Jews in the Qur'an.

[stevecanuck]

No it doesn't.

Lo! religion with Allah (is) the Surrender (to His Will and Guidance). Those who (formerly) received the Scripture differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning. (19) And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me. And say unto those who have received the Scripture and those who read not: Have ye (too) surrendered? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message (unto them).

Many scholars dispute the idea that the term Islam is even referring to a distinct religion at this phase. It takes a good 70 or so years AH for "Muslims" start to call themselves Muslims as a term of identity, around the same time that the Shahada changes to include "Muhammad is the messenger of God" as opposed to simply being a profession about God.

There are many good reasons to seeing the reification of a distinct sectarian identity as something that emerged long after Muhammad's death. religions tend not to emerge fully formed out of a bottle, but as schisms within existing faiths. As such, seeing Muhammad as a "Muslim" might well be as anachronistic as seeing Jesus as a "Christian". It may be a label applied retroactively based on future developments.

There are good arguments to be made for and against that position, but claiming it is "indisputable" is a claim that can only be made out of ignorance.

Just exactly when Muslims started calling themselves that and their religion 'Islam' is irrelevant. The point is that Mohamed was revealing God's latest message, and surrender to it is what is required of them if they ever want to see the pearly gates.

 

[Augustus]

Just exactly when Muslims started calling themselves that and their religion 'Islam' is irrelevant. The point is that Mohamed was revealing God's latest message, and surrender to it is what is required of them if they ever want to see the pearly gates.

For this topic and your analysis, it is highly relevant when "Muslims" started seeing themselves as a separate and exclusive confessional identity.

The addition of Muhammad to the Shahada seems to suggest some kind of reification, but this didn't emerge until much later. The changing of the Qibla may also be relevant, and precisely when this happened is debatable. it may well have been after Muhammad's lifetime.

This is a very opaque area of history, so one should be very cautious about using terms like "indisputable'. There is minimal scholarly consensus on the history of Islam.

 

[stevecanuck]

For this topic and your analysis, it is highly relevant when "Muslims" started seeing themselves as a separate and exclusive confessional identity.

The entire narrative surrounding the creation of Islam as a distinct religious entity depends upon accepting Mohamed's ad-hoc ramblings as verbatim revelations from 'God'. As 5:3 says, "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." Seriously, how could it be more clear?

 

[Augustus]

The entire narrative surrounding the creation of Islam as a distinct religious entity depends upon accepting Mohamed's ad-hoc ramblings as verbatim revelations from 'God'. As 5:3 says, "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." Seriously, how could it be more clear?

The translation of din as religion is very questionable.

When you look at the totality of evidence, the idea Islam emerged fully formed in Muhammad’s lifetime is untenable.

You trust the Islamic narrative, especially occasions of revelation, far too much. When you accept the likelihood of that being the final revelation is small probabilistically, it’s far from indisputable that it means what you think it does.

How would you interpret it if it was an early or middle rather than the last one?

 

[sayak83]

You are not the guide!



Yes, it's a YOU thing. YOU ARE NOT THE GUIDE. It is not YOUR JOB to prove anything. That is what the Quran is teaching, but YOU ARE IGNORING IT.



You just contradicted the Quran again. It says to look to the Quran to solve disputes. Yeah. I'm def done, Bro. You have deviated far and wide from this book you claim is holy.

It is wiser to not put people here on ignore since you are one of the few persons who is knowledgeable enough to refute bad interpretations. If you do not refute these interpretations, there aren't many who can.
Just a friendly request to keep up the good work.

 

[stevecanuck]

The translation of din as religion is very questionable.

LOL!!!! There is nothing even remotely questionable about it. Tell me, Mr. internet rando, why should I give that any credence when all seven internationally renowned Islamic scholars on corpus.quran.com give exactly the same translation? And it's not just these seven. Show me any translation that differs.

AND you haven't even bothered to offer a pretend alternative to what "din" might mean.


Sahih International: This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.

Pickthall: This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam

Yusuf Ali: This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.

Shakir: This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.

Muhammad Sarwar: On this day I have perfected your religion, completed My favors to you, and have chosen Islam as your religion.

Mohsin Khan: This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.

Arberry: Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed My blessing upon you, and I have approved Islam for your religion.

That was probably the most ridiculous attempt at throwing in a random 'IS NOT' that I've seen on RF. Thanks for my laugh of the day.

When you look at the totality of evidence, the idea Islam emerged fully formed in Muhammad’s lifetime is untenable.

Gratuitous. Unsupported. In denial of verse 5:3.

You trust the Islamic narrative, especially occasions of revelation, far too much. When you accept the likelihood of that being the final revelation is small probabilistically, it’s far from indisputable that it means what you think it does.

Moot, even if true. All that matters is what Muslims believe and what they do about what they believe.

How would you interpret it if it was an early or middle rather than the last one?

Pointless question. An early or middle revelation would not, by definition, claim completion.

You have offered nothing tangible here. Absolutely. Nothing.

 

[Augustus]

That was probably the most ridiculous attempt at throwing in a random 'IS NOT' that I've seen on RF. Thanks for my laugh of the day.

You are the living embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect. You actually work hard to avoid learning anything about the topic you think you are well informed about even when handed to you on a plate. The very idea that nuances may exist or that scholars may know more about this subject than you is beyond your comprehension.

Even 2 mins in Wikipedia would make you vastly better informed, let alone if you actually displayed a modicum of intellectual honesty and curiosity.

There are a range of potential meanings, and even if it does mean something close to religion, this is not necessarily in the sense of a reified confessional identity with the name Islam and that is in opposition to Christianity and Judaism.

It has been said that the word Dīnappears in as many as 79 verses in the Qur'an,[10] but because there is no exact English translation of the term, its precise definition has been the subject of some misunderstanding and disagreement. For instance, the term is often translated in parts of the Qur'an as "religion".[11]

Some Qur'anic scholars have translated Dīn in places as "faith".[12]Others suggest that the term "has been used in various forms and meanings, e.g., system, power, supremacy, ascendancy, sovereignty or lordship, dominion, law, constitution, mastery, government, realm, decision, definite outcome, reward and punishment. On the other hand, this word is also used in the sense of obedience, submission and allegiance".[13]

In addition to the two broad usages referred to so far, of sovereignty on the one hand and submission on the other, others have noted[14] that the term Dīn is also widely used in translations of the Qur'an in a third sense. Most famously in its opening chapter, al-Fātiḥah, the term is translated in almost all English translations as "judgment":

The well-known Islamic scholar, Fazlur Rahman Malik, suggested that Dīn is best considered as "the way-to-be-followed". In that interpretation, Dīn is the exact correlate of Shari'a: "whereas Shari'a is the ordaining of the Way and its proper subject is God, Dīn is the following of that Way, and its subject is man".[15] Thus, "if we abstract from the Divine and the human points of reference, Shari'a and Dīn would be identical as far as the 'Way' and its content are concerned".[15]

Gratuitous. Unsupported. In denial of verse 5:3.

You genuinely believe Islam emerged fully formed in Muhammad’s lifetime?

In denial of a verse? Didn’t realise atheists had to uncritically accept Islamic theology as objective fact.

Pointless question. An early or middle revelation would not, by definition, claim completion.

That’s the point, it almost certainly means something other than what you claim as it is unlikely to have been the final verse revealed. the occasions of revelation are made up and feature events like splitting the moon and flying donkeys.

You have offered nothing tangible here. Absolutely. Nothing.

That you are entirely ignorant of secular academic scholarship on Islam doesn’t mean it’s not correct.

 

[stevecanuck]

You are the living embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect. You actually work hard to avoid learning anything about the topic you think you are well informed about even when handed to you on a plate. The very idea that nuances may exist or that scholars may know more about this subject than you is beyond your comprehension.

Even 2 mins in Wikipedia would make you vastly better informed, let alone if you actually displayed a modicum of intellectual honesty and curiosity.

Ah, the spittle-flecked ad hom - the final refuge of the defeated.

There are a range of potential meanings, and even if it does mean something close to religion, this is not necessarily in the sense of a reified confessional identity with the name Islam and that is in opposition to Christianity and Judaism.

You completely ignored the examples I gave you from corpus.quran.com. Hmmm, I wonder why.

It has been said that the word Dīnappears in as many as 79 verses in the Qur'an,[10] but because there is no exact English translation of the term, its precise definition has been the subject of some misunderstanding and disagreement. For instance, the term is often translated in parts of the Qur'an as "religion".[11]

Some Qur'anic scholars have translated Dīn in places as "faith".[12]Others suggest that the term "has been used in various forms and meanings, e.g., system, power, supremacy, ascendancy, sovereignty or lordship, dominion, law, constitution, mastery, government, realm, decision, definite outcome, reward and punishment. On the other hand, this word is also used in the sense of obedience, submission and allegiance".[13]

Yet, the overwhelming majority of translations use 'religion', 'faith', or 'creed' - all synomyms.

In addition to the two broad usages referred to so far, of sovereignty on the one hand and submission on the other, others have noted[14] that the term Dīn is also widely used in translations of the Qur'an in a third sense. Most famously in its opening chapter, al-Fātiḥah, the term is translated in almost all English translations as "judgment":

Actually, they translate it to "Day of Judgement". And so what? Islam was very much in its infancy at that point, so there was not yet a definable religion for this to refer to. Meanwhile, back at 5:3 and corpus.quran.com that you keep ignoring .....................

The well-known Islamic scholar, Fazlur Rahman Malik, suggested that Dīn is best considered as "the way-to-be-followed". In that interpretation, Dīn is the exact correlate of Shari'a: "whereas Shari'a is the ordaining of the Way and its proper subject is God, Dīn is the following of that Way, and its subject is man".[15] Thus, "if we abstract from the Divine and the human points of reference, Shari'a and Dīn would be identical as far as the 'Way' and its content are concerned".[15]

Okay. And that all refers to Islam. You know, the RELIGION of Islam as defined by the Qur'an. Seriously, what the hell are you even arguing?

You genuinely believe Islam emerged fully formed in Muhammad’s lifetime?

Mohamed certainly thought so, and since he made it all up, then obviously the answer is yes.

In denial of a verse? Didn’t realise atheists had to uncritically accept Islamic theology as objective fact.

Strawman/ad hom.

I show what the Qur'an says and therefore what Muslims are expected to believe.

That’s the point, it almost certainly means something other than what you claim

Gratuitous and unsupported. As always.

as it is unlikely to have been the final verse revealed.

Gratuitous and unsupported. As always.

the occasions of revelation are made up and feature events like splitting the moon and flying donkeys.

The entire Qur'an is based on the lie that there's a magic sky fairy who sent another magic sky fairy to talk to Mohamed. So, what's you point?

That you are entirely ignorant of secular academic scholarship on Islam doesn’t mean it’s not correct.

And close with another ad hom proof that you have no argument. Perfect.

 

[Augustus]

Islam was very much in its infancy at that point, so there was not yet a definable religion for this to refer to

That is exactly what I said and you consistently argued against.

It is debatable to what extent the teachings of Muhammad constituted a specific confessional identity distinct from the din of (some) Jews and Christians.

Just like how Jesus wasn’t a Christian.

The entire Qur'an is based on the lie that there's a magic sky fairy who sent another magic sky fairy to talk to Mohamed. So, what's you point?

The point is you consistently treat it as actual history whenever it suits you and treat it as myth whenever it suits.

You think that 5:3 was the last revelation and consider it indisputable that this finalised his new religion.

For this to be true you must believe that Muhammad one day decided to tell folk he wouldn’t get any more revelations from god and that his new religion was now complete.

He then told people to stick this epochal final revelation in the middle of some verses about carrion and how it’s ok to break dietary restrictions if you are hungry.

How plausible do you think that is when compared to the alternative that it doesn’t mean what you claim?

Mohamed certainly thought so, and since he made it all up, then obviously the answer is yes.

So all the Hadith and sirah literature, all the exegesis and jurisprudence, etc. accurately reflect the teachings of Muhammad?

The clear evidence Islam evolved after the death of Mo is all lies made up by devious secular scholars?

You also just said Islam was still in its infancy and not fully formed.

Make your mind up…

 

[stevecanuck]

That is exactly what I said and you consistently argued against.

It is debatable to what extent the teachings of Muhammad constituted a specific confessional identity distinct from the din of (some) Jews and Christians.

Just like how Jesus wasn’t a Christian.

Nope. Not even close. After the Hijra Mohamed started creating the Islam that we're dealing with today. Fighting in the cause of God was introduced and became the 'sixth pillar'. All the other rules about marriage, divorce, inheritance, veiling, etc were formed them. Until then, there was no discernable difference between what Mohamed was teaching and the OT - EXCEPT for the fact that he was chosen as God's last prophet.

I've said this many, many times. You just weren't listening.

The point is you consistently treat it as actual history whenever it suits you and treat it as myth whenever it suits.

No, I treat it all in terms of what Muslims believe and how it affects us today.

You think that 5:3 was the last revelation and consider it indisputable that this finalised his new religion.

It is widely, but not universally, believed to be the last verse. It certainly sounds like a wrap-up. Even if it isn't, it still makes it clear that Islam has been perfected.

For this to be true you must believe that Muhammad one day decided to tell folk he wouldn’t get any more revelations from god and that his new religion was now complete.

Ermmmm, yeah. What else could it mean?

He then told people to stick this epochal final revelation in the middle of some verses about carrion and how it’s ok to break dietary restrictions if you are hungry. How plausible do you think that is when compared to the alternative that it doesn’t mean what you claim?

No he didn't. You'll have to ask the compilers why they put it into that verse as a non sequitur.

So all the Hadith and sirah literature, all the exegesis and jurisprudence, etc. accurately reflect the teachings of Muhammad?

How would I know? And why do you ask?

The clear evidence Islam evolved after the death of Mo is all lies made up by devious secular scholars?

Of course Islam has been 'added to' by people since his death. How does that change the fact that Mohamed indicated that Islam was already perefected.

You also just said Islam was still in its infancy and not fully formed. Make your mind up…

Ermmmmm, YOU are the one who brought up Surah 1, so YES, Islam was at that point (as I said) in its infancy. Do you even read what you write?

 

[Augustus]

After the Hijra Mohamed started creating the Islam that we're dealing with today. Fighting in the cause of God was introduced and became the 'sixth pillar'. All the other rules about marriage, divorce, inheritance, veiling, etc were formed them.

The main form of Islam is Sunnism and that emerged around 300-500 years AH.

Sharia started to be codified maybe 200 years AH.

Much of these are based on Hadith not codified until 200AH.

Muslims believe the traditions were preserved by Divine Providence, but you think they were perfectly preserved through the honesty and integrity of 10 generations of Muslims in a vast empire?

No he didn't. You'll have to ask the compilers why they put it into that verse as a non sequitur.

Alternatively, and far more plausibly, they didn’t insert it into some unrelated verses about food, it was always there and simply wasn’t the final revelation.

Ermmmm, yeah. What else could it mean?

Early Muslims had absolutely no idea how to interpret much of the Quran, so they made up Hadith and occasions of revelation to explain it.

You genuinely find it plausible that everyone knew that was the momentous final revelation and they still decided to put it into some older and unrelated verses about food?

Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, and swine; what is slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah; what is killed by strangling, beating, a fall, or by being gored to death; what is partly eaten by a predator unless you slaughter it; and what is sacrificed on altars. You are also forbidden to draw lots for decisions.1 This is all evil. Today the disbelievers have given up all hope of ˹undermining˺ your faith. So do not fear them; fear Me! Today I have perfected your faith for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger—not intending to sin—then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

How does that change the fact that Mohamed indicated that Islam was already perefected.

He didn’t, that’s just later Muslims trying to explain stuff they didn’t understand.

Mo was preaching the eschaton, like Jesus he thought the world would end soon, and like Jesus he died before delivering his promise. Their followers then changed their teachings into something that later became a new religion.

The reification of a doctrinal religion came much later, as indicated by things like the change in shahada a few generations after Mo died or the adoption of the name Muslims as opposed to believers.

 

[stevecanuck]

The main form of Islam is Sunnism and that emerged around 300-500 years AH.

Sharia started to be codified maybe 200 years AH.

Much of these are based on Hadith not codified until 200AH.

Muslims believe the traditions were preserved by Divine Providence, but you think they were perfectly preserved through the honesty and integrity of 10 generations of Muslims in a vast empire?

You're saying that Muslims don't necessarily believe that the Qur'an is a collection of God's verbatim revelations to Mohamed.

Okay, you go with that.

Alternatively, and far more plausibly, they didn’t insert it into some unrelated verses about food, it was always there and simply wasn’t the final revelation.

Says .......... oh, some internet rando.

Early Muslims had absolutely no idea how to interpret much of the Quran, so they made up Hadith and occasions of revelation to explain it.

Yes, that's true according to ......... oh, right - some internet rando.

You genuinely find it plausible that everyone knew that was the momentous final revelation and they still decided to put it into some older and unrelated verses about food?

Considering that the entire Qur'an is based on it being dictated by a magic sky fairy, anything is "plausible".

Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, and swine; what is slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah; what is killed by strangling, beating, a fall, or by being gored to death; what is partly eaten by a predator unless you slaughter it; and what is sacrificed on altars. You are also forbidden to draw lots for decisions.1 This is all evil. Today the disbelievers have given up all hope of ˹undermining˺ your faith. So do not fear them; fear Me! Today I have perfected your faith for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger—not intending to sin—then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

He didn’t, that’s just later Muslims trying to explain stuff they didn’t understand.

Even if you're right, what does it matter to what today's Muslims believe.

^^^^^^^ Read that question again, because I'm not going to let you not answer it.

Mo was preaching the eschaton, like Jesus he thought the world would end soon, and like Jesus he died before delivering his promise. Their followers then changed their teachings into something that later became a new religion.

The reification of a doctrinal religion came much later, as indicated by things like the change in shahada a few generations after Mo died or the adoption of the name Muslims as opposed to believers.

Again, who cares?

Even if you're right, what does it matter to what today's Muslims believe.

^^^^^^^ Read that question again, because I'm not going to let you not answer it.

 

[Augustus]

You're saying that Muslims don't necessarily believe that the Qur'an is a collection of God's verbatim revelations to Mohamed.

Okay, you go with that.

Pointless strawman.

The Quran taken alone without recourse to any external traditions is almost unintelligible.

As you well know, All major forms of Islam rely heavily on external sources to make sense of the Quran and to construct the doctrines and tenets of their faith.

The Islam of Muhammad is like the “Christianity” of Jesus, something unknowable that has been replaced by whatever emerged in the centuries after their deaths in vastly different circumstances.

Yes, that's true according to ......... oh, right - some internet rando.

According to mainstream secular scholarship, but every time I’ve presented any of this to you you have ignored it so you never learn anything.

Reading the Quran as homily: the case of Sarah's laughter
Gabriel Said Reynolds )
Another case is the Qur’an’s reference to the laughter of Sarah (a name that does not appear in the text; the only woman given a name in the Qur’an is Mary). In Genesis, Sarah laughs after she hears the annunciation of Isaac’s birth, but the Qur’an refers to her laughter first. Accordingly, Muslim commentators struggle to explain why she laughed. One famous commentator, the tenth-century al-Tabari, wonders if she laughed out of frustration when the visitors would not eat the food she prepared or if she laughed out of relief when she realized that the visitors did not have the habits of the Sodomites. Al Ṭabarī(d 310/923), for example, provides six different, and mutually exclusive, explanations for the laughter, proposing one thereof as “more correct,” but not ruling out the others Abū Isḥāq ath- aʿlabī (d 427/1036) also offers six different explanations. Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī (d 606/1209) lists nine.]Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

Even if you're right, what does it matter to what today's Muslims believe.

You don’t present what Muslims believe, you present how Steve thinks Muslims should view their religion if they tried to present it as negatively as possible.

Critical scholarship is far more relevant for Muslims than your half baked bad faith polemic.

 

[Ebionite]

The entire Qur'an is based on the lie that there's a magic sky fairy who sent another magic sky fairy to talk to Mohamed.

An you criticise others of making gratuitous and unsupported posts.

 

[Augustus]

Considering that the entire Qur'an is based on it being dictated by a magic sky fairy, anything is "plausible

Your argument is that people who genuinely believed it was the last time god would communicate with a human just decided to wap such a significant event in human history in between some nondescript stuff about food.

You believe that is the most plausible explanation for that verse in reality?

Don’t be silly.

 

[Debater Slayer]

AND you haven't even bothered to offer a pretend alternative to what "din" might mean.

The word deen is polysemous in Arabic, and "religion" or "creed" is only one of its meanings. In the Qur'an, it is used in different contexts where it can respectively be translated as "law," "way," "judgment," "devotion," and, indeed, "religion." I will highlight all instances of the Arabic word along with its translation in each context in red.

Here, it refers to "devotion":

وَلَهُۥ مَا فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَلَهُ ٱلدِّينُ وَاصِبًا ۚ أَفَغَيْرَ ٱللَّهِ تَتَّقُونَ
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth, and to Him ˹alone˺ is the everlasting devotion. Will you then fear any other than Allah?

In the following verse, the word is deenahum, where deen is the root word, the a is the diacritical mark (because the word deen is an object in this sentence), and ahum is a third-person plural objective pronoun meaning "their."

إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ تَابُوا۟ وَأَصْلَحُوا۟ وَٱعْتَصَمُوا۟ بِٱللَّهِ وَأَخْلَصُوا۟ دِينَهُمْ لِلَّهِ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ مَعَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ۖ وَسَوْفَ يُؤْتِ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًۭا
except those who repent, mend their ways, hold fast to Allah, and are sincere in their devotion to Allah; they will be with the believers. And Allah will grant the believers a great reward.

In the following verse, the word shows up twice: First, it shows up as deenokum, where deen is the root word with the o as the diacritical mark (because the word deen is in the nominative case) and kum is the second-person plural pronoun functioning as an appositive modifying deen, meaning "your" to render the meaning into "your way." Second, it shows up as deen in the sense of "way."

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِىَ دِينِ
You have your way, and I have my Way.”

Another context where it refers to "devotion":

وَقَـٰتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌۭ وَيَكُونَ ٱلدِّينُ كُلُّهُۥ لِلَّهِ ۚ فَإِنِ ٱنتَهَوْا۟ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌۭ
Fight against them until there is no more persecution—and ˹your˺ devotion will be entirely to Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is All-Seeing of what they do.

Here, it refers to "judgment":

وَإِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ لَوَٰقِعٌۭ
And the Judgment will certainly come to pass.

Another context where it refers to "judgment":

مَـٰلِكِ يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ
Master of the Day of Judgment.

In this verse, it refers to "law":

فَبَدَأَ بِأَوْعِيَتِهِمْ قَبْلَ وِعَآءِ أَخِيهِ ثُمَّ ٱسْتَخْرَجَهَا مِن وِعَآءِ أَخِيهِ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ كِدْنَا لِيُوسُفَ ۖ مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِى دِينِ ٱلْمَلِكِ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ نَرْفَعُ دَرَجَـٰتٍۢ مَّن نَّشَآءُ ۗ وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِى عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌۭ
Joseph began searching their bags before that of his brother ˹Benjamin˺, then brought it out of Benjamin’s bag. This is how We inspired Joseph to plan. He could not have taken his brother under the King’s law, but Allah had so willed. We elevate in rank whoever We will. But above those ranking in knowledge is the One All-Knowing.

Another verse where it refers to the "way":

شَرَعَ لَكُم مِّنَ ٱلدِّينِ مَا وَصَّىٰ بِهِۦ نُوحًۭا وَٱلَّذِىٓ أَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِۦٓ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ وَمُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰٓ ۖ أَنْ أَقِيمُوا۟ ٱلدِّينَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوا۟ فِيهِ ۚ كَبُرَ عَلَى ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَيْهِ ۚ ٱللَّهُ يَجْتَبِىٓ إِلَيْهِ مَن يَشَآءُ وَيَهْدِىٓ إِلَيْهِ مَن يُنِيبُ
He has ordained for you ˹believers˺ the Way which He decreed for Noah, and what We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ and what We decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus,1 ˹commanding:˺ “Uphold the faith, and make no divisions in it.” What you call the polytheists to is unbearable for them. Allah chooses for Himself whoever He wills, and guides to Himself whoever turns ˹to Him˺.

And finally, two verses where it is commonly translated as "religion":

هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُۥ بِٱلْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ ٱلْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُۥ عَلَى ٱلدِّينِ كُلِّهِۦ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ
He is the One Who has sent His Messenger with ˹true˺ guidance and the religion of truth, making it prevail over all others, even to the dismay of the polytheists.

وَمَا كَانَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ لِيَنفِرُوا۟ كَآفَّةًۭ ۚ فَلَوْلَا نَفَرَ مِن كُلِّ فِرْقَةٍۢ مِّنْهُمْ طَآئِفَةٌۭ لِّيَتَفَقَّهُوا۟ فِى ٱلدِّينِ وَلِيُنذِرُوا۟ قَوْمَهُمْ إِذَا رَجَعُوٓا۟ إِلَيْهِمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَحْذَرُونَ
˹However,˺ it is not necessary for the believers to march forth all at once. Only a party from each group should march forth, leaving the rest to gain religious knowledge then enlighten their people when they return to them, so that they ˹too˺ may beware ˹of evil˺.

Source of all translations: The Noble Quran - Quran.com

The word doesn't just refer to religion, and even in some contexts where it can be translated as "religion," it often still lends itself to more definitions.

 

[stevecanuck]

Your argument is that people who genuinely believed it was the last time god would communicate with a human just decided to wap such a significant event in human history in between some nondescript stuff about food.

You believe that is the most plausible explanation for that verse in reality?

Don’t be silly.

You know as well as I do that many scholars say the phrase in 5:3 is the last revelation. Even if it's not the last, it still says that Islam was "completed". Your gotchas need work.

 

[Link]

You know as well as I do that many scholars say the phrase in 5:3 is the last revelation. Even if it's not the last, it still says that Islam was "completed". Your gotchas need work.

Which scholars say this? Both Sunni and Shia scholars hold 2:281 to be the last verse revealed as far I'm aware.

 

[stevecanuck]

The word deen is polysemous in Arabic, and "religion" or "creed" is only one of its meanings. In the Qur'an, it is used in different contexts where it can respectively be translated as "law," "way," "judgment," "devotion," and, indeed, "religion." I will highlight all instances of the Arabic word along with its translation in each context in red.

Here, it refers to "devotion":

In the following verse, the word is deenahum, where deen is the root word, the a is the diacritical mark (because the word deen is an object in this sentence), and ahum is a third-person plural objective pronoun meaning "their."

In the following verse, the word shows up twice: First, it shows up as deenokum, where deen is the root word with the o as the diacritical mark (because the word deen is in the nominative case) and kum is the second-person plural pronoun functioning as an appositive modifying deen, meaning "your" to render the meaning into "your way." Second, it shows up as deen in the sense of "way."

Another context where it refers to "devotion":

Here, it refers to "judgment":

Another context where it refers to "judgment":

In this verse, it refers to "law":

Another verse where it refers to the "way":

And finally, two verses where it is commonly translated as "religion":

Source of all translations: The Noble Quran - Quran.com

The word doesn't just refer to religion, and even in some contexts where it can be translated as "religion," it often still lends itself to more definitions.

I'm not sure what this 'argument' is supposed to prove. Yes, "deen" is polysemous. - Polysemy occurs when a single word has more than one meaning and when those meanings are systematically related. A systematic relationship is crucial here. The two meanings of bank–a place where you put your money or the edge of a river–are not systematically related. Such cases are called homonyms.

All those meanings relate to 'belief' in the context of the Qur'an.

"Religion" and "faith" are the overwhelming choices in the 61 tranlations here. Ayah al-Ma`idah (The Table, The Table Spread) 5:3

Seriously, what's your point?

 

[stevecanuck]

Which scholars say this? Both Sunni and Shia scholars hold 2:281 to be the last verse revealed as far I'm aware.

This question has taken on a life of its own that's way out of proportion to its importance. It only really matters what is says, not when it was said. I really don't care enough to do a deep dive. Btw, 2:281 in only one of many verses that say that.