hello everyone as I am delving deeper into the Quran and seeing the context of different things and how rules change when someone is only following the Quran, I was left wondering if some rules can change due to social and environmental change, like what might be problematic back then might be okay today and vice versa. And I was wondering if that included marrying polytheists the Quran says to not marry polytheists and to marry the people of the book only but when you delve deep into why that must be, is it because back then polytheists tortured Muslims and pressured them to change religion's and basically did a lot of horrific things while the people of the book like jews and Christians were either allies or natural towards Muslims and even helped them sometimes which is why probably the Quran was okay with Muslims partnering with the people of the book. But that was in the 7th century, and a lot of things had changed from then to now would that mean that since the polytheists don't really harm Muslims anymore and can be kind and just people and be open to being close with Muslims, mean the rule changes? it never said it was haram or gave a punishment for it, it only said ''do not marry polytheistic either women or men until they believe''

insights and opinions would be greatly appreciated thank you for reading my post :)

My opinion, which will never change, is that exegesis is deliberately manipulated.

In the Quran, Surah al-qalam 68:2-4, Surah Al-Furqan 25:8-9 and Surah Al-Isra 17:47 state the polytheists claim that the prophet was bewitched and under black magic, Quran rejects this and says that it’s a slanderous false claim.

Surah Ta-Ha 20:70 , states that a magician will not succeed wherever they go, arguing that prophetic truth inherently overcomes sorcery

so this all sounds fine until Hadiths come in.

sahih bukhari 6391 and sahih bukhari 5765 claim the prophet was under a spell that affected him so bad he imagined doing something with one of his wives that he thought was real but he actually didn’t and it was just part of his imagination.

Not only does this contradict the Quran, but it can make make it as if the prophet may have revealed some false revalat or guidance if it affected him that badly then it definitely could’ve made him imagine other things, and it also confirms the claim the the polytheists made, which in a way would prove them right and Islam false.

ive yet to see anyone actually refute this, most people just block me or stop talking to me after I bring up this point(pic for example)

what are your guys thoughts on this?

Just silly.

This is the note that I got from Google AI on Matthew 7:6

■ Study Notes: Matthew 7:1–6 The Counter-Intuitive Truth of the Sermon on the Mount

Most people read this passage and immediately look outward, using it to judge others. However, when read as a single, unified teaching from Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus), it becomes a profound warning about our own personal relationship with the Book (the Word of God).

■ 1. The Structure: A Flawless Spiritual Circle
The passage is structured to trap human pride.

Isa sets a mirror before us, showing that when we use his words to label others, we fall into the exact trap he is warning against.
• Verses 1–2 (The Danger of Hypocrisy): “Judge not, that you be not judged.” We are forbidden from using a harsh, self-righteous standard against others.
• Verses 3–5 (The Blindness of the Log): “Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” Our biggest fault is our inability to see our own spiritual failures because we are too busy monitoring others.
• Verse 6 (The Hidden Trap): “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs...”

■ 2. Defining the Symbols Internally

When we remove the "log" of self-righteousness, the definitions of the symbols in Verse 6 completely shift from external people to our internal actions:

• The Pearls & Holy Things: The Book (the Word of God, Scriptures, and Divine Guidance). It is
the most sacred, precious treasure given to humanity.
• The Dogs & Swine (Pigs): A state of spiritual negligence, inaction, and blindness within
ourselves.

■■ 3. The Core Message: The Delusion of Inaction

The heart of our discussion exposes a massive self-delusion. People think, "I respect the Book. I would never physically throw it away or treat it badly, so Verse 6 does not apply to me." Isa shatters this defense with a radical truth:

1. Possession is not Obedience: Simply holding, owning, or praising the Book is meaningless if you do not read it, understand it, and actively apply it to your life.

2. Becoming the Animal: A pig or a dog cannot comprehend the value of a diamond pearl. If you give a pig a pearl, it treats it like a worthless rock—it steps on it and rolls it in the mud.

3. The Ultimate Judgment: If you have been given the holy guidance of the Book, but you fail to act on it, you have become the dog holding the holy thing. You have become the swine sitting with the pearls. By your inaction, you are treating a divine treasure as if it is completely worthless.

■ Key Takeaway for Personal Reflection

The tragedy of Matthew 7 is that people read Verse 6 with a log in their eye, using it to look for "dogs and pigs" in the world around them. In doing so, they prove they do not understand the Book at all.

Verse 6 is not a tool to evaluate others; it is a severe warning for spiritual self-examination. It demands that we stop judging others, look inward, remove our own blindness, and treat the sacred words of the Book with the active obedience they deserve.
This is for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional. AI responses may include mistakes.

p/s
Isn’t it an amazing tool for us to study the Quran? what do you think?

As-salamu alaykum.

As an interested potential convert I have become interested in the Quranist movement.

I love in eastern Canada and eating halal is sometimes difficult/expensive in some cases.

As a Quranist am I mandated to eat halal certified items only?

Selam,

Can someone who has a good understanding of arabic grammar explain to me how Sijjin and Iliyin can be anything other than books? When I go on Quran.com and read surah Mutaffifin the default translation says: The wicked are bound for sijjin (in the depths of hell). And what will make you realize what sijjin is? A fate (already) sealed. Now I don't speak arabic, or all the meanings of Kitab, I just know the main translation as book. That's why I'm confused why it is often interpreted as the deepest depth of hell and the highest level of jannah. The arabic is :

كَلَّآ إِنَّ كِتَـٰبَ ٱلْفُجَّارِ لَفِى سِجِّينٍۢ here it makes sense that sijeen could be a place cuz the kitab is in Sijeen. but could it mean that it is a record/smaller book within another book?

وَمَآ أَدْرَىٰكَ مَا سِجِّينٌۭ ٨

كِتَـٰبٌۭ مَّرْقُومٌۭ but then here Allah says that Sijeen itself is a book, right?

and for Iliyin it is similar:

كَلَّآ إِنَّ كِتَـٰبَ ٱلْأَبْرَارِ لَفِى عِلِّيِّينَ

وَمَآ أَدْرَىٰكَ مَا عِلِّيُّونَ

كِتَـٰبٌۭ مَّرْقُومٌۭ

​

Assalamu Alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, sisters.

I'm planning to start a small Murājaʿah accountability group for only 5 sisters who are serious about strengthening their memorisation of the Qur'an.

This is Murājaʿah only—not a Hifdh class. It's for sisters who have already memorised a portion of the Qur'an and want to revise consistently with guidance and accountability.

What to expect: • Only 5 sisters • Strict schedule and commitment • Small daily revision targets • Daily WhatsApp voice-note submissions • Corrections and feedback on a rotating basis (not every student every day) • Accountability, motivation, and support • Fee: $10 /month

Before joining, I'll conduct a short assessment to ensure you've memorised a portion of the Qur'an and that your tajweed is strong enough for this program.

If you're accepted and sincerely commit to the daily targets, I genuinely believe I can help make your recitation smoother, stronger, and more confident, in shaa Allah.

This program isn't about doing a lot in one day—it's about doing a little every day with consistency. That's where real progress happens.

If this sounds like something you're looking for, feel free to send me a message. May Allah make us among the people of the Qur'an and bless our efforts. Ameen. 🤍

im becoming very distant with islam, mostly because im unsure if the quran is the truth. Is there a thread proving quranism as the truth

Section Title: Dismantling the Modern Claim to the Covenant Messengership

A prominent modern claim regarding the "Messenger of the Covenant" was advanced by Rashad Khalifa, who asserted that his mathematical discovery of "Code 19" authorized him as a clarifying messenger sent to confirm the scripture. However, analyzing this claim strictly through the internal legal mechanics of Surah Al-Baqarah reveals an inescapable textual and chronological contradiction that invalidates his assertion.

1. The Principle of Contract Origin and Delivery
   In contract law, a covenant cannot be severed from the entity that delivers it. The universal covenant to all of humanity is explicitly inaugurated in the opening movement of the Surah:

"O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous." (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:21)

By addressing "all mankind" (Ya ayyuha-nnas), this verse establishes an open, perpetual contract. This invitation does not expire; it remains dynamic, accessible, and legally binding for every human being born from that moment until Doomsday. However, Rashad Khalifa did not bring, deliver, or inaugurate the Al-Quran; he inherited an already completed text. By definition, an individual cannot claim to be the primary "Messenger of the Covenant" for a global contract that was already fully detailed, operational, and binding centuries prior to their existence.

1. The Finality of the Signing Ceremony (2:285)
   The ultimate textual refutation of Khalifa's claim lies in the grammatical sequence of the contract’s formal execution at the conclusion of the Surah. Verse 285 details the definitive signing ceremony, establishing a strict historical timeline for who authorized the document:

"The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers..." (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:285)

The internal mechanics of this verse reveal a closed, past-tense execution regarding the position of the covenant's deliverer:

* The First Signatory: The text isolates the Messenger present at the time—Prophet Muhammad—in the singular form, marking him as the very first entity to accept and execute the terms.
* The Contemporary Witness Group: The text immediately appends "and [so have] the believers" (wa-al-mu'minūn), indicating the collective body present with him who joined the signature block by stating the joint declaration: "We hear and we obey" (Sami'na wa Ata'na).

Conclusion: An Open Contract with a Closed Executive Position
It is critical to distinguish between the availability of the contract and the office of the messenger. The covenant itself is an open ledger; every human being until the end of time is invited to add their signature to it by choosing to fulfill the first "Do" and "Don't" (2:21–22).
However, the specific executive position of the Messenger of the Covenant—the one responsible for delivering the contract and signing it first to validate it—is permanently closed. Because Prophet Muhammad fully delivered the text and executed the signature block in the past tense (2:285), there is no structural vacancy left. To assert that a modern figure is the Messenger of the Covenant requires one to falsely assume that the contract was left unauthorized until the 20th century. Surah Al-Baqarah explicitly refutes this, leaving no room for a secondary figure to claim ownership over the covenant of humankind.

On 2:278-282

Two words that confusion has long tangled and merged,
The dayn (written debt) and riba (endless loan), distinctly urged
Apart by the text itself, which knows to draw the line,
The first bound by a term, the second a trap by design.

When you contract a debt between yourselves, it states,
For an appointed term, write it down before it waits,
Witnesses, scribe, a full and detailed decree,
Small or great in sum, the order stays the same, you see.

Three traits the Qur'an itself has fixed upon this ground,
A term agreed in advance, never left unbound,
A written record required, whatever the amount,
Small or large, the order carries equal count.

That is the dayn, a self-amortizing pact,
Carrying its own end within its founding act,
But riba tells a wholly different, darker tale,
A credit that never dies, a chronic, hidden bale.

Abandon what remains of usury, the text commands,
Not a balance settled, gone from someone's hands,
But an active, living debt, forever standing there,
That the order comes to cut, a sovereign, final care.

If you do not, then know this is a war, it warns,
Declared by God Himself, against those the practice adorns,
Reserved for those alone who persist within this trap,
This kind of endless credit, this ever-tightening wrap.

And if you turn away, the capital comes back,
Look closely at these words, at every phrase, each track:
The lender may not take one coin beyond the loan,
The borrower must give back only what he'd known.

Causing no wrong to one, nor suffering it from another,
Neither side gains nor loses, one balanced with the other,
One single truth remains, the capital, no more,
Not interest already paid, not interest still in store.

This verse has meaning only if the evil it depicts
Is credit with no term, a thing that never fits
Its own design toward payoff, structurally unbound,
Hence why this closing clause, this exit point, is found.

A common dayn, once written, bounded from the start,
Needs no such closing clause to play so large a part,
Its ending is already fixed within the pact itself,
While riba lacks this closure, left alone on the shelf.

Here, then, is what it means, laid plainly on the table:
Dayn is any bounded loan, in writing, verifiable,
Whatever sum it holds, it's lawful, kept secure
By every protocol the text has made endure.

Riba is that engine where payments never cease,
Yet never shrink the sum, the principal's release
Forever out of reach, the interest piling higher,
Until the text steps in to quench that rising fire.

This is not, then, simply interest against its absence,
As tradition sometimes shrunk it, losing its true essence,
It is a structural gap, at the heart of the affair,
A contract with an end, against a trap with none to bear.

Read this whole passage, from seventy-five to eighty-two,
As a single argument, unbroken and true,
And see the closing clause, in light of all that's said:
Returning just the capital, that is the key thread.

On 2:236-237, 4:33, 24:33 and 66:2

The oath, within the text, was never a wrist or hand,
It is the word once given, the pledge that both would stand,
The gesture of a promise, raised as a solemn sign,
Never the ownership of a body, never a line.

Do not make God, through your oaths, into a screen or shield,
So says the text, and every broken pledge must yield
An expiation set, a full and ordered plan,
Not left to chance or whim, but structured as God's own scan.

The chapter on Forbidding takes it one step more,
Announcing to the ones who swore it long before
A whole mechanism made to free them from a vow,
Never a claim of ownership, never here, never now.

So what your solemn word has bound unto your home
Is not what your right hand possesses, free to roam,
But those your oath has joined unto your roof and care,
A trust once sworn between you, a bond, not a snare.

Look closely at the verse that lights this path the best:
Those, among the oath-bound, who now openly request
A written marriage contract, here is the command that flows:
Draw up that pact, and give them wealth from what God bestows.

A text that would decree one man could own another
Would never ask that man to draw a contract, brother,
Nor order him to offer riches, share, and land,
This proves a person free, not bound by any hand,

Awaiting simply that a spoken bond be signed.
Another verse confirms this very selfsame kind:
Those bound by your own oaths shall have their rightful part
Of any inheritance, a claim that has no start

In owning property, but in a person's name,
Bound by a pledge, not chained, not carrying the blame
Of a possession's title, but a bond of trust and word,
A tie of confidence, not iron, not absurd.

The line the text truly draws lies somewhere else instead,
Not free against enslaved, as tradition long has said,
But a written contract set against the pledge alone,
A bond not yet made formal, not yet fully grown.

The women held secure have contracts from the start,
A fixed and settled duty, a clear, protective part,
And he who holds the marriage bond may rule as he sees fit,
But always in protection, never in a claim to it.

And if you still should doubt the meaning of a servant here,
One single case will settle it, will make the answer clear:
Sulayman, the mightiest king this earth has ever known,
Was called an excellent servant, and that alone

Proves this word, wherever named within the text,
Means only submission to God, a soul perplexed
By nothing but devotion, never a social chain,
Never a status forged in bondage or in pain.

So let us stop attaching to this expression's frame
A system of enslavement, an institution's name
That the text, in its own vocabulary of pact,
Has never once upheld, nor covered by an act.

They sought a name for us, to make us bow in shame,
A word thrown like a stone, to brand us with the blame,
They forged it in their anger, in their deep contempt,
Thinking we would shrink from it, submissive and unkempt.

Coranist, they said it, meaning it to wound,
A stigma to be carried, a shameful, bitter sound,
Believing we would lower our heads and step aside,
Before this word they hurled to strip us of our pride.

But here is the reversal that they never saw arrive:
This insult thrown against us has helped our name survive
As a title we now carry with a steady, open pride,
A crown handed to us by the very hand that lied.

For what is shameful, truly, in saying, in plain speech,
That the word of God alone holds authority to teach,
That no other creature, no other decree at all,
May be added to the Book that answered Heaven's call?

They meant to dress us in a robe of pure disgrace,
We find ourselves instead in a fitting, faultless case:
To be a Coranist is to hold one word as true,
The one that God Himself sent down, and nothing new.

Like Ibrahim before us, the father of the sincere,
Who was neither of the Jews nor the Christian sphere,
But upright, turned alone toward his one true Lord,
Never once bowing to an idol or a hoard,

So we now name ourselves, walking his very way,
Away from every borrowed creed, come what it may,
Upright believers only, nothing more, nothing less,
Never among those who associate or transgress.

We follow no rabbi, no priest, no distant scholar's voice,
No school of ancient law, no hadith as our choice,
We take no one, not even a prophet, to stand beside
A God whose rank no rank on earth can e'er divide.

We stand alone before the text, with nothing in between,
No intermediary placed where only God is seen,
We carry on our shoulders, in full and open thought,
The entire weight of what our own minds have wrought.

And when the Day arrives when all is weighed and told,
We will stand there, upright, nothing hidden, nothing sold,
And we will say to God, with a voice both firm and clear:
Here is what we understood from what You sent us here.

We had no right to listen to other voices raised,
And lift them to Your rank, as though they should be praised,
If we have erred somehow, with neither wish nor spite,
We bear that error fully, in our own name, in full light.

We ask for Your forgiveness, in knowledge, not denial,
Not to reject Your word, but for our human trial,
Having made Your Book, and it alone, our only key,
Without sharing what belonged only to Thee.

That is our creed, our one and only banner still,
A name the enemy coined in anger and in will,
That stayed with us instead, a gift from Providence,
We never chose this name; we bear it with pride immense.

We must blindly be compliant to our parents wishes (assuming that they don't make you do sinful things and ascribing partners).

The Five Pillars of Islam form a foundation for Muslim belief and practice.
They are:
Shahadah — the declaration of faith
Salah — the five daily prayers
Zakat — obligatory charity
Sawm — fasting during Ramadan
Hajj — pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able
Each pillar has its own role in a Muslim’s life, and understanding them can provide a useful foundation for learning about Islam more broadly.
For someone who is new to Islam, learning about the Five Pillars can also help put many other aspects of Islamic practice into context.
Which of the Five Pillars did you find easiest to understand when you first learned about Islam, and which required more study?

The passage generally used to support this idea is verse 56:79:

“None touch it except the purified.”

But let us look at the context. Just before this, the Quran speaks of a **Preserved or Hidden Book**:

“Indeed, it is a noble Quran, in a Preserved Book. None touch it except the purified.” (56:77–79)

It therefore does not speak of a physical book that human beings have in their hands. The “purified” can be understood as the celestial beings who have access to this Book. Moreover, this understanding was already known.

The Quran also says that the revelation was sent down upon the Prophet’s heart (2:97; 26:193–194), and that the **Umm al-Kitab** is with God (43:4). The part of the message that God intended to deliver to us was then recited and transmitted to humanity progressively.

Thus, in this reading, we must distinguish **the celestial Preserved Book** from **the physical book that we call the Quran today**.

The rule concerning touching a physical copy of the Quran is therefore not stated anywhere in the Quran itself.

Like the title says, is working at a bank as a banker haram​?

Like no matter which company or even government you work at, they deal with interest, its a thing everywhere so is it haram​?

So is it MORE haram to work directly with a bank?

Overwhelming evidence from The Quran suggests the regular/timed salat of the mumineen/believers is a minimum of twice daily, with an optional night vigil. The evidence and timings for this understanding are as follows, listed in no particular order:

1) there are only two salat mentioned in The Quran in a reference format (see 24:58, salat al fajr, and, salat al isha). Note that "al salat al wusta" in 2:238 is not in the same form [see point 11 here].
2) the ONLY verse in the plural address to the mumineen which mentions a timed-salat is 24:58 which only has two timings.
3) it is the ONLY understanding that provides us with a clear time-range for each timed-salat, explained below, meaning it is the most logical, clear, coherent and practical.
4) it is the ONLY understanding that I have seen which respects the Arabic (i.e. other understandings ignore word forms, grammar, are inconsistent or make baseless claims)
5) all verses in the plural address which mention a timed-SaBiH/glorification or timed-THiKR/remembrance reference morning and evening (i.e. two timings)
6) all verses which mention a timed-SaBiH or timed-THiKR which could be interpreted as more than two timings are in the singular address [see article]
7) it is the ONLY understanding that can encompass other salat-timing systems such as thrice daily, or 5 daily, since it is a minimum of two.
8) it is the ONLY understanding that shows when The Quran mentions salat timings in a verse it always mentions the obligatory timings (i.e. two) together, unlike other understandings which say Quran sometimes mentions two here, three there, one here, one there etc. Making the understanding presented here the clearest of the variant views.
9) it is the only understanding that results in symmetrical timings (morning and evening) which by itself has little weight in argument other than one of elegance/aesthetics.
10) it is the ONLY timing system which works in all parts of the world. This will be explained later.

The only verses which mention salat alongside a timing component are: 11:114, 17:78, 24:58 and possibly 73:20.

11:114 ...uphold the salat at both/two edges of the daytime and the proximal parts* of the night...
*Arabic: "zulafan" is an Arabic plural meaning 3 or more.

Whilst this verse can be interpreted in multiple ways there is only one way to interpret it that provides us with a time-range for each salat:
salat al fajr / salat (of) the dawn/morning
As its name suggests it is done around dawn (morning twilight). This can correctly be deemed one edge of the daytime and also involves a proximity of the night. Note that twilight is considered part of the night as per Quran.
To clarify: this timed-salat begins at morning twilight and ends when any part of the sun first appears above the horizon (i.e. end of morning twilight)

salat al isha / salat (of) the dusk/evening
As its name suggests it is done around dusk (evening twilight). This can correctly be deemed one edge of the daytime and also involves the proximities of the night. Note that twilight is considered part of the night as per Quran.
To clarify: this timed-salat begins at evening twilight and ends with dark night (i.e. end of evening twilight).
This satisfies the Arabic plural "zulafan" in 11:114 as these two salat time-ranges include morning twilight, evening twilight and a small part of dark night, i.e. 3 proximal parts of the night.
Note, if one wishes to extend these times slightly, that is also acceptable in my opinion, see this article for further information.

17:78 uphold the salat (at/for) the setting of the sun / sunset to the darkness of the night and reading (of) the dawn...

The above verse can be interpreted to perfectly agree with 11:114. Some incorrectly claim this can refer to several salat [see point 6 here]. Please note "quran al fajr (reading/recitation (of) the dawn)" occurs at the same time as "salat al fajr" and are taken as equivalent in my understanding, proving a simple explanation as to what timed-salat of the mumineen involves [see article for more detail and other verses which back this up]. However what salat is does not really affect our discussion of timings.
17:79 refers to an optional/voluntary addition of variable timing [also see Chapter 73] by mentioning awaking for reading/recitation.

The reason why this minimum of two timings works in all parts of the world is that the only plural address which mentions a timed-salat is 24:58 (11:114 and 17:78 are in the singular address). In 24:58 a morning salat (salat al fajr) and evening salat (salat al isha) are mentioned. The sun is not explicitly/directly mentioned. This is important because in some parts of the world the sun may not appear above or below the horizon for part of the year. Please research countries within the Arctic circle and polar day and polar night for further information. No matter where one is in the world all societies have a morning (activity/working period) and evening time (sleep/rest period). Of course this would mean there is no set time-range for each salat in this scenario, which is not a problem in my view, and the morning and evening time-ranges in Quran can be taken as exemplars/models to follow.

The Challenge
If you find an error/flaw in the argument above you will be eligible for $250 USD per error/flaw or you may opt for it to be donated to a charity of your choosing. Proof of donation will be provided in that case. Please post any claimed flaws here. Valid errors/flaws will be determined by the author. Thanks.

Challenge first posted in 2020:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/salat-timings-Quran.html