Does the Koran say that context is required to understand...

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

The matter under discussion is whether or not the Koran clearly says that context is required to understand its message.

The context is required since we're dealing with chronological revelations which are contextuals.

There is nothing chronological about the actual texts of the Quran as they were supposed to be pre written in heaven and they, apparently are not ordered chronologically. The Bible, yes. The Gospels, yes, because they tell a story in chronological order, but why are you introducing the word "chronological" when it comes to the Quran? It's anything but that. Never mind, don't even bother to answer. "Bye"

[The Cat]

why are you introducing the word "chronological" when it comes to the Quran? It's anything but that.

The Quran in their relational (historical) order
Quite meticulous is the following...
http://www.bombaxo.com/chronsurs.html
SAB
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/chrono.htm

Our wiki-islam
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Chronolog ... _the_Quran
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Revelatio ... e_Qur%27an

[The Cat]

The job of early commentators was to supply such a context in order to make the koran comprehensible.

Exactly the opposite, Bob. The early commentators hijacked the true meaning of the Koran to turn Muslims into Muhammadans.
Nowadays they are much more following the 'religion of Bukhari' than the deen (righteous path) described by Allah. The so-called
'context' of the Hisham/Bukhari 'religion' were all fabrications, in concerted ways, in order to bring Muslims into the clerical fold.

The important question as sum states is : Does the koran itself stipulate that in order for it to be fully understood then some form of 'contextualization' is necessary? And the answer is NO!

The Koranic context is obvious: the revelations. They are historical (in context).

As has been pointed out, the only time the koran tries to supply a hermeneutic protocol is in 3:7 and this aya, instead of making comprehension easier, makes things more difficult as it raises more questions than it solves.

Quite the contrary: it solves everything... And even Muhammad Asghar agrees with me:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/MohammadAsghar60419

I believe it tells us this: The Quran has two kinds of verses. Some of them are decisive, clear and fundamental. They need no interpretation, as they are clear and easy to understand. They should be taken to mean what we find stated in them. There are, in the Quran, some allegorical verses as well. No one should try to interpret them in order to understand their true or close-to-true meaning. Attempting to interpret them is what Allah has called to be a perversity in the hearts of those who seek to do so, as their meaning is known only to Him. No matter how hard we humans try, we can never decipher their true import and meaning.

Instead of trying to understand what was, or still remains, within Allah’s knowledge, those Muslims who are knowledgeable should contend themselves by saying: We believe in it [both the decisive and fundamental verses as well as the allegorical ones], it is all from Allah and that this belief is enough for us to retain our faith in Him and in what He has revealed to us through His Quran.

In other words, Allah has prohibited all the humans from interpreting the Quran. This restriction applies more stringently to the Muslims. They should never try to interpret anything that the Quran contains for, attempting to do so would prove that they are perverts and perverts Allah did not like in the past, nor is He going to like them in future.

See how the Koran is a frightening nightmare for Mullahs as it makes unmanageable flock of religious people. They had to change it.
And they did beginning with the falsity of Mecca, the redirected meaning of the former 'Hajj' (an Arabic county fair) or of the Sharia!

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Sate ... FLSELayout

It means that the Qur'an has very clear and lucid verses that are the core of the Book, but some verses may have more than one meaning, or carries several similar implications. When you see those verses, you should refer them to the clear and lucid verses to get the proper interpretation. Those who are sick and perverse do not go back to the clear and lucid verses, rather they make their own arbitrary interpretations instead. The Qur'an should be explained through the Qur'an itself and through the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It should not be interpreted according to one's own wishes and desires in an arbitrary manner.

So, like I've said, even tafsirs and hadiths are shirk implemented by Abbasid hypocrites to turn Muslims into sectarian Muhammadans.

[sum]

Hello The Cat

Your comments are always interesting but they do not apply to the main subject of this thread. The matter of whether the Koran explicitly demands that context is, or is not, necessary to understand the message of the Koran is only part one of the subject of context. So far, it is clear to me that the Koran does not explicitly demand context to understand the message.

For the final guidance for all mankind from a perfect god to be silent on this matter is extremely significant. Mankind is now left up in the air and results in either accepting context or rejecting context giving very different messages for mankind. If context was necessary it screams out to me that Allah should have given the context himself to avoid any biased and inaccurate context created by fallible man. Allah should have taken the matter of context into his own hands but he did not. Those that use context can not be shown to be wrong by the Koran - nor can those who reject context, as there is no guidance regarding context.

I will open a new thread on other aspects of context shortly.

sum

[The Cat]

If context was necessary it screams out to me that Allah should have given the context himself to avoid any biased and inaccurate context created by fallible man. Allah should have taken the matter of context into his own hands but he did not. Those that use context can not be shown to be wrong by the Koran - nor can those who reject context, as there is no guidance regarding context.

You are asking God to be more anthropomorphic than necessary. He'd have to settle every bit of human affairs into his 'own hands'!
Since the Koran was written in a poetic manner the context is thus flip-flopping, still it's most obviously inherent, patent, implicit...

A non-context would only be viable if the Koran was sent in one single pack, from immemorial time, right from Heaven. Only the most
extremists would hold this and it then would bring the problem of co-eternity with Allah as partnership. Thus the Koran is fully historical.

The simple theory of abrogation is explicitly referring to the context of the verses. That the verses were timely revealed, like 33.50
referring to Muhammad and Zaynab, points it. According to 3.7 Muslims should put aside whatever is -personally- unclear to them.
And to whom should they turn in time of doubt (Mullahs didn't even exist)... to those knowledgeable in the former scriptures (10.94)!

17:36 Follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked.

Now, can G-d have a context? Of necessity, every concept of G-d is allegorical. The tragedy comes from bigoted, instituted idolatry...

[Bob]

Hello,

I beg to differ with you mon chat and I am in full agreement with sum on this issue. Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq et al etc DID SUPPLY A MATERIAL CONTEXT for the 'revelations' even if that context was a fabrication. You say that the koran supplies its own historical context and I fail to see how this can be the case. Nowhere in the koran is a material context supplied for its own 'revelations'.

Like many people I do not swallow the mythology of the tried and tested ishnad. The koran unlike the Bible contains no long coherent narrative. For example, Moses crops up here and there in several places and narratives borrowed from the Bible are often incomplete. What Bokhari etc did was to supply Muslims witha relatively coherent narrative that was lacking in the scriptures themselves.

Regarding 3:7, the important point is that the koran itself does not supply the criteria by which Muslims are supposed to distinguish allegorical from clear verses. This point divides Muslims today. Take the aya about Allah fashioning man with his two hands. Salafists state that this is indeed a non-allegorical verse and that those who interpret it allegorically are not complying with the commands contained in 3:7. So 3:7 puts Muslims into a double bind. If one takes it literally then Allah has human attributes. If the two hands are not interpreted literally then Muslims are guilty of allegorical readings and are trying to find meaning in a verse that only Allah can understand!

[The Cat]

Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq et al etc DID SUPPLY A MATERIAL CONTEXT for the 'revelations' even if that context was a fabrication. You say that the koran supplies its own historical context and I fail to see how this can be the case. Nowhere in the koran is a material context supplied for its own 'revelations'..... What Bukhari etc did was to supply Muslims with a relatively coherent narrative that was lacking in the scriptures themselves.

And that 'material context' goes AGAINST the Koranic precepts, thus forming another religion (sect, shayaan) than that prescribed by Allah.
The 'religion of Bukhari' is thus schismatic, creating fitnah (mischief). The Koran suffices to itself and mustn't give to -any- interpretation.

Regarding 3:7, the important point is that the koran itself does not supply the criteria by which Muslims are supposed to distinguish allegorical from clear verses.

That criteria is clearly on an -individual basis- Period. It states that the Koran, as the word of God, suffices to itself and stipulates that any
human interpretation would cause fitnah, mischief. That's exactly what the 'religion of Bukhari' brought: doctors of law and Mullahs leading
the Muslims astray from the way of Allah. In other words, you can't follow the religion of Bukhari and still pretend to be a Koranic Muslim.

9.31 (Shakir): They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah (just like Mohammadans' Imams and Mullahs),
and (also) the Messiah son of Marium (or Bukhari's Muhammad) and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no
god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

9.65-67: And if thou ask them they will say: We did but talk and jest. Say: Was it at Allah and His revelations and His messenger that ye did
scoff ? ---Make no excuse. Ye have disbelieved after your (confession of) belief. If We forgive a party of you, a party of you We shall punish
because they have been guilty. ---The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong, and they forbid
the right, and they withhold their hands. They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them. Lo! the hypocrites, they are the transgressors.

The context given by Allah is that of the former al-kitab, namely the Torah and the Gospel, to which must be added the Furkan (2.53, 185;
21.48; 37.117, 25.1; 3.3; 8.29) and the Messaniy (15.87 & 39.23) i.e. the 7 Noachide commandments. These Laws were that of Abraham.
Even the Koranic Sharia solely refers to them! The Islamic clerical yoke made sure to brush them under the carpet, to upraise Muhammad.

The Koran clearly goes AGAINST the Muhammadans' religion. That's the revolving key!
All there is to do then is to insert the Koranic key into the Islamic lock and let it work!

The Koran clearly points out those sects (shiyaan) pretending to be religious as disbelievers... practicing hypocrisy!
The Arabic word for religion (Muzdhab) isn't even written in the Koran, what's written is the DIN, that of Abraham.

[sum]

I shall be away for a few days but will come back to this thread later.

sum

[Bob]

Bonsoir Le Chat,

I agree as you say that the historical contextualization goes against koranic precepts. The koran describes itself as perfect. Allah states that he has perfected his deen (whether Abrahamic or not) in the koran. If tafsir is necessary, if the hadith are needed, then clearly the koran is NOT perfect. How can it be necessary to ADD something to a perfect book? That said, there was indeed a NECESSITY to ADD the sira al-rasool and the hadith precisely because the koran is incomprehensible without the latter. How is it possible to understand whole sura such as Sura Lahab or Al-FIl without a running commentary?

For me this is just another example of the inextricable contradictions of the 'perfect deen'.

[The Cat]

There was indeed a NECESSITY to ADD the sira al-rasool and the hadith precisely because the koran is incomprehensible without the latter. How is it possible to understand whole sura such as Sura Lahab or Al-FIl without a running commentary? For me this is just another example of the inextricable contradictions of the 'perfect deen'.

A necessity to understand sura Lahad or al-Fil would ask thousands of commentary books and, in the process, up bringing the fallacies of
Mecca, the Kaaba, the Hajj, bowing down to instituted slavery, and sacred sectarianism? That's a heavy price for -trying- to understand!

Let me explain those suras, as I read them:

Sura Lahab (s.111): Arrogance is bound to doom you.
Sura Al-Fil (s.19): Stratagems do not work against Allah.

The Koran isn't Cartesian prose. It talks to your heart (such is poetry) much more than to your mind.
Faith is a giving, while beliefs are on to boost your ego. Such is the vast difference between them.
The Koran talks about faith; Hadiths about beliefs. The Koran is anti-clerical, hadiths to contour it.

p.s. J'espère que tu te seras bien reposé.

[The Cat]

The matter of whether the Koran explicitly demands that context is, or is not, necessary to understand the message of the Koran is only part one of the subject of context. So far, it is clear to me that the Koran does not explicitly demand context to understand the message.

It is explicitly required through 4.46:
Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and
"Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us"
it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few.

In 4.46 the Koran states that some Jews quoting out of context end up distorting the meanings. This is what the Hadiths made too!

[Wootah]

Just asking - Cat are you a Koran alone muslim? I never thought you were a muslim until this thread. Hope I am wrong.

[The Cat]

Please read again. I thought I was being clear enough:

The Koran clearly goes AGAINST the Muhammadans' religion. That's the revolving key!
All there is to do then is to insert the Koranic key into the Islamic lock and let it work!

The Koran clearly points out those sects (shiyaan) pretending to be religious as disbelievers... practicing hypocrisy!
The Arabic word for religion (Muzdhab) isn't even written in the Koran, what's written is the DIN, that of Abraham.

So, not only can Islam be reformed... It must be, since the Koran ASK for it especially in its chapter 9, rightly titled REPENTANCE.

9.65-67: And if thou ask them (O Muhammad) they will say: We did but talk and jest. Say: Was it at Allah and His revelations and His messenger that ye did scoff ? ---Make no excuse. Ye have disbelieved after your (confession of) belief. If We forgive a party of you, a party of you We shall punish because they have been guilty. ---The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong, and they forbid the right, and they withhold their hands (from spending for the cause of Allah). They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them. Lo! the hypocrites, they are the transgressors.

Now see how poor and undereducated the Muhammadans truly became, thorned between sectarian hatred and its wholesome stagnation.
That's Allah's curse being enacted right now in this very world, in the wake of their doomed hypocrisy. Repentance, i.e. reform, is ASK!

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

why are you introducing the word "chronological" when it comes to the Quran? It's anything but that.

The Quran in their relational (historical) order
Quite meticulous is the following...

But it isn't presented in that order and therefore there is no chronology in terms of it's meaning.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Please read again. I thought I was being clear enough:

The Koran clearly goes AGAINST the Muhammadans' religion. That's the revolving key!
All there is to do then is to insert the Koranic key into the Islamic lock and let it work!

The Koran clearly points out those sects (shiyaan) pretending to be religious as disbelievers... practicing hypocrisy!
The Arabic word for religion (Muzdhab) isn't even written in the Koran, what's written is the DIN, that of Abraham.

So, not only can Islam be reformed... It must be, since the Koran ASK for it especially in its chapter 9, rightly titled REPENTANCE.

9.65-67: And if thou ask them (O Muhammad) they will say: We did but talk and jest. Say: Was it at Allah and His revelations and His messenger that ye did scoff ? ---Make no excuse. Ye have disbelieved after your (confession of) belief. If We forgive a party of you, a party of you We shall punish because they have been guilty. ---The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong, and they forbid the right, and they withhold their hands (from spending for the cause of Allah). They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them. Lo! the hypocrites, they are the transgressors.

Now see how poor and undereducated the Muhammadans truly became, thorned between sectarian hatred and its wholesome stagnation.
That's Allah's curse being enacted right now in this very world, in the wake of their doomed hypocrisy. Repentance, i.e. reform, is ASK!

So the Quran is legitimate and the hadiths are the only problem? Is this what you are saying?? And you think the Quran and Islam can be reformed?? Are you serious??

[The Cat]

So the Quran is legitimate and the hadiths are the only problem? Is this what you are saying??
And you think the Quran and Islam can be reformed?? Are you serious??

The Koran is deadly serious about transgressors: Islam has lost its former meaning and so MUST be reform... out of shirk.
The Koranic Covenant has been broken by the idolators such as those who engage into worshiping a black stone in Mecca.
No Muslim is bound to respect the Muhammadans, those following the sects of Bukharism, but to trash idols such as this
and the leaders who forced them into shirk through a ton of ritualistic deceptions, corruptions. This Jihad is mandatory.

9.1: ''Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.''
Muslims did make such a treaty with the devil to become accursed Muhammadans, idolators themselves, most likely idolizing themselves!

9.5: ''Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them,
and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish (proper) worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free....''

If they don't even stick to their holy book then... all hell broke lose... as it is right now, everywhere, in the Muslim's world!

[sum]

Hello The Cat

I find it hard to accept your reasoning and conclusions. The Koran says that it is clear. Allah can not be wrong. However, the Koran then destroys its credibility by saying "obey the messenger" but it does not say that the ahadith etc are clear and accurate. Many muslims are now ignoring the ahadith when Allah says "obey the messenger" on the grounds that they were collected decades, if not longer, after Muhammad`s death and therefore very suspect. On the one hand we have a Koran claiming to be clear yet there are ongoing disputes over its translation, meaning and message. On the other hand we need the ahadith to obey the messenger. How can the final message for all mankind - the most important message ever for mankind - be reliant on the suspect and unreliable ahadith? If it wasn`t so serious it would be the greatest joke of all time.

Allah, Muhammad and the muslims who accept it all are made to look absolute fools.

sum

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

So the Quran is legitimate and the hadiths are the only problem? Is this what you are saying??
And you think the Quran and Islam can be reformed?? Are you serious??

The Koran is deadly serious about transgressors:
Islam has lost its former meaning and so MUST be reform... out of shirk.

So correct me if I am wrong, but if I'm not, I need you to explicitly answer the following in writing. Was Islam ever a true belief?? Did the creator of all things endow mankind with Islam?? A straightforward, simple answer would be appreciated by me, and probably many others here at this point, after the things you have written. Why would anybody need to reform a lie?? What is going on here? What are you trying to do? What kind of obvious and evident BS is this?????

[The Cat]

The Koran says that it is clear. Allah can not be wrong. However, the Koran then destroys its credibility by saying "obey the messenger" but it does not say that the ahadith etc are clear and accurate. Many muslims are now ignoring the ahadith when Allah says "obey the messenger" on the grounds that they were collected decades, if not longer, after Muhammad's death and therefore very suspect.

My oh my, I can see that you're still within the Islamists' distortions! That's how much they are pervasive...

The Koran in 12.111 and 49.12 condemns all hadiths as conjectures. When it says 'obey Allah and His messenger' what does it mean?
It means that Allah is endorsing Muhammad as a law carrier, such is a messenger and nothing more. Nothing! The hadiths aren't
carrying ANY message from Allah, just hearsays that one heard from one another. They aren't binding but... mischief in the land!

12.111: In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story (hadiths) but a confirmation of the
existing (Scripture, i.e. the Bible) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.

This is a topic that I want to expend in my main thread so I won't blow up the fuses right now. In the meantime...

The Shirk of Making an Idol out of A Prophet through the Hadiths.
viewtopic.php?p=17395#p17395
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/ ... 45%29.html

[The Cat]

Was Islam ever a true belief?? Did the creator of all things endow mankind with Islam??

Of which Islam are you talking about? In the Koran it isn't even that important...