r/Quraniyoon

I have been thinking about what happened in Indonesia and I feel like having an opinion about it.

First let’s see what god says about sins:

* Private sin → do not spy, investigate, gossip, or expose it. (49:12), (24:19)
* Public accusation → requires four eyewitnesses. (24:4)
* If four eyewitnesses actually exist → the act was either public or voluntarily witnessed by multiple people, and the legal punishment can be carried out publicly. (24:2)

But also
* Zinā (legal definition) = sexual intercourse outside marriage
* Kissing/touching/flirting = not zinā legally, but considered sinful and “approaching zinā”
* Intercourse = clearly zinā

Which means that’s true they kissed in a live stream but also it wasn’t intercourse so it wasn’t Zina. It was Fahicha in my opinion or act leading to Zina.

“Let a group of the believers witness their punishment” (24:2)
It simply means a controlled, community-level witnessing for legal integrity — not worldwide exposure or social broadcasting, and still they need to be believers.

So my opinion is: they are completely wrong about what they did in Indonesia. Doing the lashes even if it wasn’t Zina and also exposing like that, letting people record videos and posting online in news is wrong.

How is this verse understood in relation to temporary marriage (mut’ah) in the Shia tradition?

Surah An‑Nisa 4:24
“[Prohibited to you are] married women, except those your right hands possess. [This is] the ordinance of Allah for you. And lawful for you are [other] women beyond these, provided you seek them in marriage by giving their due compensation, desiring chastity, not lewdness. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.”

The wording “And lawful for you are other women beyond these” seems, at least to me, to refer to women other than one’s wives, and the verse also mentions mutual agreement and compensation.

The placenta is a nutrient and hormone bomb. It contains:

- Hormones: hCG, estrogen, progesterone, prolactin, oxytocin, relaxin, cortisol
- Iron: tons of it (it's a blood organ)
- Protein: ~500g of tissue, heavy on amino acids
- Vitamins B6, B12, E, K
- Omega-3s
- Stem cells: hematopoietic (blood-forming) and mesenchymal (connective tissue)
- Placental Opioid-Enhancing Factor (POEF): enhances your body's natural painkillers
- Growth factors: EGF, IGF, VEGF
- Immunoglobulins: IgG antibodies from mother

Claimed benefits:

1. Prevents postpartum depression: the hormone crash theory. Hormones in placenta supposedly smooth the drop after birth.
2. Increases milk production: prolactin is literally a lactation hormone.
3. Boosts energy: iron and B vitamins replenish what birth drains.
4. Reduces pain: POEF enhances endorphin activity.
5. Helps uterus shrink back: oxytocin contracts the uterus.

What science actually says:

On animals: Studies on rats show real effects, consumption of placenta increases opioid-mediated pain relief. Rats actually prefer placenta over liver right after birth. That's solid.

On humans: There is ZERO high quality evidence proving benefits in humans.

Hospitals sell it to biomedical companies:

- Stem cell banking: Companies pay hospitals for placentas and cord blood to extract stem cells.
- Cosmetics industry: Placenta extract is used in luxury skin creams, shampoos, anti-aging products. The global placenta extract market is worth hundreds of millions.
- Pharmaceuticals: Placenta derived hormones and proteins used in:
- Fertility treatments (hCG, hMG)
- Menopause hormone therapy
- Burn wound dressings (amniotic membrane grafts)
- Eye surgery (amniotic membrane for corneal repair)
- Joint injections for arthritis
- Research: Placentas are used for stem cell research, toxicology studies, and developmental biology.

Who pays what:

Tissue bank
• What they buy: Whole placenta
• Hospital gets: $50–$200
• End product value: $3K–$15K per graft

Stem cell bank
• What they buy: Cord blood
• Hospital gets: ~$0–$50
• End product value: $2K upfront + $200/yr storage

Research lab
• What they buy: Placenta (fresh)
• Hospital gets: $50–$500
• End product value: Publications, patents

Pharma
• What they buy: Placenta (bulk)
• Hospital gets: $50–$150
• End product value: $50–$300 per dose drug

Cosmetics
• What they buy: Extract
• Hospital gets: $50–$100
• End product value: $50–$300 per jar cream

Medical device
• What they buy: Amniotic membrane
• Hospital gets: Included in bank deal
• End product value: $1.5K–$15K per unit

The hospital makes peanuts. The tissue processors, stem cell banks, and pharma companies collect the real money, they pay the hospital a token fee, add $10K+ of processing/markup, and sell back to the same hospital's OR or the public.

But the question is, what did god say about this?

Is the placenta carrion? No. That's an animal that died without slaughter. Placenta was never an animal.

Is it blood? Partially. It's full of blood. But 6:145 specifically says poured out blood, like the stuff you'd drink or cook as a separate thing. You eat liver, right? Liver is soaked in blood and nobody calls that haram. So trace blood inside tissue isn't the problem.

Is it human flesh? This is where it gets interesting. 49:12 says "would one of you eat the flesh of his dead brother" and uses it as the ultimate gross out image. But placenta isn't your brother. It never was a person. It's a temporary organ your body grew specifically to support a baby and then yeeted out when the job was done. Like the umbilical cord, like the amniotic sac. Nobody eats their umbilical cord and calls it cannibalism.

So where does that leave us?

Honestly? Nowhere in the prohibited list. By 6:119, if God took the time to list what's off limits and placenta ain't on it, then the default is permissible.

PSA: I think it’s permissible to eat it only if it’s yours (the mom who gave birth can eat her own placenta after the birth of her baby) but never the placenta of another women because this implies eating the meat of another human which is not permissible by god.

I. The Ayah/Verse

"The men are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright females are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those females from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate (idribuhunna) from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great." (Quran, 4:34, The Monotheist Group 2013 ed).

II. Best Meaning Maintains Justice

The Qur'an instructs believers to follow the best meaning (39:18) of its verses when multiple plausible interpretations exist. In my view, 4:34 is one of those cases, and reading wa-idribuhunna as "beat them" creates serious textual, ethical, and legal contradictions that are absent if it is understood as "leave them," "separate from them," or another non-violent form of distancing.

The verse addresses a situation in which a husband merely fears (تخافون) nushuz from his wife—not a proven offense established through evidence or due process. If idribuhunna means "beat them," the husband becomes, simultaneously, the complainant, investigator, judge, jury, and executioner, all on the basis of suspicion alone. Nowhere else does the Qur'an permit corporal punishment without evidence, witnesses, or judicial process. Such an interpretation would stand as a remarkable exception to the Qur'an's repeated insistence on justice, fairness, and due process.

III. Mitigation via Light Beatings Still Unjust

Nor do attempts to soften the traditional reading resolve the underlying problem. Whether idribuhunna is interpreted as a "light" beating, a "symbolic" tap, or some other form of mitigated physical contact, the fundamental issue remains unchanged: it is still a physical punishment imposed unilaterally by the husband on the basis of mere fear or suspicion, without proof, witnesses, or judicial process. Reducing the severity of the violence does not cure the absence of justice. The Qur'an's concern is not merely proportionality of punishment but the fairness of imposing punishment or nonconsensual offensive physical contact at all. A symbolic assault carried out without due process is still an unjust exercise of power. Such interpretations merely reduce the degree of the injustice while preserving its essential structure.

The violent reading also conflicts with the Qur'an's broader ethical framework. Husbands are instructed to live with their wives in kindness, protect them, and treat them honorably. Domestic violence--and any hitting of a wife, especially as the culmination of marital conflict--is fundamentally difficult to reconcile with commands of compassion and protection. A man cannot coherently be both his wife's protector and her sanctioned assailant.

IV. Context Supports Progressively Non-Violent Resolution/Arbitration

The immediate context also favors a non-violent reading. The verse outlines a progression: admonish them, abandon the marital bed, then wa-idribuhunna. The following verse (4:35) immediately calls for arbitration by representatives from both families. A sequence of increasing separation leading to mediation is coherent; a sequence of admonition, bed-separation, physical violence, and then arbitration is far less so. Progressive distancing naturally culminates in outside intervention, not (light) beating/hitting.

Beyond these contextual arguments, the Arabic itself does not require the meaning "beat." The root ḍ-r-b (ضرب) is famously polysemous throughout the Qur'an, carrying meanings such as set forth, travel, cover, separate, and strike depending on context. The question is therefore not whether the root can mean "strike"—it certainly can—but whether that is the best meaning in this verse.

V. Historically Idribuhunna Had a Non-Violent Meaning (Including Shia Hadith on It)

Some object that if the intended meaning were "leave" or "separate," the construction would have required iḍribū ʿanhunna ("leave from them"), rather than iḍribūhunna. However, this objection is undermined by classical lexicography. Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (19th century), drawing on much earlier Arabic sources, notes that the preposition ʿan is not always necessary for the verb to carry the sense of leaving or turning away. In other words, the grammar itself does not force a violent interpretation.

An additional linguistic observation is worth noting. Classical Arabic distinguishes between different derived forms of the root ḍ-r-b. Habib Anthony Salmone's Advanced Learner's Arabic-English Dictionary (1889), for example, lists aḍraba (أضرب) as meaning, among other things, "to leave," "quit," "abandon," or "renounce." The imperative in 4:34 is written وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ, beginning with hamzat al-waṣl (ٱ). While hamzat al-waṣl is a grammatical feature rather than an independent lexical hamza, this illustrates that derived forms of the verb were historically recognized as carrying meanings beyond physical striking. At minimum, it cautions against assuming that every occurrence of the imperative must denote hitting.

Historical evidence also suggests that non-violent understandings of idribuhunna are not modern inventions. Even though I do not consider hadith authoritative for establishing religious law, they can preserve valuable evidence of how early Muslims understood Arabic vocabulary.

One Shia narration, preserved in Mustadrak al-Wasā'il (14:250) and Biḥār al-Anwār (103:249), attributes the following statement to the Prophet (Links to Arabic here: Here and Here):

(16618) 3 Jami’ al-Akhbar: On the authority of the Prophet (may God’s prayers and peace be upon him and his family) that he said: “I am astonished by the one who beats his wife when he is more deserving of beating [] than she. Do not beat your wives with wood, for there is retaliation in them, **but strike them with hunger and nakedness,** so that you may gain in this world and the hereafter.” [la tadribuu nisa'akum bialkhashab fa'iina fih alqasasi, walakin adribuhuna bialjue waleari] This meant to cut them off or separate them from provisions (food and clothing, which men are typically required to provide).

Whether or not one accepts the narration's authenticity or its proposed application, it is significant linguistically. It explicitly rejects physical beating and instead understands adribūhunna as cutting off provision rather than inflicting bodily harm. I do not necessarily agree with that interpretation either, but it demonstrates an important historical point: long before modern discussions about domestic violence or feminism, there were already Muslims who understood idribuhunna as something other than physical assault. That alone undermines the claim that "beat them" was the only historically conceivable meaning.

Summary

Taken together, the evidence is cumulative rather than dependent on any single point:

• The violent reading conflicts with the Qur'an's principles of justice, kindness, and protection.
• It creates the only apparent instance in which corporal punishment could be imposed solely on suspicion and by a party with an obvious conflict of interest.
• Attempts to mitigate the command into a "light" or "symbolic" beating do not solve this problem, because the injustice lies in authorizing unilateral physical punishment without due process.
• The literary flow into the arbitration of 4:35 is more coherent if the final step is separation rather than violence.
• Classical Arabic allows ḍaraba to bear multiple meanings, and early lexicographers did not restrict this construction to physical striking.
• Early Muslim literature itself preserves non-violent understandings of idribuhunna, demonstrating that such readings long predate modern concerns about domestic violence.

For these reasons, I find it difficult to conclude that 4:34 authorizes wife-beating. The non-violent reading is not only linguistically plausible but also far more consistent with the Qur'an's overarching commitment to justice, mercy, and coherent legal principles.

And Allah knows best.

​

Many Quranists say:

«"We do not reject the Messenger ﷺ. We only reject books like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim because they were written centuries later."»

At first glance, this may sound reasonable. But it creates a serious problem with the Quran itself.

The Quran repeatedly commands believers to obey the Messenger ﷺ, not merely to believe he once existed.

Allah said:

«"Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah." (Allah said, Quran 4:80)»

Allah said:

«"Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it." (Allah said, Quran 59:7)»

Allah said:

«"No! By your Lord, they will not truly believe until they make you judge concerning that over which they dispute, then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit completely." (Allah said, Quran 4:65)»

The question is simple:

How can anyone obey the Messenger after his death if none of his authentic teachings have been preserved?

The Quran never says that only its words would be preserved. Rather, Allah entrusted the Prophet ﷺ with teaching, explaining, judging and purifying.

Allah said:

«"He teaches them the Book and the Wisdom." (Allah said, Quran 2:129)»

This "Wisdom" is repeatedly mentioned alongside the Book. The Companions understood it to refer to the Sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ.

Allah also said:

«"We revealed to you the Reminder so that you may explain to the people what has been sent down to them." (Allah said, Quran 16:44)»

If the Prophet's explanations were never preserved, then this mission ended with his death and later Muslims would have no way to fulfil the Quran's command to obey him.

Some argue that hadith were written too late.

But this ignores history.

The Prophet ﷺ permitted and encouraged writing in certain circumstances. Many Companions possessed written collections. Students of the Companions preserved narrations. Long before Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim, hadith had already been written and transmitted with chains of narrators.

Imam al-Bukhari did not invent hadith. He travelled widely to examine reports already circulating, scrutinising every narrator and every chain with standards unmatched in ancient history. The same applies to Imam Muslim.

If you reject Sahih al-Bukhari because it was compiled later, then consistency requires rejecting many established facts of early Islamic history, since they are preserved through the same historical methods.

Ironically, the Quran itself reached us through transmission by the very same generation that transmitted the Sunnah. The Companions who preserved the Quran are the same Companions who preserved the Prophet's teachings. Accepting one while dismissing the other without evidence is arbitrary.

The science of hadith was developed precisely because Muslims knew fabricated reports existed. Scholars did not blindly accept every narration. They critically examined each narrator, every chain, and the wording itself. Weak narrations were identified, and authentic ones distinguished from fabrications.

The choice is therefore not between "Quran alone" and "blindly accepting hadith."

The real choice is between:

* Accepting the Messenger's authentic teachings through rigorous historical transmission.

* Or believing that Allah commanded Muslims to obey a Messenger whose guidance became permanently inaccessible.

The first view is consistent with the Quran.

The second leaves Allah's repeated commands to obey His Messenger impossible to fulfil.

The Salafi methodology is simply to accept the Quran and the authentic Sunnah upon the understanding of the Companions and the early generations, exactly as Allah and His Messenger ﷺ instructed.

Create another universe?

​

​

Judgement day for creatures in another universe if it exists?

​

​

There's only one universe with only human and jinn and he will do nothing else?

​

​

Curious

The Quran details the Day of Judgment and final accountability with vivid descriptions of absolute justice, the weighing of deeds, and individual responsibility.

The accompanying angels and the witnesses:

The Verse

وَجَاءَتْ** كُلُّ نَفْسٍ** مَّعَهَا سَائِقٌ وَشَهِيدٌ
"And every soul will come, with it a driver and a witness."

According to traditional Quranic commentary (Tafsir), as the horn is blown for resurrection, two angels are assigned to accompany every human being to the place of gathering:

The Saa'iq (The Driver): An angel who drives and guides the soul forward to the divine court, ensuring no one can turn back, flee, or escape the gathering.

The Shaheed (The Witness): An angel who stands as a witness, carrying the exact, unalterable book of deeds recorded during that person's earthly life to testify to what they did.

Bodily Testimony Surah Yaseen
[36:65]: "That Day We will seal over their mouths, and their hands will speak to Us, and their feet will testify about what they used to earn."

Absolute Justice and Record of Deeds

Surah Al-Zalzalah [99:7-8]: "So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it, And whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it."

Surah Al-Kahf [18:49]: "And the record [of deeds] will be placed [open]... They will say, 'Oh, woe to us! What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has enumerated it?' And they will find what they did present [before them]. And your Lord does not injustice to anyone."

Surah Al-Jathiyah [45:28]: "And you will see every nation kneeling [from fear]. Every nation will be called to its record. [It will be said], 'Today you will be recompensed for what you used to do.'"

Individual Responsibility

Surah Al-Isra [17:13-14]: "And [for] every person We have fastened his destiny to his neck, and We will bring forth for him on the Day of Resurrection a record which he will find wide open. [It will be said], 'Read your record. Sufficient is yourself against yourself this Day as accountant.”

Surah Luqman [31:33]: "...and fear a Day when no father will avail his son, nor will a son avail his father at all. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth...".

The Weighing of Deeds (The Scales)

Surah Al-Anbiya [21:47]: "And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all. And if there is [even] the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it forth. And sufficient are We as accountant."

Surah Al-Qari'ah [101:6-9]: "Then as for one whose scales are heavy [with good deeds], He will be in a pleasant life. But as for one whose scales are light, His refuge will be an abyss."

Assalamu Alaikum everyone,

I'm currently exploring the idea of building a platform that helps connect Quran teachers, students, and Hifdh partners.

Before investing time into building it, I'd really like to hear from people who have firsthand experience with memorizing or teaching the Quran.

From what I've seen, many people struggle with things like:

• Finding qualified Hifdh teachers they can trust.
• Finding serious students as a teacher.
• Finding someone to revise (muraja'ah) with regularly.
• Comparing teachers based on teaching style, language, schedule, or reviews.

I'd love to know:

• What has been the biggest challenge in your Hifdh journey?
• Have you ever struggled to find the right teacher or study partner?
• If a platform like this existed, what features would make it genuinely useful for you?

I'm not promoting anything—I genuinely want to understand the community's needs before building something. Every suggestion or personal experience would be greatly appreciated.

Jazakum Allahu Khayran.

They do raise a good point, what are the verses that clarify “ways of Allah” vs. “ways of the Messenger”? I can’t remember which resource clarified this distinction.

God says we will not be left to say "I believe" without being tested and made evident if we said the truth or not. Have you been tested after you began to believe, and what's your Story?

"Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tested?

We have certainly tested those before them, and Allāh will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars." 29:2-3

Isn't it truly astonishing that of all the belief systems we have in this world, whether spiritual or material nature, God guided us to this true religion? This is not something we can be proud of as an achievement, because it is only God's mercy that lead us to this path.

How improbable is it to be bombarded with so much misinformation in life and still end up on the right path by the sheer benevolent will of God?

How mindblowingly awesome is it to have the absolute, fully detailed guide to true purpose and a fulfilled life in this world and the hereafter in a single book?

To have the creator of the universe choose us as his servants and therefore have the support of the mightiest, most benevolent force to ever exist?

To have the chance of attaining eternal bliss, if God wills?

To be able to completely mess up in life by sinning and having the promise of God that he forgives all sins (except shirk)?

Even the most devastating situations a human can endure are NEVER meaningless and always full of purpose

"وَإِذَا مَرِضْتُ فَهُوَ يَشْفِينِ"

"And when I am ill, it is He who cures me" (26:80)

The list goes on indefinitely, because even if we were to count the blessings of our Lord, we would never be able to grasp the full extent of His mercy.

What more could a living being possibly want?

My mom strongly believes hijab is mandatory, and she’s very firm about it. Right now I don’t wear hijab, but she expects that once I’m older (especially if I get married), I’ll wear it.

After studying the Quran, I’ve come to a different conclusion and don’t believe hijab is mandatory. I’m not looking to debate the interpretation, I know this subreddit generally understands that perspective.

I’m asking for advice from anyone who’s been in a similar situation. Were you ever able to help a parent understand your view, or did they never change their mind?

How did you approach the conversation respectfully without damaging your relationship? Any advice would be appreciated.

Lets talk first about how Allah describes the light of the heavens and earth....

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. His light1 is like a niche in which there is a lamp, the lamp is in a crystal, the crystal is like a shining star, lit from ˹the oil of˺ a blessed olive tree, ˹located˺ neither to the east nor the west,2 whose oil would almost glow, even without being touched by fire. Light upon light! Allah guides whoever He wills to His light. And Allah sets forth parables for humanity. For Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things.

This verse speaks about multiple things at once - One of them, I believe, is the Atom.

An atom "creates" and "reflects" light when energy is absorbed by the electron of an atom, getting it excited and causing it to temporarily jump to a higher electron shell, and then falls back a shell ladder, As it falls, it instantly releases that trapped energy as a brand-new photon of light. This is the moment you actually see the atom glow, the electron cloud(shell) temporarily "traps" or "reflect" light energy when it releases a photon(light) as it falls. Light upon light.

Galactic filaments pump hydrogen, an ultraviolet (UV) fluorescent gas, that is the fundamental seed for the formation of galaxies that grow along the filaments, like berries on an olive tree.

the first real picture taken of the hydrogen atom

The moon is often referred to as source Nur (reflective light), and the Atom is the derived light equivalent.

So when I came across:

The Hour has drawn near and the moon was split ˹in two˺.1

Yet, whenever they see a sign, they turn away,1 saying, “Same old magic!”

my immediate thought was the Nuclear Bomb, which is achieved via by splitting the nucleus of an atom. Nuclear energy itself was(is still) viewed with magical mystery.

The Hour has come...

The Quran contains multiple verses that command people to travel through the earth specifically to observe the ruins of past civilizations and learn from their downfall.

Key Quranic Verses
1). Surah Al-An'am 6:11
"Say, 'Travel through the land; then observe how was the end of the deniers.'"

2). Surah Yusuf 12:109
"Have they not traveled through the land and observed how was the end of those before them?..."

3). Surah Al-Hajj 22:46
"So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not the eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts." 

4). Surah Ar-Rum 30:9
"Have they not traveled through the earth and observed how was the end of those before them? They were greater than them in power, and they plowed the earth and built it up more than they have built it up..."

5). Surah Ghafir 40:82
"Have they not traveled through the land and observed how was the end of those before them? They were more numerous than them and mightier in strength and in impressions on the land..." 

Purpose of These Commands
The Arabic phrase used for this concept is "Seer fil-Ardh" (Travel through the earth). The Quran frames these journeys not just for leisure, but for deep spiritual and moral reflection:

I’ve been seriously studying hadith literature recently and i came across a sahih hadith stating that « Allah created Adam in His image. » The more I reflect on it the more it genuinely troubles me. My issue is simple but fundamental I prioritize pure monotheism (tawhid) above everything else. I’ve looked into scholarly explanations. I’m aware this is not a new issue scholars have debated it for centuries. Some interpret it metaphorically and some say « Allah knows best ». I understand that approach but that’s exactly where my problem begins. If a statement about God is ambiguous enough to create this level of tension with the core principle of divine uniqueness then how is that not a serious theological issue ?

​

I'm an 18 year old girl who has had a lot of doubts about Islam since my preteen years. It all started with learning about Aisha and her age. In my household, I was told that she was 12 at the time of her marriage. To me, that felt very strange, unfair, and didn't sit right with me.

Then I started getting involved in feminism. I agreed with the movement and felt a spark of hope because I had always felt like I had no right to my own life or freedom, as I was born into a conservative household. But I was soon struck with guilt for feeling that way because my parents frowned upon the movement. They would say it's just "whores" who want the freedom to be shameless, and that Islam and the Hadith prohibit it.

After that, there were discussions about marital rape and how common it is. I sympathized with the women who went through that, but then I saw men using hadiths to justify it. That's when it really hit me. It felt like every problem, every injustice, and every time I felt inferior was because of the teachings of "Islam." I started drifting further and further away from my religion. I remember crying myself to sleep out of guilt because, deep down, I still loved Allah and felt that He wouldn't ask people to be like this. But I was confused and heartbroken, and I didn't know what to believe.

Fast forward to a few months ago, I was introduced to another group of Muslims, those who reject hadiths but still call themselves Muslims. They criticized Sunnis and other groups for what they saw as toxic and misogynistic teachings. I felt like I had finally found my people. It gave me hope that I wouldn't have to leave Allah in order to stand on what I believed was the right side.

But even now, I'm scared. What if the Sunnis are right, and being a Quranist means I can't truly be a Muslim? What if I'm on the wrong path? What if I'm betraying my religion?

And most of all, what will I do if my family finds out I'm no longer Sunni? They won't consider me a Muslim, that much I'm sure of. They'll be very angry and look down on me. So if I do become a Quranist, I'll try my best to keep it a secret from them. But that would mean continuing to pray the way Sunnis do. Will my prayers still be accepted if I don't change the way I pray?

I feel so lost right now.

Someone recently sent me some verses apparently proving that the Qur'an contradicts itself. This is very specific and I still want to hold on to Islam but I don't have the knowledge to properly deal with this, so I'm asking you:

In 66:12

وَمَرْيَمَ ٱبْنَتَ عِمْرَٰنَ ٱلَّتِىٓ أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَـٰتِ رَبِّهَا وَكُتُبِهِۦ وَكَانَتْ مِنَ ٱلْقَـٰنِتِينَ ١٢

"˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺.1 She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout.

Mary is described as the daughter of Imran, using the arabic root ukht which could mean biological sister or sister in faith or sister in a tribe

In 19:28 it says

يَـٰٓأُخْتَ هَـٰرُونَ مَا كَانَ أَبُوكِ ٱمْرَأَ سَوْءٍۢ وَمَا كَانَتْ أُمُّكِ بَغِيًّۭا ٢٨

"O sister of Aaron! Your father was not an indecent man, nor was your mother unchaste.”

So since in the last verse they're taking about her biological parents so it must be ukht/sister in a literal sense. So if she is the biological sister of Aaron, brother of Moses and also the mother of Jesus, that would mean that there is a time span of more than a thousand years between them. That would only make sense if it's sister in a non literal context, but then 19:28 gives the context as a literal translation.

So how is it to be interpreted? I don't know arabic too well to argue with that? I find it hard to believe that the Quran makes an error in a simple sentence like that but i want to verify everything with knowledge - knowledge i dont have yet.

Edit: It's always amazing to see how much depth lies in single verses like these. Very interesting to read all of this. All thanks be to the Lord, the wise, the one who knows while we do not