I would like to know specifically why my question: Does Allah commit shirk by swearing on things lesser than Him (e.g. the Qur'an)? was put on hold. Moderator asked me to clarify my question, I did so, yet it remains on hold.


In case of post-closure edits, if they properly eliminate the close reasons, you can flag the question for moderator attention to be reopened. You can also prompt moderators and other high-rep users to cast-reopen votes for the question, by casting your own first.

  • Thanks, I flagged it, how will I know what the verdict is? If they decide to leave it closed, will I be notified? At this point I don't see any reason why it is on hold so I want to do all I can to stop it from deletion.
    – Klutch
    Aug 25 '14 at 0:18
  • @Klutch, I'm not sure if there will be notification in case of flag decline. But either way you will learn soon as it does not take too long to respond to a flag. Usually much sooner than half a day.
    – infatuated
    Aug 25 '14 at 0:24

Even after the latest edits, the question is not particularly clear. Reading through it, you seem to be trying to ask three very different questions:

  1. Does Allah commit shirk? (as per the title)
  2. Is swearing by things other than Allah a form of shirk? (implied in the body, and explicit in the clarification)
  3. Why does Allah swear by things lower than himself? (explicit in the body)

You open by positing that the answer to the second (implied) question is "Yes," but then provide evidence that doesn't particularly support that position at all. Nothing wrong with that per se, it makes the question weak but it's not necessarily a close-worthy problem (though that is very possibly where the downvotes on the question are coming from).

This does, however, effectively answer the first (title) question: You're already coming in believing that swearing by things is a form of shirk, ergo Allah commits shirk by swearing by things. At this point, the question could be reasonable as a form of "This is what I believe and why I believe it, am I right?" question, at which point a proper answer would consist of explaining what, if any, missteps you've made in your logic or evidences you've failed to consider (and very possibly end up falling into the "useless negative" trap).

A question of this form also runs a very real risk of being exactly the sort of "Prove me wrong" polemic that is unwelcome on this site. Much would depend on exactly how this was presented.

However, you continue at this point by asking "Why does Allah associate so many lesser partners with himself?" This very much suggests that everything up to this point (i.e. the self-answered question) was merely context for the third (explicit) question, being why does Allah swear by things lower than himself (if such swearing is considered shirk)?

If that was the case, then much of the preamble could easily be stricken to emphasise the actual question, but again that's just poor form, not really a close-worthy problem.

Of note, this third question was the one directly answered by the first (and top-voted) answer. Which you immediately dismissed and rejected as "silly," demanding a "better" answer without any clear criteria as to what would actually make any given answer "better".

Which very strongly suggests that that was either not the question you actually wanted answered, or that you wanted more in an answer than you were actually asking for. This was the point where I closed it and requested you further focus your question, to make it clear what exactly you were seeking in an answer.

(Of note, the second-highest answer is effectively answering the second (implicit) question and the third-highest (and accepted) answer is effectively answering the first (title) question)

The bulk of your "clarification" basically just summarized your post without actually doing anything to focus it, and concluded by basically asking your second (implied) question: "Is swearing by things other than Allah a form of shirk?" with an extra criteria of needing Qur'anic and/or Hadithic evidences to support the answer (which effectively rendered every single answer to the question invalid).

This could be a fine question if the body was worked to support it, but as I warned above it treads a dangerous line between "constructive" and "unwelcome". As phrased, where the "clarification" is just an edit leaving the clunky question itself untouched, it basically just looks like you're answering your own question in the post and challenging people to prove you wrong; still too close to the "unwelcome" side of the line for me to be comfortable re-opening it.

Compounding the confusion is the fact that the accepted answer barely answers that question at all. It answers your first (title) question and provides absolutely zero Qur'anic or Hadithic evidence to support itself.

At this point, five people have already tried to answer your question, with the posts basically just guessing what exactly you are looking for in an answer (and they are all apparently wrong in their assumptions, except for the accepted answer which just out-and-out ignores your explicit criteria completely). So, yeah, I reckon the question still needs work, otherwise more users are just going to end up wasting their time writing answers that aren't what you are actually looking for.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .