The Qur'an tells us in a specific verse to use the Qur'an alone.
17:46 - We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Qur'an alone, they run away in aversion.
Traditional Translation
17:46 - And We have placed coverings on their hearts and a heaviness in their ears lest they understand it, and when you mention your Lord alone in the Qur'an they turn their backs in aversion.
So which is it?
Is the Qur'an saying "Lord alone" or "Qur'an alone"?
To find out we need to look at the Arabic transliterations.
The word alone in Arabic is "wahdahu" and it occurs a total of six times in the Qur'an including the verse above.
These verses are 7:70, 17:46, 39:45, 40:12, 40:84, and 60:4.
Let's examine the usage in these verses...
7:70 - They said: "Comest thou to us, that we may worship Allah alone, and give up the cult of our fathers? bring us what thou threatenest us with, if so be that thou tellest the truth!"
Qaloo aji/tana linaAAbuda Allaha wahdahu ...
39:45 - And when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the hereafter shrink, and when those besides Him are mentioned, lo! they are joyful.
Wa-itha thukira Allahu wahdahu...
40:12 - That is because when Allah alone was called upon, you disbelieved, and when associates were given to Him, you believed; so judgment belongs to Allah, the High, the Great.
60:4 - ... we declare ourselves to be clear of you, and enmity and hatred have appeared between us and you forever until you believe in Allah alone ...
As it is plain to see, this verse does not say "Lord Alone", it says "Qur'an Alone", or "alqur-ani wahdahu", literally, "The Qur'an alone".
If it was "Lord alone" then surely, just as in all the other instances of the word "Alone", "Wahdahu" would have occurred ...
... right after "Rabbaka", but it does not, it occurs after "Qur'an".
So the only logical conclusion is that the correct translation is "Qur'an alone" as followed in some various but minority translations of 17:46
17:46 We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone, they run away in aversion.
So why then do the majority of translators translate the verse as "Lord alone"?
It's simple: the majority of Muslims, and the majority of translators, uphold the Hadith, and the simple fact is if the Qur'an were to say "Qur'an alone", ...
... it would invalidate the Hadith, and so the majority of translators translated the verse to say "Lord alone" when it clearly says "Qur'an alone" to fit their ideology.
In truth, the verse says "Qur'an alone" because Muslims are only supposed to follow the Qur'an alone
Consider these verses...
"But those who wronged among them changed [the words] to a statement other than that which had been said to them"
When Albert Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the recurring question that students asked him most was: "Do you believe in God?"
> thread
And Einstein always answered: "I believe in Spinoza's god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
"The philosopher whom Einstein admired most was Baruch Spinoza, the 17th-century Jewish philosopher, who was excommunicated by the Amsterdam synagogue and declined the Heidelberg professorship in order to live as a lens grinder, leading an independent life dedicated to…
When someone says they want to protect the sanctity of Islam, they don't mean protecting the Divine (God) because it is absurd to think of a mortal human being standing in defence of the Almighty.
thread >
In fact, it is blasphemous to think of God as a weak Being in need of His creatures' protection.
What is meant truly when someone says they want to protect the sanctity of Islam is this: 'I want to protect my understanding of Islam'.
It is this conflation of the self and the religion that is at the root of the desire to insert oneself in the grand script as 'God/Islam's defender'. In the mind, there is a cosmic drama unfolding between the forces of good (i.e. me/us) and the forces of evil (they/them).
4:34 …And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them… (Muhammad Asad)
4:34 …If you have reason to fear ill-will from your wives, remind them of the teachings of God, then ignore them when you go to bed, then depart away from them… (Safi Kaskas)
The reason I believe 1) the Qur'an is true is that it describes what people we see around do, in real-time, to a high degree of accuracy. 2) traditional Islam is not in the Qur'an.
This thread is a witness:
God: Here's a book of guidance for *anyone* who wants to live a righteous life (2:2)
Muslims: This is OUR book, and you "non-Muslims" have no right to interpret it. Can't even touch it, actually, if it's in Arabic.
(what about non-Muslim Arabs, how do they read?)
God: There is no compulsion in The Way (2:256)
Muslims: if you change your religion, you should be killed. If you have doubts, you should undergo rehabilitation. If you speak against it, you can be persecuted.
The average Malay Muslim has been told so often that he is incapable of understanding the Qur'an on his own, that he is utterly dependent on someone else's interpretation to the point that the interpretation is now akin to the word of God Himself.
thread>
As a result, these man-made interpretations cannot be questioned, and a different understanding of the verses cannot be comprehended or processed.
To be fair, there is no real basis for comparison, because he thinks he will not be able to understand a pure translation.
Because these interpretations have been accepted for centuries, the Qur'an is anchored to the period in which the interpretations were made, instead of being interpreted in light of the currently available evidence.
It's hard to defend your faith against detractors because there are so many similarities between the Taliban / ISIS and traditional Islam
Quran ✅
Sunnah & Hadith ✅
Ijma' (consensus) ✅
Qiyas (analogy) ✅
Even the attestation of faith is the same ✅
thread >
In Shafi'i-centric Malaysia, there is even some amount of support for the Taliban.
So how can you glibly say "They are not Islam" to non-Muslims?
Are you even allowed to declare others who call themselves Muslims "non-Muslims"?
The minutiae of faith and actions are opaque to non-practitioners. Even practitioners themselves quibble over matters (hence ijma'), so how do you expect non-Muslims to know these fine details?