Rohail Waseem on How to Approach Quranic Concepts

I think this is a brilliant set of instructions:

Peace! I just want to share some of my thoughts with you guys on Islam and Allah. I’ve really had enough of ‘my religion/sect is right and yours is false’ type of thing.

First of all, Allah (The God) is NOT a man in the sky. He is everywhere and is hence timeless/boundless. None can fathom His form, yet He perceives everything (Apparent or hidden) (6:103). When the Qur’an refers to his ‘face’ (2:272), it refers to His existence as the face is covered when one dies. Beautifully presented, but taken literally by some people unfortunately. Secondly, when He refers to His ‘hands’ (36:71), it obviously denotes His strength! And that is a pretty straightforward thing to understand.

Secondly, ALL the prophets came with the same message, and that was Islam (42:13). Islam is NOT a label or a religion of the Arabs. Rather, it is the means to achieve PEACE in your inner self, in the society and eventually in the Hereafter.

Third, Allah is NOT an economist who observes behavior and patterns, and then passes laws accordingly. He is the Creator and hence knows its Creation perfectly. He knows what will work and what wouldn’t. Hence, his laws do not ever change! To think otherwise would obviously demean His Knowledge. 33:62

Fourth, Malaika (angels) are NOT endowed with wings! Wings denote power and speed. They are the universal forces, I believe. When Allah says: Jibrael (Malaika) brings down the revelation to your hearts (2:97), it is NOT an angel with wings that does so. It is only a natural phenomenon that whenever you study the book with interest and conviction, the force Jibrael brings down the revelation to you. It is automatic! Just like a pen is bound to fall if it is dropped! No ‘angel ‘brings it down. Malaika praise Allah by carrying out his commands in the universe, not by humming his Praises. He is FAR above what we attribute to Him. He does not need our Praise. He only wants us to acknowledge His existence, follow his commands (to attain peace) and stay connected with Him (Salat) for our own betterment!

Now, people make a big fuss about Salat, and I will only briefly try to state my point of view.

Just as there is no ‘set’ method of eating/studying/teaching/conversing, Connection with the Almighty is also a thing which should naturally come to you. How that comes to you is none of my or anyone else’s business. If you find it in rituals, please continue to do so (without invoking anyone else of course, including the prophets). If you find it in reading the Qur’an, then that is also Salat. The prime focus should be on what derives the most connection, not mindless rituals on which people debate even today! The important thing is to ESTABLISH a connection whereby one can feel His presence at all times. 2:77-71 deals with this beautifully.(Note, I do not condemn rituals, in fact even I pray ritually when I feel I can derive a connection out of it)

See, the Deen (Way of life) by Allah is very easy to implement. In a nutshell, it is to develop your ‘inner self’, help other people to the best of your abilities by opposing tyranny in the land and being at peace with the Hereafter. THAT’S IT. Now the problem is, no money can be made if the deen of Allah was this simple since there would be absolutely no need of endless priests/imams. That’s where they come in and make the Deen difficult for everyone to implement (by coming out with their own books and laws) and thus making one of the worst crimes by making the Qur’an dependent on THEM (57:27). They divide people into sects and delude them into thinking that only their followers will achieve salvation. Examples are in front of you! I have tons else to say but I’ve tried my best to keep it brief.

Now some of these concepts might be new to you, but if you’re reading this, I just want to say thank you. And I want you to think about it with a clear head. Are we doing justice to the Supreme Creator by dividing into religions and worse even, sects? And that we fight with each other that our version is the best and others are doomed for fire when we don’t even need any book to teach us about how to spend this life! It’s installed in every single one of us! We already know what is good and what is bad. The Qur’an is a reminder (Dhikr) for a reason. It reminds you of what’s already there! The only reason we might not be at peace is because of the piles of garbage that has been fed to us, unfortunately by our own family, society, and priests (Knowingly or unknowingly). Hence the need of Qur’an, only to polish our souls! So break the shackles and set free! Don’t let anyone think for you and dictate YOUR life. Do it yourself! If you disagree with any of my points, fair enough! Your path should be unique since you have to walk on it. I am nobody to tell you to do this or do that. Focus on your spirituality! Walk your own path!

Finally, if you find anything useful out of this, it is only from the Lord of the Universe and I am really humbled to him for making me at peace with His book and Himself. What I condemn today, I was a part of a year ago so I know how it feels like. You can defend your imams all you want but it does not change the fact that they’re one of the biggest problems why the so called ‘Muslim’ world is totally opposite to what its name suggests, and that is to attain peace and security.

Thank you for your time.

Is It Important to Learn Arabic?

For the Quranist, studying Arabic for the purpose of understanding the Quran is a major one. Some Quranists feel that the Quran simply has been mistranslated in order to subvert its true purpose. Others feel that Arabic has far deeper meanings than any translation can convey. Whatever the case, the study of Arabic is never far from the Quranist mind.

Can we understand the Quran without knowing Arabic though? It is absurd to think we would not have some measure of understanding from translation. Have a read of any translation available. Does it say that there actually two gods and that we should divide our worship between these two? Of course not. The core of the message ( which is, I would argue, ‘God and Good’) remains the same. What may change with knowing Arabic are concepts related to this.

What can we get when we study Arabic? For a start, we would get to see the true links of the words. Take translations of Ar-Rahmaan and Ar-Raheem which usually ‘merciful’ and ‘merciable’ (whatever that means!). Does it occur to anyone that the meaning has a relation to the womb? Not off-hand surely but in Arabic, the link is obvious. The word for ‘womb’ is ‘rahm’ and is closely linked with Rahmaan and Raheem (say it aloud and you will see!) and even ‘rahmah’ (also translated as ‘mercy’). This shows a very tangible and practical understanding of these words. An understanding that would be missing without the aid of footnotes at the very least.

So lets study Arabic and accept everything about it! No no, its also not that simple. Arabic is a human language and like any human language, it contains a huge variety in the range of meanings in each word and various opinions on what constitutes correct grammar. Ask any literate Arab and you will see for yourself. It’s simply not good enough to learn Arabic and expect to understand the Quran. Traditional scholars have argued over meanings and grammatical correctness for centuries.

And what about politics and philosophy? Is any language divorced from political events? We only need to look in the last ten years with the War to uphold ‘democracy’ (and democracy being used to invade sovereign nations!). Language is an effective tool to justify one’s agenda. Firaun himself called musa a ‘kafir’! Philosophically speaking, we need to question if the lexicographer and grammarian of Arabic is aware of the philosophical implications of the meanings he inferred. If he is philosophically sterile, it might be possible that his inferences lack depth.

Where does that leave us then? If we can’t rely on Arabic, then can we never plumb the depths of the Quran? Of course we can! What we need to do is to use our own reason and intuition. Through interacting with chosen resources, we can effectively come to meanings which will prove useful. And that is the key point – usefulness. Are we practising what we know? If we’re not, Arabic or not, philosophy or not, there is simply no point to our study.

Free-Mind’s ‘Monotheist’ Translation

Free-minds recently had a poll where they asked what’s the best name for their translation. You can read the entire thread here. The overwhelming opinion on this issue is that it should be called ‘The Quran – A Monotheist Translation’.

How arrogant can you get! Are you REALLY a monotheist? Ibrahim who is said to have ‘deeni haneefa’ (the peak of deen) fulfilled all the concepts of his lord (2/124) and was made imam to mankind (2/125).  Ibrahim did not call himself a ‘muwahid’ (monotheist in Arabic). Are these guys anywhere close to Ibrahim’s status? I know I’m not and I don’t see any of them even speaking publically beyond cyberspace. How on earth are they monotheists then? Ibrahim’s status is an ATTAINMENT not simply something one says and makes it so.

And what of the insinuation that other translations are NOT monotheist? By other translations, we mean of course those by Traditionalist Islam. Are they not monotheist? From Free-minds discourse, we know they are called ‘sectarian’ and ‘polytheists’ (by taking hadith as a source of law). This is the most superficial nonsense I’ve ever heard.

One does not become a monotheist by dropping hadith. I hope the free-minds folks would admit their own subjectivity. Call it ‘Free-minds’ translation – that’s what it is

Rise of the Sun (Not the Song!)

I love the song ‘House of the Rising Sun’ from end scene of the film Casino. It was about the destruction of what the Mob built in Vegas. Very dramatic.

Was reading about dhul qarnayn today and came to this aya:

Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for
whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun (18/90)

The phrase for ‘rising of the sun’ is ‘mathla’il shams’ and this is a negative development for people who are unprotected by the sun. This is not talking about a day at the beach without sunblock! Rather, it’s talking about a source of power for certain people (like the people of saba who adored the sun besides Allah).

My focus was on the word ‘mathla’/rise though which also appear in 97/5 : peace it is until the rise of the dawn. 97/5 seems to say that after the coming of ‘the angels and spirit’ , there will be peace (salam) UNTIL the rise of the dawn. Could the dawn/fajr symbolise the breaking through of EVIL after the coming of peace?

 

 

Quranist Vs Quranic : Subjectivity vs (Pretext of) Objectivity

I was quite touched by the grievance of a close compatriot in the Quranist struggle yesterday who said:

Self-professed experts in certain groups have NO CLUE what the heck they are talking about. The more sure people are about what they think is right, the more off-mark their theories and self-imposed meanings on the Quran are

This is where I believe, language can help us understand the difference between our voices and the voice of the Quran.

Often we hear people (including me) saying ‘The Quran says bla bla bla’. This in reality is actually ‘I THINK/BELIEVE/OPINE that the Quran says bla bla bla’. I suppose this lapse may be forgiven if we have the best intention and act accordingly.

But we don’t. At least not a lot of the times.

I see quranists (whether or not they subscribe to the term) to have a tendency to assume ownership of the Quran! Meaning, we have no problem saying ‘ok see, the Quran says in which HADITH do you believe in after Allah and his ayat’ (45/6) Therefore you Sunnis who believe in hadith are disbelievers.

What if the Sunnis didn’t believe that the word ‘hadith’ in 45/6 refers to Hadith literature? Don’t they have a right to their opinion?

This is why I think we need the term ‘quranist’ and we need to make a separation between what is ‘quranIST’ and what is ‘quranIC’.

The quranist is subjective. He is interpreting the Quran according to the knowledge he has at that point. Later on, he may disagree with himself! I know this because I have gone through it myself (several times in fact!) . He can infer that the meaning of ‘salah’ is connection but it will always be his inference. The Quran NEVER says the meaning of salah is connection.

On other hand, ‘quranic’ denotes what is objective. I can say ‘Quranic personalities’ (like ibrahim, nuh, musa , isa) because they are objectively there in the Quran. I CAN’T say ‘the meaning of the story of nuh is about deliverance and survival’. This is purely my opinion and I appreciate people might disagree.

This is why it surprises me to see people say ‘The Quranic concept of riba’ for example and analyse 2-3 verses to claim ‘this is ‘quranic”. It’s not, it’s simply your limited attempt to understand the concept. If it works for you, great. Keep up the good work but don’t be so quick to put down other ‘quranic opinions’

The fact is, in the Quranist world (a little world in the World of Islam), we have a large degree of diversity and that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. We just need to respect the fact that we’re all on a journey. Dial down the trash talk. Be nice. If you can’t say, just say WATDIP (We Agree To Disagree In Peace) and move on

My Foray into Quranic Language pt 4

So here’s how the discussion is turning out. Basically, I am investigating how a Lingocentric Quranist (basically the best one in the business) thinks,. Here is a statement he made:

I cannot give you the usage per Quran, because that does not exist. But I can give you the Classical Arabic usage

I ask him this question: Does this mean that the Quran isa passive container of meanings? If so, how does the Quran act as a furqan?

lets see how this turns out.

My Foray into Quranic Language pt 3

So this brings us to the question – what does the Quran have to say about it’s language? Does it tell us to go to dictionaries? Or does it assume that we are contemporary readers as opposed to past readers (who understood the language perfectly). This is the subject of my inquiry.

Can we get to a truly objective language of the Quran?