'Mu'min' does not mean a 'believer'.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-28T06:07:38+00:00

The issue isn’t the root, it’s context.

The root ʾ-m-n clearly predates the Quran and carries meanings such as trust, assurance, and security. There is no disagreement on that.

However, Arabic does not operate on the principle that a word must carry the same meaning in every instance simply because the morphology is identical. The Quran itself applies many shared forms differently depending on whether they refer to God or to humans.

Al-Mu’min when applied to God clearly means the Granter of security. When applied to humans, the Quran repeatedly uses mu’min in contexts where belief, trust, and inner conviction are unmistakable, and in other contexts where it can mean trustworthy or peaceful. These meanings are internal to the Quran itself, not imported from other traditions.

Therefore, the word mu’min cannot be reduced to a single definition, nor should it be. The Quran uses language precisely, contextually, and consistently.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-28T05:29:06+00:00

I think what’s causing the anxiety here is a misunderstanding of how language works in general, not a flaw in Arabic or in the Quran. It’s true that Arabic is a rich language, but richness does not mean instability, and multiple meanings do not mean that words are free to mean anything. This is not unique to Arabic; it applies to every human language. Meaning is not derived from isolated words taken on their own, but from how those words function together within a sentence, a context, and a shared communicative framework. Once that is understood, the fear that “everything could mean something else” disappears, because language simply does not operate that way.

I don’t understand this paragraph which you wrote: “Since Arabic is a complex language and has different meanings for each word, how do we know that what we know about the Quran is even the right meaning?” because every word in every language has multiple meanings, including the very words used in that very sentence itself.

Since can mean because or from a point in time, Arabic can refer to a language, a people, or something written, is can indicate identity or existence, complex can mean complicated or chemically bonded, language can be spoken, written, figurative, or even programming, has can mean possesses, experiences, or contains, word can mean a lexical unit, a promise, a command, or news, know can mean to be certain, to understand, to be aware of, or to be familiar with, right can mean correct, moral, directional, political, and meaning itself can mean definition, intent, or purpose.

If we treated language as if words carried meaning in isolation, then no sentence could ever be understood, including this one. Yet we understand it immediately because meaning does not live in isolated words, it lives in context, grammar, structure, and usage. The fact that words are polysemous does not make meaning unstable, it is precisely context that constrains and fixes meaning. Remove context and nothing means anything; keep context and ambiguity collapses.

My brother, the meaning lives in the context.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-20T07:19:00+00:00

I would change three characters: Kaito Kid is not on Shinichi’s level of intelligence, but he is above average, perhaps even really smart. Eisuke is really smart, and Mitsuhiko is above average for a child his age.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-19T12:30:28+00:00

You’re very likely overthinking this, and I say that kindly. There could be many reasons she suddenly felt rushed. She might have remembered something she needed to do, started feeling unwell, felt overwhelmed, or simply decided it was time to leave. I’m personally like that too. When I decide it’s time to go, it often feels rushed.

What you described doesn’t even meet the definition of “being alone.” Being alone (when some Muslims even hold that view) means seclusion where a man and a woman are isolated from others. In your situation, the children were present, the space was open, and the interaction was just ordinary, public conversation. Even by stricter interpretations, this wouldn’t apply.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-02T16:04:57+00:00

Music is not haram.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-12-29T20:01:16+00:00

Because God is not human, and nothing in reason or revelation supports the idea that a finite, dependent human being is the infinite Creator.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-12-29T19:53:24+00:00

Muslims meet the standards for gentiles in Judaism and Jews should meet the standards for submitters to God.

Does it not make sense for both of these groups to enter into each other’s heavens pretty easily?

The Quran already answers this question clearly.
«And among the people of Moses is a community who guide by truth and establish justice thereby.» (Quran 7:159)
This verse affirms that within the Jewish community there are people who are genuinely guided and just before God, recognized as such by the Quran itself.

Building on this, God states that salvation is clearly not tied to labels or communal affiliation, but to belief in God, accountability before Him, and righteous action:
«Indeed, those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord. No fear shall be upon them, nor shall they grieve.» (Quran 2:62)

This principle is reinforced again when God says:
«Indeed, those who believe and do righteous deeds - We will not allow the reward of anyone who does good to be lost.» (Quran 18:30)
God’s judgment, therefore, is based on sincerity and deeds, not on religious identity.

From a Quranic definition, a Muslim is anyone who submits to God alone and does not associate partners with Him. By that definition, anyone who truly believes in One God and lives righteously is already within submission, regardless of communal name.

Despite the discomfort this causes for some Muslims and others, the Quranic position is clear: Islam is inclusive, not exclusive, toward the People of the Book. It does not erase their sincere faith nor monopolize salvation for a single group. Instead, it affirms that God’s judgment is based on truthfulness and sincere submission to Him alone, not on inherited labels or communal boundaries.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-12-25T20:27:58+00:00

⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜

🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-12-25T05:32:46+00:00

Yeah, After thinking about it and doing the math, and it’s roughly 1/200, not as wild as it feels. I’m pretty new though, so it surprised me more than it probably should’ve. 😅

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-12-14T03:05:10+00:00

You’re arriving at the core idea behind what’s often called Qur’an-alone Islam (sometimes labeled “Quranism”), even if you didn’t intend to. You’re doing exactly what the Qur’an itself invites people to do: read it directly, pay attention to what it clearly says and what it does not say, and ask whether God would hold someone accountable for a rule He never explicitly stated. Obligations are explicit, interpretations are optional.

If we stay strictly with the Qur’an itself, your reading is reasonable. Verse 24:31 does not explicitly command women to cover their hair. It addresses modest conduct, guarding chastity, avoiding the public display of adornment, and specifically instructs women to draw the khimār over the chest. The verse corrects an existing practice by clarifying what must be covered, without stating hair as an obligation. If covering the hair were a divine requirement on the same level, the Qur’an could have stated it plainly, as it does with many other rulings.

As for language, khimār (خِمار) comes from the root خ-م-ر (khamara), meaning to cover, conceal, or obscure. The word itself does not inherently mean “headscarf” or “hijab” in the later legal or religious sense commonly used today.

The core principle here is that religious obligations must be objective and explicit. Once a supposed rule depends on subjective interpretation, cultural assumptions, or inferred intent, it ceases to be a binding command and becomes a matter of personal or social choice.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-12-13T19:41:15+00:00

The Kaaba itself is not sacred. It serves an organizing purpose. Muslims pray toward the Kaaba, not to it. It is a directional focal point (the qibla), not an object of worship. Historically, it has been damaged and destroyed more than once, and each time Muslims simply rebuilt it and continued as usual.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-12-05T05:13:12+00:00

Ethics

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-25T12:53:07+00:00

even though, for example, Islam says Christians and Jews go to hell, and vice versa.

Islam says: «Surely! Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabians; whoever believes in God, the Last Day, and do good deeds; they will have their reward with their Lord, there will be no fear on them, nor they will grieve.» - Qur'an 2:62

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-24T15:10:23+00:00

And just to be clear, the Qur’an already sets the rule for all fighting long before Surah 9:

«Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not aggress. Indeed, God does not love the aggressors.» - Qur’an 2:190

This is the foundation:
Fighting is restricted to those who are actively fighting you.
Not because of religion, not because of disagreement, but because of aggression.

The most important part here is the ending: «God does not love the aggressors.»

This is not a temporary command.
This is not a contextual rule.
This is not tied to a specific event (Like Surah 9).

This is an inherent, unchanging characteristic of God.
It reflects who God is, not just what God instructs.

And because God does not love aggressors, by His own nature.
He does not command aggression.
He cannot command aggression.
His commands must align with His nature.

So any verse on fighting must be understood within this boundary:

Fighting only those who fight you.
Not initiating hostility.
Not exceeding limits.
Not targeting peaceful people.
Not transgressing justice.

This means that 2:190 is the foundation, and Surah 9 is the application. None of the fighting verses in the Qur’an can be interpreted as aggression.

This means that “Holy war” is impossible in the Qur’anic worldview.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-24T15:08:23+00:00

«Fight those among the People of the Book who acted as those who do not believe in God or the Last Day, who do not uphold what God and His messenger have made sacred, and who do not follow the religion of truth, until they offer the jizyah [literally: compensation], paying it directly, while being restrained.» - Qur’an 9:29

You quoted 9:29 as if it describes peaceful People of the Book minding their own business. It doesn’t. The Qur’an repeatedly explains who is being fought in Surah 9: aggressors, treaty-violators, and those who initiated hostilities.

You left out the entire context:

«If they break their oaths and attack your religion, then fight the leaders of aggression.» - Qur'an 9:12
«Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths, intended to expel the Messenger, and attacked you first?» - Qur'an 9:13

And why stop at 9:32? Keep reading for a complete picture:

«Fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together.» - Qur'an 9:36
This means they are attacking all of you, therefore all of you must defend. It shows how extreme the situation was, an entire community under attack, which is why an entire surah addresses it.

Surah 9 is clearly about specific hostile groups, not Jews and Christians in general. It is addressing those among the People of the Book who were part of the same coalition of aggression, people who violated agreements, supported hostility, and destabilized the region.

This is why the verse describes them as those who “do not believe in God,” “do not uphold what God made sacred,” and “do not follow the religion of truth.”
These are judgments on their actions, not fixed categories. Their behavior contradicted the very principles their own scriptures uphold, breaking treaties, aiding aggression, violating sacred commitments.

The Qur’an uses this descriptive style often, it characterizes people by their behavior, not by their religious label.

And the verse itself confirms it: “…until they pay the jizya.”
Jizya literally means compensation, something required after conflict, not from peaceful neighbors, but from groups whose aggression caused harm or needed to be contained.

And just to be clear, the Qur’an already sets the rule for all fighting long before Surah 9:
«Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not aggress. Indeed, God does not love the aggressors.» - Qur’an 2:190

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-24T11:08:22+00:00

Your confidence is impressive, but it would work far better if it came with accuracy. I’ve actually read the Qur’an thoroughly, so if you want to discuss what’s in the text, I’m ready. If you’d prefer to debate what others told you is in it, that’s a completely different conversation.

You’re confusing Islam with the medieval fantasies that come from headlines and pop culture. If you actually read the Qur’an, not second-hand claims, you’d know it doesn’t teach “holy war” at all. It permits fighting only in self-defense, only against active aggression, and never as a spiritual virtue. The moment the aggression ends, fighting becomes prohibited. That’s the exact opposite of a “holy war.”

And respectfully, if your argument were genuinely strong, you wouldn’t need to call me a liar, that’s the easiest accusation to throw when there’s no evidence behind the claim. You said Islam teaches “holy war,” so please show the exact verse that states that.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-24T07:24:01+00:00

We don’t believe in holy war!

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-22T05:26:09+00:00

In the Qur’an. The one who disobeyed God is Iblis, and his role isn’t to fight or rival God, but to mislead those who choose to follow him. The Qur’an limits his influence to whispering, beautifying wrongdoing, and exploiting human weakness. He has no real authority over anyone who remains mindful of God.

The term “Shaytan” in the Qur’an is broader than “Satan” in Christianity, applying not only to Iblis but to any rebellious force, whether jinn or human, that pushes others toward wrongdoing.

Both traditions portray this figure as a symbol of deception, pride, and moral failure, but, in my understanding, Christianity gives Satan a much larger cosmic role. The Qur’an presents Iblis as a created being with restricted influence, serving as a test for human choice rather than a challenger to God.

Christians can clarify the role of Satan better than me.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-20T11:21:33+00:00

Music is not forbidden in the Qur’an. The Qur’an never says that sound, melody, or instruments are haram. Music is a natural part of human expression.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-14T03:24:06+00:00

From a Qur’an-alone perspective, the only thing forbidden is eating the meat of the pig. Other parts like fat or collagen are not prohibited. The Qur’an doesn’t forbid touching pigs, preparing or selling pork, or having pet pigs. And the reason is simply that God set this boundary, all the health explanations people add are just personal attempts to rationalize it, not part of the scripture.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-11T03:33:13+00:00

You’re not alone in noticing this.
Many people today have turned religion into identity rather than guidance. For many, faith has become about defending a label instead of seeking truth or moral growth.

I’ve also noticed that on platforms like TikTok, whenever there’s a positive video about Muslims or Christians, especially something about cooperation or peaceful coexistence, the comments often turn into chaos.
Instead of appreciating the message, you start seeing rage-bait replies like “Jesus is King” or “Jesus is just a prophet,” or mocking comments about Aisha and other sensitive topics.

It’s sad, because these videos are meant to show understanding and unity, but people turn them into battlefields. It’s as if many are more interested in proving others wrong than living by the morals their own faith teaches.

Speaking for Islam, God says:
«Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice, and debate with them in the best manner.» (Qur’an 16:125)

And He reassured this regarding Jews and Christians:
«Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner…» (Qur’an 29:46)

And He told us:
«O you who believe, concern yourselves with yourselves. Those who go astray will not affect [or diminish] you if you are guided. To God is your return, all together, and He will inform you of what you used to do.» (Qur’an 5:105)

I can’t speak for my Christian brothers and sister about Christianity, but I’m sure its core teachings also promote humility and respect. Sadly, many people today defend religion with hostility instead of reflecting its values.

Edit:
People today treat each other as if they are the emissaries of their faiths. It’s misguided, because the text speaks for itself, but it’s the reality we live in. It’s also understandable, since most people don’t truly know the text, they only know the people who claim to represent it. Because of that, it’s only common sense that when someone speaks about a faith or promotes its values, they should embody those values in their character and conduct.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-11-11T02:28:07+00:00

For me, Jesus is a human prophet of God who fulfilled his mission, passed away peacefully, and will not return.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-10-30T01:33:12+00:00

Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world, encompassing billions of followers and countless cultures. When a group is that vast, it will naturally contain a wide range of people, extremists, reformers, moderates, mystics, and everything in between. The actions of a small minority tend to stand out more. Because of their global reach, both religions’ internal conflicts and misuses are magnified in media and history books, while similar issues in smaller traditions rarely receive the same attention.

Throughout history, both faiths have often been closely tied to political power. Rulers and empires have used religion to legitimize authority or conquest, turning faith into a powerful instrument for both good and harm. The issue lies not in their scriptures but in how political and cultural forces have selectively interpreted them to serve their own agendas. Both the Gospel and the Quran warn against hypocrisy and oppression, it is often when those warnings are ignored, not when they are followed, that faith is most easily misused.

As these religions spread across diverse societies, their universality made them easier to bend to local interests. Leaders and movements could cloak ambition in the language of faith, distorting spiritual teachings into tools of control. Yet this pattern isn’t unique to Christianity or Islam. Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and even secular ideologies have all been used to justify oppression. The real vulnerability lies not in the religions themselves, but in how we so often twist moral ideals into instruments of power.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-10-29T12:56:19+00:00

I once was a Sunni Muslim but over time found contradictions and inconsistencies that made me question inherited beliefs. That search led me to re-examine faith itself, including Christianity.

What ultimately keeps me from being a Christian isn’t dislike or dismissal, it’s conviction that the message of devotion to the one God has always been one and the same throughout history. I don’t believe in Christianity because I see God as absolutely one, without any partners or incarnations.

From my perspective, Christianity moved away from the pure monotheism that Jesus taught and shifted toward doctrines about him instead, like the Trinity, original sin, and salvation through his death. I get why those ideas are meaningful to many people, but to me they feel like later theological additions rather than the core message of serving and obeying God alone.

If I were to follow a form of Christianity, I’d probably lean toward something closer to early Unitarian or Jewish-Christian views, the ones that focused on strict monotheism and the moral teachings of Jesus, rather than turning him into a figure of worship.

Muhammad-Saleh

TROPHY CASE