certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islamic Ideology (14 Nov 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)


Is It Possible To Logically Derive A Single Meaning Of Every Verse Of The Quran? Or, Does Allah Provide A Level Playing Field To All The People?

 

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

14 November 2017

Not only is it possible to derive a single meaning of every verse of the Quran, but each of my articles is a demonstration of how this can be done. The meaning will always prevail over every other interpretation for the simple reason that any interpretation which is not the meaning, will contradict one or more verses of the Quran, and the true meaning alone will be in conformity with the whole of the Quran. This is precisely what is meant by describing the Book as Kitabum Mubeen. What this also means is that no verse of the Quran contradicts another verse. However, for most of the Islamic scholars, past and present, whose understanding of Islam is not based on the Quran but on the secondary sources such as the Ahadith, and who treat parts of the Quran as abrogated to bend the meaning to conform with the Ahadith, the Quran is neither Kitabum Mubeen, nor a Book without contradictions, but on the other hand, it is full of contradictions necessitating treating certain verses as abrogated! No meaningful discussions are possible with people who reject the Quran as the final arbiter on all questions, but base their understanding on the secondary sources, although they will never admit this. They will therefore run away from any discussions based on the Quran alone, because they know what the difference is between what the Quran says, and their beliefs based on some Hadith or another.

All interpretations that are not the meaning, can be demolished with ease, for example, the fatwa of Sheikh Albani “all polytheism is Kufr and all Kufr is polytheism”. All that it requires is to show that Kufr is relative to what one knows and believes to be the truth. Kufr is a trespass against reason and doing the opposite of what one knows to be right or doing what one knows to be wrong. For those who would like to connect this meaning of Kufr to the dictionary meaning of “to cover”, Kufr is when you allow any emotion to cover/suppress/bury your reason or sense of what is right. I have shown Kufr to be a relative concept, in my article:

Who Is A Kafir In The Quran? (Part 3): Why Kufr Is A Relative Concept While Shirk, Idol Worship Etc. Have Fixed Meanings

 Allah provides a level playing field to all His creation. No person is at an advantage being born a Muslim, or at a disadvantage being born a non-Muslim. Else, Allah would not be a just God. The Muslims however believe otherwise, considering all the Mushrikin to be Kafirin, going not only by Sheikh Albani’s fatwa, but by the explicit theology of every sect, and therefore their concept of God is that of an unjust God, and they thus blaspheme God. Such a concept is a trespass against not only the Quran, but against reason also, and therefore Kufr. The Christians and the Jews similarly have false notions of being favoured by God. The Mushrikin however, have no concept of being either particularly favoured or disfavoured by God based on their beliefs alone, and to this extent, they do not trespass their reason. One simple false belief of the “believers”, and correct belief of those we call the “disbeliever”, restores the balance between the monotheists and the polytheists. The monotheists blaspheme God through their belief of an unjust God, who has favours them, and the Mushrikin are far humbler, and do not consider any person favoured or disfavoured, based on the accident of their birth into a particular religion.

Every person will be judged, based on the progress they make on the path of truth. Those who remain where they found themselves at their birth are alike, those who make positive progress are the seekers of truth and those who slide back are those who succumbed to temptation. Most Muslims, only follow the creed of the sect they are born in, and are therefore, not different from persons of another faith, who have also simply followed their own creed. The difference is only in their individual deeds. If neither person has done anything to purify their beliefs by seeking knowledge of the truth, or if both have rejected the truth that they became aware of simply because the truth contradicted their creed, are at par as far as their beliefs are concerned. All persons who are simply a product of their circumstances, are equal as far as their beliefs go, but different only in what deeds they did with those beliefs, and can be judged only on that basis. Those who consciously sought knowledge and purified themselves, are on a higher plane and those who slid back are on a lower plane.

Why does not anyone else say that a single meaning of every verse of the Quran can be logically derived? The major reason is because, they “interpret” the Quran in the light of the Ahadith, and realize that they need to deviate from the clear meaning and treat many of the verses of the Quran as abrogated, to make its “meaning” conform to their beliefs.  They knowingly pervert the meaning of the Quran as the People of the Book do (2:75) and call it using connotations rather than the meaning. Is there a need for them to depend upon the Ahadith for the meaning? No, the Quran explicitly denies such dependence. “And no question do they bring to you (O, Muhammad) but We reveal to you the truth and the best explanation (thereof)” (25:33). And what is revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) is in the Quran and is the truth and the best explanation. Anything else attributed to the Prophet as his saying to explain the Quran, and as an answer to a question posed, falsifies the Quran’s claim that every such question is answered by the Quran in the best possible manner. All the Ahadith attributed to the Prophet as an explanation of the Quran, but alter its meaning even slightly, are therefore falsehood attributed to the Prophet. All those Ahadith that do not change the meaning of the Quran, or violate its meaning can be accepted. These will be concerning the rituals alone such as prayer rituals.

What about those who believe in abrogation? Abrogation, as the Quran says clearly, is replacing something with what is better. For example, replacing the principle of reciprocity (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) in the earlier scriptures with the principle of ‘Ahsan’ or returning what is better – for example returning an injury with forgiveness. Abrogation does not refer to the Quran at all, and even if it did, what is better would prevail and not what is worse. “There is no compulsion in religion” cannot be replaced with “Compel people to believe” which is not there at all in the Quran, but falsely believed by many scholars. Those who believe in abrogated verses of the Quran are guilty of believing in a part and disbelieving in other parts:

(15:90) (Of just such wrath) as We sent down on those who divided (Scripture into arbitrary parts),-

(91) (So also on such) as have made Qur´an into shreds (as they please).

(92) Therefore, by the Lord, We will, of a surety, call them to account,

(93) For all their deeds.

Those who talk of the Meccan Quran and the Medinian Quran as if these were different are splitting the Quran into arbitrary parts. Those who have made the Quran into shreds as they please, are those who treat some verses as abrogated. They are also those who do not take the meaning by considering all relevant verses together. The Quran explains one verse with the help of another and it is therefore important to take the meaning considering all the verses. The Jews are warned similarly (Surah Al- Baqarah, Ayat 85) “Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do”. This warning is meant to warn the believers that they should learn a lesson from the plight of the Jews who neglected the warning that was given to them by God, and persisted in their wrong ways, as if to say: You are beholding the degradation of the Jews. Do you like to meet with the same end by neglecting this warning?

Yet another confirmation from the Quran, that it fully explains and makes clear its meaning without any dependency outside of it:

(75:16) Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur´an) to make haste therewith.

(17) It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it:

(18) But when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated):

(19) Nay more, it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear):

The verse below says that it explains to the people of the earlier scriptures in matters in which they disagreed. If this is so, then, where is the question of leaving any part of it unexplained to the Muslims?

(27:76) Verily this Qur´an doth explain to the Children of Israel most of the matters in which they disagree.

The other reason as to why people do not believe in a single logically derived meaning, is because they have no concept of what it means to logically derive a single meaning. There is no other Book, apart from the Quran, which has this property of being capable of logically deriving the meaning of all its verses. Most people are incapable of reasoning even with simple problems in math or physics. They do not know when the data is sufficient to find a single or unique solution. If they are at sea in finding a solution, they are more likely to say that the data is insufficient or what is asked is unclear, when neither is the issue. Use of reason to find answers, is very uncommon. People go by their common sense, and their common sense tells them to rely upon reputation, consensus and tradition, which is why the Mullahs and the Muftis have such a hold and will continue to have a hold.

There is therefore a vast gulf which is unbridgeable, unless the Muslims believe in the whole of the Quran, and discard the secondary sources for an explanation of the Book. “And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding”. There appear to be very few people of understanding across the spectrum of the “believers” and the “disbelievers”, providing proof thereby, that the playing field is very level indeed for all, and there is little difference among the people, except their deeds. False beliefs are common to all people, and the “believers” equally blaspheme God, their Prophet and their Book with their false beliefs.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to www.NewAgeIslam.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/naseer-ahmed,-new-age-islam/is-it-possible-to-logically-derive-a-single-meaning-of-every-verse-of-the-quran?-or,-does-allah-provide-a-level-playing-field-to-all-the-people?/d/113219

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism

 




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   25


  • Naseer sab says, "Did you find anything to support the view that Mushrikun means Kafirun?"

    That is a poor response to my statement, "The simple fact is that the Quran itself does not directly and expressly make a distinction between kafirs and mushkirin." But it would be impossible to get such a simple fact through to Naseer sab's thick skull.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/20/2017 10:58:35 AM



  • Did you find anything to support the view that Mushrikun means Kafirun?
    Do you know the difference between context and logic?
    If by substituting Mushrikun for Kafirun in any verse creates a contradiction, then  rejecting  kafirun as the meaning is based on logic or context?
    You are an ignoramus and yet do not adopt the attitude of a student trying to learn and clear your doubts. Why should I waste my time answering a pompous fool who does not even know what he does not know? This is my last response to you.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/20/2017 4:23:37 AM



  • Naseer sab,

    The simple fact is that the Quran itself does not directly and expressly make a distinction between kafirs and mushkirin. Your attempt to derive that distinction through contextual analysis is well-intentioned but your claim that you have reached a logical conclusion which should now be universally accepted is not valid.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/19/2017 12:33:34 PM



  • Kafir is a neutral term and simply means a person who:

    Covers up, obliterates, wipes out, removes, rejects.

    The above is a precise meaning of Kafir.

    Therefore, any verse that speaks of the kafaru, kafirin, kafirun, necessarily has to mention the nature of the kufr, and covers only those people, who indulge in that kufr.

    The above is also precise. 

    Is there any verse that says all the Mushrikin are Kafirin or that only the Mushrikin can be Kafirin? On what basis do you then even assume that kafaru in 8:36 refers to the Mushrikin?  In today's world 8:36, refers to the Muslims and not the Mushrikin as the Muslims are guilty of religious persecution and not the Mushrikin. They better desist from it or what happened to such Kafaru in the past will come to pass for them.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/19/2017 3:44:59 AM



  • As far as Kufr in the spiritual dimension is concerned, even the Prophets did not know who was and who wasn't a kafir unless informed by Allah. Yunus (AS) made the mistake of judging his people as Kafir and leaving them and was punished for it. He returned to his people and all of them (more than a hundred thousand) accepted belief. Lesser mortals cannot therefore judge other people based on their beliefs and must limit themselves to their behaviour.

    The consequence of mistranslating kafaru as disbeliever in verses that deal with kufr in the temporal dimension not alone falsely implicate all the disbelievers, but exempt the believers who may be guilty of the same kufr.

    For example, destroying churches, synagogues etc., in which  the name of Allah is abundantly celebrated according to the Quran itself, or hindering people of other faiths in practicing their religion, would be covered by 8:36 even if these kafaru were Muslims or the believers. Therefore kafaru in this verse means a Religious Persecutor and not disbeliever.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/19/2017 1:55:15 AM



  • Naseer sab,
    If Verses 8:36, 9:2,3 are about religious persecution, they describe what kafirs do but they do not define the word kafir. They do not say how broad or narrow the word kafir is. They do not specifically say that not all mushrikins are kafirs. You are seeing more definitional preciseness and exactitude in those verses than is warranted.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/19/2017 12:16:34 AM



  • GM Sb,

    Read my article:Who is a Kafir in the Quran? (Part 4) Defining Kufr

    dated 25 Feb, 2015 that defines the meaning covering both the temporal and spiritual dimension.

    The battles with the Mushrikin of Mecca and their punishment as per verse 9:5 was for their kufr in the temporal dimension. The Quran does not prescribe any punishment or war for kufr in the spiritual dimension.

    Verses 8:36, 9:2,3 are about religious persecution and therefore about kufr in the temporal dimension and therefore their kufr described in 9:12,13 covers only their acts of religious persecution. These verses do not cover the peaceful Mushrikin. Verses 9:28 and 9:29 cover the remaining Mushrikin and some or all of them may have been Kafirin in the spiritual dimension but since all accepted belief, none fell in this category.

    Surah 98 is about kufr in the spiritual dimension and even here, the verses 98:1,6 cover only some of the People of the Book and some of the Mushrikin. There is no war against them or punishment by the Prophet. These kafirin in the spiritual dimension, may or may not have been kafirin in the temporal dimension.

    Neither the verses that speak of kufr in the temporal dimension nor the verses that speak of kufr in the spiritual dimension say that all the Mushrikun are Kafirun.

    As repeatedly pointed out, the Kafirun in the spiritual dimension are not all the disbelievers but those who will not believe covered in my article:

    Who Are Those Who Will Believe And Those Who Will Not?

    When Kafirun refers to such people, they are also Zalimun, Mujrimun and Fasiqun.

    The Kafirun in Surah Al-Kafirun are such people. The Kafirun are not all the Mushrikun but Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab, Walid ibn Mughiyrah and their like or their supporters in the active opposition to Islam. While the three named were violent, they are not all necessarily violent. Some may have been only poets or those who taunted and ridiculed or the trolls of those days. Zulm is not necessarily physical.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/18/2017 11:47:11 PM



  • Naseer sab,
    When you say that "oppressor/persecutor" is one of the meanings that the word 'kafir' takes and that
     this meaning predominates as it concerns the Mushrikin of Mecca because they persecuted the Prophet and the Muslims, you are making a big leap and jumping to your own arbitrary conclusion and then calling it a "logical conclusion".

    This is a big fallacy in your argument and you need to do some hard introspection about it.

    Nobody can stop you form believing that 'kafir' means "oppessor/persecutor", but for you to claim that it is the authoritative meaning and the only meaning that can be logically derived from the Quran is an unsupportable claim and you should not make that claim.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/18/2017 12:45:27 PM



  • The onus is not on me to understand and accept. I cannot understand for you. Can I help it if you or anyone else is dumb, deaf and blind? What difference does it make whether all accept or none? Will the truth become falsehood or falsehood become the truth based on how many accept/reject?

    Kafir is a neutral term and simply means a person who:

    Covers up, obliterates, wipes out, removes, rejects.

    Therefore, any verse that speaks of the kafaru, kafirin, kafirun, necessarily has to mention the nature of the kufr, and covers only those people, who indulge in that kufr. In the following verse, kafirin is used in a positive way since what is being rejected are ‘the false deities or partners to God’:

    وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُم مِّن شُرَكَائِهِمْ شُفَعَاءُ وَكَانُوا بِشُرَكَائِهِمْ كَافِرِينَ

    30:13: No intercessor will they have among their "Partners" and they will (themselves) reject their "Partners"(Kafirin).

     Oppressor/religious persecutor is one of the meanings that the word takes and this meaning predominates as it concerns the Mushrikin of Mecca because they persecuted the Prophet and the Muslims. They were violating/rejecting their own laws in doing so.

     You tell me what is the kufr of the kafaru in 8:36?

    What is the kufr of the kafaru/kafirin in 9:2,3 which is described in 9:12,13?

    What is the kufr for which the kafirin are to be punished as per 9:5?

    Besides, verse 2:254 for the kufr described in the verse, says it directly “The Kafirun are the Zalimun” 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/18/2017 4:08:06 AM



  • All that Naseer sab can do is make character attacks on others or heap praise on his own work! The onus is on him and not on me to prove that kafir means oppressor. According to several commentators in this forum, including myself, he has not yet done so. But he wants us to accept his word as God's truth!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/17/2017 11:44:12 AM



  • GM Sb,

    I haven't seen a more churlish character than yourself.

    If you are offended by what I say, put in my place by proving me wrong. You are incapable of doing that and writhe and twist in agony at your inability to do anything about your heart burn.

    Gulp down a fistful of antacids or whatever. As a doctor you know better.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/17/2017 2:01:44 AM



  • Naseer sab,
    You should be embarrassed for praising your own conclusions and calling them "truths" unashamedly. Why can't you just present your views and let others judge whether they are praiseworthy and truthful or not. And your lying about me, calling me a troll or a flip-flop does not add either to your praiseworthiness or your truthfulness. It will not get you anywhere.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/16/2017 1:32:28 PM



  • Yunus Sb has not said anything different from what I said.

    "And I only quoted Yunus sb verbatim without drawing any conclusions on what he said. We do and have differed on many points. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/15/2017 10:11:10 PM

    What do you mean embarrassed? Why should I be embarrassed presenting the meaning of the Quran? You have more than 50 articles to prove me wrong and embarrass me. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself resisting the truth tooth and nail while you are a complete ignoramus? Aren’t you embarrassed exchanging hundreds of comments and ending up neither agreeing nor disagreeing having flipped flopped several times? Aren’t you ashamed of becoming a painful troll on this website?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/16/2017 1:12:58 AM



  • Naseer sab,

    A foulmouthed  mufassir does deserve condemnation, and that's what I did in my last post.

    You continue applauding yourself when you  yourself call your conclusions "an obvious truth". Aren't you embarrassed making such selfrighteous assertions?

    Yunus sahib has answered my question in an email. He says, "
    When I say to Naseer Sahab the following I do endorse his methodology but that does not mean that I endorse all his interpretations. "Your work belongs to the category of tafsir al Qur’an bil Qur’an – which is regarded as the highest form of tasir and should with time prevail over the traditional tafsirs……." I endorse the methodology for the obvious reason my joint publication published in 2009 is based on this very methodology."


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/16/2017 12:11:25 AM



  • Dear Hamza Zafar sb,

    Thank you very much for your very detailed response.

    Besides reading every standard translation of the Quran, I have tried to follow various people in the last few years ever since I started writing articles for NAI and have studied their works. This includes:

    Imam Ghazali

    Maulana Mufti Shafi Usmani

    Dr Israr Ahmed

    Javed Ghamidi

    Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

    Muhammad Yunus

    I have been disappointed with all of them. None of these people have a holistic understanding of the entire Quran without creating a single contradiction. Imam Ghazali’s treatise on Ayat al-Nur contradicts the very next verse of the Surah!  I have covered my understanding of the verse in the following article:

    An Exposition of the Verse of Light (Ayat al-Nur)

    In his anxiety to show God as an omnipotent Being, Ghazali makes God a capricious Being who can go against His own Law or Word while Allah assures us in the Quran that Allah never does so. This is the root of the problem because of which his followers, which mean all the Muslims, treat many of the verses as abrogated! To me that means a complete lack of integrity. I reject the god and the book of these people where the book lacks integrity and a god who goes back on his word. My Quran and my God and my Prophet are different from the Quran, God and Prophet of these people.

    When I understand the complete Quran without a single contradiction, why would I bother with anything less or for the pseudo sciences that only lead to contradictions and lack of clarity?

    You may read my articles before forming your opinion rather than approach from the wrong end and judge from your present beliefs. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/16/2017 12:03:48 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content