There are no mistakes in Quran

[firedragon]

Hi firedragon - i'd like to respond, but i'm not sure i fully understand your post. can you state it differently?

When Muslims make an effort to reform the understanding of Islamic theology going through vigorous research, facing a lot of flack from those Muslims who stick to traditional teachings like its divine ordain, those who claim to be from other faiths or non-faiths also do not want to accept this reform.

They want the theology to stay the same. Why is that?

 

[codex]

I already provided sources of experts in Arabic, religion, ahadith, etc. You denied each one. I mention the resident scholar, at the time, you deny this as well. In the end you deny every source but provide none yourself.



Never did. He just never pointed out any issue with 4:34, no controversy over the interpretation. His wife, who also taught at the time, talks about 4:34 being a major issue with domestic violence within some Muslim communities. Neither questioned experts that have been verified repeatedly. They are not so quick to discard whatever does not align with their sense of morality.

I read through many pages of this debate. Mate, your arguments are silly. The sense of morality does not play a part. Throughout you have been playing around with old translations and quoting those translators as your sources. Now you quote Hassan who you say gave an example of a verse that should replace another verse for it to mean what FD has been saying. Do you even understand it? Do you even know if that example is correct? HOw do you know?

Plus, you dont know who you are talking to.

 

[icehorse]

When Muslims make an effort to reform the understanding of Islamic theology going through vigorous research, facing a lot of flack from those Muslims who stick to traditional teachings like its divine ordain, those who claim to be from other faiths or non-faiths also do not want to accept this reform.

They want the theology to stay the same. Why is that?

Hey firedragon - Thanks, I understand now. It seems to me that some Muslims seek to make Islam more conservative and others seek to make it more modern. Do you see both efforts being resisted from the outside?

 

[Jabar]

I agree, Quran has no mistakes. It is divine.

 

[Jabar]

@psychoslice I believe the Quran is divine, so saying humans make mistake is irrelevant. Since the Quran is divine.

 

[Shad]

I read through many pages of this debate. Mate, your arguments are silly. The sense of morality does not play a part.

Morality does play a part unless you think the issue of the verse containing wife beating is not a moral issue. I can only conclude your moral compass is warped.

So you likewise ignore traditions for a translation that is post hoc rationalization due to modern sense of morality. See there is a major shift in translations. Prior to the Global World we now live in there was no issues with the translations of the verse. However now there are issues as people view such violence as immoral. So "Lo and behold" new translations appear in which either downplay or remove the violence from the verse.

Throughout you have been playing around with old translations and quoting those translators as your sources. Now you quote Hassan who you say gave an example of a verse that should replace another verse for it to mean what FD has been saying.

Except I didn't provide an alternative verse. I provided an example in which the word becomes modified in order to be not literal.

Do you even understand it? Do you even know if that example is correct? HOw do you know?

Seems like you created the same strawman as FD or just merely copied his view point. Nothing more. See above.

I asked another person I know if the translation was accurate, he saw no issue. I have trust what I told is correct. I ask for the opinions of others. Also as you pointed out previous translation that are over a century old do not have such a modification. This is very telling.

Plus, you dont know who you are talking to.

Who would that be considering this is a forum in which people can create anonymous user names along with as much or as little personal information as they deem fit. Why should knowledge, of lack of due to anonymity, matter?

 

[Shad]

The inception of this was me saying that we are reinterpreting the Quran. So obviously it will be a new view.

Yes however my view is that your new interpretation is due to modern morality nothing more. You find a wayto align the text with your view, nothing more.

Your example from Hassan is as I said is wrong. I explained that. Completely bogus argument.

No you didn't. You made a strawman claim in which you said my example was supposed to be the verse itself when I never made any such claim. You claim their views are based on ahadith thus are unsound because you disregard ahadith. You took issues with Laraba then contradict yourself later with this gem "Laraba and Daraba are the same."

 

[codex]

Morality does play a part unless you think the issue of the verse containing wife beating is not a moral issue. I can only conclude your moral compass is warped.

So you likewise ignore traditions for a translation that is post hoc rationalization due to modern sense of morality. See there is a major shift in translations. Prior to the Global World we now live in there was no issues with the translations of the verse. However now there are issues as people view such violence as immoral. So "Lo and behold" new translations appear in which either downplay or remove the violence from the verse.



Except I didn't provide an alternative verse. I provided an example in which the word becomes modified in order to be not literal.



Seems like you created the same strawman as FD or just merely copied his view point. Nothing more. See above.

I asked another person I know if the translation was accurate, he saw no issue. I have trust what I told is correct. I ask for the opinions of others. Also as you pointed out previous translation that are over a century old do not have such a modification. This is very telling.




Who would that be considering this is a forum in which people can create anonymous user names along with as much or as little personal information as they deem fit. Why should knowledge, of lack of due to anonymity, matter?

Mate. U were speaking to a scholar. A Phd in theology and a scholar of classical Arabic.
Strawman, post hoc, established translations, ignorant examples, tis all U have.

 

[firedragon]

Yes however my view is that your new interpretation is due to modern morality nothing more. You find a wayto align the text with your view, nothing more.



No you didn't. You made a strawman claim in which you said my example was supposed to be the verse itself when I never made any such claim. You claim their views are based on ahadith thus are unsound because you disregard ahadith. You took issues with Laraba then contradict yourself later with this gem "Laraba and Daraba are the same."

When you read a verse in Arabic there is a natural understanding. The word Laraba is strike. You can strike a match or hold a strike in the street. When you write Ilribuhunna its keeping away from someone or go away. Traditionally it was not moral values that made translators render it as beat the wife. It is Ahadith. Now we are rendering it from the Quranic point alone. I know there is no point in telling you this because you want it to remain the way Yusuf ali or other translators saw it through a microscope of a ridiculous hadith.

And whats the problem with Laraba and Daraba being the same? This is English transliteration. Why is it a Gem?? Explain pls when you make accusations.

 

[Shad]

When you read a verse in Arabic there is a natural understanding. The word Laraba is strike.

Too bad nobody of merit supports your claim

You can strike a match or hold a strike in the street.

Different nouns agains

When you write Ilribuhunna its keeping away from someone or go away.

Too bad no one of merit supports this view.

Traditionally it was not moral values that made translators render it as beat the wife. It is Ahadith. Now we are rendering it from the Quranic point alone. I know there is no point in telling you this because you want it to remain the way Yusuf ali or other translators saw it through a microscope of a ridiculous hadith.

Rejection of Sunnah again

And whats the problem with Laraba and Daraba being the same?

You made a complaint based on the two words then contradicted yourself later.

This is English transliteration.

Which no expert supports.

Why is it a Gem??

You contradicted yourself that is the gem

Explain pls when you make accusations.

See above and previous posts.

 

[firedragon]

Children of Adam, We have sent down for you garments to alleviate your bodies, and feathers; and the garment of righteousness is the best. That is from the signs of God, perhaps they will remember. – Quran 7:26

And from His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. In that are signs for a people who reflect - Quran chapter 30:21

These are background and personality of the Quran that we investigate and find, not external documents that warp your rendering to pick one verse at a time and analyse based on the background of a hadith "Attributed" to the prophet centuries later.

Now there is a verse in the bible that says Malakoi or soft men accepted to mean men who are like women, and Arsenekoites or (Arsen-men, Koitus = Bed or covet) accepted to refer to homosexuals deserve death penalty. Also, "Aman ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

Morality changes all the time. In Hindu books, there is a saying akin to "Low cast, women and animals are to be beaten or deserve to be beaten". Now we dont accept that kind of thing. Our moral values may differ, but can you change the meaning of the statement no matter how you render it from the original language?

A woman is definitely looked down upon in the bible as I cited above. Can we change it now? No translator can change it now because then you have to rewrite the Koine Greek passages in the NT. It is impossible.

Understanding the Quran is not the same. A natural understanding must take place, one with no teaching or document as the criterion. Quran is the criterion.

Let me give another Gem. Shoot at it.

MUST WOMEN WEAR THE VEIL?

It is a common directive that women must wear a veil whilst most Quran translations also pose to propagate this notion. A deeper exploration of the Quranic verses in concern reveals a dissimilar path. This scrutiny is never to command women not to wear a veil but simply to expose the truth behind the Quranic teaching, it doesn’t command it but it is your will and you may wear one if you want to, it’s just not a commandment in the Quran.

The most common verse used by men and women alike to propose the concept of a veil is the verse 24:31. I have furnished it below as a step by step process leaving two disputed words in the original Arabic language, Bikhumurihinna and Juyūbihinna.

A. And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts,
B. and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent,
C. and let them put forth their Bikhumurihinna over their Juyūbihinna.
D. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those maintained by their oaths, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their
beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, so that you may succeed. – Quran 24:31

The analysis is as follows
A. Women are requested to lower their gaze and keep their private parts covered. The sardonicism to men would be that in the immediate previous verse, the Quran commands men to lower their gaze as well.

“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, for that is better for them. God is fully aware of what you do.”

B. Do not reveal your beauty except what is apparent of it. Žahara = apparent is one of the words people are disputed of where what is apparent could be misquoted as people wish. But this is the word that gives women the freedom of choice to deem what is apparent in her body. It certainly does not define directly what is apparent.

C. The word Juyubihinna does not contain too much disputes since some translators interpret it as breasts and some as cleavage. Basically. The word misquoted is Khumurihinna or Khimr which they interpret as Shawl depicting a woman wearing a shawl must cover her breasts with it where in the process of pulling it down to cover breasts, she also covers her face.

Many years after the advent of the Quran, the word Khimar has been used to depict a scarf due to changes in speaking language, just like the word Hijab. The word simply means something that covers. It could be a cloth that clovers a table. Translating the Quran has to be done with the original classical Arabic and it does not mean a woman must wear a head scarf and cover her bosoms with it. It merely means to cover your bosoms with a cover which any reader will find appropriate to wear undergarments.

D. Women are required to not drop this code in front of strangers or rather anyone not cited in this verse. Even an old male servant whose sexual desires are nullified is allowed.

Even though the ‘Khimar’ has now become more commonly known as a ‘head covering’ for women the original meaning of a ‘Khimar’ (plural: Khumur) is any covering of a thing. This is not restricted to a head covering or a covering of the hair. For a man’s turban is also known as a ‘Khumur’ as it ‘covers’ a man’s head while intoxicants known as Khamar, for it covers your mind.
If God intended to install a commandment that women must conclusively wear a veil to cover her hair, why wouldn’t he directly say it? Hair is “Raas” and nowhere in the Quran does it tell you to cover it as a practice.

Now traditional Muslims who inherited dogmas described in the hadith would not like this understanding. But lo and behold, even other faiths or non faiths also dont like this understanding. Because they want it to be the same, no change. One out of faith, the other out of God knows exactly what.

Peace.

 

[Shad]

Mate. U were speaking to a scholar. A Phd in theology and a scholar of classical Arabic.

A PhD that no other expert agrees with and one that rejects ahadith. Just because he had a doctorate does not make him right.

Strawman, post hoc, established translations, ignorant examples, tis all U have.

No I cited a number of experts already. All those above are the fallacious arguments people have used tp support such an interpretation. Such as linking a dictionary in which the very author does not support FD's views.

Also argument from authority since FD's views are not mainstream. Also I would point that a number of his posts are made by someone that is in sale's marketing not a theologian. Copy parts of his post on the hijab and its goes right to a facebook pages owned by, again, a sales rep.

 

[firedragon]

You contradicted yourself that is the gem

Nope. Laraba and daraba are the same. You can keep saying this, but it only shows your arrogance.

I did not study arabic in English. Thus, when I transliterate that is my own. And you say no one supports it, lol you mean support a transliteration?

 

[firedragon]

Are women naturally defective for salvation?

It is common for some clerics to understand that women are naturally defective in terms of Salvation. This is directly derived from a famous hadith. The Quran always addresses us by the words “Men and Women” over and over again to show that men and women are equal in Gods eyes, but we do not follow the Quran. The following hadith (Extra Quranic books attributed to prophets) is portraying women to be naturally defective in attaining salvation. But logically it is absurd to think the same prophet who brought the Quran that says men and women are equal in salvation will utter these words. Of course, what story stays uncorrupted through so many generations
after the death of prophet Muhammed?

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or AlFitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said,
"O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." - Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

Bottom-line is the above hadith “Attributed” to the prophet Muhammed says that women are naturally defective in achieving salvation and lower in
intelligence in comparison to a man. Take a look at the next hadith.

Vol 4, Book 55. Prophets. Hadith 548. (Shahi Bukhari) Narrated By Abu Huraira: Allah 's Apostle said, "Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely."

Accordingly, we are required to treat women with kindness because they are naturally defective and we cannot expect them to be any better. It is as a father
or mother required to treat an autistic child with patience because he is not normal and you cannot expect them to behave like normal children. These words cannot come from the prophet’s mouth because he has originally, in his life time taught otherwise. The above derogatary hadith are investigated two and a half centuries after the prophet dies and they are elevated above the Quran which was written during his life time. How many generations would you believe would take a mentally memorized story to get so corrupt. Most nations have generations reaching a maximum of 30 years and according to that equation 250 years is over eight generations. Thus, an
intelligent human being would understand the absurdity of this practice.

The above belief that women are naturally defective is completely and utterly contradicting the Quranic teachings which were uttered during the prophet’s lifetime. What should you follow?
And do not envy that which God has graced some of you over others with. For the men is a portion of what they earned, and for the women is a portion of
what they earned. And ask God from His grace; God is knowledgeable in all things. – Quran 4:32


THis is the background you come from my bias fellows.

 

[firedragon]

A PhD that no other expert agrees with and one that rejects ahadith. Just because he had a doctorate does not make him right.



No I cited a number of experts already. All those above are the fallacious arguments people have used tp support such an interpretation. Such as linking a dictionary in which the very author does not support FD's views.

Also argument from authority since FD's views are not mainstream. Also I would point that a number of his posts are made by someone that is in sale's marketing not a theologian. Copy parts of his post on the hijab and its goes right to a facebook pages owned by, again, a sales rep.

Whats this?

 

[paarsurrey]

It is common for some clerics to understand that women are naturally defective in terms of Salvation.

It is misunderstanding of Islam/Quran/Muhammad, such clerics are doing dis-service to the truthful religion.
Regards

 

[firedragon]

It is misunderstanding of Islam/Quran/Muhammad, such clerics are doing dis-service to the truthful religion.
Regards

Of course. But they also not will allow thought. I see this all the time, everywhere. Same goes to non clerics as well, because they worship those clerics.

Another killer below, now kill me.

A Kafir is not what you think?
I have witnessed many discussions, both face to face and remote where some Muslims call Christians and Jews as Kafirs and Christians and Jews call themselves Kafirs. We should understand what Kafir means from the context of the Quran and the language at the time the Quran was revealed.

This word Kafir has evolved in its meaning and understanding due to worldly occurrences. The phenomenon that changed the meaning of this word is debatable and bears no value of discussion, but the fact is not only Christians or Jews are called Kafirs, Muslims are too.

It is personal experience of us Muslims to hear one sect call another sect by the word Kafir. Animosity of this nature exists in this world and if everyone is correct, there are seven billion Kafirs in this world.

A simile of the evolution of what this word means is cops being called pigs in modern times. The original use of the derogative term pig being used on cops is known to have occurred in around the 1811 where "pig" was denoted to a Bow Street Runner, the police force. The reference has seemingly re-emerged in the late sixties. The modern dictionaries pronounce it as a slang for a policeman.

Is it not unbelievable that within such a short time a word that was referred to a swine has grown to be referred to a cop? Similarly, think of the word Kafir evolving through 1400 years. This is also similar to the words ‘Hijab’ and ‘Khimar’ discussed in the chapters analysing women’s dress code.

A Kafir is someone who knows a truth and hides it The first occurrences of the term Kafir occurs in the second chapter of the Quran.

 As for those who Kafaroo , whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. – Quran 2:6
 Or like a storm cloud from the sky, in it is darkness and thunder and lightning. They place their fingers in their ears from the thunder-claps for fear of death; and God is aware of the Kafirs (Bialkafireena). – Quran 2:19

An exploration of the chapter in concern in context of the surrounding verse will expound the true intention of this allusion. Below you will find a summary of this chapter’s philosophy.
 The Quran is revealed to the righteous, who believe in the unseen, who believe in this and the previous revelations.
 As for those who see the truth and hide it maliciously commonly referred to as rejecter’s they will not believe in the truth if you inform them or not
 Their hearts and ears are sealed, and they are blind. They will proclaim to believe in God and there’s a last day but only lie.
 They will claim to be good but the will spread corruption. When they meet those who acknowledge the truth they lie saying they do too

There are no references to religions, races or any denomination. A Kafir could be a person who calls himself a Muslim as you can see above that when a Kafir meets one who has acknowledged the truth they lie to you saying they also do accept the truth. Right at the beginning of the Quran God has explained what a Kafir is, therefore it is high time that Muslims woke up and realised that we have been mistaken all our lives.

Of course it is common that most of us were taught otherwise throughout our lives. The Quran tells you to not follow what your society has taught you blindly.

 And if you obey most of those on the earth they will lead you away from the path of God; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess. – Quran 6:115

And don’t worry if others don’t believe
 And most of the people, even if you are diligent, will not believe. – Quran 12:103

 

[paarsurrey]

It is no fault of Quran/Islam/Muhammad. It is fault of the wrongdoers/ extremists, they will get punishment from G-d as per Quran.
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It is no fault of Quran/Islam/Muhammad. It is fault of the wrongdoers/ extremists, they will get punishment from G-d as per Quran.
Regards

It most certainly is the fault of Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

The Quran contains verses that encourage the killing of non-Muslims, the subjugation and the extortion of non-Muslims by Muslims. Regardless of the idea that the verses justify defensive wars or wars to protect the ummah, they are being interpreted now (and have been since Muhammad) as justification for waging aggressive wars of conquest against non-Muslims. You'd think an all-knowing god would have foreseen that and would have sought to nip it in the bud with a footnote.

Islam espouses a one-world theology where ultimately everyone must be Muslim. It teaches fanatical monotheism - the very idea of having beings that could be mistaken for God is antithetical to Islam, it suppresses critical thinking & independent thought on matters of religion and it reacts harshly to any action which goes against its beliefs - even those done by those who do not need to conform to Islamic rules.

Muhammad was a warlord who raided caravans, sold people into slavery and humped children. Okay, one child at the very least. He got thrown out of his city after decrying everyone else's religious practises & beliefs for 10 years and he responded by gathering an army of zealots, conquering Arabia and ruining its culture. He didn't tolerate dissenting voices, he didn't tolerate challenges to his 'divine authority'. He had dissenters killed or exiled so he could steal their property. Jihadists today can merely claim they are following his example.

 

[paarsurrey]

It most certainly is the fault of Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
The Quran contains verses that encourage the killing of non-Muslims, the subjugation and the extortion of non-Muslims by Muslims. Regardless of the idea that the verses justify defensive wars or wars to protect the ummah, they are being interpreted now (and have been since Muhammad) as justification for waging aggressive wars of conquest against non-Muslims. You'd think an all-knowing god would have foreseen that and would have sought to nip it in the bud with a footnote.
Islam espouses a one-world theology where ultimately everyone must be Muslim. It teaches fanatical monotheism - the very idea of having beings that could be mistaken for God is antithetical to Islam, it suppresses critical thinking & independent thought on matters of religion and it reacts harshly to any action which goes against its beliefs - even those done by those who do not need to conform to Islamic rules.
Muhammad was a warlord who raided caravans, sold people into slavery and humped children. Okay, one child at the very least. He got thrown out of his city after decrying everyone else's religious practises & beliefs for 10 years and he responded by gathering an army of zealots, conquering Arabia and ruining its culture. He didn't tolerate dissenting voices, he didn't tolerate challenges to his 'divine authority'. He had dissenters killed or exiled so he could steal their property. Jihadists today can merely claim they are following his example.

That is just one's misunderstanding. One is welcome to correct one's misconception, no compulsion, however.
Regards