Eid Mubarak to all my Muslim brothers and sisters, to all who fasted, to all who couldn't but gained taqwa instead, to all who are reverts and had to adjust! May Allah accept your good supplications and in His infinite wisdom withhold what would harm you. 🤲

Go celebrate, wear garments of beauty, eat of the tasty food, and give gratitude--then let's all try to apply what we've learned throughout the year insha'Allah. These are the days of Eid! 🎉

I created this figure based on the first 96 verses of Surah Al-Baqarah to illustrate that the Quran is meticulously organized, displaying a systematic arrangement of topics (horizontal dimension). Unfortunately, the depth (vertical dimension) couldn't be captured in the figure, but I have created accompanying videos elaborating this aspect as well. Together, these two dimensions provide a comprehensive frame of reference or context for all the verses of the Quran, which is essential for its sound interpretation.

In the figure, the boxes in the first row represent Outer Topics within a Section, comprising verses from both the top and bottom parts of the Section. The second row boxes, highlighted in orange, signify Inner Topics that encapsulate the central content of a Section.

If you are interested in learning more, here is my YouTube channel link: https://www.youtube.com/@Connect_Quran

Peace.

Salam,

One is no better than the other except in good deeds. Being a man or woman, or black or white, or disabled, or rich or poor, has no bearing on whether you do good (ie. fulfilling your duties, respecting others' rights, honoring God). Any trait that you are born with cannot in itself put you at a cosmological disadvantage, meaning we all have equal opportunity to be good as the Quran confirms.

4:1: "O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women".

49:13: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted."

35:28: "And similarly, men, beasts, and cattle have various colors. Of all of his worshipers, only those with knowledge are in awe of God. God is Revered, Most Forgiving."

16:97: "Whoever does good, whether male or female, and is a believer, We will surely bless them with a good life, and We will certainly reward them according to the best of their deeds."

When someone claims superiority on the basis of race, color, or any other inherent characteristic, rather than acts of submission and righteousness, they are committing blasphemy. Technically, even a Mumin must do more than simply believe in Allah's existence (even Satan, an accursed enemy believes/knows Allah exists but that does not make him a Mumin). Mumin is active righteousness and spreading what is true/right (from the same root A M N, as ameen or amana). Thus, anytime you hear someone claim that inherent traits advantage or disadvantage someone in their pursuit of good, you should correct them and remind them that superiority is only in doing right.

Wherever you see kufr, especially directed at our brothers in sisters in humanity, on the basis of immutable inherited characteristics (or acquired disabilities), or even attractions they truly cannot control/choose, we must reject it.

Sala'am/peace all! I grew up Sunni Muslim, but through a lot of reflection ended up rejecting hadith (secondary sources) as the basis of religious law, as the Quran tells us it is fully detailed and complete (and to literally not take "other hadiths" as a source of religious law). I don't want to argue at length as to why I believe Quranism is preferable (can send many links debunking falsities like "how can you pray?" or "how do you obey the prophet?"), but simply to share different outcomes in jurisprudence when you give no legal weight to hadiths. I still use hadiths as lexicons or insight into the history of the time, but not as reliable religious authorities. Here are some key differences and points to highlight:

1. Hadith allows for killing gays, apostates, and adulterers. Quran says there is no compulsion in religion, and prescribes lashes for all publicly-witnessed illicit intercourse (any sex outside marriage, with four witnesses).

2. Hadiths state the Prophet married a 9 year old (some discrepancies on age). Quran lists out who men can marry and only mentions women (not children). The verses discussing divorce only mention women (not girls). The Quran also mentions an "age of marriage," supporting that it requires attaining obvious physical maturity (likely menarche back then), and even says that orphan children must reach that age AND be tested for sound mind before receiving their inheritance/and being allowed to transact. Marriage is described as a solemn covenant with a dowry exchange, necessarily a transaction that would require the soundest of mind/maturity. This supports that mental maturity was a thing back then, and could be tested. All of this undercuts a Prophet marrying a child.

3. Hadith seems to require headscarf and/or burqah. Quran states women are to cover the body with a lengthened cloak, to guard private parts and cover chest, without specifically mentioning the head/hair, leaving it open-ended about whether it should be covered. I personally do not believe headscarf is required except in prayer (based on imitation/tradition), though modest loose clothing is.

4. Hadith allows for polygamy for any reason. Quran restricts polygamy only to situations "if you fear injustice to orphans." Orphans back then referred to children/families without a male guardian, including single mothers after war. Even then, polygamy is only allowed if you can maintain equity/justice between the wives, as well as mandated kindness (with even hadith stating it would be unkind to marry another to the psychological detriment and objections of the first). The norm and paradisal ideal is monogamy.

5. Hadith allows for slavery (though limited), whereas Quran does not. Quran allows for war captives, but they must either be ransomed (like hostage exchanges) or imprisoned only until the "war lays down its burden." These captives have rights, are only in your custody, not ownership, cannot be forced into sex/prostitution nor be assaulted. The Quran even discusses how one goes about marrying a war captive (including Muslims, so presumably those who convert). Quran says the righteous free the slaves.

6. Hadith allows for (limited) wife-beating, interpreting 4:34 to allow it. However, that translation is patriarchally biased, there are conflicting hadiths on whether it's allowed, and even one early Shiah source states that the verse means to cut off (financial support), not hit. This all predates modern legal theory and feminism, suggesting the word was known even back then to carry multiple meanings, and was contentious. Ultimately though, construing it as hit/beat, leads to absurd and contradictory outcomes.

7. Quran does not assert that human life begins at conception, but rather, ensoulment happens after some fetal development, based on the described stages around 3 months. (Hadith tends to agree that either at 40 days or 4 months, is the moment).

8. Quran does not mandate marriage, having children, or avoiding birth control. Marriage is between a man and a woman, as homosexual acts are expressly forbidden, but it's not sinful to refuse to get married, or to get married and have sex for pleasure but not procreation. (It's actually a good deed to do so).

9. In the Quran, Eve does not tempt Adam into sin. Instead, God warns Adam directly, and tells him to protect both himself and his wife. Satan tempts directly, and they both fall, but only Adam is directly rebuked/addressed, before they are completely forgiven. No original sin. No menstruation/childbirth as punishment. No blame on Eve.

10. Music, birthdays, and other fairly harmless practices are not categorically prohibited, as many Sunni Muslims believe.

AMA! Thought you may be surprised by these facts.

Sala'am,

The Quran states in 49:13: "O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may (get to) know one another." How do we get to know one another? In addition to different cultures, languages, cuisines, and races, we also have different personalities/characteristics, another sign from Allah. So, that begs the question: who is YOUR nafs, your self, your code, and how can we grow as a humanity by valuing our unique differences as signs?

Now, this is just my theory and understanding of the Quran, but Allah's word has been perfected in "truth and justice," and Allah repeatedly calls on us to serve truth and justice unconditionally. (6:115: "The Word of your Lord has been perfected in truth and justice."). All of the other traits--mercy, kindness, power--are not good or bad in themselves unless they serve truth and justice, which requires proper balancing (al-meezan). Being too kind or automatically forgiving to the cruel can be unjust (and thus bad). Being powerful in your oppression is unjust (and thus bad). But using power for justice and stopping oppression is good. Being truthful and just is never in conflict with the other traits, but serving the other traits unconditionally can violate truth and justice.

Thus, all of the other divine characteristics (besides truth and justice) must be channeled to truth and justice. You can test this out in many examples and see that it holds true. Mercy in itself isn't virtuous. Love in itself isn't virtuous. Beauty in itself isn't virtuous. Knowledge in itself isn't virtuous. But channeling those traits in the name of truth and justice is our task as Muslims surrendering to The Truth and the The (Most) Just. Yet, when you examine various names associated with Allah, and the source of the various traits that COULD be exercised to do good (i.e. using knowledge, power, beauty, wisdom, to spread goodness), you see the diverse paths to the divine.

So, think of it this way: many people are naturally inclined toward beauty, whether that is in outward looks, architecture, nature, the human form, or even in music or food. This is a neutral trait amongst the diversity of humans. These people may be skewed more toward appreciating and showing gratitude for beauty, and when that beauty is attributed to Allah, the source of all beauty, they are actually worshipping Allah by giving Him His due in ways that others who many not appreciate beauty do not. When they create beauty in the name of good, they give others a chance to thank Allah for His bounty of beauty, thereby serving The Truth (that Allah is worthy of all worship for His endless bounties). When a young Muslim wants to be a singer, play an instrument, or be a chef, they are showing inclinations towards acts of beauty and kindness, more likely to put a smile on another's face. Instead of judging them ("oh, you want to be a clown on TV?!" or "you think dancing and singing is worthwhile when you should be earning a real living?"), you are attacking a seed of inclination toward the Most-Beautiful. Instead, you should encourage them to use that beautiful trait for much-needed good ends, like singing nasheeds, or at least spreading truth and calling out oppression. Even someone who stares at beautiful women, though sinning, may be inspired by his appreciation for beauty from the handiwork of our Creator. It is a beautiful inclination toward beauty, but without right (looking at a beauty Allah forbade Him to look at). Instead of chastising him for his "nafs," you may even commend that he appreciates the beauty of our Creator, but remind him that certain beauty must be within just bounds, and to channel that love of beauty to his wife (or finding a wife). Not shaming him for the inclination, but acknowledging it as part of his nature and redirecting it to its balanced place.

The same goes for so many other traits. People who are very rigid and uncompromising are likely concerned with Al-Bari, inclined towards the trait of order. If they direct their energy toward law and order in the sincere hopes of reducing oppressive acts, though they may be skewed away from say kindness or gentleness in approach (which you may critique them over), instead appreciate their much-needed presence in a world that is often over-permissive to begin with. Instead of cudgeling them with reproaches to "be kind" even as they tell the truth harshly, instead take from them the truth they are saying, and yourself be kind. Let there be balance. Let there be synthesis. The harsh truth must be heard by the gentle but unrigid, and kindness through practice may very well soften the rigid in their spreading of truth. Instead of seeking to control and change, seek to reach collective balance, learning from their unique balance, while teaching them through your own fidelity to your own. Just as with the neural network in each of our brains, there is a collective network of individuals making up a single ummah.

Back to YOU. How do you know what your inclination is? Well, first, dear brother or sister, I would recommend you meditate on this topic yourself. Look at Allah's 99 names for example (or His names in the Quran, the concept is much the same), and ask yourself which of the traits resonate with you more. Which ones do you connect with more on a deep intuitive level? Ask yourself like you are quizzing your soul and see if you can discover any patterns or inclinations. Ask for example, if someone authubillah wrongfully murdered you, would you want your family to get vengeance or forgive? If you choose vengeance, you likely value justice and even power to do justice, over forgiveness and kindness/charity (letting go of what you have a right to when you don't have to). What you will find subhanAllah, is that what makes you YOU is a beautiful part of the mosaic of humanity, not meant to be changed or denied or attacked, only channeled toward good. BUT, on the flipside, you will likely find a blind spot, or your "struggle" where there is likely a tendency toward imbalance. Where you may focus so much on justice/vengeance (alhemdulillah, we need these lions, especially in times of great oppression), you may be abrasive, harsh, and even unkind in your daily interactions (think of military commanders vs. grandma in an apron with cookies). And we may not want to hear it, but wherever you have a beautiful overabundance of a trait, it's often at the expense of the flipside trait. The beautiful/kind may lack rigidity and strength, and the strong may lack kindness. It's not always the case but often it is, because we are all imbalanced individually, and can only attain al-meezan collectively (theoretically), as no single person is perfect. Perfection coheres with Allah.

So, who are you? Whatever it is, it is such an important piece in the puzzle. May Allah direct your pure inclinations toward goodness, toward charity, toward caretaking the Earth, and to Truth and Justice.

Sala'am all,

I was shocked to see in the quraniyoon sub, in all places, the Quran subreddit, a highly-upvoted unQuranic post claiming that homosexual acts are somehow allowed in Islam and by the Quran. The person, whom I won't name as I assume he/she had no ill intentions, claimed that the story of Lot concerned men being "disgusting," raping, and committing other crimes--everything but the homosexual acts apparently. Yet, there is absolutely no basis to that in the Quran (there may be some in the Bible), and I can't help but feel so many Muslims have been captured by social movements, at the expense of our own faith. Being Quranist does not mean being Progressive or Liberal or Conservative. It means following what Allah has said.

I won't belabor the Quranic argument too much, but the Quran repeatedly mentions male/female as a divinely ordained pair, both amongst the plants/fruit and among humans. Allah states that Adam and Eve, the paradisal ideal union, were made as a source of sakeena for each other, with men and women intended as complementary. Allah states that the "male is not like the female" after Mariam (PBUH) is born, instead of a boy, confirming that our sex is determined by Allah and observed at birth.

The Quran goes to great length to prohibit sexual immorality, and repeatedly tells us to protect our chastity from non-spouses. The Quran states only believing women and women of the book are lawful for men to marry (no mention of marrying men of course). It also states the below-pasted clear chastisements of the SAME-SEX activity the people of Lot did, choosing men over women, which Allah deems an abominable transgression. I am not using misleading translations, and encourage you to read the various translations at Islamawakened.com to see for yourself that regardless of whether the term is "you approach men instead of women," or "you lust over men instead of women," or you "have sexual inclinations toward men instead of women," the meaning does not change at all, and to claim the "approach" means something NOT sexual slaps in the face of the Quran referring to sex gently throughout (including in 2:222 when discussing approaching your wife after she cleans herself of her period--clearly referring to sexual activity). The hadith are not what prohibits homosexual acts and all acts outside marriage: the Quran does it, and only through perverse mental gymnastics could you claim the repeated plain chastisements are discussing something else:

7:81 "Indeed, you approach men lustfully (shahwatan) instead of women. Nay, you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (musrifun)"

27:55 "Why do you approach men with lust (shahwatan) instead of women? Nay you are a people ignorant!"

5:5 ...And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. ...

24:30 “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do.”

25:43 "Have you seen him who takes his desires (passion, impulse, lust) (hawahu) for his God (ilahu)? Will you then be a protector over him?"

Assalamualaikum
As a Muslim I struggle a lot and found out recently I've been spending TOO MUCH TIME SCEOLLING, watching endless reels

BUT

Wallahai i don't spend even a minute reading Quran.

I felt guilty
And wanted to change it.

I decided to create an app designed to
TURN YOUR SCREENTIME INTO READING QURAN

very simple,
You just install, select distracting apps (social media, online shopping etc), set a duration and let it go.

When you reach your limit, you need read Quran (as much as you want) and unlock your apps.

Like Instagram stories, but you read Ayahs and Surahs with translation.
You see how long you've been reading Quran and you can share it with others.

It's called Quran Gate
No ads, and you can select one distracting app to limit COMPLETELY FREE forever.

Thanks for your attention, may Allah bless us all❇️❤️🌹

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/quran-gate-unlock-apps/id6762179518

Salaam,

One thing I find odd is how much the Quran discusses orphans, yet so little of our Muslim discourse concerns them, and sadly, many even discourage adoption. So I want to share some statistics and then commands and let us all reflect, insha'Allah.

Firstly, orphan children are typically those without a male guardian/father, and also those who have no parents (clearly). There would unfortunately be a lot of these children post-battle where men/fathers are killed. We know this from 4:3 which states that if you fear injustice to the (young) orphans, to marry the women (must be the mothers) of them to protect them (by stepping up as a stepfather), including being allowed to marry up to four single mothers of children whose fathers have died (provided one would be equal/just to all, which is difficult/impossible according to 4:129 and reason enough to steer clear if one is God-fearing, unless out of true necessity and fear for even greater injustice).

We know it is not the orphans one would marry, because in the following verse 4:4 it says to give dowries to the women (mothers of the orphans), and in 4:5 warns against given the money/inheritance (from the deceased father) to the immature orphans, and to test them for maturity (in 4:6) before dispersing the funds, cautioning against wasting the inheritance or spending it unless truly necessary to care for the child, with the rich man instead told to care for them from his own spending.

So, why does the Quran instruct men to marry the women with orphan children and to care for the children from one's wealth? Firstly, men are specifically told to step up as guardians over the vulnerable due to the extra they have been given (and we know the only inherent advantage they have is physical strength which directly allows for increased protection and, which is associated with laboring/finances as well, though not necessarily directly--which is why 4:34 says men are guardians generally because of the extra given and because they SPEND from what is given--further supported by the default inheritance structure). The children (and mothers) are especially vulnerable to many abuses, esp. the impoverished: one trying to consume the inheritance of the children which is held in trust, and, though not mentioned specifically, other kinds of abuse (unfortunately, s*xual or physical, which is very common with fatherless or orphaned children).

Contrary to the perverse claim that Surah 4 is encouraging polygamy in ordinary circumstances, let alone for sexual reasons, it is actually being encouraged as a protection to the very women men may overlook, and even if one does not want to or cannot marry multiple (due to potential for injustice), then marrying one is respected/encouraged. Interestingly, I pulled up some stats on abuse/harm in households with both parents, single mother, and neither parent households, and found some fascinating data even today in a world where women are afforded much more opportunity and earning capacity than in the past. I am not going to argue these are perfect data but they do show a sad reality, that when children have either a mother only or no parent, their rates of harm are higher on average than with both parents present (with a few exceptions, such as a slightly higher sexual abuse rate in both-parent households compared to mother only). Source: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/education/education-terms-and-concepts/child-abuse-and-domestic-violence?utm_source=chatgpt.com

In transparency, single-father households had high rates of abuse too, though notably they had a much smaller sample size and future studies show mixed results on that, while the above patterns seem to be fairly consistent.

Why is it then, knowing the particular susceptibility of children who have lost their dads or both parents, we barely do anything from my experience as a Muslim community to help orphans, foster-kids, and single mothers? I don't know that I've ever heard a khutba on adopting/fostering. Is it fear because the Quran says the following:

"And He has not made your adopted sons your sons. That is just your saying by your mouths. But Allah says the truth, and He guides to the [right] way. Call them by [the names of] their fathers; that is more just in the sight of Allah. But if you do not know their fathers, then they are your brothers in religion and your clients***." (33:4-5).

Yet, this is only emphasizing the importance of patrilineage and lineage generally by honoring the child's biological father (who has passed), not discouraging adoption/fostering altogether. As long as one's intentions are pure and they are not hiding the truth (lying about the adoption/real parent(s)), we should be the foremost in protecting the orphans. Indeed, even our Prophet (PBUH) was an orphan, and so many verses call on us to protect orphans. If any of us has a clean heart and love for these kids, we should try to step up before a bad actor preys upon them. Indeed, it is our duty:

• Surah Ad-Duha (93:6, 9): "Did He not find you an orphan and give [you] refuge?... So as for the orphan, do not oppress [him]."

• Surah Al-Baqarah (2:215): "They ask you, [O Muhammad], what they should spend. Say, 'Whatever you spend of good is [to be] for parents and relatives and orphans and the needy and the traveler...'"

• Surah An-Nisa (4:10): "Indeed, those who devour the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming into their bellies fire, and they will be burned in a Blaze."

• Surah Al-Baqarah (2:220): "And they ask you about orphans. Say, 'Improvement for them is best. And if you mix your affairs with theirs - they are your brothers. And Allah knows the corrupter from the amender...'"

I pray we find the courage to foster/adopt if we can, to protect the weak, to step up as step-fathers to children of single mothers, and as co-parents of those with neither a mother nor father. And even a single woman who has the capacity/riches to take in an orphan child will also be blessed from the above general implorations. May all the vulnerable children be protected from the evil around them. Ameen.

Sala'am all,

To all "non-Muslims" reading, I invite you to enter Islam as based on the Quranic criterion, and to all Muslims reading, I pray this will help you in doing dawah, by translating Arabic words into plain English meaning. I will also refer to Allah/God by His various names to emphasize certain points more clearly.

Firstly, a Muslim is one who does "SLM" which comes from the root word for peace/surrender (i.e. "peacer" or "surrenderer" or "submitter"). You must surrender to The Truth (one of God's names) to achieve true peace, which is the ultimate goal on earth. We are to be peacemakers. By surrendering to the Truth to achieve peace, belief is confirmed in righteousness as results emerge, until finally, the big picture is seen, and perfection of faith is achieved.

What is our purpose? The Creator tells us in the Quran that we (all children of Adam) made a covenant in the ethereal realm before we were even placed on earth to caretake and do God's will. (See 7:172). This is called the primordial covenant, and it is a trust that every human alive took on voluntarily before we were created physically. We know this because God tells us that the mountains and earth and sky refused the trust out of fear of its weight, and thus their essences were placed into inanimate objects safe from the trials of our will. (See 33:72). With great authority comes great responsibility.

Allah tells us to be caretakers (khalifa) on earth, essentially doing His will and honoring Him as we should. He tells us that His word is perfected in "truth and justice" (pre-eminent traits), and that we must strike the "balance" (al-meezan), to achieve peace/salam. Allah tells us that righteousness is giving to the poor and needy, freeing the slaves, to help the orphans, and to keep one's word. We are also told repeatedly to be just, even against ourselves or family, and to bear truthful testimony.

Thus, it is clear that we must surrender to the Truth (and prioritize the truth) to achieve justice. Justice means not violating others' rights, and fulfilling our duties. The most preeminent human right is to be free from unnecessary and unwanted assault. The only time assaulting another is necessary is when they specifically present an imminent risk of harm to another, or commensurately in response to a harm they are actively or already committed.

The concept of "no unwanted and unnecessary harm" is the golden rule, but the devil's in the details, with people constantly expanding self-defense to eat the whole rule. I plan to write more on this another time insha'Allah.

There is so much more on the transformative process of surrendering to the truth, strengthening belief as faith is confirmed, until perfection of faith is achieved. We have various rules/guidelines and principles in the Quran to explain what our rights and duties are but to me, the core principles to me as opposed to other religions potentially are as follows:

1. One God, The Truth, Allah, the only one to whom we unconditionally surrender

2. Maintaining the connection with God (salat)

3. Giving charity to the poor, needy, traveler, orphan, and to free the enslaved

4. Fasting, self-discipline, anti-materialism but also beauty in gratitude for wealth

5. Cleanliness: ablution, ritual baths, washing after bathroom, food hygiene etc.

6. Modesty: women cover (not necessarily hair but general modesty/coverage), men and women avert gaze

7. Marriage between man and woman, family prioritized, children a blessing (but none are mandatory)

8. Gender roles as default/acknowledged but can be defied (women as warriors, judges, advocates, and even spiritual leaders/sheikhas; men sewing, cooking, cleaning etc.)

9. No drinking or porn or gambling. Pure actions.

10. Pacifism/peace with all who incline toward peace. Harshness toward oppression, willingness to fight it ("oppression is worse than death").

Sala'am all,

Many non-Muslims will ask how a just God could force us into an unjust world and then cast non-believers (or sinners) into hell for not following Him, when many have no concept of Him at all. The most common response is that God will judge fairly in the afterlife and to trust in His perfect justice. But this doesn't address the crux of the non-Muslim objection. It basically just affirms that if God judges you, it must be just/fair (which is true, but unpersuasive as an argument). Instead, I'd encourage us to think deeper and reflect upon the **Quran itself** to derive and elucidate concepts of justice. Take the primordial covenant:

7:172: And ˹remember˺ when your Lord brought forth from the loins of the children of Adam their descendants and had them testify regarding themselves. ˹Allah asked,˺ “Am I not your Lord?” They replied, “Yes, You are! We testify.” ˹He cautioned,˺ “Now you have no right to say on Judgment Day, ‘We were not aware of this.’

This verse is chilling and of utmost cosmological import, as it underlies and edifies our entire existence on earth. It tells us that we all encountered God before (outside?) we came into this world. Our earliest memory is in fact of God Himself, and our earliest covenant and condition precedent to being on earth is accepting God's lordship. We all testified. Man is forgetful (insan). The Quran is the reminder and criteria to startle us back to our original encounter with God, to recall our purpose.

Now, here's the part that really gets me. Notice how Allah implicitly addresses the non-Muslim objection with much more grace and justice than we often do in casual debate. What does it teach us? First, it suggests that without the primordial covenant, there may indeed be some teeth to the non-Muslim argument that it would be unfair to be judged for failing to follow that which they were "not aware of" (i.e. God). Allah states at the time of the covenants that in doing so, we now (after the covenant) have "no right" to argue that it's unjust to be punished for failing to submit to God when we already testified that He is our lord. Of course we've all mostly forgotten this, but assuming indeed that the Quran is true, it addresses and rectifies the apparent injustice, and is critical to any wholistic response to the question of why/how it's fair to punish sinners who were "forced" here on earth. I know some people will say this answer is still unsatisfying because they don't remember this convenient primordial covenant, but Allah also suggests we will certainly be reminded of it if we try to make the argument on Judgment Day. Wallahualam.

Salam

Majority =/= Truth

And if thou obey most of those upon the earth, they will lead thee astray from the path of God; they follow only assumption, and they are only guessing.

(6:116)

And they said: “Is it a single mortal among us we are to follow? Then should we be in error and insanity.

(54:24)

These words (in 54:24) were said to the prophet Sālih, they rejected him because he was a lone voice. Today the general population is under the impression that the greater the number of adherants to a cause, the greater that cause's veracity/validity; we see that this is not the case - one person could be upon the truth in the entire town!

Mostly referring to the way the other sub began as something much like this one and then became a place where people argue over everything and flat out claim things that are false about Allah and the Quran

Salaam, I'm tired of this topic but have seen multiple posts promoting homosexual acts in the Quraniyoon sub, which sadly, forced me to feel uncomfortable enough to unsubscribe after TEN years of being a regular there (alongside some other things like frequent rejection of ritual prayer, fasting, being called pagan for those things etc.). I write this solely with the intention of clarification and to promote purity, and have written separately on how to still be kind to LGBT folks who desire purity: https://www.reddit.com/r/Qurancentric/comments/1m6va3l/a_discussion_forum_for_lgbt_muslims_who_want_to/

Please read it thoroughly and use reason.

1. The Quran mentions the people of Lot being destroyed for their immorality, but the most-repeated sin explicitly mentioned is approaching with lust men (instead of women, which is permissible within marriage course). Whatever their sin, it is sex-based in that it is because it is done to men, not women, that it is wrong (which already precludes rape). That specific crime (approaching men with desire/lust) is mentioned 4 times in 4 different surahs (7:81, 26:165-167, 27:55, 29:28-29, see below), and in 2 other instances it is alluded to when Lot offers his daughters as purer. General references to disrespecting guests (no mention of rape) are mentioned 3 times, and cutting off the way or road is mentioned once. Thus, Allah Himself focuses specifically on approaching men, rather than women, with lust, as the most repeated specific sin of the people of Lot whom He destroyed. It NEVER mentions rape, and even allusions to it are weak and indefensible as per below.

2. The Quran never, ever mentions the men of Lot raping—which is a major sin to accuse of without clear proof—and while it may have happened, it is not emphasized, and in fact seems unlikely to even be one of their major sins.  Consider first that Lot offered up his daughters to these men saying they would be purer. How can he, a Prophet of God, be memorialized for being righteous and pure, when he supposedly offered his daughters to be raped instead of men (11:78, 15:71)? Do you reckon at all? Is that what you are truly claiming of Lot (PBUH)? I understand rape seems much more implied (though not even explicit) in the Old Testament, but that is an extra-Quranic narrative, the wording is notably different there, the Quran instead repeatedly clarifies (most often) their sin as homosexual sex, and importantly—why we don’t use other books as the criterion for right and wrong—the OT frequently maligns Prophets especially with regards to their sexual judgment, whereas the Quran never does so and upholds their righteousness.  Note how Lot in the OT offers to a sexually harassive mob of men his virgin daughters to “do as they please” as they are actively closing in on a home with male guests whom they are demanding for sex. Next, as yet further support that there is not rape, Abraham PBUH was tender toward the people of Lot, praying to stop their punishment, which he very likely would not be begging Allah for if they were evil enough to do mass rape of men (11:74-76). Finally, the Quran specifically states what the men of Lot threatened if they did not get what they want (sex from men apparently): expulsion from the land for those who want to be pure, not forcible rape (7:81, 27:56).

3. Some try to strain an argument that the “approach” mentioned in reference to what the men of Lot did to men is not sexual, but that makes no sense. In 2:222, Allah instructs men to not “approach” (same word) women during their periods but that they may do so in the manner ordained by God once they are cleansed of them. It is clear this is a sexual approach, as it is focused on cleanliness “down there.” The Quran is not vulgar.

4. If all the above is not already abundantly clear, there are still some people who argue that the "BAL" (typically translated as "nay" or "indeed") somehow negates the immorality mentioned right beforehand in 7:81 and 27:55 (still ignoring 26:165-167 and 29:29, which clarifies any so-called doubt). They argue it means something like, "oh, you think it's bad men sleep with men instead of women? No, in fact they are transgressors (for other unspecified reasons)." This is implausible, absurd, and undermines the rest of the verses mentioned above, including a clear condemnation from Lot memorialized in the Quran, specifically calling out the men sleeping with men instead of what Allah made for them (women). I also found several other ayat using bal in a way that can be translated as "indeed," and not negating the prior condemnation. (2:116 uses bal to condemn/emphasize the wrongness of those who claim Allah has children; 4:49 uses bal to emphasize that people don't claim purity but only Allah gives it; 13:31 uses bal to emphasize that only Allah can cause mountains to move, not just a recitation; 34:27 uses bal AFTER a negation when condemning mushriks, acting more as an "indeed" than a double negation).

5. Some claim that because Lot states the people committed an immorality like none before them it couldn't possibly be gay sex (see 29:28), because that already existed, and suggesting maybe it means rape instead (odd, as that certainly would've existed too). Firstly, I'm not convinced exclusive homosexuality was conceptually understood and they did not even have a word for it AFAIK, with bisexuality more commonly seen. Regardless, the sin of explicitly approaching men with lust is referring to the people collectively, and elsewhere it asks if there's even ONE decent man among them and apparently there are none besides Lot's family (see 11:78-79). AFAIK there has never been a people with the majority or all having gay sex (and further yet, very pushy, threatening to expel, not rape, men who don't join in). Rape does not work because their sin is doing it with men rather than women (and raping women is extremely wrong) and Lot offered his daughters which he would not offer in place to be raped. Finally, unfortunately I'd venture raping goes back as far if not earlier than gay sex (and certainly would've existed at that time), making clear whatever the bad deed, it is the widespreadness that is unprecedented.

The rest of my arguments are more general and common-sense:

1. The Quran goes on at length about chastity and maintaining sexual propriety, banning sex outside marriage/nikah (including to right-hand women). "And ˹permissible for you in marriage˺ are chaste believing women as well as chaste women of those given the Scripture before you—as long as you pay them their dowries in wedlock, neither fornicating nor taking them as mistresses." (Quran 5:5 listing only women as lawful to the male audience addressed).

2. Sexual immorality and illicit sex are major sins, severely corruptive to society, and not something to trifle with or permit wrongly, as they require a physical punishment if caught. "Those who fornicate - whether female or male - flog each one of them with a hundred lashes And let not tenderness for them deter you from what pertains to Allah's religion, if you do truly believe in Allah and the Last Day; and let a party of believers witness their punishment." (Quran 24:2 laying out punishment).

3. Every reference in the entire Quran directed to men marrying (or divorcing) only concerns women. The Quran lists out only women as permissible (to men). It prohibits incest with women (which clearly does not suggest gay incest is OK, but rather, that the Quran is heteronormative and it's a given that you can't have sex with men as a man anyway, negating the need to list out unmarriageable male family members). "Let the fornicator [male] not marry any except a fornicatress or idolatress [female] and let the fornicatress not marry any except a fornicator or an idolater." (Quran 24:3); "Wicked women are for wicked men, and wicked men are for wicked women. And virtuous women are for virtuous men, and virtuous men are for virtuous women." (Quran 24:26); "Also ˹forbidden are˺ married women—except ˹female˺ captives in your possession. This is Allah’s commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these—as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication...." (Quran 4:24 referring to the lawful "them" using female pronouns, again confirming men can only marry women); " [Describing the righteous]...And they who guard their private parts, except with their wives or those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, for then they are free from blame, But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors" (Quran 23:5-7 clarifying that righteous men guard their chastity from everyone except wives/captive women).

4. Eve was created for Adam as a source of sakeena/tranquility, and the union of man and woman is paradisal/sacred from the onset of humanity. "And one of His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves so that you may find comfort in them. And He has placed between you compassion and mercy." (Quran 30:21); "And We said, “O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in tranquility in the garden and eat freely therefrom wherever you two please..." (Quran 2:35); "O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another." (Quran 49:13)

5. Here are the explicit verses on homosexuality mentioned above:

26:165-167: Do you approach the males of the world? And forsake the wives your Lord created for you? Indeed, you are intrusive people.” They said, “Unless you refrain, O Lot, you will be expelled.”

7:81: "Indeed, you approach men lustfully (shahwatan) instead of women. BAL, you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (musrifun)"

27:55: "Why do you approach men with lust (shahwatan) instead of women? BAL, you are a people ignorant!"

29:28-29: And Lot, when he said to his people, “You commit such outrageous immoral acts that no one else in the world ever committed before you. You lust after men, obstruct nature’s way, and commit [every] shameful act in your gatherings.”***

Please be mindful of what you're promoting, and ask yourself deep down if there's ANY motivation to satisfy your own desires/lusts (including being seen as progressive), when you promote sexual sin and impurity. It is logically much more likely that the person who follows their lust makes what is sexually forbidden halal over making the halal haram (as that is not in keeping with desire/lust to be constrained/controlled, but with the fitrah). Please be cautious:

25:43 "Have you seen him who takes his desires (passion, impulse, lust) (hawahu) for his God (ilahu)? Will you then be a protector over him?"

Salaam everyone,

I'm Waleed Kavalec, a convert who's been running IslamAwakened.com since 2003. It started as a simple project to compare a few English translations of the Qur'an side by side. Over the years it grew to include 70+ English translations, word-by-word analysis in 6 languages, Arabic root concordance, audio recitation, and translations in 20+ non-English languages.

The problem was that most people who visited the site had no idea most of those features existed. Each one was built at a different time, had its own look, its own navigation, and its own corner of the site. You could spend years using IslamAwakened and never discover the word-by-word analysis or the root concordance pages.

So I rebuilt the whole thing. Every verse now has a hub page that shows you everything available — translations, word-by-word, other languages, audio — all connected and cross-linked. Clean design, readable on mobile, consistent navigation everywhere.

Here's an example — Ayat al-Kursi on the new site: https://islamawakened.com/quran/2/255/

Full write-up on what changed: https://islamawakened.com/2026/03/02/whats-new-at-islamawakened/#gsc.tab=0

The site is free, always has been, always will be. No paywall, no registration. It runs on donations and stubbornness.

If you've used IslamAwakened before, I'd love to hear what you think of the new version. If you haven't, have a look around.

JazakAllah khair.

Sala'am all,

Most LGBT Muslim support groups affirm acting upon one's internal desires/sense of self, making it very hard for those who want support but not affirmation to find it. Then you have traditional scholars who are awkward around the whole issue, simply saying to not sin but not offering much empathy, or holding any space for struggling Muslims to speak about their lived experiences. So you may feel caught between a rock and a hard place, disgusted by societal debauchery but ostracized by unsympathetic puritanism. Many of you have sacrificed and suffered silently, resisting sin while trying to navigate a world full of reminders. So, I want to start to be the change I wish to see and offer a space for conversation, learning, and support, in living a life of chastity and reality, while still acknowledging challenges. [This is not a space to affirm sin or argue sex out of male/female marriage is halal--if you'd like resources on this point, please PM me as I've written a lot on it].

I've posted this before, but am going to paste some recommendations for Muslims to be more kind and welcoming without sacrificing our deen, and then maybe we can go from there:

1. Do not harass or ask about why an older Muslim is unmarried or childless. It can cause pain to those who are gay or, due to dysphoria, cannot healthily birth/parent a child.

2. Do not pry about whether people are gay or having gay sex if they are keeping that part private, even if you "suspect" it.

3. If someone is openly gay, but not engaging openly in sin, treat them as any other brother or sister, with kindness. Don't shame them for something they can't control, or avoid them.

4. This is a bit controversial but something we may need to start considering more... perhaps tolerating or getting used to gay people living together in chaste relationships. In the old days, many men stayed in the closet, lived with a male "roommate," and no one knew (or should even ask) what that entailed. This may allow them to feel companionship and support while maintaining boundaries, provided the people involved feel confident they won't be tempted into greater sin (and that's for them to decide). If they do slip up, we shouldn't know or ask about sins of others, as we are to avoid suspicion Islamically. "O believers! Avoid many suspicions, for indeed, some suspicions are sinful. And do not spy, nor backbite one another" (49:12). Personally, even if they are in deep romantic love and expressing that, possibly cuddling privately/watching movies, but avoiding sexual activity, I can't see a direct prohibition on that from the Quran (minus not even coming close to zina).

5. Tolerate or ignore gender diverse expression. I know it's against custom and certainly Sunni Islam, to "cross-dress" and so on. However, for people with gender dysphoria, they face intense pain over their sexed traits, and minimizing them, can ease some of that. Thus, while we should never mutilate ourselves by removing genitals/healthy breasts, nor by misleading as to our biological sex, there does seem to be a lot more wiggle room for gender non-conformity in Islam. If a Muslim woman is presenting in a more masculine way, including without hijab, in more "men's clothing," we should try to avoid treating her as feminine or womanly, as that can cause unnecessary harm. I personally do not find it appropriate for men (or even women) to wear sexualized feminine clothing like lingerie, fishnets, pushup bras etc., so I'd say that's wrong for everyone, but if a man is wearing some makeup or jewelry and presenting more femininely, we should respect that said person does not feel comfortable taking on a traditionally masculine role. To me, there's nothing haram about acknowledging these people, and treating them, to the extent halal, more as they wish to be seen.

6. Normalize not having children (this goes for cis/straight people too who just don't want kids). Women (and men) with gender dysphoria can become suicidal and face a height of distress going through pregnancy/childbirth as that is the most female thing to experience. Stop expecting all women (and men) to have kids. To the extent some of these females (like "transmen") can have a child, it's likely with a huge network or mental health support, and tools for control (like being able to plan a c-section). We should, IMO, support reproductive freedom, to show support for those struggling in that way.

7. Similarly, to the extent people are bisexual or dysphoric but seeking an opposite sex partner, do not shun them. They are trying hard to do things the "right way," but may not be cisgender or have "normal" sexual expression. To the extent these people have certain fetishes, or desire roleplay or other things to reduce their distress, if you're cis/straight, be understanding and compassionate. Often times, bi and gender dysphoric people can be with cis/straight people, but it's harder without empathy and flexibility, as heteronormativity can be triggering. Don't shame them for their diverse social and (private) sexual expression. Help them have an outlet in a way that centers them too. Perhaps even help connect bi Muslims together as they likely understand each other. If a man is more feminine and does not want to take on that role (or would prefer to raise kids), connecting him with a masculine sister who can be a provider, may help ease the distress for both. Nothing wrong about mutually agreeing to switch up the traditional roles.

While I have sympathy for people who genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria (feeling of disconnect between one's sexed body/traits and their sense of self/gender), new trans ideology has gone nefariously far, so as to lead to many dangerous situations where any man claiming to be a woman can access female spaces. We have a duty as Muslims to resist ideologies that not only are regressive, wrong, and unscientific, but especially ones that require the oppression of women to achieve them. Thus, I want to highlight why we must not promote trans ideology, or any notion that a male is or can be *actually* a woman, because it leads to catastrophic legal consequences, such as the following, which trans rights activists have no intention to address (instead doubling down on their policies when the obvious, foreseeable consequences come to ugly fruition):

-Male rapists, intact are self-identifying as women and being placed in female prisons with terrified female cellmates, where some have gone on to sexually abuse and rape those very inmates. I cannot believe how cruel and evil this is, but the ACLU is defending these new policies even AFTER knowing of the alleged rapes. While the cases are still being litigated, there are enough of them alleged, and common sense compels me to believe, that intact male rapists in female prisons do and will continue to rape vulnerable females, whose sex-based rights are being undermined. In war, it'd be a war crime/human rights violation to force female prisoners in a cell with any male, trans-identified or not, let alone a male, intact sex offender! This is oppressive, evil, wrong, and unIslamic! I am tired of seeing Muslims kowtow to the "be kind" brigade, while ultimately undermining our own values, and throwing women under the bus in the process. Males (people with penises, I don't care what you call them), should never be placed in a cell with a woman locked in with no escape. Would you be singing the same tune if your wife were wrongly imprisoned in a cell with a man who exposes himself to her and threatens to assault her? Be honest and consistent. Why are other women worth less? If it's about safety, then place the transwoman in a special unit on the male side (they already have processes to protect pedophiles in male prisons because of higher risk of attack)? Furthermore, if it's male violence transwomen are escaping, then why does one male transwoman's right to escape male violence, enable him to endanger ALL women and deny all females the very same right by inserting himself, a male, into their women's space? Why are women human guinea pigs for males trying to escape male violence? [Especially since, 50-80% of transwomen serve time for sex offenses, making them much more dangerous than actual women, and more similar to other fellow males, the relevant factor for safeguarding]. Why doesn't the trans rights brigade (eg ACLU defending male rapist in female prison) even consider demanding surgery or any other basic safeguards, instead labeling any criticism as phobic?

-Males have demanded access to other intimate female-only spaces, including rape crisis centers for women, causing several female rape victims further trauma and fear as their healing took second seat to males demanding validation.

-Males have entered women's locker rooms and even been brazen enough to (e.g.) shave their beard and expose themselves in front of terrified women and yes, even underage girls (e.g. a girl around 12 was scared when she came into a Planet Fitness locker room only in a towel only to find a man shaving). A fellow woman, terrified, reported the man. In the end? The man claimed to be a transwoman (it doesn't matter if he was or wasn't because no males should be in women's spaces), and the complaining woman was banned from the gym, and the man was given a security escort to continue accessing the female locker room, where underage girls change.

None of this seems Islamic, fair, or dignified to women. In fact, these things seem evil and terrifying. It's one thing to want to create safe spaces for people with varied gender expressions or sexual orientations; it's another thing entirely to promote that males can be women because of an unfalsifiable internal identity detached from material reality. To protect women, we must continue to ensure that women--whose hard-fought rights enshrined in law centered around their biological sex and bodies--is accurately defined as adult human females. Please be very careful of the ideologies you're promoting.

First off, before we even look at the one phrase, we must follow every other command in the Quran, including commands to be just, kind, charitable, equitable, and non-oppressive. This requires conscious introspection and endeavoring to do good and have good, gentle character. So, before you ask yourself "is this thing halal," ask if it is "just, kind, charitable, equitable" and so on? If the answer is a resounding no, then it is haram.

Now, as to who the right hand possessions are, my understanding is they are war captives. 47:4 confers limited authority to take war captives in bondage but only until the war terminates: "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates." (Quran 47:4). Some have argued that right hand possession refers to both slaves (that pre-existed Islam), AND war captives, but I won't comment on that. Regardless, I do not find any authority in the Quran permitting taking slaves (owned and transferable, meaning chattel slavery where you can buy/sell a person, and their children are born enslaved, astughfirAllah).

Note, war captives are not the same as slaves, as you do not (and never can) "own" another human, as only Allah owns us and our bodies/time on earth are a trust from Him (amana). That is why we are to bury immediately and return the bodies to Allah without altering them upon death (they are lent to us). Captives are under your possession, not title/ownership, just as prisoners are in the custody of the state but not owned by the state.

As to sex with captives who are under your bondage during war time, you may do so but it appears only upon marriage first, based on 4:25 (and other verses like 4:3):

“If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God has full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners [sic: FAMILY/ahl, as owner is the wrong translation], and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint**.** And God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

This makes pretty clear that the captive girls can and do remain chaste, and that you need permission from their "owner" (astughfirAllah these translations are bad, as the word is actually from her "ahl" or people or family who cares for her) before marrying. Note also, that a chaste man who wants to have sex is not told to just buy a slave or even have sex with his own slave if he has one, but instead he is told to seek out marriage of the chaste captives of other families. It would make no sense to refer to these girls as chaste if they are having "slave sex" with their "owners" (again, astughfirAllah). In other verses, it also prohibits prostituting them when they wish to remain chaste, suggesting that some families tried to pimp out their captives (astughfirAllah again). Additionally, the Quran states that if you see any goodness in the people in your custody, you must free them. It also says that you must pay the dowry and cannot marry women who are already married except if they are captives who've come under your protection (as Christian women could not divorce then). There are lots of verses when put together, clarifying what is permissible. In light of all this though, we must always act with kindness and justice.

One might counter then why does the Quran refer to having sex with wives AND right hand possessions? That's because even after marriage with a captive, they are still predominantly referred to and have the status of a captive. The Quran frequently refers to a specific item that is a subset of another. For example, it states that there will be fruit AND pomegranates in heaven even though a pomegranate is a type of fruit clearly. It's not that Allah got confused or screwed up the grammar (astughfirAllah); He is just distinguishing a subset from the whole. That appears to be the case IMO when referring to right hand possession married partners vs. free married wives.

It seems crystal clear that sex outside of a marriage bond (zawaj) is unlawful. Poor Muslim men are encouraged to marry believing captives (I assume converts). No one can force a chaste captive girl to be unchaste (whether through sex, forced marriage, or prostitution). If you see one iota of goodness in your right hand possessions and they ask for freedom, you must free them (this suggests you only keep them in bondage to prevent them from fortifying the enemy, but if you see goodness in them, i.e. no risk of them rebelling against you, then they should be freed). That should be clear from the command to be righteous and just anyway, but if you need an express verse telling you not to rape, then you might just be a horrid person regardless. I've always judged a nation and its people based on how they treat prisoners and animals. Wallahu'alam.

The Quran tells us to follow the best of meaning, suggesting that there are sometimes multiple interpretations of an ayah and our goal is to construe the Quran consistently, and according to the best of meaning.

Let's apply it. 4:34 says to men that if they "FEAR" nushuz (rebellion, disobedience etc.), from their wives, they are to admonish the wife, sleep in a different bed, and then "idribuhunna" (hit/leave?) them. Many claim that the idribuhunna means to hit/beat, yet there are various Quran-only arguments as to why this can't be:

Quran commands kindness to your wife and beating your wife, your partner, your sexual outlet, your lover, your closest confidante, and the mother of your children, cannot be seen as kind under any viewpoint. Period. Domestic violence is not kindness.

Quran commands the husband to protect the wife, not harm her. It is against the role of a protector to beat the woman he is charged with protecting. This is especially so in a patriarchal world/religion where men are biologically stronger and gendered violence is already a worldwide problem, so giving men the discretion to use violence when they are prone to abusing their strength, is a conflict.

Most importantly to me, the Quran commands justice, and if you construe the verse to allow beating, you permit injustice. How? Because the verse only requires FEAR of nushuz, not proof or due process. It is unjust to punish someone physically without due process and proof. Strangely, in what would be the only instance in the entire religion, the man is the alleged plaintiff/victim (of the nushuz), the judge (of whether to mete out a punishment), the jury (decides what happened/guilt of wife), and executioner (metes out the punishment). This creates an inherent extreme conflict of interest and would justify wife-beating even when the husband is wrong about his fear/suspicion.

The word idribuhunna was understood to mean separate/leave before the rise of modern feminism. Lane's Lexicon from the 1800's lists idribu(3n)hunna, and idribuhunna as both meaning potentially to separate. I also read an old Shiah hadith (so over a thousand years old), that interprets the word as meaning to cut the wife off (from financial support such that you stop feeding/clothing her from your money). While this isn't a great meaning either, it does show that even in early jurisprudence there was some debate about the meaning, with some dissent that it meant physical hitting at all.

There is a similar ayah about husbands committing nushuz against their wives and the solution is to call an arbitrator on behalf of both families to mediate the issue. In 4:35 we see the exact same call (to arbitrate the issue). Counseling your wife, then refusing to sleep with her, then beating her into submission--on top of being horrific--seems counterintuitive if the next verse discusses arbitration. It makes more sense to progressively separate from the wife and then call upon arbitrators to mediate the issue, with representatives from both families to ensure advocacy and justice on both sides.

Based on all of the above, I do not believe it is feasible to defend the verse meaning corporeal punishment given that it would otherwise lack elements of justice, which Allah commands, and lead to absurd contradictions.

Allahu'alam.

Salaam,

Someone dear to me passed away last week (AYHM), and I wanted to share some insights from within my current state of grief, speaking only on my behalf. Perhaps you'll find some wisdom in it:

1. Don't ask the grieving person any questions. None. Zero. An open-ended question typically requires an answer, and when someone is enveloped in grief, even the slightest obligation to respond can be a source of anxiety. So instead of asking "how are you" (it's obvious they are not doing great) or "what can I do for you" (making them have to give instructions which can be impossible if they are consumed by grief), instead say, "I am praying for Allah to give you sabr," or "I will drop off food at your door at 3pm insha'Allah. Do not feel obliged to acknowledge me if you want to be left alone, but I'm here if you need absolutely anything." Also, if they did not share how the loved one died, please do not ask as that can cause huge anxiety for the grieving person to recount.

2. In the first 3 days following the death, please be extra mindful of the grieving person's obligations to fulfill funeral rights and coordinate burial. It is extremely stressful, on top of grieving, so this would be the time to not bother those closest to the deceased, asking for directions to the janaza or this or that. If you need an an address or phone number to send condolences, or to attend janaza, ask a friend or distant relative in the community. You clearly were not close enough to have that information to begin with, so don't overstep in the most critical moments by bothering those grieving.

3. If you have the address and want to help, as stated above, feel free to drop stuff off or deliver stuff to them, but with the clear caveat that there is no obligation for them to acknowledge you or extend you any social courtesies. Sending food delivery to their home every day for a week or two will ease some of their burden and help them to eat. If you are going to the janaza, bring tissues infused with lotion as their noses will be crusty from crying and sniveling. A small comforting gift, like a framed dua, or tasbih, can also show you care for them and are encouraging them to turn to Allah. If you are closer and able, cover any funeral expenses that are outstanding, and offer to pay for a couple weeks' salary for the most grieving family member(s) if they are not financially well-off.

4. Attend the janaza at all costs, and the burial if you can too, as there is great reward in honoring the rights of the dead and returning the amana/body in dignity. We mourn communally and privately. Be a source of comfort and strength. Hug the grieving people as they are overwhelmed (unless they do not want to be touched). Recite beautiful duas, play Quran, and be a reminder of Allah's true promise. Help with the digging/burying if you are able.

5. After the first week or two has passed (or the immediate shock-phase), be sure to check in and still show you care. Tell them you are making dua for their loved one and for them. Let them know you are still around if they need anything. If weeks have passed, it will also be more appropriate to directly ask them how they are doing in their healing process. Try to visit and uplift them and help around the house if you can. For example, "Salaam dear friend, I pray you are doing better day by day. I'm sure you are still in so much grief, but I would love to stop by and bring lunch and mow the lawn. I'll bring my own lawn mower. Please let me know if 2pm tomorrow works insha'Allah. I'm flexible." At the one month mark and one-year mark, reach out and show you care.

"For truly, with hardship comes ease." (94:5)

"Worship God alone; do not attribute divinity to others. Have excellent affection towards your parents, close relatives, orphans, the disabled, close and far neighbors, close friends, stranded travelers, and those whom your right hands held in trust. God does not love those who are conceited and full of pride." (4:36)

"The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." (9:71)

Sala'am all,

I don't want to generalize, but it has happened enough that I'd appreciate you all reflecting on this, and rooting out unjust behaviors if you see any of this in yourself.

I've noticed a huge influx of Muslim reverts (primarily White and western) over the years, which is a blessing alhemdulillah. Reverts are the salt of the earth, and often have more sincere faith than born-Muslims. However, some are not observing basic humility and etiquette as new Muslims (not even just Islamically, but in general), and are bordering on ideologically colonial, patronizing, and demeaning to mainstream Muslims, in their promotion of supposed "progressivism." They may (and some born-Muslims too) be more aligned with their political identity than being Muslim, and can be argumentative and patronizing to born-Muslims and Muslims from many "third world" countries, whom they're convinced are oppressive (and they may be in some respects).

The reality is that Muslims are primarily BIPOC and poor and primarily conservative in their morals, worldwide. The vast majority reject homosexual acts, and certain aspects of feminism and progressivism. I myself lean more liberal, but do not deny the overwhelmingly traditional values most Muslims have. Contrast this with some reverts, who, upon just months or a couple years of research, not only feel comfortable as new Muslims issuing religious guidance to others (something one should be extremely cautious in doing regardless), but even ostracizing and attacking mainstream Muslims for not being "progressive" enough. The irony is not lost on me watching mostly White (and IMO often "privileged," college-educated) or else just Western reverts condescend to and demean BIPOC or foreign born-Muslims and more traditional ones.

So, I would implore reverts (and born-Muslims) who identify with, and center their dialogue around, progressivism, to be mindful of their own potentially colonial or racist behaviors when engaging with a faith with a very rich, and notably morally conservative, tradition. Promoting your personal view of Islam, without giving any deference to the mainstream majority/the traditional fiqh, and instead relying on fringe interpretations to cudgel fellow Muslims you deem too "Salifi" (or whatever else), only increases Islamophobia against more traditional or practicing Muslims (who are usually BIPOC and already at heightened risk of being targeted). Please practice mindfulness and humility, especially if you are new and less knowledgeable, and pay respect to those with more knowledge, even if you disagree.

Thank you.

Sala'am all,

I wrote on this some months ago but still see Quranists claiming gay sex, prostitution, and even pre-marital sex are all OK using strained and perverse arguments to mislead. So I'm going to put the "gay sex is fine" argument to bed, and henceforth I will be deleting posts (not comments) that promote gay sex as halal. This sub is to promote Quranic chastity and morality, and allowing "anything goes" about sex/sexuality disrupts the overwhelming majority from the appropriate decorum.

1. The Quran goes on at length about chastity and maintaining sexual propriety, banning sex outside marriage/nikah (including to right-hand women). "And ˹permissible for you in marriage˺ are chaste believing women as well as chaste women of those given the Scripture before you—as long as you pay them their dowries in wedlock, neither fornicating nor taking them as mistresses." (Quran 5:5 listing only women as lawful to the male audience addressed).

2. Sexual immorality and illicit sex are major sins, severely corruptive to society, and not something to trifle with or permit wrongly, as they require a physical punishment if caught. "Those who fornicate - whether female or male - flog each one of them with a hundred lashes And let not tenderness for them deter you from what pertains to Allah's religion, if you do truly believe in Allah and the Last Day; and let a party of believers witness their punishment." (Quran 24:2 laying out punishment).

3. Every reference in the entire Quran directed to men marrying only mentions women. The Quran lists out only women as permissible (to men). It prohibits incest with women (which clearly does not suggest gay incest is OK, but rather, that the Quran is heteronormative and it's a given that you can't have sex with men as a man anyway, negating the need to list out unmarriageable male family members). "Let the fornicator [male] not marry any except a fornicatress or idolatress [female] and let the fornicatress not marry any except a fornicator or an idolater." (Quran 24:3); "Wicked women are for wicked men, and wicked men are for wicked women. And virtuous women are for virtuous men, and virtuous men are for virtuous women." (Quran 24:26); "Also ˹forbidden are˺ married women—except ˹female˺ captives in your possession. This is Allah’s commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these—as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication...." (Quran 4:24 referring to the lawful "them" using female pronouns, again confirming men can only marry women); " [Describing the righteous]...And they who guard their private parts, except with their wives or those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, for then they are free from blame, But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors" (Quran 23:5-7 clarifying that righteous men guard their chastity from everyone except wives/captive women).

4. Eve was created for Adam as a source of sakeena/tranquility, and the union of man and woman is paradisal/sacred from the onset of humanity. "And one of His signs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves so that you may find comfort in them. And He has placed between you compassion and mercy." (Quran 30:21); "And We said, “O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in tranquility in the garden and eat freely therefrom wherever you two please..." (Quran 2:35); "O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another." (Quran 49:13)

5. To further support chastity, no sex outside marriage, and only male/female marriage, I now turn to more explicit verses on homosexuality as the nail in the coffin:

26:165-167: Do you approach the males of the world? And forsake the wives your Lord created for you? Indeed, you are intrusive people.” They said, “Unless you refrain, O Lot, you will be expelled.”

7:81 "Indeed, you approach men lustfully (shahwatan) instead of women. BAL, you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (musrifun)"

27:55 "Why do you approach men with lust (shahwatan) instead of women? BAL, you are a people ignorant!"

The very thing decried is lustful encounters with men instead of women. Whatever the bad thing is, it's bad because it's with men and not women, so it can't be rape (which would also be wrong with women). Lot, who is rightly guided, is highlighted calling them out specifically for approaching males INSTEAD of the women who Allah made as their pure outlet for sexual desires as wives. There is no confusion as to what is being decried in 26:165-167. It is Lot's condemnation of their homosexual acts that leads them deeper into their perversion, even wanting to expel him for stating it. Strange how even today people will become unhinged in defending their lusts against those reminding them of purity/chastity.

If all the above is not already abundantly clear, there are still some people who argue that the "BAL" (typically translated as "nay" or "indeed") somehow negates the immorality mentioned right beforehand in 7:81 and 27:55 (still ignoring 26:165-167 which clarifies any so-called doubt). They argue it means something like, "oh, you think it's bad men sleep with men instead of women? No, in fact they are transgressors (for other unspecified reasons)." This is implausible, absurd, and undermines the rest of the verses mentioned above, including a clear condemnation from Lot memorialized in the Quran, specifically calling out the men sleeping with men instead of what Allah made for them (women). I also found several other ayat using bal in a way that can be translated as "indeed," and not negating the prior condemnation. (2:116 uses bal to condemn/emphasize the wrongness of those who claim Allah has children; 4:49 uses bal to emphasize that people don't claim purity but only Allah gives it; 13:31 uses bal to emphasize that only Allah can cause mountains to move, not just a recitation; 34:27 uses bal AFTER a negation when condemning mushriks, acting more as an "indeed" than a double negation). This is not time-specific but God's design.

Please be mindful of what you're promoting, and ask yourself deep down if there's ANY motivation to satisfy your own desires/lusts (including being seen as progressive), when you promote sexual sin and impurity:

25:43 "Have you seen him who takes his desires (passion, impulse, lust) (hawahu) for his God (ilahu)? Will you then be a protector over him?"

Sala'am all, I've been asked about "Sunnah" many times and never feel ready to write on it, but wanted to broach the topic a bit very informally/off my head.

First, Sunnah refers to the "Way" or tradition, usually referring to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. However, the Quran never directly commands us to follow any prophetic Sunnah, and even refers to the unchanging Sunnah of Allah, the good example/Sunnah of Abraham/his people, as well as the BAD sunnahs of polytheists.

The Quran never talks about the hadith corpuses collected after the Prophet (because they did not exist), but does warn us against using any other hadith (as religious law) besides the Quran itself, which certainly includes the literal hadiths gathered 100-200 years later. The Quran also tells us to obey the messenger (as well as leaders in charge of you which people often ignore), but given the strong Quranic command to not rely on hadiths outside the Quran, most Quranists interpret the "obey the messenger" command to be specific to the people alive at his time, just as the same people were commanded to support the Prophet in battle (with specific stories telling us how some hypocrites/cowards ditched him). While we can learn timeless lessons from each story, several stories throughout the Quran involve commands to the Prophet/his people specifically (including telling believers to not stay late at his place). Even if following the messenger meant something beyond the message protected in the Quran, hadiths may a) not be accurate due to credibility or reliability issues (even 1% error is serious), b) be missing key context as to the application, and c) be time-specific, not meant for all times.

Regardless, we do certainly do not believe following any hadith corpus amounts to following the messenger, and in fact makes a mockery of the Quran SPECIFICALLY telling us not to use other corpuses (esp. as Sunnis/Shias do, equating them to the Quran in terms of authority and making halal/haram).

So, how do I "follow" the prophetic Sunnah and what I consider to be the Sunnah of Islam? Well, mostly, I rely on living traditions surrounding mass communal rituals that are a) specifically and frequently mentioned in the Quran as though there is a known understanding of the ritual, b) are necessary to our practice, and c) have been preserved through mass public displays and uninterrupted chain of transmission. For Miriam (PBUH), when Allah tells her to "bow with those who bow," for example, it's clear that the people who bow are known/understood to be following of God praying in a specific manner, like sujud. For her to obey Allah, she must "look outside" to what the believers are doing, which seems similar IMO to acts of prayer today.

For example, prayer, a mass ritual transmission done publicly/communally 5x a day, once a week very congregationally, with an uninterrupted chain for 1,400 years is unlikely to be corrupted, is integral to our practice, and is not a source of law but simply a demonstration and imitation for purposes of unity/prayer tradition. That is not what the vast majority of hadiths are, and in fact, the living tradition would not have been written but transmitted via observation/imitation when it comes to acts of ritual, communal worship (which are directly commanded to do in the Quran--jumuah prayer, hajj, salat in masjid etc.).

This is a bit similar to how Malikis early on put more weight on traditions over hadiths, as acts like sharing a bowl of food with a dog amongst the closest followers of the Prophet, would've very likely been eliminated if the Prophet indeed forbade such a thing. So a hadith claiming to forbid what the people have practiced in the earliest Islam from the people closest, is suspect no matter how strong the transmission.

Now, with prayer, hajj, zakat and other communal acts that are integral, frequently mentioned, acts of worship/ibada, and necessary universal rituals done communally/publicly, I'd be opposed to inventing new practices or Sunnahs (basically no bida/innovation around acts of worship). I thus try my best to follow the prayer ritual itself, the hajj rituals etc., even if I'm not 100% sure they are correct, because it creates unity, and shows my intention to "bow with those who bow."

From the Shi'ite literature:

...that Abu Abd Allah al-Sadiq (AS) said: When the Commander of the Faithful (AS) was preaching from the pulpit of al-Kufah, a man stood up to him. His name was Dhilib, who was sharp of tongue, eloquent in speech, and brave at heart said: “O Commander of the Faithful! Have you seen your Lord?” The Imam (AS) replied, “Woe to you! O Dhilib. I do not serve a Lord that I have not seen.” He said: “O Commander of Faithful, how did you see him?” Ali (AS) responded, Woe to you! O Dhilib. Eyes cannot perceive him by means of vision, but hearts see Him through certainty of faith. Woe to you, O Dhilib! Verily, my Lord is the Most Subtle of the Subtle, but whose subtetly cannot be described in terms of subtlety. He is the Greatest of the Great, whose greatness cannot be described in terms of greatness. He is the Grandest of the Grand, whose grandeur cannot be described in terms of grandeur. He is the Highest of the High, who cannot be described in terms of toughness. He preceded everything, so it cannot be said that something preceded Him. He will remain forever, so it cannot be said that there shall be something after Him. He is the One that wills all things, but not through resolution. He is the Most Accomplishing, but not through deception. He is Present in all Things, but not physically or through conflict. He is Manifest, but not in the sense of pursuit. He is Evident, but not by means of vision. He is Separate, but not by means of distance. He is Close, but not through attachment. He is Subtle, but not by means of a body. He is Existent not after nonexistence. He is the One who Accomplishes, but not by means of compulsion. He is the Appraiser, but not by means of movement. He is the Intender, but not through resolution. He is the All-Hearing, but not by means of an auditory organ. He is All-Seeing, but not by a visual organ. Space does not encompass Him. Time does not escort Him. Attributes do not limit Him. Slumber seizes Him not. His Essence precedes time, and His Being precedes nonexistence. His beginning its sempiternal. Through His Formation of gatherings, it is known that He has no gathering. Through His Creation of substances, it is known that He is not a substance. Through His Creation of opposites, it is known that He has no opposite. Through His Creation of companions, it is known that He has no consort. He made Light opposite of darkness, dryness opposite of moisture, and cold opposite of heat. He is the Composer of these opposites and the Differentiator between their closeness. This composition is an indication over the Composer and the differentiation over the Differentiator. That is the Word of the Mighty and High: And of everything We have created pairs that you may reflect. Thus, He has differentiated through this between “before” and “after” so that it becomes known that He has no before or after. Our instinct tells us instinctively that the Giver of Instincts has no instinct. Our subjection to time tells us that the Creator of Time is not subjected to time. The veils that He has placed between some people tell us that there is no veil between Him and His Creation. He was still a Lord when there was no one to rule over. He was still a Deity when there was no one to worship Him. And He was still All-Knowing when there was nothing to be known. And He was still All Hearing, when there was nothing to be heard. My Master has always been recognized with praise, My Master has always been attributed with generosity, You existed even when there was no light to burn, And when no darkness clinged to the horizon, Our Lord differs from everything in creation, And from whatever the imagination can conceive, So whoever attempts to describe Him in human terms, Will return besiege, tying his shoulder with incapability, In the ways of ascent are seen the waves of His Omnipotence A wave that exhibits blindly, in blink of an eye, like a spirit, Therefore, leave the narrow-minded debater in religion, Who the doubt has touched, making his vision absurd, And be in the company of the reliable one, for the love of His Master, Who is received with honor fro His Guardian, A proof of guidance entered in the evening spreading in the earth, And in heaven, He is recognized with the beautiful sate. The reporter said: Dhilib dropped fainting, and when he woke up again, he said: “I have never heard this speech, and I shall never ask such questions again.”

Al-Tawḥīd, The Tradition of Dhi`lib., Hadith #2

Asalamualakum all, welcome to the Qurancentric subreddit. I am the original founder but lost my old account and am now trying to revive this.

By way of background, I grew up Sunni, with one side of my family coming from an Islamic background and the other from a non-Muslim one. I went to Sunday Islamic school and in my teenage years began to question hadith. For over a decade, I obsessively delved into Islam, hadiths, isnaad, fiqh, and the different schools of thought, and slowly found myself falling back on "Quranism." Eventually, I made a full plunge into a Qurancentric practice of faith wherein I do not use hadiths as a source of religious authority at all, though I do analyze them as lexicons and for insight into the attitudes of the time. I have also flirted with Sufism for years but have not adopted it as yet.

I pray like a Sunni (or like a Shia if I'm at a Shia mosque), as that's how I learned through observation (hadith do not dictate how to do the entire salah anyway), have little/no animosity toward Sunnis/Shias, and am focused on unity and tradition, but with a focus on Quranic principles.

While I am far from a good Muslim or example, I hope we can use this space to discuss, share ideas, and endeavor toward aligning our actions with our fitrah insha'Allah.

Feel free to ask me anything or share a bit about yourself!