My ego?

How am I (or anyone, for that matter) going to engage in a discussion to supposedly reach an actual conclusion when everyone who does not like what I say will tell me I am a blind follower of my desires?

Only because my understanding of the quran is not like yours [OR YOUR TRANSLATOR’S, for that matter], it does not mean I worship my ego.

The very notion that ANY Quranist (or Muslim, whatever) would tell a fellow Quranist (or Muslim) that they are making an idol of their ego is disgusting, disturbing and nauseating.

Here is a personal promise that I will immediately stop arguing with people who will face me with such accusation (there being one exception, of course – the person will remain unnamed). If I’m not going to learn or share ideas with other people in a discussion turned into an argument, I might as well spare myself the sick feeling of seeing “rational” people turn into complete bastards.

The Quran is Fully Detailed but…..

I think there is an ideological pattern. Quranists have a quran-only impulse and after a while, non-Quranic information steps in. You then have ‘this scholar said that’ and ‘this messenger said that’ and somehow certain sources become authoritative.

These Quranists tend to believe in earlier scriptures but not hadith even though they are both equal in the eyes of the Quran. Apparently previous scriptures are approved by the Quran and the Quran is the criteria. However, they don’t use the Quran to confirm these ‘scriptures’ but rather use these scriptures to ‘detail’ the fully-detailed Quran. Ironic…

Are there earlier scriptures according to the Quran? The Quran says:

Nothing is said to you except what was already said to the messengers before you. Indeed, your Lord is a possessor of forgiveness and a possessor of painful penalty. (41/43)

So if we take this aya above seriously, the Quran contains everything which was said to the messengers before. The double negative in this verse shows great emphasis. Nothing was said to them which wasn’t already said before!

The people who support ‘earlier scriptures’ would then say ‘but the Quran doesnt have the details which the bible has’. I would answer them by saying that’s because its not an earlier scripture! The Quran only acknowledges itself.

Then came to the issue of Mikayl. It was stated the Quran only mentions Mikayl once (in 2/98)  and so we need the Bible to supply us details. This sounds very familiar doesnt it, folks? This is a new Traditionalism except it uses the unQuranic ‘previous scripture’ notion. How do we solve this Mikayl problem?

Firstly, we must trust that everything the Quran tells us enough. But how do we find out what mikayl is? Lets return to 41/43 above.  41/43 anticipates the problem we might face and so the next verse tells us what to do:

And if We had made it a faulty Quran, they would have said, “Why are its verses not explained in detail (41/44)

A faulty Quran (ajami) would not able to supply us the details. The opposite of this word ‘ajami’ is ‘arabi’ which means faultless or with nothing sticking out. The Quran further says:

Indeed, We have sent it down as a faultless that you might think (12/2)

The systematic and faultless language of the Quran enables us to think about its concepts. Take the mikayl. If one were to root it, it would rescind to W-K-L. This means to take representative in something. Tawakkal is to rely on something. Mikayl is a state in which God represents you. It follows Jibrael which is revelation.

The Quran stands on its own. There are no ‘previous scriptures’.

Hajj in Makkah – It’s Finally Out

After a long period of debate and having to bear with the provocative language of my opponent, he has finally told me why he believes Hajj is in Makkah:

Farouk, no need to joggle about, just accept the FACT that you having problem proving your homemade CHALLENGE which just contradict, make NO sense whatsoever. Sorry I shouldn’t be asking something which beyond any corrupters ability. Anyway…, your home made word make me laugh.Here is an example /story :=> Say, someone ask me, what is “Muhammed” that mention in the Quran, So I reply to him, it’s understood wrongly by everyone, there is NO such person call/ name Muhammed. But Muhammed is just an attribute or nick name of AHMED. The term Muhammed is more or less mean “love/compassion”, therefore no such thing as Muhammed ever existed as prophet, in-fact it was the Prophet/Messenger Ahmed [pbuh].

=> After I made such lunatic CLAIM, I don’t give him any further evidence, since I don’t have much, Save asking him counter question thinking that my question is hard for him to refute, but what I didn’t realize, them tricky question is NOT, that Hard as I thought, its only hard to me, because I blocked my mind on such home made garbage which I borrowed from another lunatic.

= = = = = =
So my dear, Hajj to Makkah is not that tricky question as you think. Neither I need to invent new Quran. But you have already invented new Quran, among your Quranist corrupters group[ by playing with rootWord] to justify your action, but TOO BAD you didn’t published it yet, may because you are terrified of the consequences/backfire?


My opponent is basically saying, the terms in the Quran are already known, hence there is no need to prove things which are already known. Here is my response:In other words, I’ll need to accept your fake sources before I can understand that there IS hajj to makkah. So you’re not Quran-alone, Miah. You’re a fake or perhaps you are deluded at best. Here is the Miah technique for understanding the Quran. I know cuz I was exactly in the same boat:

1. Read popular translations of the Quran…oops , I mean the Quran 😛

2. Find ONE word from the Quran, lets say ‘hajj’ and then say ‘oh ok, this is hajj’, it must refer to the same ‘hajj’ Muslims do. Because that’s what my criteria REALLY is. What Muslims do’.

Here’s the problem with this technique. It doesn’t take into account context at all. Lets start with the first contradiction (among MANY, got a long ride ahead, brother):

And proclaim to MANKIND with the Hajj; they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every distant pass (22/27)

Do we see that happening in makkah? Or does the Saudi government make sure you have a ‘Muslim name’ or took your Sunni shahadah before? The Makkah hajj is only for people who follow Sunnism or Shiaism. It has nothing to do with the Quranic version.

Your hajj in Makkah has nothing to do with the Quran. It only uses the same names. This is why its crucial for you to understand. Reading translations is NOT reading the Quran. The Quran has an intricate linguistic system which filters out falsehood.

My opponent was only thinking he was ‘quran alone’. Actually he is ‘quran plus whatever practices exists even though I never witnessed the orig

This is one of the great miracles ….REALLY ?!

Along with the ‘Gay Wars’ over the long weekend, the ’19 wars’ continued also. For those who don’t know, the 19 theory propounds the belief the Quran contains some kind of divine pattern based on the number 19. You can read about here.  I was quite intrigued by this code back in the day. After all, was the first ‘quran only’ website I found. It’s Quran-only however only its declaration. In truth, the hadith of Rashad Khalifa (the founder of the code and the messenger of the covenant) and the code itself totally overshadow any kind of Quranic research they have. 19ers tend to be (and I emphasise that its TENDENCY, not a necessity) very disdainful of the kind of research which challenges rituals in Islam. This is a good thing for the 19 chiefs because once Rashad’s translation is analysed, down comes the house of cards.

Take 74/35 for example:

74:35 This is one of the great miracles (Rashad’s translation)

Miracle?! Where is the word miracle there? Even the word ‘aya’ which actually means signs (although Rashad translated it as ‘miracles’ when it suited him) isn’t there! The word is ‘al-kubra’ which means ‘the great’. Does the Quran only use greatness positively? Have a look:

61/3: Great (Kubra) is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.
The same word is used to connote negativity in 61/3! This is far from being a miracle, folks!

2/143 : And indeed, it is great (lakabirah)  except for those whom Allah has guided. 

Once again, its used negatively. Kubra is not ‘miracle’ At all, In fact, al-kabair in the Quran itself are the big sins! Have a look at 4/31, 42/37 and 53/32.

Also, the ‘it’ in 74/35 contextually refers to hell-fire (see 74/30) but RK manipulated that as well. It’s a real pity that RK isn’t around today or the new generation of Quranists would forward to him all these objections…..

Homosexuality and the people of Lut

Just a few hours ago, I got to taste a certain flavor of Quranists who are acting like extreme sectarians, and I’m going to spit it out!

There were discussions about homosexuality all afternoon. Each discussion would get 400 comments or more of basically two sides – one side opposing homosexuality and accusing those who support it of twisting God’s words, and another side trying to send people the message that homosexuality is normal and Quranically allowed (or simply not prohibited).

I’d perhaps fail to make an objective statement regarding what was actually a fight, but allow me to represent my views without getting a notification every two seconds telling me I’m disgusting.


  1. There is not one verse directly saying homosexuality is forbidden.It’s important for me to find such a verse. Allah forbids fahisha. But what is fahisha? Who decided to categories it under love (of all kinds)? Considering that homosexuality is in fact harmless, it would be hard to count it along with setting up partners beside God  (which to me is to kill in the name of God or similar ACTS), killing children, the murder of oneself (whether in suicide or “emotional” ways I won’t want to discuss now) and the murder of others. All these qualities were mentioned along with fahisha in 6:151. In 2:169, fahisha was linked to using God for one’s own agenda by saying things one is not sure of.It’s interesting to know that fahisha was put under heterosexual sex in 12:24 where Imra’atul Azeez was trying to get Yusuf into having sex with her. I do not actually believe that, but I’m working on different grounds (familiar with the majority of quranists) to proof a point.In 16:90, fahisha is mentioned along with transgression.The real transgression is to claim homosexuality is forbidden, and by that emotionally blackmailing homosexuals – if worse, even preventing them from doing what makes them happy in the name of God.According to lexicons, fahisha (FA, HA, SH)  means “something ugly”. I have not yet read every verse in context to approve that, but let me add that homophobia is taught. It’s not natural. What is natural is to accept all people as they are and love them equally despite their beliefs. Why are some people homophobic? They find their society, fathers, ancestors, culture and surrounding people highly against homosexuality after putting words in God’s mouth! So, can this “ugliness” be relative? See no. 3 on fahisha committed by Lut’s people.
  2. Homosexuality is normal.Sadly, all those who were against homosexuality on that discussion thought it’s abnormal although proven by science. Even zoology records observations of animals committing acts of homo/bisexuality. Yes, the same animals that act by “fitra/natural instinct”. I wont bother redirect people to research or links. They can do that themselves. The Quran’s teachings are not against human nature. The Quran does not even prohibit nudity. Yes, it tells us to guard “private parts”, but this guarding always varies within whatever society you live in – what is private in rather reserved areas is completely acceptable in other areas. I even find it critical to further look into the issues of guarding “private parts” (as the translators call them).Take sayida Maryam for example. In 21:91, Maryam and her “ibn” become a sign to the Worlds. Does it not astonish you how there are two different words for “son” in the Quran (being ibn and walad)? Does it not astonish you that IBN (son) is from the same root as BNI (build)? It’s also strange that this ib came out after blowing “ruh” into her farj.
  3. Al Fahisha in Lut’s story.Lut’s story was discussed in several chapters. The one I picked was chapter 29, detailing the very beginning of Lut’s quest. Lut believed ‘to’ Ibrahim after Ibrahim showed him logic (29:25).Lut’s people (Kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah) were not homosexuals (only). I added the “only” in respect to all opinions. Lut’s verse-line goes as follows –2:26– Lut believes in Ibrahim’s philosophy and decides to begin a hijra/exodus to God.2:28– Lut adopts Ibrahim’s way by going to his people to openly appose their beliefs. Notice the word Qawm (meaning both men and women!).2:28 – Here Lut begins the criticism. His people did something that I believe no one did better (not earlier). Notice the use of the word “ta’tuna”. It’s from the same root as 553 other occurrences in the Quran (ATY). This is specially used with Zakaat, which is to “come” or “bring” (instead of the commonly believed “give”). The same word was also used with magic (21:3). Can you have sex with magic? It’s used in 12:60 to mean “fetch” or “bring” Yusuf’s brother, instead of “rape him for me”, if we’re going to be swinging that way! It’s also used in 4:127 with what is commonly believed to be about wives/women. It doesn’t mean sex there either!

    2:29 – Here is the list of what Lut’s people did.

    ONE: They “come to” RIJAL (not men) as people “come to” magic in 21:3. This means they used rijal for something exclusively. This is not normal, as society is composed of both rijal and nisa’. They were creating a social imbalance that was harming al nisa’.

    TWO: Qat’ as-sabeel. Al Insan already knows what Al Sabeel is (76:3). Also notice how in 76:3, it’s AS-SABEEL, not simply sabeel. I have several theories regarding this word – one would be that it’s concerned about virtues (right vs. wrong). In 42:42, al sabeel is ALA (imposed on) people who do wrong. Then, 59:7 links sabeel to economy. Ibn-asabeel to me means those who have adopted the philosophy of asabeel. Reading on, 43:37 would approve this connection with economy (considering the verses previous to it). Another theory is that As-Sabeel is a cause of Huda or righteous logic (27:24). The wording is very essential, and so we have to pay attention to “qat'”. Usually, the kuffar would be trying to guide people away from As-Sabeel (assad ‘an asabel/adhaluna ‘an asabeel). Instead, Lut’s people want to “cut/disconnect” it altogether!

    THREE: They did the “ityan” in their “munkar” nadi/club. “Nadi” cannot be far from “nida'”, found in several verses where God would be calling unto someone (20:11), a Prophet would be calling to his people (79:16) or to God (11:45), or people were engaging in actual discussions or arguments (68:21). As we all know, Al Munkar is mentioned next to fahisha in many occasions. What is the difference? I still have no clear theory on this. ):

    Of course, his qawm did not approve to what he said. They even dared him of brining [i’tina] God’s punishment to them (being so assured of their position).

    You should also know that if he was speaking to all of his qawm [including WOMEN], then how could he mention ityan al rijal [having sexual relationships with men] when the crowd could have included women as well? That would be a clear contradiction, unless of course, rijal does not mean men.

    2:30 – shows they were mufsideen. They were actually contributing in something destructive and harmful – something we cannot find within homosexuality. He prayed for nasr/victory over them.

I will not discuss the rest of the verse since the words used within them [bushra, nawja, ghabra etc].

Finally, I need to say that perhaps I can’t interpret Quran very well at this moment (especially that a month earlier, the value I held for Arabic grammar was lost  and it became vital to rebuild “Quranic” grammar now), but I know how to be ethical. I know that preventing people from happiness is barbaric. It’s a ridiculous act bred by ignorance and unexplained hatred.

It’s so sad to see Quranists incapable of further escaping the social programming. They have already taken a huge step by abandoning hadith but forgot to abandon culture-based prejudices, such as hating homosexuals… or worse, hating metalheads. I recall earlier how a fellow Quranist told me he couldn’t believe a Muslim would listen to satanic music (Heavy metal being satanic! What crap of an accusation is that?) that is ungodly and encourages “evil”, and how holding up the devil horns is also satanic (although the very notion of the devil having horns is so silly that Satan himself would disapprove it, especially when we have never even see him!).

Point is, many people hate homosexuality because they claim God hates it although the fail to present an actual reason for God hating the people HE created.

Homosexuality is beautiful. (Yes, you can remove me off your filthy facebook! Never wanted to be there anyway!)

Playing on Words or Playing with Superficiality?

The ‘Gay Wars’ continue with those who say that homosexuality is wrong. One such guy quoted 7/81 for me and said, this is as clear as day:

Verily, with lust you approach men instead of women: nay, but you are people given to excesses!”

The person in question accused me of ‘playing with words’ when I said ‘min dooni an-nisaa’ means ‘instead of women’ (since he thinks nisa is women) so God allows bisexuality. The fact is, all translations agree with this.

Is it playing with words or is in fact reading carefully? Min dooni was a phrase chosen by God, not me. If God wanted to say lusting after men is bad (if shahwat is lust that is), then why even mention nisaa?

We need to carry out deep analyses of these verses. Everything is not as it seems.

Sulaiman and the Queen Part II

In Part I I gave some of my thought on the story of Sulaiman and the Queen up to 27/44.

Part II is simply my ideas on 27/44.

27/44 It was said to her, “Enter al-sarha” Then when she saw it she thought it lujjatan and she uncovered from her saqayha. He said “Indeed it is mumarradun from/of qawarira. She said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, and I submit in place with Sulaiman to Allah the Lord of the Worlds.

According to the traditional interpretation, the Queen was invited into Sulaiman’s palace, where the floor was so flawless that she imagined it to be water. She lifted her skirt to her knees, only to realize it was not water at all. Her surprise led her to becoming muslim.

I find this to be a little difficult to digest. What is the relevance of this detail? There is also a problem of having to fill in a few gaps. Was the entire structure made of glass? Read literally, Sulaiman describes the sarhan as glass, so presumably, yes. So would the floor not look like the walls? Why would she mistake the floor for water if the entire structure was made of the same material? If the entire sarhan was not of the same material, are we not simply assuming the floor is the only thing made of flawless glass? Where does it say that specifically the floor was made of glass?

So what is the sarhan?

According to Lane’s Lexicon, sarhan does have a meaning of palace or lofty structure:

Sad-Ra-Ha = to make manifest, explain, clarify. sarhun – palace, high tower, lofty structure, castle.

However, when examining the instances of sarhan in quran, I believe the word must either take a metaphorical meaning or the dictionary definition is not entirely accurate. “Allow the dhikr to define the words,” as a good friend once told me.

28/38 And said Firawn, “Oh you chiefs! Not I know for you any god other than me, so kindle/heat [awqid] for me, O Haman, upon the clay so make/constitute [ij’al] for me a grand-structure [sarhan] that I may rise up [attali’u] to [ila] the god of Musa. And indeed I think he is of the liars.

Is Firawn asking Haman to literally build him a palace from clay? If you look carefully at the structure of the words, it does not say “make me a sarhan from clay”. I think Firawn is asking Haman to think/innovate something or kindle an idea upon the clay. Clay is supple and malleable and is symbolic of making something from scratch. Firawn is demanding ideas from his chiefs.

Note the reasoning: so I may rise up to the God of Musa. The God of Musa was not sitting up in the sky, nor did He reside in a palace. So why is Firawn demanding a palace? The sarhan here is something that will make Firawn seem as godly as the God of Musa. This grand-structure [sarhan] may be a political/social system which revolves around creating a greater/transcendent image for himself in the minds of his people. Thus far he had ruled through tyranny and fear, which was not the way of the God of Musa. The sarhan would let him rise up to the God of Musa.

40/36 And said Firawn, “O Haman! Construct for me a sarhan that I may reach the means [al asbaba]

40/37 The means [al asbab] of the heavens [al samawat] so I may rise up [attaliʿa] to [ila] the god of Musa. And indeed I surely think him a liar. And thus was made attractive to Firawn the evil of his deed, and he was averted from the way. And the plan of Firawn was not except in ruin.

The sarhan is described as a means to the heavens. Does any physical structure provide the means of the heavens?

It is clear Firawn did not lack in material wealth or power over his dominion. What he lacked was the loyalty, affection and good faith of the people and a true God status. Firawn understood that the God of Musa had this from a section of his community i.e. the followers of Musa, and he desired this. He wished to rise to this status.

The sarhan would give him the means of the heavens i.e. encompass his kingdom like the heavens through being a transcendent god which would be like the true God. A physical structure can not achieve this but a political/social structure could.

Also note that Firawn wanted a sarhan whereas Sulaiman already had one (27/44). It seems odd that Firawn would only demand a physical palace after encountering Musa. Surely he had physical palaces already? How would another building counter the preaching of Musa?

If we take this understanding of sarhan, we can re-visit 27/44 and analyse the sarhan mentioned there.

27/44 It was said to her, “Enter the grand-structure/framework [al-sarha]” Then when she saw it she thought it lujjatan and uncovered [wakashafat] from her saqayha. He said “Indeed it is a structure/framework [sarhun] mumarradun from/of qawarira. She said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, and I submit in place with Sulaiman to Allah the Lord of the Worlds.

Having lost her kingdom, the Queen is invited to enter the framework/sarhan of Sulaiman.

The sarhan is described as ‘lujjatan’. It is translated as deep pool, but examining other instances of word in quran does not suggest this is the appropriate meaning in this verse. See 23/75, 24/40 for variations of the same word where there is no connection with water. In 67/21 it is used as an adjective to describe the sea as ‘deep’. From Lane’s Lexicon we find the following:

Lam-Jiim-Jiim = To exceed the limit, persist obstinately, persevere, insist upon a thing, be querulous, continue in opposition/contention/litigation/wrangling.
Main sea or body of water, fathomless deep sea, great expanse of sea of which the limits cannot be seen, great & confused.

The framework was in her eyes excessive or deep or something beyond her comprehension. It doesn’t suggest she was witnessing a deep pool of water. Thus, ‘lujjatan’ may be translated as excessive/deep.

On seeing it as deep/excessive, we’re told of the Queen’s reaction:

‘And she uncovered [wakashafat] from her shanks [saqayha].’

Literally, this would imply she lifted her skirt. However, according to Lane’s Lexicon, this was a common phrase which denotes getting ready for an argument. Similar to the English expression of ‘baring ones teeth’ to denote being angry.

Siin-Waw-Qaf = to drive/impel/urge. yusaquna – they are driven or led. saiqun – driver. suq (pl. aswaq) – market, stem, leg, kashafat an saqaiha (27:44) is a well known Arabic idiom meaning to become prepared to meet the difficulty or to become perturbed/perplexed or taken aback, the literal meaning is “she uncovered and bared her shanks”. yukshafu an saqin (68:42) means ther eis severe affliction and the truth laid here, it is indicative of a grievous and terrible calamity and difficulty. masaq – the act of driving.

The underlying meaning of ‘saqaya’ being to urge or drive lends support to the expression. ‘Uncovering her urge’ suggests she was not happy with the framework she was invited into by Sulaiman, and thus prepared to argue her case.

The Queen considered the framework excessive so she bared her shanks to argue against it.

Sulaiman then responds to her reaction:

He said “Indeed it is a framework [sarhun] mumarradun from/of [min] qawarira. She said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, and I submit in place with Sulaiman to Allah the Lord of the Worlds.

The phrase ‘mumarradun min qawarira’ is usually translated as ‘made smooth from glass’. Mumarradun has a meaning of becoming soft or smooth or refined. The word qawarira is usually translated as glass or crystal.

My friend Asfora pointed out that the root meaning of the word qawarira revolves around something being firm or stable. This is confirmed from Lane’s Lexicon:

Qaf-Ra-Ra = to be or become cool, remain quiet, be steadfast, be firm, refresh, be stable, be firm, receive satisfy, affirm, agree, settle, last. qarar – stability, a fixed or secure place, depository, place ahead. qurratun – coolness, delight. aqarra (vb. 4) – to confirm, cause to rest or remain. istaqarra (vb. 10) – to remain firm. mustaqirrun – that which remains firmly fixed or confirmed, in hiding, is lasting, which certainly comes to pass, which is settled in its being/goal/purpose. mustaqar – firmly fixed/established, sojourn, abode. qurratun – coolness, refreshment, source of joy and comfort. qawarir (pl. of qaruratun) – glasses, crystals.

I’m not entirely sure if qawarira actually means glass/crystal. It’s used in verses 76/15-16 in an odd way. Verse 15 gives the phrase ‘akwabin kanat qawarira’ – cups that are glass, and then immediately after in verse 16 we get, ‘qawarira min fiddatin’ – glass of silver. I’m not sure yet what to make of ‘glass of silver’ which seems to me an awkward phrase. Seeing as I can’t yet pinpoint an exact meaning of the word, I’ve looked at the general root meaning to see if it fits with the context of 27/44.

He said “Indeed it is a framework [sarhun] smoothed/refined [mumarradun] from/of [min] firm-purpose [qawarira]. She said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, and I submit in place with Sulaiman to Allah the Lord of the Worlds.

Whatever the exact phrase ‘mumarradun min qawarira’ is, it is obviously a refutation of the Queen’s claim that the framework was excessive/deep. Sulaiman is assuring her that it has been refined and is firmly established i.e. it’s been working for a long time, and it is not what she claims it to be. On understanding this, the Queen regrets her mistake and becomes muslim.

27/44 It was said to her, “Enter the grand-structure/framework [al-sarha]” Then when she saw it she thought it excessive/deep [lujjatan] and uncovered [wakashafat] from her shanks [saqayha]. He said “Indeed it is a structure/framework [sarhun] smoothened/refined [mumarradun] from/of firm-purpose [qawarira]. She said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, and I submit in place with Sulaiman to Allah the Lord of the Worlds.

This ties up my understanding of the story of Sulaiman and the Queen. The underlying theme/message of the story is about being grateful for the abilities and means we have been given by Allah. The Prophet Sulaiman gives us an excellent example of how to be grateful and how to treat people under our influence. The story shows us that for all her power and ability, the Queen was unable to hold her domain due to her ungratefulness. And we also see the mercy of Allah who guides her to the straight path through the guidance of the Prophet.