Exactly 👍 For your question, it is by coming together on the muhkamat ... bc they don't require interpretation ... and making them central

@@QuranicIslam So essentially, the very obvious stuff and clear verses are what we should agree upon and come together, and the ones that do require interpolation, it's fine to disagree?

@@xyve6129 Essentially, yes. Also, this focussing on the "foundational verses", will gradually cures the hearts of the diseases which cause us to interpret differently. What causes people to differ so strongly is usually their being too entrenched in their own views. Seeing them as too important, either consciously or unconsciously. As the truly important things take central stage however, they re-arrange everything else in their orbits around them and into their correct level/place. When everyone has done that, you'll see a lot of agreement

@@QuranicIslam Right, that makes much more sense. If the disagreement among ambiguous verses is fine (and can be reduced with the agreement on clear verses). What happens to those who use their intellect and come to the wrong conclusion? Is it a disease in their heart for that they will be punished for or is it something that which God will accept their efforts?

@@xyve6129 There is no conclusion then that can be "wrong" about the Qur'an ... no conclusion which is "baatil" or false. Like the verse quoted here, that "falsehood cannot approach it from in front nor from behind". I mentioned that it is "interesting" that only in front and behind are mentioned, but video is too and long and didn't want to make it longer. Why in front and behind only? Because looking at the whole book, from its start to finish ... ie as a complete whole, starting either from the front to the back or back to front, no falsehood can approach it. But if you make the Qur'an into "bites" as it says in another verse, or come to it from the middle, ignoring what came before or after ... ie coming at it and jumping onto it "from the side" (left or right), then yes ... you can make falsehood approach. But that is part of the زيغ in the hearts mentioned in Q3:7 I translated it here as most do as a "disease" in the hearts. But زيغ actually means to "swerve" ... to turn "aside" ... to deviate from a path. In the same way it is only those who deviate from the muhkamat and attack the Qur'an from "its side" rather than go through it from the front to back, or from the back to front (it is in the end in human language, a discourse to us which is linear in time) ... only they can possibly arrive at "falsehoods" with their "intellect" That's how the Qur'an us made. It is on "lock" from God as they say. Don't believe any nonsense about people using their intellect with it and arriving at falsehood ... there is always a reason for that. As for any other differences, they will not be falsehoods ... won't be misguidance. They might be the same thing seen from different sides, or different parts of the same thing, or both true at a deeper level. But actual falsehood arrived at by the application of intellect onto the Qur'an? No. That's nonexistent ... again, ex for from those who come to it from the side and follow the mutashabihat for fitna and "interpretations" due to the "swerve" in their hearts.

🙏 welcome my friend. Jazakallah

👍 welcome

Jazakallah

Oh good ... so my memory didn't fail me

Thank you It is just sophistry ... there's no actual power. The cutting off of the hand i'll speak about in the next part ... when i get round to it! But most of the Qur'an doesn't have verses that require or need or even can be explainined/interpreted in that way they say But yes of course, knowing how the Prophet acted or behaved would always be great whether or not it is directly linked to interpreting a verse of the Qur'an Part of this world's test is to be able to find that guidance of which you speak

@@QuranicIslam Thank you! Would love to listen to the next part. Peace be with you

Salaam. Sure. You can DM me on Twitter (it will always be Twitter not X) or Reddit.

Thank you. And I think a regular to my channel called Iron Man mentioned you in yesterday's live stream ... Is that right?

I know the brother. Do join us live some time. It's good to have thoughtful people despite the academic differences. I'd join but your timings don't work for me sadly

@@AlMosesPhD 👍 no problem. Will try to as well

Well, for now at least, my channel is still just small enough for me to answer. Anyway, not sure which comment that was, but I don't know at all if most Quranists leave Islam or not, but I have mentioned reasons why they would. The roots of those reasons are still in the confusion of traditional Islam that they either haven't been able to rid themselves of, or are now reacting too. Other than that, there really is no such thing as "leaving/entering" Islam like it is a club. There is guidance from God, and you should try to follow it as best you can. That guidance is in the human nature He has given you, your God given sense of morality, in signs in the world, in previous scriptures ... and yes, in the Qur'an too. Sometimes people become "truer" Muslims without Islam, and there are some that were truer Muslims before Islam and actually become kafirs ("ingrates" let's say) as converts So really, you are staring far ahead, with a clean slate and no years of baggage. Be patient with yourself ... God isn't in a hurry for you to get everything right and know everything. Most people are more than decent. As for code 19, I don't have an issue with it ... I've just never looked into it. And mostly, I don't see what guidance has come out of it. Also the code 19 supporters don't take into account qira'at & manuscripts very well. They can't even use it to identify the correct qira'a. So I would like to see a reason/purpose behind it. Something beneficial. Not just "wow" with numbers ... numbers I would need to check but have not. My faith in the Qur'an never had to be restored really, it just developed considerably when I started taking it seriously. I will, hopefully, do a live stream tonight. Hop on if you can and we can talk then.

@@QuranicIslamabsolutely, so humble of you to reply. GOD bless you, i am currently watching the GOD's plan video you made, i love the different perspectives people have towards world while following the KORAN.

👍 very nice. Yes and even v.32 also shows it is still about the Qur'an

Thanks ... I don't think it was the microphone. It was the internet. Some lag to streamyard where I was recording it. Next time I might do it on One of I can figure out how

Certainly

Yes it was certainly bc of the Caliphs that apostasy laws came about ... whether to justify Abu Bakr's wars, or more likely the killing of political opponents that started with the very first executions of Hujr bin 'Ady & co by Mu'awiya. No, created or uncreated is just a ridiculous nonsensical question to begin with. It is meaningless.

@@NikMirza Not sure what that means exactly, but I hope you do know now or are trying to. It isn't difficult. The Qur'an and Hadiths are in different circles and don't overlap much so that it will be confusing

Walaykum asalaam

😆 ... well, there's not much of it. Mostly it is me "going off on one"

Whatever answer you get, I suggest you still do the research for yourself, no other way to be certain my friend.

salam hadith books are a test for muslims. it is best to avoid their deception.

SIMPLE SOLUTION..Quran is Furqaan ..if you come across a hadees which mentions for eg assistance and co operation with neighbour..it matches with Quran ..but you come across a hadees about size of pant will burn a person in hell that's not in spirit of Quran..This formula is more practical for believers...Even when we come across secular ethics whether it is in spirit with Quran...for eg if secular ideology promotes right for prostitution we can verify Quan emphasis family life ...as we don't come from heaven directly but goes through a decade of being child and family life is justice ...

@@asr2009 And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion. But if your Lord had willed, they would not have done it, so leave them and that which they invent. 6:112.

That's going to be in the next part (if I can find the time), but I did address it on Twitter in a bunch of replies. You may have to scroll around to see the full conversation, but as far as I can see now this part is the end of it; twitter.com/Quranic_Islam/status/1629360779748073473?t=UAwyNdUzJjE-Kw6xBqviWA&s=19 And this was the tweet that started it; twitter.com/Quranic_Islam/status/1628967308990328833?t=G3Q5gs94w_3OwS_6KaD7XQ&s=19 So poke around a little between them. In there is generally the most important part of what I want to say in part 3 for stealing a pencil issue And sorry I can't work on these faster. I just physically can't.

Well isn't that funny! ... were you ears burning or is this just us being linked? 🤣🤝🏽 ... I'm actually planning on discussing/presenting about that on tomorrows live stream. Si guess watch for it then.

@@QuranicIslam Great minds think alike XD Well I do really love you and the work you are doing, so maybe we are linked :-P I'm keen to watch the stream, although I probably will not be a live spectator I had this coincident before btw, just the day something kinda special/miraculously happened in my life, I saw your video about the fighting angels online. :-)

1) that is part of the issue, but I personally don't see it as "Uthman's Qur'an". I have a different conclusion from the data. I don't think all manuscripts we have were copies from the four he sent out, and I don't think there was a mass burning of masahif, nor mass copying. His masahif are quickly lost, we don't have single one today, and we are not even sure from the tradition how many he had made 2) it also changes in showing an increase in nifaq and at the end the Prophet is being consoled because of those who race in kufr and do "tahreef" of what is said. It also shows mushrikeen, Ahlul Kitab and munaafiqeen working together and some conspiring to disobey the Messenger even after having been warned not to conspire

@@QuranicIslam 1) We can drive different conclusions from what we have, but still, most is based on so called Uthmainc text. My point is that we don't have any evidence we have anything directly from the prophet. 2) yes all of that, but something that stood out the most is sometimes being harsh to some (rightly if they are oppressors) without mercy which shows how the message changed

@@laad 1) I don't think you are hearing me here - I am saying most ISN'T based on the so called Uthmanic text. That very starting premise is a false conclusion in my assessment. As for that we don't have any evidence that we have anything from the Prophet, well that is just a hyper skeptical approach. We could say the same about Plato, Aristotle, etc ... we don't have to have the original manuscripts written in a person's handwriting to say that that is the person's work. The certainty that the Qur'an originates in the Prophet Muhammad is as certain as anything 2) I disagree. There was no change in the message in terms of changing from "mercy" to "without mercy". Not at all. And the harshness towards oppressors and tyrants and criminals in the beginning, is the same as at the end ... that didn't change either.

@@QuranicIslam 1) We are talking about someone's work being preserved letter for letter, word for word, and work being preserved for its meaning. I will agree with you if we look at it from the latter standpoint. 2) As an example, I don't recall seeing instructions on killing those that go against god and his messenger at the early stage of revelations.

@@laad 1) you were saying we don't have any historical evidence other than the Uthmanic text ... I was saying we don't even have that. Your saying "Uthmanic text" was a conclusion based on data AND furthermore based on traditional reports. We actually have no "evidence" for Uthman being the one to do anything with the Qur'an ... that is if you are going to go down that hyper-skeptic approach. But if you are, they you can't in the same breath apply it to the Prophet and not to Uthman. Until very recently, with the discovery of inscriptions by amateurs (which haven't been confirmed by experts and could turn out to be fake), what evidence do we have outside of the tradition that some one called Uthman even existed and was the third Caliph? Let alone attribute the Qur'an to him? As for letter by letter, word for word, again that doesn't mean the Qur'an isn't from the Prophet. Unless you want to say the exact same thing about Homer, Plato, Aristotle, etc and say; "we don't know what Plato left us with regards to his Republic or Homer wrt his Oddessy or Aristotle wrt to his Ethics" No I think we can say. And we can say even more what the Prophet left us wrt the Qur'an. Word for word, letter for letter, has never been an issue for ANY text ever in human history. No ancient text people now attribute to authors were ever spoken of in the way you did above about the Qur'an bc of that. And it is all bc of the modern pop-preachers of the last 5 decades or so who, in trying to defend against or attack Christians, started talking about what they did not know and spread the claim that the Qur'an is preserved letter by letter. 2) But you still see in those sane verses, or the very next, mercy and forgiveness ... nor are they directed against those who "go against" God and His Messenger, but criminals & aggressors .... and in the Meccan suras it is obvious why, like you said they were minority ... yet those who disobey God and His Messenger's calls to justice are still threatened and warned will Hell in the same way. And you see fighting right at the beginning of the Madina period, showing that the hijra is the difference. And the rule is established early that fighting is only against aggressors, and that becomes the foundation for all subsequent verses. It is rule 1. Lastly, yes of course from the Qur'an you can see Muslims went from an oppressed minority to one of dominance (though even before that they were an ignored/tolerated minority, and that later dominance didn't have a majority of real faith & knowledge) .... BUT, again chronologically, you can see their interlocutors and opponents changed too, becoming more oppressive, more violent, attacking the Muslims, conspiring with Ahlul Kitab elements within Madina (Jews) and hypocritical elements, and other then with Ahlul Kitab elements (Christian tribes), establishing the "Mosque of Harm", attempting to assassinate the Prophet (alluded to), racing in kufr and breaking the peace treaty .... ... that very peace treaty, not any battle, that the Qur'an calls a "clear victory" So yes ... it is great that you are reading the Qur'an chronologically to learn about the Muslim community and how it changed wrt to those around them ... but those around them were not static, they changed too. So read also how they changed chronologically and don't be one-sided in that. You will always find both mercy and forgiveness are there throughout the Qur'an in how the Muslims are instructed to deal with them; when those options are available, they are always encouraged.

You don't have to be a Quranist to see that ... in reality I'm not really a "Quranist" in how most define it, as in rejecting all hadiths. I'm far more a Quranist due to the Quran itself than due to the hadiths. In fact i think Quranists who are "Quranists" because of hadiths are also belittleing the Quran. Almost treating it like a plan B since plan A (hadiths) didn't go so well.

@@QuranicIslam good to know! I’m new to your channel so I wasn’t sure what exactly you were leaning toward although I find this video very informative but also something that should be common sense amongst Muslims except it’s not. I think the fear of apostasy is at play here…

@@fatimaxo4885 Yes it is. But all a naivety about scholars knowing best and that this Ummah hasn't gone the way of those before us, just like the Prophet said. The best in depth dive of the main ideas on this channel would be the video essay "Qur'anic Islam vs Inherited Islam", so I'd recommend starting with that. The shorter video "He loves me, He loves me not", is the main "original" work I'm most happy with. And the best overall short video is a translation (not by me) of Hassan al-Maliki called "Hadith of the apostate" (something like that). Thanks for looking in. I do live stream every 2 weeks intended to encourage people contemplate the Qur'an in which I usually present something and then anyone is free to join and share their own insights (without any debate or pushback from me even if I think it is wrong, bc that isn't the point) so feel free to join if you like.

Depends on how big a divergence you consider an error. When you are learning tajweed for example you could make many "errors". The "normal" recitation of most tajweed imams in mosques are full of tajweed errors. The bottom line is that the Prophet didn't teach multiple qira'at. So the differences are due to divergences from his and errors in transmission, yes. The "dhikr" though, is preserved. And every verse has the same import/teaching.

@@QuranicIslam then that is no difference to the bible then, the general message is still there.

@@elliot7205 I honestly can't comment on that because I haven't read nor studied the Bible, but the preservation of the Bible is certainly nothing like that of the Qur'an. The bible doesn't have an oral tradition to even compare with the qira'at. And in terms text stability in the manuscripts, the Qur'an's stability is leagues, bounds and miles beyond the Bible's - we don't miss whole verses nor include whole new verses

Still none unfortunately. Nothing since his son was set free. Just keep him in your prayers

@@TheClimbToTheStars Salaam ... could you point me to the time stamp as to where you referring to? It's been a long time since this issue. Ummayad influence lasted for centuries. The Abbasids themselves were totally Ummayad in their religious & political policies (as they saw it the best way to suppress the Banu 'Ali, just as the Ummayads did) the only think they didn't do is subtly attack the Prophet as the Ummayads did (e.g. their collecting & spreading the poetry said against the Prophet by Quraysh and its allies)

@QuranicIslam so you refer them as a people rather than the kingdom. I am studying the abbasids so i will get back to you on that

@@TheClimbToTheStars Yeah. The influence if the Ummayads lasted a very very long time, because it infiltrated what is and what made up Sunni Islam. Scholars at the Ummayad times were the teachers and "Salaf" of those in the Abbassid times. Ibn Jawzy would later have to write books telling people how love of Yazid isn't "part of the Sunnah". Look at how alNasai and alHakim died due to their views on Mu'awiya. Up to the 5th century it was said that if you wanted to be killed in Baghdad, then just speak ill of Mu'awiya in the vegetable market. Ibn Hajar would comment in his Fath alBari about how most Shia leaning narrators (who are anti-Ummayad of course) were deemed untrustworthy but all naasibi (ie pro-Ummayad) narrators were considered trustworthy. etc etc Lots of issues. Influences carry on, they don't usually completely disappear ... they often affect future events & sources. Even Jahiliya influenced ... for example, the pre-Islamic Alliance of Mecca & Thaqif, who were the two biggest opponents of the Prophet, ended up being in charge of the Ummah in Abu Bakr's Caliphate, then more so in Umar's. While the tribes that supported and fought for the Prophet, the Ansaar and Khuza'ah, we're sidelined completely. Then Uthman side-lined everyone and brought back the Jahiliya dominance of the Ummayads, which led to his death, Ali's Caliphate & Mu'awiya's rebellion, and ultimately the failure of the Ummah in its support for Ali then Hassan which led the latter to step down. Hence the rise of the Ummayads dynasty

@@QuranicIslam your main sources for these statements?

@@TheClimbToTheStars The bunch of different sources, history and Hadith compilations mainly. I mean what I gave there was a general overview, some of it well known, some not known. From the top of my head you can find; the ibn Hajar statement is from Fath al Bari obviously, ibn Jawzy's from his book criticising those who won't criticise Yazid, the governors that Abu Bakr, Umar & Uthman used are well known from any history text on the Rashidun Caliphate. The one about the vegetable markets is from "Kitab al'Aaama" of I remember. These things can of course be found in multiple sources. You see them again and again when you've read enough

He didn't protect the Qur'an, He protected the "dhikr". And the dhikr is what's important for salvation, not the qira'at. We have different qira'at bc of the bungling of the early Ummah and their abandoning of the Qur'an in order to conquer a quarter of the world

@@QuranicIslam do you think that there was a range of variation the prophet allowed in recitation? Van putten seems to suggest that I think...

@@elliot7205 No, I don't. Except perhaps in a very limited way. Nothing beyond differences in "accents" that are in the qira'at ... he didn't allow Malik vs maalik in Surat Fatiha for example. It was one or the other, not both.

@@QuranicIslam hi, can you explain what the Qur'an means by the dhikr? are there any scholars that say it is not the recitation but the dhikr that is preserved aswell?

@@elliot7205 Of course there are. But why do you need any scholars to confirm what the Qur'an itself says? You said "if God protected the Qur'an". God, not the scholars. Well ... God never said He would protect the Qur'an. He said the dhikr. If scholars want to swap around the words God uses, that's there problem and is an example of how they can't be trusted to preserve even the words of the Qur'an. Dhikr means "the reminder". It is the part of the Qur'an, the teachings and universal message, that God has always sent in the past. The parts of the Qur'an that can be "remembered". Things that some of mankind might of have forgotten. It doesn't include anything "new". Something new obviously can't be given as a "reminder"

And thus most of Islam is as fallible as the humans who narrated, selected, graded, interpreted, etc the Hadiths. And so there is a different Islam for every "set" of Hadiths ... Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Zaydi Islam, etc

😆 ... Not my areas. But if some one createa it, I'd be happy to support it. But there are bigger "Quranist" channels that could do it better I'm sure

Yes, but he could also enter Hell. His atheism has zero relevance to the issue. What matters is his/her deeds. In the Qur'an, people enter Heaven or Hell because of what they "used to do"

@@QuranicIslam can you provide some quranic verses to show this?

@@elliot7205 See this post and those linked to it; www.reddit.com/r/Quraniyoon/s/APlhVdQjnW Also check my live tab for the stream "actions not belief"

@@QuranicIslam what is your view of Muhammad being a false apocalyptic prophet because he said the hour is at hand and immenant according to western scholars

@@elliot7205 Firstly I'd say all of that is false later invention. The earliest document we have is the Qur'an. And continually throughout the Qur'an it is quoted of people asking him about the Hour, and him denying knowledge of it; I'd also say those who use the words "false apocalyptic prophet" likely have a different view of "prophet" than nubuwwa, one which is secular and doesn't accept the existence of God nor a judgment day. So I'd say it is mostly irrelevant and we'd be talking past each other Lastly I'd say even if he was a false "prophet", in whatever sense, it wouldn't matter much to me because what mainly brought/taught was a reminder about God, judgment day, accountability and morality. So his teaching still hold. Believing he was a Prophet or not isn't really important for its own sake, which is why the Jews and Christians don't have to (the minimum they are called upon is the "Common Word" verse)

There's no deception going on, nor am I shia, nor do i have a shia background. Your suspicion is just bc of your immersion in sectarian squabbles. See my channel which has been around for years. But the Shia are right in some things, Sunnis in others, neither in still others. Wrt Ghadeer Khumm they have it right, even if they have the emphasis wrong. There is no such thing as "hadiths are false". That isn't what I said, so if that is what you heard then you are not listening. There are false hadiths, there are true hadiths, and there are hadiths that are a mixture of truth and falsehood. And there are true and false hadiths that no one knows about, buried in books. And true hadiths lost, burnt or never conveyed. But this video was about the Qur'an. It was about how the Qur'an alone is still enough for guidance ... more than enough in fact. And it was against the belittling of the Qur'an as being impotent for guidance without the Sunnah. And also how the Sunnah/hadiths doesn't actually interpret the Qur'an at all ... let alone it being "hermenuetically more powerful" than the Qur'an. So if you want to comment, comment on that first .... then I will take what you have more seriously on the side issues of which you seem so sensitive about

Which human idols were being glorified in the beginning? Edit: oh right I see. You mean the salat on the Prophet and calling him by the words Allah used for him in the Qur'an. Well, up to you. Personally, if that troubles you that much then you aren't the type of person I want to attract anyway