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…..