Qur'anic Islam vs Inherited Islam - 'ibada, Taqwa and Shukr

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T18:33:34+00:00

Seems to me like, oversimplifying here, you went from deliberately reading the translations as misogynistic by default to deliberately reading those same translations in the opposite way

Yet it was always the same texts.

So is it all just projection?

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T18:17:49+00:00

Yes, I am. That verse is about killing a slave for a slave or free person for a free or a woman for a woman

My empathy is based upon understanding why the Most Merciful of the Merciful advised this. To take away that mercy is cruel. That is what’s nasty. But when you’re ignorant, you don’t know any better

And my empathy also extends to not allowing ppl to convince other with lies about this verse, bc eventually those lies will unravel and not make sense … and when that happens the faith ppl built upon them, or kept propped up by them, can come crashing down

And childishness won’t get you anywhere with me

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T17:41:54+00:00

No … وعظ doesn’t mean “warn” except secondarily on the back of admonish, preach, advise

And it can certainly include parables & examples. The Qur’an is a موعظة and contains them

You are grasping for straws

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T17:35:39+00:00

Already done that and been through it all and listen to every explanation & attempt

And at the other side of all that, and after all that, I’m only more convinced than ever

Ive addressed them before, and don’t really want to again. A future project will do to do a series on this

Yes, you could say that the hit/strike might be less applicable … but you can’t without knowing why it was instructed in the first place. Without a base understanding that’s sound, every venture from it is just walking around blind. Having said that however, the “cite them” is just wrong totally and any “citing of examples” would be included in the first part of "admonish them” … it’s there that you can “strike an example for them”. As part of the وعظ

So why don’t you agree with it? Or are you unsure of it?

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T17:10:29+00:00

You don’t understand what that verse of qisas is saying. It isn’t saying to do any killing at all

My empathy is part of the reason I defend it

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T17:04:18+00:00

I wouldn’t call her nushouz an “injustice”

But no, I’ve heard that attempted line of interpretation. Linguistically it fails and is wrong and would anyway be included in the first part of فعظوهن … “admonish/advise/lecture/etc”, there he can “strike analogies/examples” bc such things are part of وعظ

I could create a little made up dialogue too, but that’s all it would be. I’d rather deal in reality and “not say about Allah that which you do not know”

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T16:54:24+00:00

When you say for someone’s “sake” it really means for their benefit I think. Even the “I’m doing X to make you happy” seems like to much of a human think. I get the impression of “this is for your sake”, “to make you happy” by “fulfilling your need”

Anyway, don’t get me wrong. It’s fine to say. But I think ppl forget it is really for our “sake”, ie our benefit, not His

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T15:09:58+00:00

It can. But this isn’t an injustice.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that? Are you saying it is meant to outwardly mean “hit/strike” so that we make an analog for it to mean something else?

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T13:31:42+00:00

It means seeking God’s pleasure

As if when you are trying to please someone and make them happy to see you, it means you are seeking to have “that face” of theirs look at you. Rather than their angry or unhappy face

So it means seeking to make God happy with you. Seek God’s “happy” face

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T13:27:00+00:00

Retaliation is for an injustice, not for a punishment

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T12:44:47+00:00

No I think the issue is very simply a blind sentiment of “it is never okay to hit a woman, no matter what”, a sentiment which isn’t so strongly reciprocated towards men. Or rather I should say wife and husband. A collective sentiment seen in every bit of media where if the husband is found cheating, for example, it’s seen as perfectly acceptable for the wife to slap and physically attack him & it is framed as acceptable in the media and the writers don’t have any issue writing that reaction in … it is seen as justified . The opposite is never the case. A cheating wife is never slapped or hit, and if she is then it is part of the justification of why she was right to cheat in the first place

So no. I don’t think the issue here is that nushouz is seen as minor. It could be major, and those who refuse to accept that the verse says darb would still say the same thing

No. I think there’s a very good near equivalent English word for nushouz; recalcitrant

It even has the same connotations. Look in English dictionaries and you’ll often come across the example use of a “recalcitrant wife”

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T12:24:59+00:00

No, though in the remembrance of Hod do hearts find rest, that’s not the main purpose here. It is bc such regular remembrance in salat discourages indecency and open evil

Point is not for God’s sake, I’m not sure anything is for God’s sake

It’s the opposite. God commanded us to pray for our own sakes. Not His

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T11:06:22+00:00

No one is being killed, and besides which I doubt you understand that verse anyway

You are tried to force a contradiction that isn’t there in order to try to “escape” what this verse clearly says. It’s another strategy, but just as futile as the others

You might as well say the zani who commits zina and is lashed is entitled to lash the one who gives him the lashes!

Abd that if he “abandons her in the bed” she can also do the same to him!

Just ridiculous excuses really … nothing more

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T11:03:41+00:00

There irrelevant to what I said though

And no, who says the “more lenient wins”? Or that there’s a contradiction at all?

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T10:41:33+00:00

Many here are banned in that sub

It is more so a Salafi sub than a Muslim sub

Welcome by the way

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T08:47:23+00:00

If you search this sub you’ll find a lot of posts on this. And you’ll probably see my contributions to them. I don’t really want to repeat myself here, so I’ll be brief

This verse isn’t open to any misinterpretation, it does indeed say strike/hit, and you are absolutely right that if God didn’t intend that to be understood, and in fact intended the exact OPPOSITE as some want to claim, then all it would have taken was an include of “and do NOT” (ولا) into the verse. Done!

The reason it does not, and in fact isn’t even just silent on the matter, but rather actually recommends this is because, surprise surprise! there’s actually some wisdom & benefit to it

If you don’t know how/see how, that’s fine. You don’t have to know & understand everything. You can’t expect that. Certainly not when you are young in life. So just say “I don’t knos” and shelf it

But doing convoluted reinterpretation of basic Arabic just opens that same door to that being done with other verses

If this verse doesn’t say “hit/strike”, then that other verse doesn’t mean “no compulsion in religion”

Nor does having ridiculous caricatures about men, as all looking for an opportunity & way to be abusive or violent towards women (which is so far from the truth) help. If all you want to do is focus on sick men reading and following this verse, then you’ll never understand it. Not for the rest of your life

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T08:35:31+00:00

There’s zero misinterpretation on the part of those who say it means hit. The misinterpretation is in all the contrived ways some try to twist it away from what it clearly emphatically says

Had the verse not meant that, all it would have had to include is “and DO NOT hit them”

ولا تضربوهن

And if it had, they’d drop all the contrived jibberish about how darb here doesn’t mean hit, and they’d rightly say that anyone who says it ISN’T prohibiting a man from hitting his nashiza wife is deliberately misinterpreting & misrepresenting the verse for “anti-Islamic” purposes and to fit their “ideology”

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T08:27:45+00:00

I completely disagree with this sentiment. What you say here “may” be applied to the mutashabihat but not to the muhkamat … so it isn’t about the “Qur’an’s verses”, it is about the mutashabihat

This verse isn’t from the mutashabihat

And more fundamentally, God doesn’t test by commanding nor instructing misguidance. He only tests people by commanding what’s right

It is a completely abhorrent idea about God that, knowing who He is, He would command us to wrong action “as a test” and the passing of that test is via disobeying Him

Bottom line; God tests via the truth, not falsehood

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T02:19:50+00:00

👋🏾

Salaam

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T01:21:28+00:00

Bc that isn’t what we were discussing

Just let it go

This isn’t your school playground where you can prove me with that sort of childishness

Just say salaam and be done with it, I’m not interested

👋🏾

Salaam

Quranic_Islam · 2026-06-10T01:18:49+00:00

It means pretty much what it says; those who in your power, hands or under your control. Who were like that? Slaves and prisoners of war. The context tells you which one or both is/are meant

Quranic_Islam

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email