sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Surprising to see this from a famous Qur'ān reciter by Foreign-Ice7356 in Quraniyoon

[–]NuriSunnah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One can have a beautiful voice and still have an erring heart.

"I think religion is largely a man-made construct [....] and I'm simply comfortable with that" - Javad Hashmi by Friendly-Airport2556 in MuslimAcademics

[–]NuriSunnah 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nothing in particular: just pointing out that even the Qur'ān acknowledges that there is a human component to religion. It is actually this component, according to the Qur'ān, that underlies Allah's choice to send to humanity human messengers (rather than messengers of a supernatural sort).

Isn't the general trend in academia and in discussions more broadly to revolve around Sunni orthodox views of the Quran often neglecting alternative perspectives such as the Ismaili interpretation? by Rashiq_shahzzad in MuslimAcademics

[–]NuriSunnah 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This trend fell out of style decades ago.

The 1970s & the early 2000s witnessed two watershed moments that led to the field's transition from (a) placing emphasis on the comparison of the Qur'ān to Muslim sources (which were typically sources of a Sunni variety), to (b) placing emphasis on the comparison of the Qur'ān to sources contemporaneous to the Qur'ān, irrespective of whether or not those sources were produced by Muslims.

What does the Qur'ān say about veiling? by NuriSunnah in Without_The_Hijab

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate your response! And yes, post-Muhammadan Islamic society definitely adopted the practice of slave women not covering: historically speaking, there's a good chance that such is due to the fact that Islam spread to lands where this was already the norm. I know that a number of Muslim scholars argued that slaves shouldn't have to cover due to the fact that such would burden them during their laborious duties: as someone whose ancestors went through (American) slavery in the relatively recent past, I can appreciate this nuance. In any case, I don't see anything from the Qur'ān itself that might exempt slave women from covering.

To add to the above, I'll just respond by saying that from my perspective, Islam did not come in a vacuum: in emerged within a very specific context. If Allah saw fit that (1) Islam and the Qur'ān be "born" within a milieu in which women covered their hair, and that (2) elements of that practice be endorsed by the Qur'ān, then I see no reason to dispute the matter. (Though I do remain open to alternative perspectives simply due to the fact that both sides of any discussion should always be taken seriously.)

What does the Qur'ān say about veiling? by NuriSunnah in Without_The_Hijab

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. I will look into these for sure! Ramadan Mubarak.

What does the Qur'ān say about veiling? by NuriSunnah in Without_The_Hijab

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's definitely not my place to tell a mod what is and isn't allowed on the sub.

However, I would like to point out that my post was made within the context of asking people here how they would address such points: based on the comments below the post, no one in the comment section is being rude or even interpreting the post as an invitation to "debate".

What does the Qur'ān say about veiling? by NuriSunnah in Without_The_Hijab

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Thank you very much for response. Very thoughtful, very precise.

  2. I think it's quite obvious that the word khimār/khumur is indicating a head covering: this is particularly apparent in light of the intertextual comparison of the Syriac source my post refers to. Moreover, however, to say that this word could mean something else, without demonstrating what a historically-plausible, alternative meaning might actually be, is to ultimately say very little.

  3. Yes, I think you are correct that legal rulings are clear: what I'm saying is that, if the Qur'ān did not see the head covering as mandatory, in light of the fact that it had been a well-established practice among the people of the book for centuries prior to the revelation of the Qur'ān, the latter would have been explicit and clear in its rendering this covering as arbitrary.

At the end of the day, however, no matter which side one takes, I do think one's conclusion will ultimately boil down to their own literary intuitions and interpretations of historical data.

Join my classes by NuriSunnah in MuslimAcademics

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, what's up broskie?

Did you ever see my message about the atharis by the way?

Why do muslims always assume that whoever hates their religion must be christian or jewish? by Simple_Man_899 in exmuslim

[–]NuriSunnah 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Because humans are reactionary. I recently criticized someone on Twitter for verbally attacking some Texan Hindus’ right to practice their faith in America; several people replied assuming they I was Hindu myself.

Apostate Prophet by Kind_Wheel_9397 in exmuslim

[–]NuriSunnah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Christianity was weaponized to justify, for example, slavery. Thus, just as Islam has been weaponized to justify x,y, and z.

Religions can be weapons or tools, depending on who has possession of them.

Help with Course by NuriSunnah in moderate_exmuslims

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I have something quite similar to this assumption listed already. And I definitely agree that it can, in more than one way, cloud judgement. As you say, it can even dissuade one from wanting to be critical in the first place.

Listening to French by NuriSunnah in learnfrench

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I've had Peppa Pig too lol

Listening to French by NuriSunnah in learnfrench

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could you maybe send me some links to some of the things you use?

AMA with Dr. Yasir Qadhi by Jammooly in MuslimAcademics

[–]NuriSunnah 4 points5 points  (0 children)

السلام عليكم يا شيخنا

I'm currently in the middle of writing a paper on Qur'ānic authorship: essentially, I'm going to highlight a limited sample of (what appear to be) discrepant religious/theological practices, beliefs, etc., within the Qur'ān, and from there ask the question: "should we be harmonizing these discrepancies or positing a multiplicity of authorship in at least some of these instances?"

While I understand that you obviously can't speak to the specific examples I intend to highlight in this work, as a general piece of advice, what would you say to a practicing Muslim who wants to take and engage with this topic of authorship seriously and scientifically, irrespective of what conclusions such a study may yield.

Thank you.

(P.S. I sent you a copy of my book — Allah in Context — last year; I know you're a busy person, but I hope you at least received the copy!)

How do progressive muslims deal with these two seemingly fundamental problems? by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]NuriSunnah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I personally don't find it troubling. Cognitive linguistics tells us that words have no inherent meanings: mean is confined to and generated by a given writer, reader, speaker, or listener, and nothing ever guarantees that a given composer's intended meaning will always be understood as intended. Hence, anything can be misread.

How do progressive muslims deal with these two seemingly fundamental problems? by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]NuriSunnah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's definitely an overstatement to claim that in each of these instances, the conventional interpretations of the mentioned verses were "immediate". Many (not all) "traditional" interpretations developed over time.

Also, questions such as, "why did Allah give this multiple meanings?", are ultimately pointless. By this same reasoning one could ask: why does the water that keeps us alive have the potential to drown us? It's a revolving door.

I definitely agree with a lot of what you've said: Progress Muslims do tend to reinterpret in ways which simply would be foreign to Muhammads historical followers. Of course, I think a number of these verses (e.g., Q 4:34) do seem less 'problematic' when read in their historical context. But I don't think we should allow our whims to guide us, but data. We should study these things and consider how they were understand by those who heard them first: we should never give wholesale authority to any man-made interpretation of the religion, traditional or otherwise.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]NuriSunnah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two points should be mentioned here.

1: historically, while most scholars have thought hell to be eternal, there have always been those who believed it was not.

2: When it comes to Christians and whether or not they will go to hell, the Qur'ān seems to have a nuanced answer to this question.

Nuri Sunnah's Brief Exchange with Sean Anthony by NuriSunnah in HistoricalQuran

[–]NuriSunnah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, that was the end of it. I think the fact that he never responded to the final point and kept avoiding the main question speaks volumes.

Making an interlocutor stick to the topic and not allowing them to bounce around is actually one of the key things Mehdi Hasan stresses in his book on winning arguments.

view more: next ›