u/Unhappy_Trade_8896

What is original meaning of kafara or kafir in quran (in theological sense)? Is it ingratitude, rejection, repudiation?

Is quranic salvation only for people who follow tradition of abraham /follow original message of their messenger or it is universal monothiesm that anyone believe in one god and accountability day ( which could include many non abrahamic faith which emerged before islam or after islam,deist or people who reject organised religion and follow own spirituality)??

Recently watched javed Hashmi video about religious exclusiveness and in his entire video he talked about righteous people of book!! There are many people in comments stretch this and said eastern religious follower, nones or philosophist who just belive in one god etc. who fullfill the Quranic criteria will get salvation. So i have question what work of prophetic scripture of it then when god said it's for all human kind?? If people being affiliated with their ancestral religion or believe the way they want and fulfill the Quranic criterion they will get salvation. So, what's value of god given guidance has impact in current world?? Are they unnecessary?? Or people if they aware of that need to accept those guidance??

What is the main reason earlier jurist treated 2:221 mushrikun into all non muslim.. linguisticly this verse only prohibit mushrik of arabia and why earlier muslim had such contradiction between their approach and linguistic meaning of quranic verse? Why they treated it as general principle?

I'm very confused because from traditional islamic view point marriage with anyone outside of ahlul kitab and mumin considered haram!! At modern time i see whenever I see people say it's haram then people respond with where is it's haram. They claim quran only said no to mushrik so athiest, agnostic or anyone just belive in one god permitted and by saying it's haram you're re writing quranic themses " everything is permitted if not explicitly forbidden" .

They say this -

"The burden of proof in Islamic theology is never on the one claiming that something is permissible or else it allows everyone and their mother to decide that something is Haram. Since you're speaking of burden of proof, where are you getting this idea from ?Ahle Sunnah Alim Maulana Saeed Asad in his book 'The Concept of Bid'ah', writes:In Islam, all acts and rituals are permitted unless Allah has forbidden them. This is because Allah does not want to burden the ummah as he is Rahman and Raheem. To prove this, we will read the Qur'an. Allah says:

"Oh you who believe! Ask not about things, which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. If you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you"(5:101).

This verse tells us that those actions about which the Qur'an is silent, they should not become a subject of useless questioning. Allah's silence is a mercy. If Allah has not prohibited it, then it is permissible for us. Allah also says: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate (in the past)" (5:93).

Again, we are made aware that until revelation deems something Haram, it is allowed. Before the Qur'an forbade alcohol, it was not just allowed but was consumed by the Muslims but, as soon as Allah forbade it, its consumption became Haram. This is the case for any other act. Until it is prohibited, it is allowed. Allah further says: "Say, I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten unless it be a dead animal or blood poured forth or the swine" (6:145).

Once again, the Qur'an is showing us that all things are allowed except for what is forbidden. Hence, to say that something is Haram without it being deemed as Haram is wrong. Sayyadina Abdullah ibn Abbas said that "Whatever the Qur'an termed as Halal is Halal and whatever it deemed Haram is Haram and about which it remained silent, this is forgiven" (Abu Dawud Vol 2).

Shah Abdul Haq Dehlwi, pioneer of the science of hadith in the subcontinent, says in relation to the above hadith that: "The reason why ibn Abbas recited this was to let it be known that something can only become Haram by way of revelation and it was not permitted to make anything Haram through ones own desires" (Ash'atul Lum'aat Vol 3).So you're basically saying that humans are allowed to decide what God said, by adding extra rules that God didn't explicitly laid down ?"

Another Quranist said - everyone is permissible regardless of belief. Here is his video link -https://www.youtube.com/live/hUP0a-PFUZ4?si=\_HLcRRs9sm3mp6--

Anyone please share their two cent

I’m reading Fred Donner’s thesis about the early Believer movement, and I’m a little confused about one point. Donner seems to argue that Muhammad’s early movement was intended to unite monotheists more broadly. But wouldn’t that make more sense if the intended community was primarily limited to the Abrahamic traditions? These communities already had a covenantal relationship with God through their own prophets and scriptures.

If we look at the Qur’an, it seems to make a distinction between different religious communities. For example, it specifically permits food from and marriage with the People of the Scripture, which suggests that the Qur’an recognized them as a particular category.

So what exactly would Muhammad’s movement have expected from other monotheistic traditions that were not considered Ahl al-Kitab? The Magians/Zoroastrians are an interesting example: if they were understood as monotheists, what did Muhammad’s message require from them? Did they have to accept Muhammad as a prophet and the Qur’an in order to enter into the covenant with God, or could they remain within their own religious tradition while joining the broader community of believers?

I’m trying to understand how Donner’s concept of an early, broadly inclusive “Believer” movement fits with the Qur’an’s seemingly more specific categories of religious communities.

Apologetics of fiqh often state the principle: “Everything is permissible unless it is explicitly prohibited.” But did early Muslim jurists actually follow this criterion consistently? The jurists who used this principle often did not seem to apply it consistently, because they prohibited many things that the Qur’an itself did not explicitly prohibit. One of the most famous examples is marriage and slaughtered food involving people who are not Ahl al-Kitab. These were prohibited, but the reasoning behind the prohibition was not always explained simply in terms of an explicit Qur’anic prohibition. Instead, jurists sometimes appealed to ijmaʿ attributed to the early Companions. But did such an actual ijmaʿ exist on these specific issues? They also took verses that explicitly mentioned specific groups or categories and used them to establish broader prohibitions that the Qur’an itself did not explicitly mention. So there seems to be a tension between the principle “everything is permissible unless prohibited” and the actual methodology used by some classical jurists. Many modern scholars continue to use this principle as part of their argument, but if the classical jurists themselves did not consistently uphold it in this straightforward sense, can we describe some of these later interpretations as a misuse or overextension of the text? And could this methodological difference be one of the reasons why so many contemporary debates among Muslims revolve around whether something is genuinely prohibited by the Qur’an or merely prohibited through later juristic interpretation?

Is this how fiqh operate and legal rulling can be changed?? Also can somebody explain howeearlier jurist used to take out underlying principle from verse?? Did they argued if circumstances change and we attain same principle which old system tried to achieve, then old system should be ditched?? The person I'm sharing said many things like hadd,lian, mehr, marriage rulling etc are changeable cause the mechanism changed?? Anyone can explain who has better understanding in fiqh

Progressive islam specially the sub in reddit claim that they're going to original islam and doing reflection but what actually doing there is reform!! The progressive islam same as reform Judaism only one is institutionsed whime other is not!!

We all agree quran open gate for salvation for people of book in 2:62 ! But what's about others like non abrahamic faith which exist today. Are the salvation criteria is applicable to them if they follow the criterion despite following their ancestral religion while they also know this abrahamic faith but they don't associate or accept those religions. If yes what the weight of scripture and messenger has if one everyone can attain salvation by following criteria despite they necessary rejecting those abrahamic messenger and it's scripture?

Hey i have two question regarding this matter -

1- in 2:62 verse quran said about criteria of salvation while mentioning 4 group which are abrahamic community or have covanent with god. Magiens were excluded from this verse cause in other verse magiens were included with them .My question is -

i) are this criteria only apply to those community and they had to adher the criteria or it's imply to anyone who are outside of abrahamic circle currently like eastern, non abrahamic middle eatern, African religion etc. despite they being aware of this abrahamic faith!! If yes what difference it make following scripture/prophet? As people who don't have this can get same fate by maintaining those criteria and following those ancestral religion.

2. is maqasid al sharia is fiqh principle or it's found in quran. Cause recently i got a comment -" Al umur bi maqasidiha”— matters are judged according to their intended purposes. It is one of the foundational principles used in maqasid al-shariah. Scholars look at the purpose and objective behind a ruling, because rulings are not without wisdom or purpose. That doesn't mean ignoring or cancelling the Quranic text but means understanding the objective the ruling was meant to achieve and asking how that objective can be preserved when circumstances, institutions, and available means change" !! Does that mean legal prohibition can be withdrawn if one attain same objective even historical mechanism is changed?? Like cutting hand for stealing etc mandated punishment which was to control those strong socity which nowadays aren't applicable cause context and society changed as people are less tough and more temptated?

Does that mean evryone is permissible or not? I found a progressive muslim view point ? Why early jurist didn't think that way!!

"you can marry anyone except polytheists, that is the one restriction on marriage in islam and is stated in surah al baqarah, but that applies to both men and women, not just women. i'll explain the surah in detail without my personal opinion and then i'll give my opinion after.

it's in surah al mumtahana, which describes the early islamic community in madinah and their geopolitical and religious tensions with the quraysh (polytheist) makkah. the quraysh didn't actually deny the existence of Allah swt, however they worshipped Them through idolatry (which counts as shirk) as well as not following Tawhid by believing in other deities like Allah's '3 daughters' ('al-Uzzah', 'al-Lat' and 'Manat') and 'Hubal' who was seen to be a moon god and had an idol statue inside the Kaaba that was destroyed along with the other idols after the Prophet ordered them all to be destroyed.

this is the verse discussing marriage.

"O believers! When the believing women come to you as emigrants, test their intentions... and if you find them to be believers, then do not send them back to the disbelievers. These women are not lawful wives for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful husbands for them."

let's break it down.

"the believing women"

- this isn't referencing women from madinah who were already muslim. these were female muslim converts from the quraysh tribe, looking to seek political and religious refuge in madinah.

"test their intentions... and if you find them to be believers, then do not send them back to the disbelievers."

- this is referencing quraysh espionage. remember, at this time islam was still a small religion that was under attack by neighbouring religious and spiritual communities like the quraysh, who were persecuting muslims. they used several methods like economic boycotting that prevented trade, which led to the extreme starvation of muslim communities. they banned interfaith relationships between the quraysh and muslims, they plotted assassination on the Prophet PBUH, and they tortured innocent muslims through beatings, enslavement, and torture in the heat of the desert. so of course, the muslims of madinah would be extremely wary of quraysh muslim 'converts' trying to enter their state. the "test" in reference here is a test of true faith in islam and Allah swt, and trying to confirm that their requests of refuge weren't just attempts from the quraysh authority to try to infiltrate madinah and attack muslims in order to eradicate islam. "do not send them back to the disbelievers" should be pretty self explanatory now that i provided historical context. they wanted to provide refuge and protection for the actual quraysh muslim converts, so that these converts wouldn't be persecuted by their own people for being muslim like the "enemy" (this surah also outlines respect and being charitable for the upstanding and kind people of an enemy state, but it's not relevant here so you can research that if you want :D)

"These women are not lawful wives for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful husbands for them."

- this is referencing the polytheism of the quraysh. polytheism and idolatry are consistently labelled as shirk in the quran, so muslims, regardless of gender, cannot marry them since shirk is the biggest sin you can commit in islam. if the female converts passed the "test" mentioned before, they would annul the marriage they had (if they were married) to the quraysh polytheistic husbands. the islamic state of madinah and polytheist quraysh tribe of makkah had a peace treaty (the Treaty of Hudayybiyah) which mandated that mehr was to be returned from the women after annulment of their marriages, and it allowed them to do so without violence ensuing. this also allowed any female islamic emigrants (who left madinah to join the quraysh) to return their mehr to their muslim husbands who they'd annuled their marriages with. if the quraysh could/did not return the mehr of the previously muslim women to the muslim men, then madinah's treasury would compensate the men.

anyway, i think it's clear to see how muslim women aren't "forbidden" from marrying non-muslim men. islam just specifies which non-muslim men it is that women can marry. personally, i think that we can marry men of other abrahamic religions, as well as agnostics/deists since none of them explicitly deny the existence of Allah swt or threaten islam's core values and beliefs. i feel like male scholars have withheld the historical, societal and political context from their interpretations for so long that it's just a widespread belief that muslim women can only marry muslim men, which is just nonsense.

tldr; it isn't haram to marry non muslim men, but muslim women cannot marry just any non-muslim man without knowing his beliefs."

does anyone here has similar view

Is the view of above mentioned words correct -

Zina- zinā means rape/sexual abuse, not consensual sex. He bases this partly on Qur’an 24:2, arguing that it belongs among serious crimes with victims and punishments. Therefore, consensual sex between two adults is not zinā.zina primarily refers to sexual misconduct such as infidelity, rape/coercion, and similar betrayals, rather than simply sex outside nikah. She believes what makes a relationship legitimate is mutual consent, transparency, and commitment, not necessarily a nikah contract itself.On this view, cheating is zina because it involves deception and violates the agreed relationship, while polygamy can be legitimate if everyone involved knows and consents. Likewise, she considers a mutually consensual, transparent, committed relationship between unmarried people to be legitimate—even without nikah—and describes it as analogous to an ʿurfi nikah.

Din"- doesn't mean religion, it means how we judge. Quranic verse - "The Qur’an often reminds us of this. For example, in Surah al-Kāfirūn, the Prophet is told: “To you your dīn, and to me mine.” It’s not just “your religion versus mine,” but “your standard of judgment versus mine.” One judges by lies and denial, the other by truth and trust in God. Other places reinforce this - Yawmu ’d-Dīn is the Day when all judgments are weighed and exposed. Even in everyday life, we are constantly living by the “dīn” we choose: do we judge by wealth, tribe, class, or do we judge by honesty, kindness, and God-consciousness?"

Kufr - it means ungrateful nothing about belief. It's sought of rejecting god's blessing because of arrogance

Iman - it means trust/being secured it doesn't mean affirming statement. Like in verse 2:221 here iman used as trust.

Islam -word Deen means, according to its root word, System/Order of Accountability, Truth and Justice. ■A mu'min is someone who is the source of safety and security to everyone around them. ('Af'ala: the act of actively granting safety and secuty to others!) ■A Muslim is someone who is a peaceful human. ('Af'ala: the act of actively granting peace to others!) ■3:19 indeed the Deen with Allah is Islam = indeed the System/Order of Accountability, Truth and Justice with God is Peace. Note that this ayah talks about cosmic principles, not sectarian labels. There is no religion in the Qur’an mentioned.

Shirk - being servitude to someone. A mushrik can be muslim, christian or polythiest and mushril doesn't mean polythiest.shirk really is. It is very simple Shirk is that you share out your 'ibada (your "servitude" not "worship") between God and other than God. That you make God to be one master among many ... even if you believe the others are not "gods" or that He is greater than they. The crux of shirk is 'ibada;

What's your view regarding those words!!

Edit: these are view certain quranist shared to me

Muslim should organise themselves into group just like jews did orthodox jew or reform jew!! Nowadays in modern world we see plenty of muslim witg complete different interpretations (mind you they sas it's clear and complete detailed book/their interpretation is true)

Like these are the groups -ultratraditionalist(salafi/wahhabi), orthodox, moderate muslim, progressive muslim, quranist etc. if they can organise their interpretation into specific group like orthodox or reform jew,it will help better from confusion.

What's your view on that?

I'm trying to understand the differences between traditional and modern Quranist/progressive Muslim interpretations(each belive there one correct and they're believing in complete detailed and clear book through latter group emphasis it more), particularly regarding pluralism, salvation, and the semantics of key Qur'anic terms. I would appreciate perspectives that focus on the Qur'anic text itself—its grammar, linguistics, semantics, and context—rather than simply appealing to later authorities.

Many Quranists and progressive Muslims argue that the Qur'an is fundamentally pluralistic or even perennialist. According to this view, the Qur'an does not monopolize divine mercy for a single religious community or sect. Instead, they argue that salvation is based primarily on justice, sincerity, and righteous actions rather than on formal religious identity or doctrinal belief. They maintain that God ultimately cares about morality, justice, and sincerity rather than empty ritualism, and that Allah loves those who uphold these values regardless of the religious tradition they belong to.

They also reinterpret several important Qur'anic terms. For example, they argue that shirk primarily refers to servitude or allegiance rather than merely associating partners with God in worship. Some even claim that polytheists or associationists are not necessarily mushrikūn, and that a mushrik may still be forgiven if their good deeds outweigh their sins, while only the act of shirk itself is described as unforgivable.

Similarly, they often argue that kāfir primarily means "one who is ungrateful" rather than "unbeliever," making the concept about moral ingratitude instead of doctrinal disbelief. They also reinterpret terms such as dīn as "system" rather than "religion," īmān as "trust" or "security," mu'min as "one who establishes peace," and islām as "submission" or "peace" rather than the name of a new religion. In this reading, anyone who sincerely submits to God could be considered a muslim in the generic sense of "one who submits," even if they belong to another religious tradition or are not among the People of the Book. They also argue that Islam during the Prophet's time was primarily about an individual's relationship with God rather than the establishment of a distinct religious identity.

They further argue that the traditional approach is overly exclusivist, often importing meanings from later sources instead of allowing the Qur'an to define its own terminology. According to them, this neglects the linguistic nuances, grammar, and context of the Qur'anic text.

One example they give is Qur'an 2:221. They point out that the verse uses the verb yu'minū, arguing that it should be understood as "until they become trustworthy" or "until they develop faith/trust," rather than as a legal prohibition against marrying non-Muslims. They therefore argue that the actual legal prohibitions are found elsewhere, particularly in Surah 4.

They also appeal to verses such as Qur'an 2:62 (and related passages) concerning Jews, Christians, and Sabians to support a broader pluralistic understanding of salvation. Some extend these verses to all sincere people who believe in God and act righteously, rather than limiting them to the People of the Book.

On the other hand, the Qur'an explicitly permits marriage with and the consumption of food slaughtered by the People of the Book in Qur'an 5:5, but it does not extend the same permission to other religious communities. Progressive interpreters often respond that this verse was addressing a specific question or the communities that Muslims encountered at the time, rather than establishing an exhaustive legal category.

However, this raises another question. Early Muslims also encountered Zoroastrians (Majūs), yet the Qur'an does not explicitly provide legal rulings concerning marriage with them or eating their slaughtered meat. Historically, many early Companions and jurists did not generally permit these practices with Zoroastrians, and later jurists often appealed to the practice of the Companions and consensus (ijmāʿ) in their reasoning.

This leaves me wondering: based solely on the Qur'an's language, grammar, semantics, and context, does the Qur'an imply that religious communities outside the People of the Book are excluded from salvation, prohibited for marriage, or prohibited regarding the consumption of their slaughtered meat? Or are these conclusions primarily derived from later interpretive traditions rather than the Qur'anic text itself?

I'm genuinely trying to understand what the Qur'an itself says or implies. I would appreciate responses that engage with the Arabic grammar, semantics, literary context, and internal coherence of the Qur'an, rather than relying exclusively on either traditional consensus or modern ideological assumptions.

Found a YouTube video of a quranist whose interpretation is far different than orthodox or tradition. Watch this video and share your view!!

https://www.youtube.com/live/hUP0a-PFUZ4?si=NgUaFcfFnrbdqnCu

Your view regarding his claim? Watch the video

https://www.youtube.com/live/hUP0a-PFUZ4?si=NgUaFcfFnrbdqnCu

 In the first ten verses of Surah 5, the Qur’an sets out rulings for believers concerning matters such as food and marriage. Someone on r/progressive_islam argued that these rulings were revealed in response to questions from early Muslims. According to this view, Jews and Christians are mentioned specifically because they were the religious communities with whom Muslims primarily interacted - not because eating the food of, or marrying into, every other community was necessarily prohibited.

Does a strictly linguistic and contextual reading of these verses support that interpretation? Is there evidence that early Muslims understood the verses this way, or is this interpretation mainly associated with contemporary progressive Muslim circles?

Quran only or reformist progressive say e everything is lawful according to quran unless forbidden by explicit text!! Is this was general statement hold by those who were first audience of this book. Did early muslim thought or refrain from inter marrying into different religious community after accepting islam and later did with only those earlier scripture follower after verse no. 5 in chapter 5 revealed?? Can anyone provide any view regarding that?

Quran only or reformist progressive say e everything is lawful according to quran unless forbidden by explicit text!! Is this was general statement hold by those who were first audience of this book. Did early muslim thought or refrain from inter marrying into different religious community after accepting islam and later did with only those earlier scripture follower after verse no. 5 in chapter 5 revealed?? Can anyone provide any view regarding that?