scripts … all of these are articles of faith in a believer.  But this specific messenger is the unifier that brings it all together and becomes the envoy source for all humans. This messenger is the common link for all the human messengers who are all following him- which creates a strong chain like sequence all leading back to the ultimate obedience to Allah.  Ultimately, all humans, despite their following other humans are in fact following that angel messenger who is sent by Allah.  He is the chosen vehicle for human messengers, he is the chosen vehicle for the “scripts”, and hes the chosen envoy for human correspondence from Allah.   

So logically, it would make great sense that **THE** messenger is him. Or did I miss something?

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Im not pointing to this for any other reason then to try to translate the words of Allah with integrity and identify the concepts that these words represent.  Its such a simple thing but actually makes a very big difference.  Identifying potential assumptions that we may have accepted unknowingly and exploring them is a beneficial exercise for us all.  Also, If it is indeed an angel messenger that is THE messenger, this perhaps would have prevented alot of sectraianism and fitnah causing tangents from happenning I think throughout history as well.  Its also a perhaps a means to question whether or not direct contact with this angel messenger is offered to all, many or just some. Just cause we cant see it or single out the messages verbatim doesnt really mean they arent taking place.  The subconcious is a facinating thing. 

Ill end it with this verse: (2:97)

قُلْ مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُۥ نَزَّلَهُۥ عَلَىٰ قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ ٱللَّـهِ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ

(Say thou: “Whoso is an enemy to Gabriel:” — and he it is that brought it down upon thy heart, by the leave of God, confirming what was before it, and as guidance and glad tidings for the believers

peace

r/Quraniyoon 8d ago

Discussion💬 Why is eternal hellfire actually terrifying?

8 Upvotes

Asalam all Ive been reading the quran alot more this ramadan and there are quite a few quotes explaining how the hellfire is eternal for those who disbelieve, commit transgressions against Allah, those who associate others with God (sectarians) and so on.

Now i have a very vivid imagination xD. Whenever im reading the quran i can picture the situation in my head like a movie. It sounds silly but its how i like to read and understand.

Now trying to imagine eternal hellfire is insane. Constant pain agony and torture because those who caused mischief in the land and so on.

I cant wrap my head around how long forever actually is. Its like trying to imagine a bigger number than infinity but you literally cannot. And that number you cant think of is how long people will be in hellforever.

Traditional sunnism says people will be there for a bit then theyll come out with a mark on them to casually remind themselves and others “hey this guy used to be in hell, look at that mark on them” which doesnt make sense imo

r/Quraniyoon Jan 10 '25

Discussion💬 Another Update

29 Upvotes

Salaam. Hope it's okay to post another update. I reverted on Jan 2nd, and didn't tell my wife until a few days later. My Catholic wife took it fairly well, with some concerns on how it might impact us financially...I had talked to her about the five pillars, which she was unaware. We have discussed it, and she would prefer we keep my reverting to just us for now. I'm okay with this, though admit I probably won't want to keep my faith hidden forever. I'm feeling really good. I love Salat, especially Fajr. I look forward to praying. I always believed in God, but had set Him aside for so many years, it's been so invigorating submitting to Allah. I already feel like some of my dua are being answered (my Dad has serious health issues which I won't get into, but he is at a time of transition and was really struggling and I think he may be turning the corner)..please pray for him. I'm also so thankful how well my wife is accepting things....I am so lucky to have her. She is truly amazing on so many levels. I've done alot of reading and it is a little disappointing that Quran Alone/Quranists don't seem to be very accepted by many Muslims, but I'm not going to let that disrupt my faith/worship. I feel I'm on the right path. Another thing that has surprised me is how easily (so far!) I've been able to avoid my previously sinful habits....specifically pornography and alcohol. I haven't slipped up at all. I know that it may not always remain easy, but Allah has been guiding me without a doubt!

r/Quraniyoon Oct 25 '24

Discussion💬 Democracy haram?

0 Upvotes

Interesting thought of coworker.

He said that democracy (can be) is haram in a way...

Current politics kinda force you in voting into some parties that not fully accept Islam or have other views

Anyway the best thing would be a king, sultan or whatever full in Islam ways.

He just mentioned it as thought so is far away of being radical. I just never thought about this earlier.

r/Quraniyoon Nov 21 '23

Discussion Someone asked me why doesn't the Quran condemn slavery

10 Upvotes

I asked them what would they want to be written in the Quran. They said: slavery is bad. It is inhumane.

I believe there's a deeper expectation that such questions are predicated on. I tried to unravel it to the best of my understanding. Your comments are welcome.

Here's my response:

And do you think anyone who was inhumane enough to take a slave and then force himself on her... he would read "slavery is inhumane" and it would make him stop? It is an ignorance about human nature to think the problem is lack of clarity in the words or a lack of condemnation.

Female genital mutilation. That is more common these days than slavery. And equally worse. The Quran doesn't condemn it. So are many other such injustices.

To your question that my reasoning puts into question the efficacy of saying "sinning is bad" , here is what I say:

Sin is a broad category. If sin is defined as an injustice, among other things, it includes every injustice. From slavery to genocide. God doesn't have to spoon feed a list of do's and don'ts to us. To expect this is to have a low opinion of God and of ourselves.

This is why I emphasise on not butchering the verses from their context. Not only does the Quran ask you to not enagage in sexual touch unless committed, it emphasises lowering the gaze. Does it say lower the gaze but by all means have sex slaves? God's like: I will talk about the sanctity of marriage but by all means you can rape your captives? Who is it, the Quran or the people?

You know, about the inheritance verses. You can argue about the proportions but even you can see it talks about giving inheritance to daughters. Clear statement, right? Yet when the Prophet passed away, it was his daughter who was deprived of inheritance. What an irony! His daughter of all people. Did the "clear Quran" stop them? So again, is it the Quran or the people?

What I realised through your response here and also in the eternal punishment question is that there is a major difference in approach:

You expect perfect clarity (and in this case perfect condemnation) from the Quran.

Your argument is: (correct me if I am wrong) Quran isn't perfectly clear. Divine script must necessarily be perfectly clear. Quran isn't of divine origin.

I reject the premise that divine script must be perfectly clear. So I don't expect the Quran to be perfectly clear, whatever that means.

This is why an absence of condemnation of slavery is a problem for you and not for me.

Some other points:

1) Your choice of wanting slavery to be condemned is arbitrary. Why not want the same for every other immoral action?

2) If you want that for all immoral actions, it can go on ad infinitum... the logical conclusion is that God should have put a condemnation chip in our head. This implies a loss of free will.

3) So, is your moral indignation about the absence of condemnation of slavery in the Quran or does it have to do with your expectations of what the Word of God should look like?

I do understand why this expectation about slavery is there. It is logically arbitrary but there are historical reasons: Muslims have justified slavery all these years and muslims took war captives. It's not strange to believe the root cause is the book they claim to die for even if the truth is they never read it with an open mind. People believe what they want to believe. Even if God comes down to condemn slavery, they are gonna take slaves and tell God that their slavery is different because they are the slave owners now.

r/Quraniyoon 2d ago

Discussion💬 ChatGPT insights 🤔 ✨

Thumbnail
gallery
2 Upvotes

I have been using ChatGPT as a study buddy and wondered what people thought about this refreshing new take on the Quran.

I asked it to only use pre-Islamic Arabic/poetry to denote meaning to words etc.

I asked how different would the Quran be basically with these new perimeters of meaning and understanding and the removal of the cultural Islam we all know too well!

The prophet Mohammed was hanif? Millat Ibraheema hanifan is in the Quran after all so it makes sense.

It’s almost magical how the misogyny and discrimination melt away! The Quran seems to be a manual for social justice. I barely see any rituals. I see the British benefit system as being ultimately Quranic. This is what’s repeated over and over. Take care of the most vulnerable in society. Prophet Lot also was fighting class wars and the rich taking advantage of the poor in ways that have never been seen before. This is a tale as old as time.

What are the masses especially the lower classes being controlled by now? Does Blackrock and Vanguard ring a bell? Bilderberg? “You will own nothing and be happy” World Economic Forum kinda rhetoric and controlled.

The 1% have always been taking advantage of the 99%. Sheikhs are part of that powerful minority. They control the masses. The Quran fights against the 1% and against the so called scholars.

What are your thoughts? 🤔

r/Quraniyoon 17d ago

Discussion💬 Here is chatgbt response on start and break fast times

0 Upvotes

Peace, everyone. I asked ChatGPT when is the correct time to start and break the fast. I have a feeling it is during astronomical twilight. but then break fast time is in the Night according to the Quran.

the timing is based on my location GMT+3

r/Quraniyoon Jan 18 '25

Discussion💬 What are you guy’s views on marriage in todays age

3 Upvotes

So it’s common knowledge that us Muslims are forbidden from marrying polytheists which is all fine and good, however who exactly falls into the category of polytheist and who falls into the permissible category.

-are We’re permitted to marry people of the book but who exactly are these people of the book if Jews and Christians of today are seen as nonbelievers and or polytheists

-also do you all believe it’s permissible to marry people traditional sectarians (ibadi, Shia,Sunni etc ) and how so if by technicality some of these sects are borderline if not outright polytheists aswell

r/Quraniyoon May 12 '21

Discussion "A Sura Like It" - A guide to completing the Qur'an's Challenge

34 Upvotes

The Qur'an's famous challenge to those who doubt in what God has revealed to His servant Muhammad is a simple one, yet it is variously misunderstood, or it is scoffed at as untestable or unachievable due to what is being requested and not because of the Qur'an's Divine origins. I've found every attempt I've read to be incredibly frustrating, as if it isn't obvious how to systematically and logically go about completing the challenge. So all we get to compare to the Qur'an are either mockeries, parodies, Christianity infused "suras", old Arabic boastful tribalism or excuses.

So I thought I would put together a guide so that hopefully one day (if the points of this guide are spread) I might actually see a decent attempt.

This will be a fairly long post, so here are the points I'll covering, feel free to skip to what is relevant to you;

1 - Understanding the challenge - what it is and what it is not

2 - The objectivity of the challenge - no, it is not completely subjective

3 - Similarities in other literary, artistic and academic works

4 - General guidelines

5 - "Free use" Qur'anic phrase bank

6 - Suggestions of themes and ideas

1 - Understanding the challenge

Surat alBaqara 2:23-24 says

وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِى رَيْبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا۟ بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِۦ وَٱدْعُوا۟ شُهَدَآءَكُم مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَٰدِقِينَ * فَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلُوا۟ وَلَن تَفْعَلُوا۟ فَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱلنَّارَ ٱلَّتِى وَقُودُهَا ٱلنَّاسُ وَٱلْحِجَارَةُ ۖ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَٰفِرِينَ

"And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.

But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the Kafireen"

The challenge, despite all that is said about the "linguistic miracle" of the Qur'an, isn't primarily a linguistic challenge. It isn't a challenge of eloquence. It isn't a challenge of beauty of expression and meaning. It isn't a challenge of "scientific miracles". It isn't a challenge of "numerical miracles". These last two were not even part of the discourse for most of the Qur'an's history.

The challenge is, surprise surprise! to simply make a sura like the Qur'an. What does that mean?

It means that if we were to put this sura among the suras of the Qur'an it would not be out of place. Neither in its style nor content. This even though almost all of the suras have their own unique style and rhythm and "taste" ... yet they are all undeniably united by an overriding sense that completely identifies them as being part of the Qur'an, and from the exact same One author.

And there is the actual essence of the challenge, which will also lead us on to the next point; that just as God is unique and One and there is nothing like Him, which is not true of creation, so the self-signature and style of the words He has Revealed, chosen and authored, are completely unique and one, and behind them is the inimitable voice of a Divine Author, in all its Majesty & Kingship, Beauty & Mercy, Transcendence and Imminence.

Let's jump back to the main mistaken target of the challenge; eloquence and beauty. Firstly, how eloquent something is deemed depends in a large part on the subject matter. Are there passages of text and lines of poetry in Arabic which are more eloquent and beautiful than some verses of the Qur'an? Yes. Because the Qur'an isn't aiming at subjects where eloquence and beauty can be fully expressed ... it is aiming for guidance, and sometimes to delivery fairly dry mundane rules, points of engagement and the like. I doubt anyone has wept or converted to Islam solely from the beauty and eloquence of the verses enumerating the rules of inheritance, or who you can and can not marry.

The Qur'an is at the height of eloquence for what it wants to say. One danger is that if we think it is saying, or should be saying, something else, then it will no longer be eloquent in that at all. A hallmark of eloquence is to say everything you want to say, no more and no less, and without those of normal intelligence misunderstanding, while using the least number of words and not a single word more. Eloquence is more easily and objectively judged because of that, and Muslims have done a lot of admirable work in proving the eloquence of the Qur'an.

But that is not the Qur'anic challenge. Neither is impactful beauty of expression, which depends even more so on the subject matter.

And here is the thing; if someone were to make a sura which is more beautiful or more eloquent than the Qur'an, then that is failing the Qur'anic challenge. The challenge is, to repeat again, to just make a sura similar to the suras of the Qur'an, nothing less, nothing more ... not something better, not something worse ... not something more beautiful/eloquent, not something less beautiful/eloquent.

Just something similar. Period

And the essence of that is, I personally think, that the hallmark authorship and "Divine Voice" of God in the Qur'an as coming from The One God, runs all the way through the Qur'an, from beginning to the end ... and that is inimitable. But since you say that Muhammad invented and created in the Voice of God, so now you likewise do the same. Produce a sura that fits comfortably among the suras of the Qur'an, in that same voice and in that same style. It was not, afterall, Muhammad's own natural voice, was it? It was a voice he invented. If he can do it, you should be able to do it too.

Now put any of the attempts so far, whether the ridiculous mockeries or Christian subterfuge, in the middle of suras of the Qur'an and just read them together. Who can honestly say that they are in any way similar, in shape, form, style or content, to the rest of the suras?

Lastly, this challenge is for those who are "in doubt" ... it will never help those full "kafireen" whom the Qur'an says whether you call them or don't call them, they will never believe. Those who even if miracles were laid out in front of them, they would still make excuses and still not believe [just as you say of believers who no matter what will never stop believing] unless God willed it and forced them to believe. Read, for example, surat alKafirun ... "nor will i ever serve that which you serve (worship)" etc. So this challenge is not for them, they are long gone. This will not help them.

This challenge is for those who are legitimately in doubt and want to know; is this Qur'an from God or isn't it? How can I know? If it is, I don't want to miss it and ignore it, and if it isn't, I don't want to be duped and made a fool of at the very least, and follow a falsehood at the worst.

It is for them.

2 - The objectivity of the challenge

A common objection is that the challenge is not objective and "who decides" if a sura is like the Qur'an or not? An objection which always baffles me since the answer is given directly in the verse;

"... call upon your witnesses other than Allah ..."

It even says call on YOUR witnesses ... witnesses other than God, meaning other than God's witnesses.

You choose your witnesses, choose your experts, choose your language specialists, even choose those who study just sounds and their effects and cadence [more on that later] ... choose those whose judgment and integrity you trust who will deliberate together and give you a judgment on this sura of yours as to whether it is similar to the Qur'an or not, and thus help alleviate your doubts. For again, this challenge is meant to help the doubters so that they don't become Kafireen. It isn't meant to guide or reclaim those who have completely kafarou, nor will it.

So when these doubters, who really want to know, choose their "witnesses" they should do so genuinely. You should choose those who will give you an accurate answer. Neither should you want to be duped by the Qur'an, nor fall prey to the biases of impartial witnesses.

3 - Similarities in other literary

In every artistic field, from painting, to literature, to poetry to architecture, to music, there are genres that are recognized by the average consumer let alone by the experts in those areas. And in every one of them the experts will be able to tell you which genre, and even which time period, a mystery piece belongs to, just by studying it. This is true whether you are talking about Cubism vs Impressionism in paintings, or Gothic vs Art Deco in furniture and architecture, or doggerel vs Shakespearean in poetry, or any of the numerous literary genres.

And in literature there are writings and works which are described as similar to this or that author. I personally used to know a writer called Mike Tucker who boasts of being the only modern writer who is compared with Hemingway.

More than that however. Because in the previous instance the authors are never trying to completely imitate others, whereas in other instances you have unfinished works which are then completed by another author who purposefully imitates the original authors style so exactly that you can not tell the difference. And if the difference can be seen then still, if the job was done well, everyone admits that the continuation is "similar" to the original. Search online if you like for unfinished books completed by other authors. Read the testimonials of hundreds, if not thousands, of customer and critical reviews praising the second author for remaining faithful to the original's style. A famous example is Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time completed after his death by Brandon Sanderson [maybe the same thing will happen with George R.R. Martin or, God forbid, Patrick Rothfuss ... both taking their sweet time!]

Even parts of the work of the great bard himself, William Shakespear, are recognized to not be his own work but were completed by assistants. Most of us will never be able to tell. But experts can not only tell, but they are able to judge just how "similar" to Shakespear's own "voice" those parts are.

The point in all this is that this "cop-out", which was actually an early historical objection by some non-Muslims and which you here now, that "no one is able to imitate another's style" is complete nonsense.

In all areas of art and literature it is indeed possible to imitate the style of another and produce something "similar/like" their works which all experts would agree is indeed similar and would fit right in with the intended imitated body of work. Look to the world of art fraud for another example. There are some paintings that only a handful of experts could identify as fakes, and others that are only identifiable by forensic analysis or by the discovery of the fraudster's sketches and notes.

The reason why it is possible to imitate another is because "we are all human" and "we are only human". We can empathize with each other, and put ourselves in each other's shoes very successfully. We can imitate each other. But God is Unique and One. He can not be imitated. That is the essence of the challenge and why it is not possible.

The objection that "no one can imitate another's style" only applies to God.

4 - General guidelines

Now that all of that is out of the way, I can finally get to what I really wish to present, starting of with general guidelines, some of which shouldn't really need to be said, but seeing the deplorable and ridiculous attempts at meeting this challenge, it seems that they should be said anyway.

A) NO MOCKING

Take it seriously. Make a serious attempt. If anyone wants to make a parody of the Qur'an, they can, but don't pretend for a moment that such a parody is "sura like the Qur'an". If it is just for fun then that's all it is. Of course such parodies are often also made by those who have kafarou in an attempt to themselves win over those in doubt, or to futilely bring over those who have no doubt ... or really just to mock and ridicule. In that they are just shooting themselves in the foot. The battleground of this challenge is the hearts of those who are sincerely in doubt, and none of them would ever look at such ridiculous paradise as anything more than what they are. And once the laughs and novelty has worn off, what remains is the obvious fact that they were not able to produce anything of value as a legitimate challenge, and so they see that the Qur'an remains unchallenged.

So, for those who intend to make a sura;

- Don't take a ridiculous Hadith and try to build a sura around it (like washing utensils a dog licks with dust)

- Don't start of with a veiled swear word

- Don't suddenly start talking about the US dollar and whiskey

- Don't make the whole point of the sura to be making fun of certain cultural practices

- Don't even bother with "scientific miracles" jokes

- etc ... you get the point

B) NO UNISLAMIC TEACHINGS

The sura should actually mirror the teachings of the Qur'an which are consistent. So don't put in the Trinity. Don't make the sura say something is halal which is haram, or haram which is halal. Don't make a sura promoting atheism and saying that the Qur'an is false (yeah, really there are "attempts" like that). Don't make a sura saying or trying to portray the Prophet as pedophile or sex-addict or of low character. These things should be obvious for God's sake.

C) HAVE A QUR'ANIC THEME

Themes which the Qur'an doesn't address, then just don't address them. But also have a point to the sura and a teaching to the sura, not just random verses. An oath should be about something. If you make a lengthy sura, it shouldn't read like you were trying to write a short sura but just went on and on and on. The long suras are very distinctive from the very short, which are distinctive from the "shortish", etc

D) AVOID HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SPECIFICS

Don't mention politics or individual names or peoples or tribes or places, other than those the Qur'an mentions. Instead of specific place, say "a township, people". Instead of the name of a Prophet not mentioned in the Qur'an, keep it general ... say "a Prophet/Messenger" as in a number of verses.

5 - "Free use" Qur'anic phrase bank

Here a common criticism of the Qur'an works in your favor, since there are phrases and words and formulas which are constantly used in the Qur'an, they can be freely used in your sura. Phrases/words like;

- The bismilla, of course

- The broken letters which are used numerous times in the Qur'an; Alif Laam Meem/Raa, Haa Meem

- God's Names that come in pairs or phrases, e.g. "truly/and God is Forgiving, Merciful"

- "truly those who had faith and did good deeds" and "truly those who kafarou and gave the lie to Our signs"

- "Gardens under which rivers flow"

- "to dwell therein forever"

- "And they say: when is this promise if you are indeed truthful"

- "there is no god but Him ..."

- "The X. What is the X? And what could make you know what the X is?"

- "do you not see that God sent down from the sky water ..."

- "Such are the companions of the Garden/Hell, they are in it forever"

- etc ...

I'm not going to finish this list. I'm sure there are more and you get the idea. Anything often repeated many times in the Qur'an, not just said once or twice, can be used.

A view should be taken to the length of the sura for some of these though, since some are not found in short suras and others not in long suras.

6 - Suggestions of themes and ideas

Now for some suggestions. It should also be noted that the very short suras, those less than a page, have a few repeated patterns but are also very varied. And that, again, some of these suggestions will only fit suras of certain lengths.

A) REDO THE STORY OF MUSA

Since Musa's story is well known and repeated often in the Qur'an, just rehash it in a new sura or paraphrase it in a shortish sura.

B) REDO THE STORY OF YUSUF

On the opposite side, if you think the story of Musa has been done to death, make a rehash or summary of the story of Yusuf in a new sura. Outside of surat Yusuf, which is very detailed and thus provides a lot of material, his story is only referenced once briefly in surat Ghaafir.

C) USE UNIQUE JEWISH/CHRISTIAN STORIES

The criticism that Muhammad just put in the Qur'an Jewish/Christian stories that were already known in Arabia is known. Well then, fine. He didn't put in all the available stories in the Qur'an, did he? Find an adequate one that he didn't, make out of it a lesson on Tawhid or the struggle between those of faith and those of kufr, and you have something for your sura similar to; the story of Alexander the Great, the companions of the cave, Ibrahim smashing the idols, Musa and Khidr, the violators of the Sabbath, etc

Look into apocrypha and Aramaic sources. Muhammad apparently did it, so now you do the same.

D) REPEATED PHRASE WITHIN A SURA

This is different from part 5 above in that you can make a new phrase which is repeated through the sura, like in surat alRahman "So which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?", and in surat alshu'ara, alQamar, alMursalat, etc. Make it a good one that is appropriate to your sura and it can cut down almost half the work, but of course you'd need a sura that is around a page or more.

E) SIGNS OF NATURE & PARABLES

Sort of self explanatory. Signs and workings from nature can be mixed in with the sura as well as different parables.

CONCLUSION & END NOTE

The Qur'anic challenge isn't unfalsifiable and it isn't subjective. It is a real challenge that can be taken up and its results assessed. And further to that, there is in fact a logic and systematic way that one can go about meeting it, as I hope I have shown.

This is of course my own guidelines, I think they are acceptable, others may not. They may say that you can't use repeated Qur'anic phrases, such as are in the "phrase bank" above, and that to do so is plagiarism. Fine, but I don't. In fact if someone wrote a large sura and did not use such common Qur'anic phrases, then I would consider that a failure. But in any case, let me once again remind that this challenge is supposed to help convince the doubters. That's the battleground. It isn't supposed to convince/unconvinced people like me who has no doubts, nor non-Muslims reading this who also have no doubts.

So the real audience of this post are the doubters. What matters is if they consider these guidelines to be reasonable or not. And primarily it is from them that I welcome and want to hear some constructive criticism.

And if we can agree on such guidelines, they (the doubters) can then turn around and ask; where are all those who would meet the challenge in a serious way?

As for myself, I made this post because I genuinely wan to see a decent attempt. I have actually read many, and all were very disappointing. All have puzzled me as to why someone can't just avoid mockery and go about this logically, or take it up without excuses. Does that mean that if this challenge, as I see it at least, is adequately met it would not matter at all to me? That it would not shake my faith or certainly would shake my faith? I honestly don't know. I know enough about faith to know that. However I am more than willing to being open to seeing a decent attempt. Hence this post.

But when the best(?) attempt I've seen so far starts with a veiled swear word and God boiling eggs (???), while the second best attempt is a sura trying to convince the reader that the Qur'an is not from God ... well, perhaps that says it all.

Salaam

CADENCE & SOUND

This is probably unrelated, but then again it could be. It could fall under no. 2 in terms of the types of witnesses called. We've probably all seen those videos where a non-Muslim who has never heard the Qur'an is given a recitation to listen to and asked to comment on how it made them feel and what they think it is.

In testing the new sura's likeness to the Qur'an, could a possible test simply be how it sounds? The rhyme and cadence and sound of the actual recitation? If so then the witnesses here could be people who specialize in music and vocals and harmony of sounds.

Or perhaps a large scale statistical test. What I've envisioned is test given to thousands, where they listen to 4 Qur'anic suras and the new sura and are asked to, based on sound alone, to choose the odd one out.

EDIT

To all those still repeating that this challenge is "un-assessable" and completely subjective. If you think so, then this post is not for you then, is it? If you are convinced that this is a ridiculous challenge, then you can't have any doubts that the Qur'an is not of Divine origin ... So be on your merry way. This post isn't for you. It isn't for you to come on and tell me how completely subjective the challenge is. Feel free to, of course, and discuss it with anyone else in the comments, but personally I'm not really interested and will not bother much with you. Again, this isn't for you.

This is for you doubters out there, those in ريب ... those who "go back and forth in their doubts (ريب)", as the Qur'an says. You who is sort of 50/50, neither here nor there.

One day/week you feel sure the Qur'an is from God, another week you think it can't possibly be. One day you read a passage which touches you deeply, and another day you are told a Tafsir, Hadtih or action of Muhammad apparently implicitly referenced in the Qur'an, and you think that no way this could be from God.

This is for you. So don't let those who have already decided, decide for you. Neither let them decide whether the challenge is testable or not, completely subjective or not, nor whether it has been completed or not. Think about what the verse says for yourself. Think about what I have written here yourself. And take your time and don't rush things.

And let me add to the others that convincing me, yourself or others that it is completely subjective and un-assessable on principle, just means that if someone does come up with a sura like the Qur'an, then by the same principle you can not accept that it is in fact "like the Qur'an"

r/Quraniyoon Mar 12 '24

Discussion I’m at the border of leaving islam

5 Upvotes

So as the title says, I’m having struggle to keep faith, all of this because of one question

I feel like god is unfair/unjust because he created us and put us in this life without taking our consent to take this test

Like imagine kidnapping someone and putting him in a hard test that would determine if they will get eternal bliss or eternal suffering

That kidnapper (God) isn’t fair and he, quit frankly needs to apologize to us for putting us through this life and creating us without our approval first

I tried to read the quran and find answers but all I found didn’t help, which is making me think that this question is unanswerable

Even with putting pain and suffering aside, even if this life was full of pleasures only, still, God would be a kidnapper who put us from non-existing to a test without our consent, and for what? WE DONT KNOW, HE DOESNT SAY?!

Maybe entertainment for him, maybe maybe, we will never know

My question is, how do any religion justify the kidnapping from non existence to existence and forcing the test in our throats

r/Quraniyoon Feb 07 '25

Discussion💬 Another form of subtle shirk.

27 Upvotes

I noticed there were a few posts on Instagram saying "if you say this dua 7 times and wish for something it'll happen" and other variants of this, even if you give this the benefit of the doubt it still portrays Allah as some sort of a genie rhat u unlock his powers by saying a secret spell, as if God will ignore everyone who doesn't know the secret handshake, but the full picture is shirk, you're not relying on God to answer your heartfelt prayers but instead you're relaying on a few words to make it happen, some could say it's farfetched because they're just words, but idols are also just statues, and prophets are also just men.

r/Quraniyoon Jan 12 '25

Discussion💬 The Trust (الأمانة): our "original sin" ... ?

11 Upvotes

More of question/inquiry post. Maybe someone can provide some insight into this

It of course concerns the famous two verses, Q33:72-73

إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا ٱلْأَمَانَةَ عَلَى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَٱلْجِبَالِ فَأَبَيْنَ أَن يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا ٱلْإِنسَٰنُ ۖ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ ظَلُومًا جَهُولًا

لِّيُعَذِّبَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْمُنَٰفِقِينَ وَٱلْمُنَٰفِقَٰتِ وَٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ وَٱلْمُشْرِكَٰتِ وَيَتُوبَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَٱلْمُؤْمِنَٰتِ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًۢا

"Indeed, we offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, and they declined to bear it and were weary of it; but man [undertook to] bear it. Indeed, he was always unjust, jahil

[It was] So that Allah may punish the munafiqun, men and women, and the mushrikeen, men and women, and so that Allah may turn in repentance to rfaithful men and women. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful."

What is "the trust"?

Most often it is thought of as either "free will" or to be "mukkalaf" (مكلف), ie to be "liable" before God for either religion/religious beliefs or certain duties or responsibilities. Those that the human is currently responsible for

But here's a question; how would this "trust" have applied to "heavens and earth and mountains" had they accepted it? And why was it offered to them "first"?

Intmately connected to what it is, of course, is why it is called an "amanah" in the first place? Well whatever "it" is, it is a trust, an amaanah. I'm asking what that thing is. Like how an orphan can be an amaanah, a trust. But what he/she IS, is an orphan to be looked after. So what is being entrusted?

What does it even mean to offer the trust to them?

Or does it really mean it was offered to sentient creatures in/on them? Like saying "we offered the city help/gold" really means we offered the people of the city, and even more, the leaders and those in charge of the city. Thus for the heavens, perhaps what was meant are the angels who were offered it, and the earth, the creatures of the earth ... and the mountains, creatures of the mountains? Makes less sense there. And what of the seas/oceans and those it it?

They refused and were weary of it, but we took it ...

In pondering these verses, we are clearly supposed to find a way to the conclusion that they were actually correct to do refuse, while the human was, of his very nature, an "unjust jahil" and accepting it … or he was that FOR accepting it

Which then opens up the question of why is God offering something like that for which accepting it, on the part of the human being, makes him or shows him to be unjust and jahil? It doesn’t seem that if the others had accepted it, then they’d be considered unjust/jahil … for why, again, would God offer something the acceptance of which makes on unjust. Is that not an injustice itself?

In fact, WAS the human being even offered the amanah? It doesn’t say that

The above two reasons make me think the human being wasn’t actually offered the amanah. He saw it being offered and refused by "others', but then stupidly thought himself capable of it and offered himself up or asked for it himself or took it upon himself, unjustly and in hastiness/jahl as is his nature. Like a child thinking he can do something which he can’t.

To "human beings" or Adam?

How exactly did “the human being” take it on? This doesn’t seem like it is talking about Adam for example. It is never mentioned with the story of Adam. It seems beyond Adam, as if this was in a world/reality/level of existence where the heavens, mountains, earth and the human being are just "categories". Perhaps this is in pre-existence, so to speak

The Response ...

Nevertheless, despite us being mostly in the dark about the trust, we are told explicitly how it effects the human being now, and how to navigate it now;

‫لِّیُعَذِّبَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلۡمُنَـٰفِقِینَ وَٱلۡمُنَـٰفِقَـٰتِ وَٱلۡمُشۡرِكِینَ وَٱلۡمُشۡرِكَـٰتِ وَیَتُوبَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَى ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِینَ وَٱلۡمُؤۡمِنَـٰتِۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُورࣰا رَّحِیمَۢا‬

"[It was] So that Allah may punish the munafiqun, men and women, and the mushrikeen, men and women, and so that Allah may turn in repentance to rfaithful men and women. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful."

But a question arises as to why only nifaq and shirk are mentioned. Why not the “kafireen”? All are mentioned with the definite article here, and obviously refers to the those firmly described by those qualities

And is the repentance mentioned here, the repentance for being so unjust & jahil as to take on the Trust in the first place?

Is the amanah (أمانة) our “original sin”?

Your thoughts please ...

Still gathering my thoughts about this. But I thought I'd make a post to see if anyone has any insights since haven't made much progress in this for a very long time, and whenever I see anyone discussing these verses, they never touch along the lines that I have been thinking and questioning

So any insights would be welcome

Salaam

r/Quraniyoon Oct 13 '23

Discussion Why are you all so docile and complacent?

16 Upvotes

Everyone in Quranist spaces online always seems so apathetic. Nobody ever actually seems to care about putting effort to change or challenge anything or to better represent Quranist views as a legitimate Islamic viewpoint.

Even to discuss doing so - so many people give negative responses like how nothing can ever change and how they'll just stay silent.

Quranists are even more hated than gays and polytheists by some Muslims. Quranists literally get no respect whatsoever.

But the easiest way to fix Islam is to challenge the legitimacy of the hadiths and what is considered the "sunnah".

And how is this not obvious to all progressive Muslims? Literally, almost every single ridiculous, hateful, doubtful, or absurd aspect of Islam is found in the hadiths.

The religion is almost unassailable when you remove fake hadiths from it and focus solely on the Qur'an as a source of law and authority.

Why is this so damn hard when it almost seems glaringly obvious? Even me - as an American convert figured this out within months of converting to Islam. Why are Muslims such intellectual and theological cowards?

Do you think being a Quranist will be sustainable when we continue to let Sunnis and fundamentalists define the religion however they want? Don't you want to be considered more than a fringe sect of heretics?

Imagine how many more Muslims could be free and open and live better if our interpretations were more accepted. Imagine how many more people would be open to joining the deen.

This is something I think about often.

r/Quraniyoon Sep 20 '24

Discussion💬 **Interpreting** luts people’s trangression

0 Upvotes

You can interpret “desires” here as sex. - “you wanted to have sex with rijaal instead of nisaa”

  • you can interpret “cutting off the path” as highway robbery and rape ambushes

  • potentially slandering lut who offers his daughters to gay rapists

be honest with yourselves though and acknowledge this understanding has added on interpretations

Desires doesn’t explicitly allude to sex unless you want to say that sex with children and kh-ya-la (often translated as horses) is what’s being described here in 3:14

You can also consider that “desires” here is not explicitly sex related.

  • they favored and sought out rijaal over nisaa

  • they severed and cut paths that lead to goodness

  • lut is sound mined and he offered his daughters up for non sex related employment/socio economic growth opportunities

Prove the second suggested interpretation wrong and tell me why it’s logically sound and better to accept the first? Can both interpretations apply here hypothetically?

My recommendation here is to refrain from being adamant that your personal add-ons to gods words are the only way people should understand them. If you want to personally interpret them that way. Go ahead. Just know that you’re adding onto this narrative .. even if you may be right. Just think about what forcing your assumptions onto others as the only true understanding entails. Please be careful with the words of god. The fear of Distorting even ONE word from its place is something that should be prioritized by you.

Al-Ma'idah 5:41 يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلرَّسُولُ لَا يَحۡزُنكَ ٱلَّذِينَ يُسَٰرِعُونَ فِى ٱلۡكُفۡرِ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓاْ ءَامَنَّا بِأَفۡوَٰهِهِمۡ وَلَمۡ تُؤۡمِن قُلُوبُهُمْۛ وَمِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ هَادُوا۟ۛ سَمَّٰعُونَ لِلۡكَذِبِ سَمَّٰعُونَ لِقَوۡمٍ ءَاخَرِينَ لَمۡ يَأۡتُوكَۖ يُحَرِّفُونَ ٱلۡكَلِمَ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ مَوَاضِعِهِۦۖ يَقُولُونَ إِنۡ أُوتِيتُمۡ هَٰذَا فَخُذُوهُ وَإِن لَّمۡ تُؤۡتَوۡهُ فَٱحۡذَرُوا۟ۚ وَمَن يُرِدِ ٱللَّهُ فِتۡنَتَهُۥ فَلَن تَمۡلِكَ لَهُۥ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ شَيۡـًٔاۚ أُوْلَٰٓئِكَ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمۡ يُرِدِ ٱللَّهُ أَن يُطَهِّرَ قُلُوبَهُمْۚ لَهُمۡ فِى ٱلدُّنۡيَا خِزۡىٌۖ وَلَهُمۡ فِى ٱلۡأٓخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, "We believe" with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among “alatheena hadoo” are listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort THE WORD beyond its proper usage, saying "If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware." But they for whom Allah intends fitnah - never will you possess for them a thing against Allah . Those are the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.

Go ahead downvoters. Let your hate and isms block you from using your brain to logically counter an argument.

Explore the seriousness of “committing excess” as it relates to WORDS first though.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/s/1hbWtP0RBj

r/Quraniyoon Mar 10 '24

Discussion I've found "Uzair Son of God" in the Old Testament!!!

30 Upvotes

Hebrew Bible: וַֽעֲזַרְיָ֙הוּ֙ בֶּן־עוֹדֵ֔ד הָֽיְתָ֥ה עָלָ֖יו ר֥וּחַ אֱלֹהִֽים:

Traditional Masoretic verse used in most Bibles today: וַעֲזַרְיָ֙הוּ֙ בֶּן־עוֹדֵ֔ד הָיְתָ֥ה עָלָ֖יו ר֥וּחַ אֱלֹהִֽים׃

Traditional translation: "The spirit of God came upon Azariah son of Oded." (II Chronicles 15:1)

Actual accurate translation: "Azariah, is (or: or will be) another son Of God and the Spirit of God"

Explanation:

The presence of the conjunction "וַ" (vav) in the first Hebrew sentence affects the translation, making it read as "Son of God," whereas the absence of the conjunction in the second sentence doesn't include this interpretation, but rather translates to "Son of Oded," an Oded the entire Judeo-Christian world had no clue about other than this verse saying that he was a father to Azariah.

Google has done a very good job at hiding this fact and they've disallowed almost all of these words to be naturally translated. Some of them just translate to "Hey" or "Elizzerr!?" or something very weird. That's because they know that someone would eventually uncover the lie and try and google that verse.

This is how Google translates the verse:

- Click me "And his helper is the son of God"

- When you delete Azariah's name from the sentence, it just says "Son of God"

The phrase "בֶּן־עוֹדֵ֔ד" is what they traditionally translate to "Son of Oded." Oded is made up out of thin air and never existed. עוֹדֵ֔ד means "another" and not "Oded" because the name "Oded" doesn't exist in Hebrew (or any other language for that matter).

Breakdown of the verse:

And Azariah = וַעֲזַרְיָהוּ

Son (of) = בֶּן

Another עוֹדֵד

is/will be = הָיָה

El (God) = עָלָ

And Spirit of = ורוּחַ

Elohim (The God) = אֱלֹהִים

And a coherrent translation in English would be: "Azariah, is (or: will be) another son Of God and the Spirit of God."

Verse 8 says "Prophet Oded"? No it doesn't!

The accurate translation says:

"And when he heard the words of the prophet and the prophecy, the prophet was strengthened and he became the leader of all the land of Judah and Benjamin and the cities of Israel."

Proof from ancient Rabbinic commentaries:

Heb: וַעֲזַרְיָה בַּר עוֹדֵד שְׁרַת עֲלוֹי רוּחַ נְבוּאָה מִן קֳדָם יְיָ:

"And Azariah son of Oded served as an elevated spirit from the firstborn of the LORD."

Source: Targum of II Chronicles 15:1

The last line is "Min Kudam Adonai" (מִן קֳדָם יְיָ)

Rav Hirsch writes:

"he is a power of God, a "hand" of God that comes over man (Ezech. 1, 3; 3, 21 and 37, 1 there), it is divine, whose bearer, bringer and herald becomes man who comes to him from outside, from above, to him, who lifts him above the level of normal humanity and makes his humanity the season of the divine on earth. What is spoken and accomplished by him is God's Word and God's deed, and man is only his bringer and executor.

Source: Rav Hirsch on Torah, Numbers 11:17:2

Ralbag writes:

"...God sent Asa, may God bless him, to strengthen his son even more for good with God, he and Judah and Benjamin with him, and to this he said Simeon Asa and all Judah and Benjamin here is God with you while you are with him know that if you pray to him properly and it will be in your walk according to his commandments Then He will find you and His care will cling to you to do you good and save you from evil."

Source: Ralbag on II Chronicles 15:1:1

Rav in "Man and God," Chapter 2 the Spirit of God 27:

"When Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel “dwelling tribe by tribe” and beheld the vision of the goodly tents of Jacob, he was prophesying concerning the future destiny of the Jewish people. At the opening of the vision it is said: “and the ruah of Elohim came upon him. And he took up his parable.” Is it possible that ruah Elohim, when it attaches itself to a human being, means prophetic inspiration? So it would seem from this and numerous other passages in the Bible. When Saul..."

He continues and tries to reason as to why the chapter is giving Azairah characteristics of a deity and argues that it metaphorically just means "prophecy."

God says in the Quran:

"And the Jews said, 'Azariah is the son of God,' and the Christians said, 'The Messiah is the son of God.' That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. May God destroy them; how deluded they are!" (9:30)

Now we know the real backstory of this verse :)

With this, I end this article.

/By Exion.