What Questions come to your mind when reading Quran 3:7?

[InvestigateTruth]

In my opinion, and personal experience, verse 3:7, is like a key that unlocks true understanding of not only the Quran, but also, it is a key to understanding all Revelations from God being Abrahamic or non-Abrahamic. 2

So, I am curious, if you read verse 3:7 of the Quran, does it cause you to have questions on this verse?
I am not saying, ask me questions about this verse, so I answer your questions.


I am wondering what and how many questions come to your mind, when you read this verse.

Please list all questions that you may have about 3:7.

 

[Apostle John]

In my experience and regarding the start of the verse, it is not clear who has revealed the Quran.

Next, the sentence that says “those firmly rooted in knowledge”. What does that mean? Does it mean just accepting the Quran without question once read.

Then, “The men of understanding” at the end. Does that mean those that have read and accepted it without question or reason? Personally I don’t think that’s sound knowledge, just a blind willingness for wanting it to be the truth.

 

[icehorse]

Please list all questions that you may have about 3:7.

You're probably not going to like my questions

It seems clear to me that the people who wrote this book were in the process of establishing an order of "holy men" to rule people theocratically. Once you have that perspective, it seems clear that this verse, and others like it, is a sort of "get out of jail free" card. It allows holy men a great deal of discretion in how they choose to interpret the book for their own purposes. It's also a classic use of "unfalsifiable claims". In other words, it makes some declarations that cannot be proven.

So my question is this: Why should we give such weak arguments any credibility?

 

[Left Coast]

In my opinion, and personal experience, verse 3:7, is like a key that unlocks true understanding of not only the Quran, but also, it is a key to understanding all Revelations from God being Abrahamic or non-Abrahamic. 2

So, I am curious, if you read verse 3:7 of the Quran, does it cause you to have questions on this verse?
I am not saying, ask me questions about this verse, so I answer your questions.


I am wondering what and how many questions come to your mind, when you read this verse.

Please list all questions that you may have about 3:7.

The verse (in English) says:

"It is He who revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are definitive; they are the foundation of the Book, and others are unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow the unspecific part, seeking dissent, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none knows its interpretation except God and those firmly rooted in knowledge say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” But none recollects except those with understanding."

Several questions arise:

1) Which verses are "definitive," and which are "unspecific?" It doesn't tell us.

2) If only God knows the interpretation of the Qur'an, what is the point of giving it to humanity?

3) How can you tell who is "seeking dissent" or "seeking to derive an interpretation?" As opposed to those who are "firmly rooted in knowledge?" I suspect that different believers in the Qur'an disagree about which sects are which.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In my experience and regarding the start of the verse, it is not clear who has revealed the Quran.

Next, the sentence that says “those firmly rooted in knowledge”. What does that mean? Does it mean just accepting the Quran without question once read.

Then, “The men of understanding” at the end. Does that mean those that have read and accepted it without question or reason? Personally I don’t think that’s sound knowledge, just a blind willingness for wanting it to be the truth.

Very good points and questions.
Yes, if it means accepting it blindly, that wouldn't be sound knowledge.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You're probably not going to like my questions

It seems clear to me that the people who wrote this book were in the process of establishing an order of "holy men" to rule people theocratically. Once you have that perspective, it seems clear that this verse, and others like it, is a sort of "get out of jail free" card. It allows holy men a great deal of discretion in how they choose to interpret the book for their own purposes. It's also a classic use of "unfalsifiable claims". In other words, it makes some declarations that cannot be proven.

So my question is this: Why should we give such weak arguments any credibility?

For sure this Book can be taken advantage of, and be interpreted to suit one's purpose as you rightly noted... the history shows that's a fact.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The verse (in English) says:

"It is He who revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are definitive; they are the foundation of the Book, and others are unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow the unspecific part, seeking dissent, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none knows its interpretation except God and those firmly rooted in knowledge say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” But none recollects except those with understanding."

Several questions arise:

1) Which verses are "definitive," and which are "unspecific?" It doesn't tell us.

2) If only God knows the interpretation of the Qur'an, what is the point of giving it to humanity?

3) How can you tell who is "seeking dissent" or "seeking to derive an interpretation?" As opposed to those who are "firmly rooted in knowledge?" I suspect that different believers in the Qur'an disagree about which sects are which.

Excellent attention to details!

Agreed, all valid questions and points.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2) If only God knows the interpretation of the Qur'an, what is the point of giving it to humanity?

Is the passage about the Quran? It just says "the Book." Presumably, it would be referring to some already-existing book (the Torah or the Bible, maybe?), and not a book that was largely unwritten at the time (i.e. the Quran).

Edit: the author says "the Book" without explanation, so we can infer that the author assumed that his audience would have understood what the term meant without explaining it. It seems to me that an author wouldn't have made this assumption when speaking to an auduence that was largely unfamiliar with "the Book" in question and that includes the author's own words at that moment.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Is the passage about the Quran? It just says "the Book." Presumably, it would be referring to some already-existing book (the Torah or the Bible, maybe?), and not a book that was largely unwritten at the time (i.e. the Quran).

Edit: the author says "the Book" without explanation, so we can infer that the author assumed that his audience would have understood what the term meant without explaining it. It seems to me that an author wouldn't have made this assumption when speaking to an auduence that was largely unfamiliar with "the Book" in question and that includes the author's own words at that moment.

Very good observations. Never thought of that before.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The verse (in English) says:

"It is He who revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are definitive; they are the foundation of the Book, and others are unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow the unspecific part, seeking dissent, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none knows its interpretation except God and those firmly rooted in knowledge say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” But none recollects except those with understanding."

Several questions arise:

1) Which verses are "definitive," and which are "unspecific?" It doesn't tell us.

2) If only God knows the interpretation of the Qur'an, what is the point of giving it to humanity?

3) How can you tell who is "seeking dissent" or "seeking to derive an interpretation?" As opposed to those who are "firmly rooted in knowledge?" I suspect that different believers in the Qur'an disagree about which sects are which.

Let's say hypothetically, you would be able to ask these three questions from Muhammad Himself, and He gave a Chrystal clear answer to each one your questions.
What do you think those answers would be from Him?
Is it actually possible to find those clear answers by reading other verses, context, and Hadithes, in a way that we could know what was on His mind when He revealed this verse?

 

[Left Coast]

Let's say hypothetically, you would be able to ask these three questions from Muhammad Himself, and He gave a Chrystal clear answer to each one your questions.
What do you think what would those answers be from Him?

No idea.

Is it actually possible to find those clear answers by reading other verses, context, and Hadithes, in a way that we could know what was on His mind when He revealed this verse?

If it were, the consensus of Quranic believers would be clear, I'd think. Is it?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No idea.


If it were, the consensus of Quranic believers would be clear, I'd think. Is it?

there is no consensus or agreement on the questions on 3:7

Other possibilities could be, it takes effort to find clear answers.

 

[John D. Brey]

In my opinion, and personal experience, verse 3:7, is like a key that unlocks true understanding of not only the Quran, but also, it is a key to understanding all Revelations from God being Abrahamic or non-Abrahamic. 2

So, I am curious, if you read verse 3:7 of the Quran, does it cause you to have questions on this verse?
I am not saying, ask me questions about this verse, so I answer your questions.


I am wondering what and how many questions come to your mind, when you read this verse.

Please list all questions that you may have about 3:7.

I was just dealing with this issue in another thread with a Jewish friend. The problem, as rightly perceived by some of the respondents to your original post, centers on the legitimacy of the passage (3:7) with reference to the paradox that one must seemingly accept the meaning of the text as from the Lord without questioning it, before they can rightly interpret it. The natural instinct to interpret it and then determine its legitimacy renders the person functioning in that quite natural manner incapable of interpreting the text correctly. As paradoxical as it seems, or is, a person must accept the text (or revelation) as from the Lord if they're to have a legitimate role in interpreting the revelation.



John

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I was just dealing with this issue in another thread with a Jewish friend. The problem, as rightly perceived by some of the respondents to your original post, centers on the legitimacy of the passage (3:7) with reference to the paradox that one must seemingly accept the meaning of the text as from the Lord without questioning it, before they can rightly interpret it. The natural instinct to interpret it and then determine its legitimacy renders the person functioning in that quite natural manner incapable of interpreting the text correctly. As paradoxical as it seems, or is, a person must accept the text (or revelation) as from the Lord if they're to have a legitimate role in interpreting the revelation.



John

OK, so, what questions comes to your mind when reading and thinking about 3:7?

 

[John D. Brey]

OK, so, what questions comes to your mind when reading and thinking about 3:7?

. . . The question concerning how a revelation can be accepted as from the Lord based on so-called blind faith? I believe divine revelation has to be accepted as from the Lord prior to reason, empiricism, logic, etc.. That being the case, the human mind possesses a mechanism to separate absolute from relative such that the mind that's receptive to the Lord is able to abandon the normal, carnal, way of thinking (evaluate then decide), and accept the absolute without first evaluating it with the tools of the carnal (natural) mind. The mind receptive to the Lord then attempts to put the absolute revelation into relative language to better understand it, share it, explain it, or defend it.

The unrighteous man/mind can't accept a revelation until it's evaluated by carnal means. And for that reason, the carnal mind, the unrighteous mind, will forever be oblivious to the true revelation of God. In drawing back to strike the dumb believer the unrighteous man pokes himself in the eye and is blinded on the right side so that carnal thought is all that's left.

But, I suppose, if at the time of its release the soul is tainted and impure, because it has always associated with the body and cared for it and loved it, and has been so beguiled by the body and its passions and pleasures that nothing seems real to it but those physical things which can be touched and seen and eaten and drunk and used for sexual enjoyment, and if it is accustomed to hate and fear and avoid what is invisible and hidden from our eyes, but intelligible and comprehensible by philosophy -- if the soul is in this state, do you think that it will escape independent and uncontaminated . . . It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes, for by it only is reality beheld.​

​

Plato (Phaedo 81 b; Republic 527e).​

John

 

[InvestigateTruth]

. . . The question concerning how a revelation can be accepted as from the Lord based on so-called blind faith? I believe divine revelation has to be accepted as from the Lord prior to reason, empiricism, logic, etc.. That being the case, the human mind possesses a mechanism to separate absolute from relative such that the mind that's receptive to the Lord is able to abandon the normal, carnal, way of thinking (evaluate then decide), and accept the absolute without first evaluating it with the tools of the carnal (natural) mind. The mind receptive to the Lord then attempts to put the absolute revelation into relative language to better understand it, share it, explain it, or defend it.

The unrighteous man/mind can't accept a revelation until it's evaluated by carnal means. And for that reason, the carnal mind, the unrighteous mind, will forever be oblivious to the true revelation of God. In drawing back to strike the dumb believer the unrighteous man pokes himself in the eye and is blinded on the right side so that carnal thought is all that's left.

But, I suppose, if at the time of its release the soul is tainted and impure, because it has always associated with the body and cared for it and loved it, and has been so beguiled by the body and its passions and pleasures that nothing seems real to it but those physical things which can be touched and seen and eaten and drunk and used for sexual enjoyment, and if it is accustomed to hate and fear and avoid what is invisible and hidden from our eyes, but intelligible and comprehensible by philosophy -- if the soul is in this state, do you think that it will escape independent and uncontaminated . . . It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes, for by it only is reality beheld.​

​

Plato (Phaedo 81 b; Republic 527e).​

John

Exactly.

So, do you believe the verse 3:7 asks,
to believe blindly?

This is what it says:


"But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord."


So, it must be based on knowledge, not blind faith.

 

[John D. Brey]

This is what it says:

"But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord."


So, it must be based on knowledge, not blind faith.

Semantics and interpretation allow for more than one way of reading a text. Young children, before they possess much knowledge, are sometimes more naturally endowed to accept the absolute before worrying too much about vetting it with the carnal mind. For this reason Jesus said that to enter the kingdom one must become like a child. What the Quran could be implying is that the righteous soul can withstand the allure, the temptation, that comes with knowledge, without losing the child-like ability to subordinate knowledge to revelation. The righteous soul can make knowledge the wife and not the husband of the soul; knowledge can be a helper to the absolute masculine soul whereas in the unrighteous man, knowledge wears the pants and tries to impregnate the absolute with the relative therein giving birth to ideas contaminated from their birth with the death they succumb too in their good time.



John

 

[icehorse]

Semantics and interpretation allow for more than one way of reading a text. Young children, before they possess much knowledge, are sometimes more naturally endowed to accept the absolute before worrying too much about vetting it with the carnal mind. For this reason Jesus said that to enter the kingdom one must become like a child. What the Quran could be implying is that the righteous soul can withstand the allure, the temptation, that comes with knowledge, without losing the child-like ability to subordinate knowledge to revelation. The righteous soul can make knowledge the wife and not the husband of the soul; knowledge can be a helper to the absolute masculine soul whereas in the unrighteous man, knowledge wears the pants and tries to impregnate the absolute with the relative therein giving birth to ideas contaminated from their birth with the death they succumb too in their good time.



John

Semantics and interpretations belong in the realm of the conscious mind, but NOT in the realm of the subconscious BRAIN. We must not forget that our subconscious BRAINS are mostly in charge of what we believe and how we behave.

With that said, the Quran is a brilliant piece of propaganda that has serious impacts on our subconscious BRAINS, no matter how hard our conscious MINDS huff and puff to work out helpful semantics and interpretations.

 

[Apostle John]

Very good points and questions.
Yes, if it means accepting it blindly, that wouldn't be sound knowledge.

On weight of evidence I believe the angel was Satan that spoke with and embraced Muhammad in his first revelation. According to Islamic tradition, following this revelation, his wife’s cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal told Muhammad this was Gabriel. This was false information, the Angel Gabriel never spoke with Moses according to the Torah which is highly unlikely to have been interpolated as is claimed by Muslims.

Muhammad, being misled by this cousin, would then have been used by Satan to start Islam.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

On weight of evidence I believe the angel was Satan that spoke with and embraced Muhammad in his first revelation. According to Islamic tradition, following this revelation, his wife’s cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal told Muhammad this was Gabriel. This was false information, the Angel Gabriel never spoke with Moses according to the Torah which is highly unlikely to have been interpolated as is claimed by Muslims.

Muhammad, being misled by this cousin, would then have been used by Satan to start Islam.

Do you believe Satan literally and physically exists as a person?