Salam / greetings everyone Been enjoying night agent on Netflix and wanted to check out what we feel about the portrayal of Noor as an ex Muslim or someone being forced out of her religious / cultural environment by unreasonable political demands ( ie mandatory service for her brother in wars she doesn’t agree with).

I’m cautiously positive so far. The writers have avoided lots of tropes and cliches and white saviour storylines but I’m only half through the season.

Does Noor represent people like us fairly? What do you think ?

Just as the title says my friends, Thanks in advance.

(For context, I am not a practicing Muslim but my family are and I do have a strained relationship with them due to my progressive beliefs, I don’t really know if I’m even a Muslim anymore but I’d hate to fully cut off my family.)

I’ve been with this guy I met in school for around A month now (we knew each other for a way longer time) and my parents found out about it and they strictly forbidden me from talking to him again and made me delete his number. They say it’s because “we do not mix with the opposite sex”.

this guy is genuinely one of the best things to have ever happened to me, he’s caring and considerate, he doesn’t want any sex before marriage and he was even Making the effort to learn Arabic to try to impress my dad. But now my parents don’t even want anything to do with this guy And they mocked him for only having one parent and how bad “their” culture is (He’s white British)

I’m almost 18 And I feel like I have no social life in comparison to my peers, my parents feel the need to track everything I do and I always had a fear I’d die alone or with a random Muslim guy my parents would force me to marry.

should I continue being with this guy but more secretively in the hopes of me Getting more freedom in the future or just break up with him in case it would never work out? Any advice is appreciated as I feel riddled with guilt for still talking and spending time with him even if my parents are very against it.

This is so frustrating. They take all responsibility away from men and load everything on us, women. We have to cover up, even in high temperatures because we need to be protected from men (I don’t believe hijab is mandatory), we have to hide ourselves because men can’t keep their eyes off of us. We have to avoid talking with men, showing our hair, not going out as we want, not traveling alone, being criticized if we look strangers in the eyes, BECAUSE MEN ARE LITTLE BABIES WHICH NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM US. “Sister/ukhtu astagfirullah ewewewew” I am really so done with such talks, always preaching women how to walk, talk, act. Oh and the worst part? They claim women get good deeds and are righteous if they obey these things. I even hear this from my own Muslims friends and female relatives. “Because Allah made women special”. Yeah? Allah loaded everything on women?

Why is no one holding men responsible for their acts?? They only need to “lower the gaze”? Really, that’s it? We must bare everything because men are so dumb they can’t control themselves? Well, maybe Muslim men are like this because WE TEACH THEM EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE ABOVE. Maybe because WE DEMONIZE WOMEN AND MAKE MEN LOOK SO INNOCENT SO WOMEN GET ATTACKED ONCE THEY DON’T WANT TO COVER THEIR HAIR OR HIDE THEMSELVES.

What’s even funnier is, men are so gullible YET they give women instructions about everything lol. I thought they are little poor kids who can’t control themselves, so how come they have the right to tell US what to do if they even don’t have basic human competence to act like normal adults with responsibilities? I mean in this case, women sound like they are smarter and men are just dumb? (I don’t see men as dumb).

And not for the reasons you might expect. I (F20) was born and raised in a Muslim family in a Muslim country, but I started having doubts about Islam at 15 and that's when I ran into the Christian missionary websites rabbit hole in the internet and after a year I was convinced that Islam is false and Christianity was the one true religion

My family did not accept that of course and after a huge argument between us I started worrying about my safety because the death penalty for apostates was still a thing in my country, so I let them take me to a shike who made me say the shahada and everything was back to normal in the outside, but in the inside it was a different story

I was wondering why Jesus didn't help in some way? Doesn't the Bible says that God will protect you and stuff? Then why I had to lie to save myself?... After a month of struggling with doubts again I ended up leaving Christianity as well and becoming an atheist

Lately I've moved abroad to study in a Muslim minority country, I should be happy right? Now I can be free and do as I like, right? No! I've been feeling so empty and sad lately, I look back at when I used to be a Muslim, I used to pray my prayers on time, I used to read the Quran everyday, I used to go to the mosque almost every Friday, and I was planning on wearing the niqab someday, my life back then was so peaceful and simple, all I wanted was to be a good Muslim

But here I am now, I'll never be able to go back to Islam at all, because you can't control what you believe in, you either believe or not, I can't just switch something in my brain and boom I'm a Muslim again

All I can do is trying to go back to the islamic life style I used to follow, maybe it'll give me some reason to live

View Poll

Hi!! I really need advice from other Muslims.

I am an Muslim american attending a public uni--i am visibly Muslim (wearing a hijab, which I wear proudly.) this is all important info...in my class there's this really nice guy who talks to me alot, we get along quite well which isn't a problem in and of itself. but he is visibly Jewish (he wears a yarmulke), which again isn't a problem, as he is very friendly and kind with me and I sense no malice (I am however vigilant in regards to him potentially holding Zionist beliefs, liberal or not. it hasn't come up, nor will I bring it up, obviously.)

I looked up his name on Google out of curiosity and found it associated with a local Jewish school that promotes zionism-i believe he attended it in his youth. anyways, that obviously sent red flags into my mind. being someone who is outgoing and friendly I of course didn't avoid him when we first started to interact here and there (don't say anything about avoiding men lmao, i remain modest, but still converse with my male classmates in a cordial, respectable manner) and we exchanged favorite books to read, which was nice. (we are English majors!! and it was a fiction class. ) but now that I know this information about his past I feel so iffy...Zionism in his youth?

...clearly those beliefs would be with him culturally and religiously even if he now held liberal beliefs, of which I still will not tolerate.(our uni has a massive Muslim/Palestinian population, and a strong anti-zionist student body). I am just...scared. obviously. in this day and age, in our society, in all the things that have happened, any Muslim would be vigilant and paranoid. I don't want to avoid him entirely, because he is truly a kind person from the few interactions we've had, but I swear if he shows Zionism in any way idk if I'll be able to hold back. I wish I wasn't so outgoing, but at the same time I WANT friends of different backgrounds and beliefs...MINUS THE ZIONISM. I'd love to have a Jewish friend anyways! I want to open my world to people. and it would be incredibly rude to just avoid him out of nowhere. 😭

idk, I feel strange feeling so strongly about this because it's too early on to make such assumptions, and not only that, he's just a classmate, and we aren't gonna be besties or whatever lmao. I just want to talk about this. it's a shame that I have to feel this much fear and discomfort. i wish I didn't do a Google background check on him haha ignorance is truly bliss 😂 ...sorry if this isn't allowed on this subreddit.

A while back I posted about my panic attacks and concerns after converting to Islam.

I have kinda distanced myself since then from it.

But whenever someone asked me if I was muslim I couldn't say yes but I also couldn't say no.

I was struggling to dive into religion because I connect it to constraints and judgement.

But I've been keeping an eye on this sub...and I really like it here. Everyone is so openminded yet so loving towards Islam and eachother. But when I visit other subs it feels heavier again.

How do you guys do it? Are you allowed to be progressive like this in Islam?

Can you please tell me some of your mindsets so it takes the pressure off of me?

I'm really interested in seeing the progressive pov. The conservative pov (no disrespect to them) will say how its imitating disbelievers, but I know some that will argue its about how you go about it. Others will just say to live life and to wing it.

As above.

I’m anti sexist anti racist anti bigot and believe in freedom and progress.

Someone examines Islamic beliefs and it’s not for them more power to that person none of my business how they live and I would defend their freedom to live as they believe fiercely as I’m not a Nazi:

Sorry to say the ex muslim Reddit is full of despicable characters and “ never Muslims” and people who identify as Christians cherry picking fake Hadith and mistranslating things or outright lying about things like the prophets final sermon - something witnessed by so many people and memorised word for word by so many - people on that sub have rehashed it to a hate sermon on women saying they are prisoners who can be beaten.

At times like this I feel disgusted with humans as a species.

It also feels naive for me to fight for the rights of ex Muslims when they have forums spitting on religious Muslim women and calling Mohammad a rapist and literal comments like “ Muslim women go live in a muslin country so you can be attacked by Muslim men “ I will defend them as it’s the right thing to Do and god wants all humans to live in freedom with dignity but the ex Muslims on Reddit seem to want to be Neo Nazis and haters when it comes to religious Muslims. 🤮🤮🤮

Hi, I was born in england but raised with both islamic and ghanian principles which are quite alike but have some differences. Some where I am from it is very normal to have Male friends (my dad even is friends with his friends wife they joke around a lot), it is normal for women to not wear the hijab or just cover their hair (it is normal for only married women to wear hijabs) and to listen to music. As I have gotten older (I am 17) I have been off and on with religion. Ots not something I am proud of but once in a while I will come across a muslim being extremely rude or like oppressive and I dont want to be a part of that. I recently saw a video of a man wearing a hijab and removing it in public and honestly, I felt a stab of jealousy. I want to be able to wear what I want. With the hijab I cant even go swimming, to the gym, ride a motorcycle because whatever I wear if it's not a tent, people will flame me for it. I dont know. Honestly I right now I am in ine of my off periods and I am struggling with prayers :/ I saw this video and a man said that the best muslim woman is one who is shy when she is in public? That is so unfair and it honestly is oppressive. Should I lock myself up in my room? Why should I be ashamed to single be outside??? I cant even get some vitamin d and fresh air?? Any advice? Also my DMs are open for anyone in a similar situation 🙂. Sorry for the rant.

On November, 2023, I met this guy on a kink/fetish site and we were so compatible. About sex, personal tastes and conversation styles. He obviously knew from the start that I'm poly and dating, since that's on my profile.

We've met some days later. While we were eating and he asked me about religion and philosophy. I disclosed I am an ex-Christian and atheist but I was interested in religions as concepts and study, but wouldn't follow any. He didn't comment about that.

At some point, he said he didn't like western religions, and I asked him if he was Jewish or followed some eastern religion like Buddhism or Shinto. He said no.

We eventually had sex and he started to cry immediately after. I didn't feel so good about that. I asked if he was a Muslim and he confirmed, finally. I felt guilty, like I've done something very wrong, something that he needed to regret in order to go to Jannah. He assured me a lot saying that he wouldn't regret it and I believed him but still felt really guilty.

I know no one must disclose their religion before sex but it still felt really weird. I decided to give it a try, maybe he wasn't that radical or so?

We had sex a lot of times after that and he cried every single time. I got kind of used to it. We grew closer and closer. We even said I love you to each other at some point.

He talked about Islam sometimes and I engaged in the conversations, trying to make clear I wouldn't ever become a Muslim, but at some point he was sure he has convinced me that there's one God. He said I should look into religions so I started researching non-theistic Satanism. Edit: Since I'm an atheist, I wasn't interested on joining theistic religions, but agreed that this kind of community could be good for me. So I found this option. I never told him about it.

I've met his friends, which seemed to like me. He obviously didn't consume or offer alcohol and pork, which I respected.

My guilt and insecurity became stronger. He sent me the contact of his mentor/imam/idk. His mentor said a Muslim man shouldn't have any female friends or LGBTQ ones. I am NB-AFAB and he has gay friends. I got really confused.

When I asked him about it, he said that we should stop sex and affection because it was zina, and he needed to repent (tawbah) but still wanted to remain friends. I got really confused again, but accepted it.

It felt like my fears came true and I induced it myself so I felt guilty. It was hard remaining his friend. Eventually he decided to go no contact.

But he came back a month later. I was more strict on not doing anything haram (on his view of haram, based on conversations with him and his mentor), like talking on private messages about things that were not religion or education, so I started to talk with him only on shared groups. He said we were not friends and should not be, but still tried to engage on private friendly conversations, and I asked him to stop.

Ramadan came and I sent him a text in private about it, just like I do with my Christian friends and Christmas. When Eid came by, I wasn't comfortable sending him a PM so I sent a gif on one of our groups.

He kicked me off, said it was nice of me trying to care for him from far away but couldn't do this "orbiting" stuff. He was pissed. He said I could never get a grasp of his religion without having faith. Then he cut contact for good.

I still don't get it. I was just trying to respect his beliefs and not to do anything haram, but he still got SO pissed when I sent the Eid gif. AITA?

My takeaway is to NEVER get involved with people on Abrahamic religions ever again. Maybe I'm being too extreme, though. I just don't think I can do it.

But I still don't understand most of his behavior. He's a revert that joined Islam during the pandemics and frequents this subreddit. Can you guys help me with your views about it? Thanks!

Some info for context: I am a Turkish Muslim woman born and raised in Europe, I don't have many Muslim friends and the few I have are not really religious.

In 25 years of my life I never been on love with anyone, never bounded with a man always pushed them away for the sake of Allah. In may I met this guy at the engagement of one of my best friends (turkish and alevi), he is the cousin of the groom and he was so weird but in a fun way, he grew up in a very European setting and ever even embraced his turkish cultural side as well and in his mind I was the classic Muslim hijabi without a life (lol) yet he was amazed how much similarities me and him had and I was surprised too, he is literally the male version of me. Months passed and we never saw each other for a while yet my friend organized with her fiancé a grill picnic and he was also there, we didn't talk much during the gathering but he brought me home because my friend had to go somewhere else and we yapped like crazy in the car, we were talking about ANYTHINGGG it was crazy how much our brain were the same and it felt like we knew each other for years.

Then one day he asked if I wanted to go thrifting with him and I said yes but also brought my friend with me after that we started to meet up alone, he always been very respectful in his words towards me and never touched me. With time we got a little more intimate but stuff like holding hands, hugging etc no zina involved.

Recently the honeymoon phase that covered our eyes with pink curtains finished and we both realised that we needed a reality check we met few days ago and talked how impossible it was for us to be together not only religiously but also cultural differences, as Alevis got persecuted from sunnis for a while, his parents have completely different political views than mine etc. We sat there and cried all evening we just cried and said how both of us deserve to be together yet we can't. When we were talking at some point I said "thank you for making me feel loved" and he started to sob like a child he kept repeating "you don't know how much love I still have to give you" that broke my heart in thousands pieces. He told me how he thinks he will never have imaan in his heart and he wished he believed in God to be with me but he can't he also told me he wished to believe so he would be less lonely in life and would have someone to rely on when he is desperate but can't. We also both know that my parents won't accept him even if he was a religious alevi (his family is practicing Alevis but not him) even tho they accept the 6 pillars of imaan. I come from a very abusive household with an emotionally absent dad that is a workaholic that does everything to stay away from home because of my mom and yeah my mom whose been physically and emotionally abusive towards me my whole life. I am gonna be 100% honest I never been a crazy religious person, I wear my hijab, wear always modest clothes, don't drink yet I also don't really pray or read the quran. I love this man so much he means alot for me he made my feel loved and seen for the first time in my life I felt emotions that I never thought existed. I been crying for days, I don't have a good Imaan also all of this is making me desperate, I feel like I wanna leave the religion because why would God hate on me when I kept myself pure my whole life and I wanna be with only one man? I got hardship all my life with all this abuse and now that I am feeling loved for the first time in my life why I can't be happy? Plus he told me he will dislike the religion more because of our situation, I don't want to have this weight on my shoulders...

I am so desperate wallahi I don't think I can handle all of this please please please help me, is there not an escape from it?? Nothing I or him can't do for us to be together??

I recently came across an interesting connection between the story of Prophet Samuel (mentioned in the Bible) and a verse in the Quran.

In Surah Al-Baqarah (2:245 onwards), Allah refers to a prophet of Bani Israel, believed to be Samuel, though he is not mentioned by name. Later, the story of the kingdom of Saul is narrated.

Now, here’s something amazing:

According to the Bible, Samuel was the firstborn of his mother Hannah, who had prayed to God for a son. When she was blessed with Samuel, she referred to her child as a loan that must be returned to Allah.

In the Bible, 1 Samuel 2:20 describes how Eli the priest blessed Elkanah and his wife Hannah, saying, "The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the Lord". This blessing was given each year that Elkanah and Hannah brought Samuel to the temple to worship.

Right before Samuel is implicitly mentioned in the Quran as "their prophet" , Allah states in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:245:

"Who is it that would loan Allah a goodly loan so He may multiply it for him many times over? And it is Allah who withholds and grants abundance, and to Him you will be returned."

And then immediately after

اَلَمْ تَرَ اِلَى الْمَلَاِ مِنْۢ بَنِيْۤ اِسْرَآءِيْلَ مِنْۢ بَعْدِ مُوْسٰى ۘ اِذْ قَا لُوْا لِنَبِيٍّ لَّهُمُ ابْعَثْ لَنَا مَلِکًا نُّقَا تِلْ فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللّٰهِ ۗ قَا لَ هَلْ عَسَيْتُمْ اِنْ کُتِبَ عَلَيْکُمُ الْقِتَا لُ اَ لَّا تُقَا تِلُوْا ۗ قَا لُوْا وَمَا لَنَاۤ اَلَّا نُقَا تِلَ فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللّٰهِ وَقَدْ اُخْرِجْنَا مِنْ دِيَا رِنَا وَاَ بْنَآئِنَا ۗ فَلَمَّا کُتِبَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقِتَا لُ تَوَلَّوْا اِلَّا قَلِيْلًا مِّنْهُمْ ۗ وَا للّٰهُ عَلِيْمٌ بِۢا لظّٰلِمِيْنَ

"Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel after [the time of] Moses when they said to a PROPHET OF THEIRS, "Send to us a king, and we will fight in the way of Allah "? He said, "Would you perhaps refrain from fighting if fighting was prescribed for you?" They said, "And why should we not fight in the cause of Allah when we have been driven out from our homes and from our children?" But when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned away, except for a few of them. And Allah is Knowing of the wrongdoers."

The verse about "loaning" to Allah appears just before the story of Samuel is introduced, mirroring the biblical narrative where Samuel himself is seen as a loan to God by his mother!

Furthermore, after Hannah, the mother of Samuel loans her son back to the lord, he multiplies her reward for her and gives her 3 more sons and 2 daughters!

Now the word Samuel is hebrew in origin

Shami-el meaning "God has heard", its Arabic equivalent is "SamiAllah" which is a common muslim name especially in the subcontinent.

So after Baqarah, in the very next surah Al-e-Imran, Allah talks about the Jews who heard the verse about loaning a goodly Loan to Allah and mocked Allah, whereas Allah mentions the crimes of the Jews and that he has "certainly heard" (Sami Allah) their statement about Spending in the way of God.

لَقَدْ سَمِعَ اللّٰهُ قَوْلَ الَّذِيْنَ قَا لُوْۤا اِنَّ اللّٰهَ فَقِيْرٌ وَّنَحْنُ اَغْنِيَآءُ ۘ سَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَا لُوْا وَقَتْلَهُمُ الْاَ نْبِۢيَآءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ ۙ وَّنَقُوْلُ ذُوْقُوْا عَذَا بَ الْحَرِيْقِ

"Allah has certainly heard the statement of those [Jews] who said, "Indeed, Allah is poor, while we are rich." We will record what they said and their killing of the prophets without right and will say, "Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire."

The last part may be a stretch but I think it's incredible anyways. Thoughts?

Whenever I hear someone say, "hijab protects women!" or "hijab lets people judge you based on your personality instead of appearance!" I just know it's a man. Although they may have good intentions, those things could not be further from the truth.

It's easy to say "hijab protects women" when you are not the one being assaulted for wearing one.

It's easy to say, "People will judge based on your personality instead of appearance," when you are not the one being discriminated against, denied jobs, and treated poorly for wearing one.

It's the equivalent of a white person telling a black person who's had bad experiences with the police that "the police protect people!". The white person might have had good intentions, but they ironically invalidated the black person's experiences. Sure, the police can and do protect people, but that doesn't negate the fact that the police often do the opposite. That is how I feel whenever I hear men (especially scholars, imams, and sheiks) talk about hijab.

I wish the Muslim community would stop propagating such lies. I'd even go as far as saying that Muslim men should not be speaking on hijab at all. It's one thing to encourage women to wear hijab; it's another to falsely advertise it as something that it's not. You don't hear the Catholic Church telling nuns that their habits will "protect" them. You don't hear Sikhs telling their men that their Turbans will make people "judge them on their personality". The hijab should be treated as religious clothing, nothing more and nothing less.

(Warning: Long Post Ahead)
I don't post much on this sub (although I've been here for years) because arguing and debating over the same tired issues with different people who keep using the same refuted points is, as expected, tiring. It's like arguing with traditionalists who, when they realize you reject hadith, raise the question, "How do you pray?"

With that being said, I think it's fine for people to take a step back and do their own research and contemplation to understand certain topics and issues while taking a break from constant debating to get a more coherent stance for the purpose of being able to convey certain ideas better and strengthen them also. In this post, I'm going to share my perspective on the Qur'an and some new points/ideas that might be surprising and/or controversial for some, but to me are established facts, but because I'm listing multiple points, the explanations for these ideas will be brief, and if someone wants to discuss an individual matter, it can be done through respectful dialogue. I'm not really interested in debating, just normal conversation. Anyway, let's get started.

-----

1. The Qur'an is not a book, it was, and always has been, a recitation that was oral/verbal. Revelation revealed by God to the prophet who then conveyed it to the people. The people then memorized/learned the Qur'an and may have written it down with the aid of the prophet, but the Qur'an itself was always conveyed orally by default.

-----

2. There are different versions of the "Qur'an" because God did not preserve any of the written forms of the oral revelation, God only preserved the dhikr (reminder). The dhikr are the higher universal values and truths that all revealed words of God point towards, the higher concepts of truth and justice that every prophet taught to his people in their own means.

-----

3. The Qur'anic variants that we have today still line up very closely with older discovered manuscripts, but they are not 100% identical either, but that is fine, because again, God did not intend to preserve any written copy of the Qur'an, this was merely a human effort, and a very good one at that. Why? Because God assisted the prophet in establishing a method of conveying the Quranic message to his community, ensuring its accuracy for his time and situation that best served the prophet and his mission. The preservation of the Qur'an was done all through practical and natural efforts of man, but because the methods were established very thoroughly early on, it allowed for text accuracy to remain at or above 99%, which is very good for a time where there were no printers or copy machines.

-----

4. The Qur'an was revealed to the prophet by God, who then commanded the prophet to reveal the message to HIS people. The Qur'an was not revealed to anyone outside of the prophet's lifetime, but that does not mean the universal message of the Qur'an does not apply to everyone, because it does, but that is where we have to make a distinction. The Qur'an was not revealed TO us, but that doesn't mean its message isn't FOR us. There is inherent value in studying the Qur'an because this was God's direct words to an ancient society and an ancient people and how God chose and elevated that society out of darkness and into the light. In today's time, we can find ourselves in circumstances very similar to that found in the society at the time of the Quranic revelation, in both individual and social/cultural life. We have lessons and guidance in the Qur'an to help and assist us, but this does not change the fact that all of the specific rulings that God gave to Muhammad's people were again, for THEIR time.

-----

5. The Qur'an contains many verses addressed to the believers and gave them time bound instructions that obviously do not, and cannot, apply anymore today. Examples here (https://lampofislam.wordpress.com/2021/07/06/are-all-o-you-who-believe-verses-applicable-to-us/).

-----

6. The Qur'an uses various words and terminologies that were already understood by the recipients of the Qur'an because they spoke the language. The Qur'an confirms it was revealed in a clear Arabic tongue so the people will not be confused. This again tells us that the Qur'an was revealed TO a certain people of a certain historical timeframe and context, NOT US. What this means is that it is perfectly acceptable and understandable if there are Arabic words and phrases that we today simply cannot understand, because God did not reveal the Qur'an to US directly. If God wanted to give us a revelation in English and in our time period that is relevant to our particular socioeconomic circumstances, He could easily have done that too, and He would use English words and phrases that we all are accustomed to and can understand easily.

-----

7. Despite the fact that the Qur'an was revealed in a certain language, we still have the means of deciphering and understanding that language because a modern version of that Arabic language still exists today. That does not mean however that the traditionalist translations are correct, because Quranic translation is always something of continuous debate and disagreement. People argue over what certain words mean, like the famous "wife beating" verse (4:34). These disagreements arise because we as a society today do not speak the language of the Arabs of 7th century Hijaz, and we have to rely on historical information, lexicons, and the basics of the logic of language and how the Qur'an uses certain words to understand what idea the Qur'an is trying to convey and promote, and for many, this can be difficult, especially if there are preconceived biases at play. Long story short, Quranic translation into English (or any other language) is NOT EASY, and it's not supposed to be, but it's not impossible either.

-----

8. It is possible for a phrase to be both simple and complex at the same time, depending on what words are used and the deeper meanings certain words and combination of words can signify, and this is also dependent on how a certain group of people understand phrases also. It is very society/cultural dependent. For example, the phrase "break a leg" in English means "good luck". If you did not speak English AND if you did not grow up in a culture where this phrase was always used to denote having good luck, you would be completely clueless as to what it actually means and WHY it would be used, even if you dig into language books to translate and understand what "break" and "leg" means. These words are clear, we know what break means, we know what leg means, but the combination of these words in the phrase "break a leg" creates a completely new meaning that is understood by those who already know what it means without them needing it to be further explained. The Qur'an works like this in MANY places, and we have to put ourselves in those people's shoes so that we can understand what THEY understood.

-----

9. Many words in the Qur'an that are translated today in English are straight up wrong. Does the word deen mean religion? Why is the same word used in the first chapter in verse 4 where it says, "Master of the Day of -The Deen-". Here they translate this as judgement, but it's the same word, deen. Why religion in other verses and judgement in this verse? That is not logically consistent. Master of the Day of The Religion makes no sense. But if we go to chapter 5 where the Qur'an says, "On this day I have perfected for you your deen", it would say perfected for you your judgement. Does that still make sense or can we use a better word? After much pondering, it's clear to me that the word deen means discipline, not religion per say, and not judgement per say. It means discipline, because discipline implies two things, the first of which is to correct someone and/or make sure something is being done the right way, and the other is to maintain the course of something properly. There are many disciplines, like cooking, engineering, martial arts, and so on. Following a discipline means to follow a set code and not breaking off from it. Islam is a DISCIPLINE. And yet, it makes perfect sense to use this same word in verse 1:4 where God says He is the Master of the Day of The Discipline, because at the end of time, everything and everyone will be disciplined. It fits, it makes sense why God used this word deen in two different contexts, even though it's the same word. The people back then understood this naturally because they know what the word means, but we today as people are not understanding these words naturally, but unnaturally, and making up meanings that might closely fit or resemble the original meanings, but are not exacts. With that being said, no translation is ever going to be 100% replicable because every language is inherently unique and different. There is no guarantee that a certain word or idea in one language will have a full equivalent in another, it's not a guarantee at all. As you read the Qur'an or any other book in an older language, you will have to take this into account, and your studying of the language will always be an uphill battle of getting closer and closer to the true intended meaning.

-----

10. Going back to the dissemination and preservation of the Qur'an, the oral recitation, all of this was done, again, through purely natural means that was relevant and practical for that time period. The duty of the messenger was the SOLE DELIVERY of the message. This is in the Qur'an. Muhammad was tasked to convey and spread the Qur'an to as many of his people as possible while he was alive. How was this done? It was done through Quranic sessions that he held TWICE A DAY, during mornings and during nights. This is what the salat was during his time. They were not rituals, they were merely a practical means of one man trying to spread the message of God en masse in the most efficient way possible. He held public meetings/sessions held twice a day, each meeting had a name. Salat of Morning (fajr) and Salat of Night (isha). Why these two times? Because this was in accordance with the sleep schedule of his society, and there was no salat during the midday because the Qur'an confirms this is a period of time when people are busy working and handling their daily affairs. Salat sessions/meetings were optional, if you wanted to hear the Quranic message, you were free to attend them, and the Quran gave the people rules for these sessions. You cannot attend them while you are intoxicated/drunk, you have to be generally presentable and clean (verse about cleaning certain body parts), and you are commanded to sit and listen as the Quran is being recited and to not talk while the Quran is being recited. These are all PRACTICAL advices that God is giving to the people when attending these public sessions so that they may hear the Quran, there is nothing ritual about them. There is no concept of "missed prayers" and making them up, there is no concept of 5 daily prayers, or combining prayers, or any of that sort, because all of that is made up and is not in line with what God was actually expecting the people to do.

-----

11. Because the prophet was commanded to uphold the salat during his entire ministry, this is the main means as to how the Quranic revelation spread to different communities. People listened to the Quran, memorized it, written it down, and overall spread the Quranic message to as many as possible so that they may hear God's words and then apply God's laws and wisdom in their own societies. As long as the prophet was alive, he was conducting these sessions until his last breath. After his demise however, the "religification" process began, like with every previous revealed message of God to previous prophets. People take the simple message of God and turn it into a religion with specific types of rituals, practices, traditions, and the like, all of which are obviously completely absent from the original source material, or grossly misinterpreted and misunderstood. Take off the preconceived biases, step into those people's shoes, and objectively analyse and verify what the words are actually saying.

-----

12. Salat is best translated as "correspondence". Analysing the word salat in the various forms it is used in the Quran leads us to this rational conclusion. No, salat does not mean prayer, the closest rendition of prayer in the Qur'an is the word du'a, and du'a, as everyone knows, is inherently natural and dependent on the individual. It does not need to be explained.

-----

13. Islam is not a religion, but a name describing a discipline, a way of life, and a system of universal values that pertain to upholding peace and justice in society. It is universal and can apply to anyone, including atheists who do not necessarily believe in "God" or have a different conception or framework on reality. The Qur'an does not mention atheists because God recognizes the differences in people's frameworks about how they understand the universe. The Quran confirms that "God has many names" and that all of God's names/descriptions are beautiful. Many "atheists" are so because they reject the super religified/personified depictions of God, but they themselves have no problem accepting that there might be a fundamental reality or nature that is responsible for the existence of the universe. Different frameworks use different terminologies, there is no such thing as theism vs atheism, these are two sides of the same coin, both describing the same thing while using different words. God is above these human frameworks and is able to recognize the thought processes of different individuals. It is incumbent upon each individual truth seeker to find common ground between different groups because odds are, two opposing sides might be in support of the same thing without realizing that they are. It is time to unshackle yourself from the bonds of certain particular religious frameworks and start seeing humanity as one, and to judge individuals based on their merit and values, not anything else. A righteous "atheist" is more worthy of paradise than a corrupt/vile "believer".

-----

14. Muslim is not a "follower of Islam" in the sense that they follow a religion called Islam. There is no converting to Islam. The Qur'an uses the word muslim to denote non-combatants or civilians, people who "seek peace" and "avoid conflict". That's all a muslim is, it has nothing to do with religion. It's universal. Anyone who seeks peace and does not want violence/conflict is by definition MUSLIM (seeker of peace).

-----

15. The word in the Qur'an that more aptly describes the "religious" aspect of the prophet's people is not muslim, but mu'min, which is traditionally translated as believer, but a better translation is accepter or acknowledger. A mu'min is someone who has heard the message from the prophet and has accepted the message, and accepts the prophet's mission in revolutionizing his society. The prophet had a community, a nation, of people who accepted his leadership and his mission to fight off all the evils of their society and to bring the people out of darkness and into the light. These groups of acknowledgers may have consisted of people of many backgrounds, including Jewish, Christian, agnostic/atheist, and even pagan. Anyone that vowed to accept Muhammad as their commander in chief and his message became a mu'min. So this is where the whole idea of "converting" came from, but people were not converting to a religion, but joining into the fold of the prophet's community and his establishment. Leaving his establishment meant you were joining the opposition that was against basic human rights, justice, peace, tolerance, and basic human dignity. The Qur'an is a brilliant document that expounds on the sociocultural situations and circumstances of the time period it was revealed in, and gives us a model showcase as to how we as people in the future also too can revolutionize our societies and nations using the same general principles and guidelines that the Quran outlines. The Quran was always meant to be a catalyst for change, for people to revolt against the corruption, extremism, and radicalism that had pervaded much of their social fabric. Those who vowed to fight off against this were the mu'mins. In today's world however, we just have people who claim they follow the guidelines and principles in the Qur'an but are not truly unified in anything. There are different "Muslim" countries that all have their own individual laws, religious sects, beliefs and practices, and so on. The Quran's entire intent was for a certain group of people to uplift themselves to fight off corruption and tyranny during their time, just like Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets did. We cannot fight off evil in today's world without people coming together, unifying and bonding, looking past individualistic religious beliefs, and holding tightly together to higher moral truths and virtues that God wants us to hold onto. This is the only way, and it cannot be done through religious divisions, but through universal principles of agreement. That's all it is.

I'm going to end the post here and write more in the future. Respectful dialogue and discussions are welcome. Peace.

I’ve been reading around and have concluded that the hijab is not compulsory. It was originally coerced onto me by my parents, and I gave in thinking it was compulsory and I wanted to please Allah. I’ve now taken an interest in the reasons behind such beliefs and learned a-lot. All of a sudden, I’ve fallen in-love with the Quran again, I love Allah and i’ve never felt so at peace with my life once I have cleared up many misunderstandings regarding the religion.

Now, I’d like to take off my hijab but have been met with a hurdle. My mother requests I debate this with my grand-father and my father. My grand-father is well-respected and smart man, who if I gave enough facts and evidence would be willing to sway. My father is more strict, and often dislikes being debated against. I want to be able to win over my grandfather, but I don’t know what sort of things I could say that would persuade him. I believe in plenty of hadeeth’s while I believe they are an inaccurate and disputable support for the Quran. I know it may seem pointless to argue this and to instead do what I want, but I want to anyway.

Please try not to dissuade me from debating this, I know it’s not advised and often gets you no where. But I’d trust my grandfather to consider my words too, I just want to try.

Please help me out by giving me ways I can support my stance.

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/comments/1ie7yyd/faith_vs_inquiry_muhammad_ahmad_khalafallah_and/

" The Torah may tell us about Abraham and Ishmael, and the Quran may also speak of them. However, the mere mention of these two names in the Torah and the Quran is not sufficient to prove their historical existence, let alone to confirm the story of Ishmael, son of Abraham, migrating to Mecca.

We are compelled to see this story as a kind of device to establish a connection between Jews and Arabs, Islam and Judaism, and the Torah and the Quran. "

This perspective belongs to the Dean of Arabic Literature, Taha Hussein, and it appeared in his book "On Pre-Islamic Poetry", published in 1926—nearly a century ago.

The book caused an uproar, igniting what became known as the "Pre-Islamic Poetry Controversy."

Taha Hussein did not intend to deny the historical authenticity of the stories of the prophets (known in biblical studies as the Patriarchs). Rather, he emphasized that maybe there was no historical evidence to actually confirm their existence.

He also stressed the need to separate the principles of scientific research—based on skepticism, examination, and historical evidence—from religious beliefs. However, this distinction was not accepted by scholars at Al-Azhar, who called for the book to be burned and its author to be punished.

In response, an Azhar-led demonstration marched to Beit al-Umma (the residence of nationalist leader Saad Zaghloul). To appease the angry protesters, Zaghloul was forced to deliver a speech from his balcony, condemning the book in harsh terms. Years later, Hussein would recall this as the most painful blow he suffered during the ordeal.

Despite the backlash, the enlightened Chief Prosecutor, Mohamed Nour, who was assigned to investigate the numerous complaints against the book, dismissed the case. After questioning the Egyptian writer, Nour issued a historic statement, asserting that Hussein’s intent was not to attack religion, as the controversial passages were presented solely within the framework of scientific inquiry.

Persecution of Taha Hussein did not stop even after he removed the contentious passages and republished the book in 1927. The issue resurfaced when the executive authorities took action on March 3, 1932.

The Minister of Education at the time issued a decision to transfer Taha Hussein from his teaching position at the university to a clerical role in the ministry. In a bold act of protest, the university's president, Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed, resigned in response.

Ultimately, the matter culminated in Hussein’s dismissal from the Ministry of Education by a decision from the Council of Ministers, in agreement with Parliament, on March 20, 1932.

What Taha Hussein endured due to his approach to Quranic narratives was repeated nearly twenty years later—perhaps even more severely—with another academic researcher and his supervising professor. Both were from Cairo University (then known as King Fuad I University), and once again, the controversy erupted over a scientific perspective on Quranic stories.

Between Research and Religion

On October 31, 1947, Cairo University issued a decision rejecting a doctoral dissertation submitted by researcher Mohamed Ahmed Khalafallah, under the supervision of the enlightened pioneer and intellectual figure in the history of Islamic studies, Sheikh Amin al-Khouli, who was then serving as the vice dean of the Faculty of Arts.

When news of the dissertation leaked to the press, an uproar ensued. Accusations of apostasy were hurled at both the researcher and his supervisor, with demands for severe punishment—up to and including the enforcement of the death penalty for apostasy.

For instance, Al-Azhar Scholars’ Front described the dissertation as “more atrocious than the cholera epidemic,” which was claiming Egyptian lives at the time.

The "Ikhwan newspaper (the Muslim Brotherhood’s publication) called for the dissertation to be burned and urged the researcher to repent and renew his marriage contract, which they claimed had been annulled by his alleged apostasy. Meanwhile, the General Union of Islamic Organizations sent a letter of protest to King Farouk.

On the other hand, intellectuals rallied in defense of the dissertation, the researcher, and his supervisor.

Tawfiq al-Hakim, in a series of articles later compiled in his book "The Awakening of Thought", described the controversy as a “university setback” and “the extinguishing of the torch of intellectual freedom.”

Meanwhile, Al-Khouli, writing in Akhbar Al-Youm newspaper, defended the dissertation’s methodology, stating:

"This is a denial of the natural right of a living being to think and express himself—a right that we know Islam affirms and protects."

According to Al-Khouli :

"The overall echoes of the battle, as reflected by those who saw themselves as champions of religion, revealed an intellectual ordeal, a moral failure, and a crisis of thought—stripped of all values, lacking any foundation in knowledge or religion. It also lifted the curtain on the reality of what was happening within Cairo University regarding academic freedom."

In the introduction to his dissertation—which was rejected but later published as a book titled "The Narrative Art in the Qur’an —Mohamed Ahmed Khalafallah shocks the reader with the depth of his disappointment. He attributes this to the entanglement of political motives—stirring the masses and seeking fame—with the cause of defending academic freedom.

Khalafallah reflects on these events with the detachment of a researcher, writing in brief passages:

"I wanted to address all these issues, to analyze them and explain the causes and reasons behind them

how religious institutions exploited them to keep the politicians, and their academic allies, from being exposed.

I also wanted to highlight the misjudgments that did not stem from bias or personal agendas, but rather from slow comprehension, poor understanding, and an inability to grasp the theory and the benefits it could bring to Islam. But I chose instead to elaborate on the theory itself."

It was no surprise, then, that Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, writing in Cairo University’s commemorative book decades later, recalled Khalafallah’s sorrowful voice as he declined an invitation to lecture university students on Qur’anic studies.

This was in 1993—more than 45 years after a controversy that left an unhealed wound on both the researcher and the cause of academic freedom.

A Scientific Breakthrough in a University Thesis

The historical scientific uniqueness of Khalafallah's research thesis lies in its provision of definitive, scholarly answers to questions that continue to press upon the Islamic intellect today and are frequently raised regarding the Qur'anic text.

Through its literary and rhetorical approach in studying Qur'anic narratives with methodological tools, the thesis presents what appears to be a scientifically grounded theory and a historically binding intellectual framework for engaging with the stories in the Qur'an.

The central argument of the thesis is encapsulated in the assertion that :

“the historical meanings in Qur'anic stories are not intended for their own sake, and the textual evidence for this—both from the Qur'an itself and from the insights of early exegetes—is extensive and multifaceted.”

From this standpoint, the thesis reaches the height of its scholarly boldness by asserting that Qur'anic stories are not a source for deriving historical facts. Rather, these narratives in the Qur'an were never meant to be part of the religion that requires belief in their historical details.

Instead, their social and psychological meanings served as a foundation for the Qur'an’s defense of the Prophet and the Islamic message, as well as for illustrating the universal principles governing the relationships between prophets, messengers, righteous believers, and their respective communities.

As the research emphasizes, Qur’anic narratives have never before been studied from this literary perspective, which reveals the rhetorical phenomena that constitute their strength and miraculous nature.

The thesis argues that these stories were among the most significant psychological tools employed by the Qur’an in argumentation and dialogue, in delivering glad tidings and warnings, in explaining the principles of Islam and consolidating its foundations, and in strengthening the heart of the Prophet—peace be upon him—as well as the hearts of his followers among the Muhajirun and Ansar.

Khalafallah states:

"I have recently observed that Orientalists have struggled—almost entirely unsuccessfully—to comprehend the Qur’an’s style, its method of constructing and composing narratives, and the unity that underpins its artistic structure.

Consequently, they have arrived at the erroneous conclusion that character development occurs within the Qur’an. Likewise, I have found that they have failed to grasp the nature of Qur’anic narrative materials and the secrets behind their selection.

This is why they have adopted the same mistaken view once held by the polytheists of Mecca and the skeptics among Muslims—namely, that Muhammad was taught by a human being and that the Qur’an contains historical inaccuracies.”

Methodological Procedures

The first step in Khalafallah’s methodology was organizing the Qur’anic narrative texts according to the chronology of their revelation.

This immediately proved to be a valuable approach, as it reflected—like a clear mirror—the connection between these narratives and their historical context, the Prophet’s psychology, the stages of the Islamic mission, and the obstacles it encountered.

It also provided insight into the crises and tribulations the Prophet faced and contributed to the study of the internal development of Qur’anic storytelling.

Khalafallah elaborated on this extensively and skillfully in the final two chapters of his book: "The Development of Narrative Art in the Qur’an" and "Qur’anic Stories and the Psychology of the Prophet."

The most significant methodological approach in the literary study of Qur’anic texts was understanding them not through a literal interpretation—one that focuses on analyzing word meanings, structures, sentence formations, and clarifying obscure references or historical allusions—but rather through a literary comprehension.

This method seeks to identify the intellectual, emotional, moral, and artistic values embedded in the text. This shift represented a profound and decisive renewal in the way Qur’anic narratives were approached.

In the chapter "Historical Meanings," Khalaf Allah tackles a challenging question:

"Does the value of events in Qur’anic stories lie in their historical authenticity, or are they narrative events that were not intended as historical accounts?"

While examining the religious history of these narratives, the research reveals that knowledge of them was historically considered a criterion for distinguishing between a true prophet and a false claimant.

A prophet, it was believed, had access to the unseen, and among the signs of this knowledge was familiarity with the stories of past nations and hidden historical events unknown to people.

One example cited is the story of the People of the Cave (Ahl al-Kahf), as referenced in the Asbab al-Nuzul (circumstances of revelation). The account revolves around Al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, a well-educated Qurayshi who had studied Persian culture in Hira. He was among those who persistently harassed the Prophet and sought to cast doubt on his message. Whenever the Prophet spoke, Al-Nadr would follow him and declare :

"By God, O Quraysh, my stories are better than his! If Muhammad tells you about ‘Ād and Thamūd, I will tell you about Rustam, Bahram, the Persian emperors, and the kings of Hira."

His tales captivated his audience, diverting their attention from listening to the Qur’an.

The Jews of Yathrib advised Al-Nadr to test Muhammad by asking him about three topics: the youths of the Cave, Dhul-Qarnayn, and the nature of the soul.

The Qur’an responded according to this principle—revealing what the People of the Book already knew of these narratives—thus affirming the Prophet’s authenticity and challenging Quraysh in multiple verses. One such verse in Surah Hud states:

"These are accounts from the unseen which We reveal to you; neither you nor your people knew them before this." (11:49)

Similarly, in Surah Al-Qasas, the Qur'an declares:

"And you were not at the side of Mount Sinai when We called, but it is a mercy from your Lord so that you may warn a people to whom no warner came before you, so that they may take heed." (28:46)

The key phenomenon that the researcher highlights in these verses is that while the Qur’an presents these accounts as signs of prophecy and proof of the divine message, it simultaneously aligns them with what is found in previous scriptures.

The standard of validation was not historical accuracy but rather their correspondence with what the People of the Book recognized in their own texts.

As a result of this alignment with the scriptures and traditions of the People of the Book—beliefs that the polytheists of Quraysh did not accept—many came to view Muhammad’s revelations as nothing more than “legends of the ancients.” Since they lacked a historical criterion to assess their authenticity, they dismissed these accounts as mere fables.

Examples of the Failure of Historical Comparisons

The study "The Narrative Art in the Qur’an" presents several examples of how attempts to historically validate Qur’anic stories have failed, as seen in the works of early exegetes.

For instance, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, in his Commentary Tafsir on the verse "And he will speak to people in the cradle" (3:46), addresses the skepticism of Jews and Christians regarding Jesus speaking as an infant. He writes:

"Know that the Jews and Christians deny that Jesus, peace be upon him, spoke in infancy. Their argument is that such an extraordinary event would have been widely transmitted, as it is the kind of occurrence that would attract numerous reports. If it had indeed happened, it would have been preserved through mass transmission.

This is especially true given the Christians’ deep reverence for Jesus—so much so that they even claimed he was divine. Undoubtedly, speaking in infancy would have been considered one of his greatest virtues. Had they known of it, they would have documented and emphasized it.

Likewise, the Jews, who were hostile to Jesus when he proclaimed his prophethood, would have opposed him even more fiercely had he made such a claim in infancy. The absence of any such historical record suggests that it never occurred."

Similarly, Al-Razi questions the historical feasibility of the story of Solomon and Bilqis (the Queen of Sheba), asking:

"How could Solomon have been unaware of such a great queen, given that it is said both humans and jinn were under his command and that he ruled the entire world? Moreover, the hoopoe’s flight between Solomon and Sheba took only three days—how, then, could such a powerful ruler not have known about her?"

Likewise, Qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar, in his Commentary Tafsir on Surah Maryam, addresses the verse "O sister of Aaron!" (19:28), which some have questioned due to the historical gap between Mary and the biblical Aaron, the brother of Moses. He clarifies:

"It has been asked how Mary could be called ‘sister of Aaron’ when a long time had passed between her and Aaron, the brother of Moses. Our answer is that the verse does not explicitly state that this Aaron is the same as the brother of Moses."

These examples—along with many others—illustrate how early Muslim scholars themselves were committed to interpreting Qur’anic narratives as historical events.

Had they instead approached the Qur’an as a literary and rhetorical masterpiece, focusing on its artistic and miraculous eloquence rather than attempting historical validation, such debates would never have arisen.

The Challenge of Science and History

Khalaf Allah presents additional examples where historical and scientific inconsistencies in Qur’anic narratives necessitate an artistic-literary approach to interpretation. Among them:

The setting of the sun in a murky spring (‘aynin ḥami’ah) in the story of Dhul-Qarnayn (18:86) contradicts established astronomical facts, as the sun never "sets" into a body of water but remains ever-rising, with the Earth revolving around it. This makes it necessary to interpret the verse through a literary lens rather than a literal historical one.

The dialogue between God and Jesus in which Allah asks :

"O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah’?" (5:116)

is not meant to record an actual historical event. Rather, it serves as a rhetorical device—a rebuke and admonition to those who made such claims.

The statement attributed to the Jews:

"We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah" (4:157)

presents a paradox. The Jews would not have acknowledged Jesus as "the Messenger of Allah," since rejecting his prophethood was fundamental to their stance. If they had accepted him as a messenger, they would have become followers of Jesus (Nasara or Christians), contradicting the historical reality.

Khalafallah’s conclusion is that the Qur’an does not position its stories as a challenge or as the basis of its miraculous nature (i‘jaz). Rather, its inimitability lies in the profound impact and the unparalleled rhetorical and literary power of its narrative style.

Deciphering the Narrative Code in the Qur’an

In the chapter "Literature and History," Khalafallah argues that the Qur’an’s disregard for chronological sequencing in its narratives—its varying order when repeating stories, selective inclusion of certain events while omitting others, its lack of precise time and place markers, its attribution of the same dialogues and events to different figures, and its portrayal of a single character speaking in different ways across multiple retellings—all serve as evidence of the Qur’an’s narrative approach. This approach prioritizes the purpose of the story over historical documentation.

To illustrate this, the researcher selects two exemplary cases: the story of the People of the Cave (Aṣḥāb al-Kahf) and the story of Dhul-Qarnayn—both of which demonstrate the Qur’an’s unique stance on the relationship between storytelling and history.

In the story of the People of the Cave, Khalaf Allah highlights two key aspects:

1. The unspecified number of youths—the Qur’an presents multiple possibilities: "Three, the fourth of them their dog," "Five, the sixth of them their dog," and "Seven, the eighth of them their dog."

This variation does not imply divine ignorance—God, who knows all secrets, is certainly aware of the exact number.

Rather, the ambiguity serves a rhetorical purpose: the test was not about establishing historical accuracy but about challenging the audience to verify the story against existing knowledge, thereby proving Muhammad’s prophethood. Mentioning different numbers only fueled the ongoing debate.

2. The omission of the precise number of years they remained in the cave follows the same pattern. Khalaf Allah thus concludes:

"The Qur’an’s stance on the story of the People of the Cave is not that of a historian recounting historical truth, but that of a narrator relaying what the Jews said—statements that may align with reality or diverge from it. Therefore, no objections to the historical accuracy of the story hold any weight."

Similarly, the story of Dhul-Qarnayn does not depict cosmic scientific realities concerning the position of the sun and the Earth but rather presents the visual perceptions of the people of that time—what they saw and understood based on their own observations. The story, then, does not seek to convey astronomical facts but instead reflects the Arab audience’s familiar knowledge of Dhul-Qarnayn.

Imagination in Qur’anic Narratives

Does this mean that Qur’anic stories are based on imagination? The author of "The Narrative Art in the Qur’an" answers that while the Qur’an uses imagination, it is not built upon it.

Some stories may stem from real historical events, but the presence of imaginative elements arises from human necessity—people need imagination to engage with stories meaningfully

One of the most noticeable example of this is found during the Ramadan Battle of Badr in the year 2 AH, when the Muslims defeated the Qurayshi disbelievers for the first time.

According to Sirah literature, God sent thousands of angels to the battlefield to aid the Muslims against their enemies, which was the main reason behind their victory. As stated in Surah Al-Anfal (8:9):

˹Remember˺ when you cried out to your Lord for help, He answered, “I will reinforce you with a thousand angels—followed by many others.”

It is even stated that the Devil himself and his Army was with the Quraysh during this battle in Ramadan. However, when he saw the angelic soldiers killing the polytheists, he fled from the Battlefield, as mentioned in the Qur'an in the same Surah al-Anfal (8:48) :

And ˹remember˺ when Satan made their ˹evil˺ deeds appealing to them, and said, “No one can overcome you today. I am surely by your side.” But when the two forces faced off, he cowered and said, “I have absolutely nothing to do with you. I certainly see what you do not see. I truly fear Allah, for Allah is severe in punishment.”

Ibn Kathir mentions the depiction of this event in his Commentary Tafsir, as mentioned by Ibn Abbas that Satan shapeshifted into the image of Suraqa ibn Malik:

Iblis (Satan) came on the day of Badr with an army of devils, carrying his banner, in the form of a man from Banu Mudlij—specifically, in the likeness of Suraqa bin Malik bin Ju'sham. Satan said to the polytheists, "There is no one who will overcome you today from among the people, and I am your protector."

But when the two sides lined up for battle, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ took a handful of dust and threw it into the faces of the polytheists, causing them to flee in retreat. Meanwhile, Jibril advanced toward Iblis. When Iblis saw him—while his hand was in the hand of one of the polytheists—he immediately pulled his hand away and fled along with his followers.

The man called out, "O Suraqa! Do you claim to be our protector?" But he (Iblis) replied:

"Indeed, I see what you do not see. Indeed, I fear Allah, and Allah is severe in punishment." and this occurred when he saw the angels.

In the chapter "The Sources of Qur’anic Narratives," Khalafallah addresses two major concerns regarding the search for the origins of these stories.

1. The rigid traditionalists, who reject any inquiry into the sources of Qur’anic narratives, believing that since the Qur’an is divinely revealed, it is impermissible to trace its stories to earlier sources.

Such a view, he argues, overlooks the fact that investigating the sources of the Qur’an aligns with the scholarly tradition of the salaf al-ṣāliḥ (righteous predecessors), who never hesitated to analyze and explore its content.

2. The Orientalists, who emphasize the presence of pre-Islamic sources for Qur’anic stories, drawing parallels between these earlier texts and the Qur’an to argue that it contains historical inconsistencies.

However, their comparisons rest on a flawed premise: they assume that the Qur’an was meant to be a historical record, whereas in reality, it never set out to serve that purpose.

I dread going to my local mosque to hear the khutba. What are some of the most "memorable" khutbas that you've had the misfortune of attending.