Liberate wrote:I think it is time we draw the line it is one thing discussing what your scriptures say than discussing with a manipulator and blatant liar ready to twist facts for his own good , it is obvious your translation of that verse is your own personal translation that you twisted to give a hint the jews altered the scriptures which is in no way implied.
I wonder why you didnt Quote Abdullah Yusuf Ali. You are soo a custom of Quoting him. I see what you do. If the translation meets your criticism then you use it but if it doesnt then you disregard it with out any authority when you dont even speak the language.
YUSUFALI: It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto:
Where in the sentence in bold do you jump to the conclusion "entrusted to protect" to suddenly mean corrupted and altered the scriptures?
And then you use translations that contradicts each other hoping to disprove our translation thus trying to labeling us as a lier ?
Khalifa's translation of the phrase with "istuhfizhuu" is redered as "..as dictated to them in GOD's scripture.."
Pickthal's translation of the phrase with "istuhfizhuu" is renedered as "..as they were bidden to observe.."
Where does "
bidden to observe" "
dictated to them in God's scripture" suddenly mean they corrupted and altered the scriptures?
Contradicts the other translations including mine:
Shakir's translation of the phrase with "istuhfizhuu" is renedered as "..because they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allah.."
Sher Ali's translation of the phrase with "istuhfizhuu" is redered as "..because they were required to preserve the Book of ALLAH.."
Yusuf Ali's translation of the phrase with "istuhfizhuu" is redered as "..for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book.."
H2O's 8) translation of of the phrase with "istuhfizhuu" is redered as "..by what they were suppose to protect from Allah's scripture.."
where does "
required to guard...entrusted the protection of Allah's book..." mean they altered and corrupted the scriptures?
You are simply seeing something that isn't there.
BTW since you are unable or unwilling to show me your arabic scholar qualifications that qualifies you to dismiss every arabic scholar as someone who doesn't understand arabic, I no longer have any interest in seeing your translations of the koran until you prove that you are in a fit state to translate arabic since everyody was incompetent bar you, as far as I deem it they are nothing but apologetic lies.
Where was the prophetic advice to the scribes that wrote the koran to include vowels to differentiate active and passive verbs and diacritical dots to distinguish words when no such occurences were found in the oldest kufi script in existence of the koran and did not exist in the arabic language until over a 100yrs after the alledged writing of the koran? Do you not see that this completely destroys the koran as straight from your god via Mohammed via Uthman/ali/... into a book?
Easy. The introduction of the diacritcal marks into the Quran was not altering the Quran. It was to asure the proper reading of the Quran by those who were students of Arabic
This is a bare faced lie, the introduction of the diacritical dots was very very important, there was no prophetic mandate and people were confused over which words were meant or who was being active or passive, all had to be clarified over several years with the help of scribes and without the intervention of Mohammed who was long dead:
This is what islamworld.net says about the diacritical dots:
The Arabic letters, as we know them today, are made up of
lines and points. The latter are called i'jam. The ancient
Arabic script did not have them, but consisted of strokes only.
The addition of diacritical points to the plain writing of
strokes helped to distinguish the various letters which could
be easily mixed up.
This is what the dictionary of islam says:
Tashkil
Tashkil is the name for the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic scripts. They were apparently unknown in pre-lslamic times. These signs help to determine the correct pronunciation of the word and to avoid mistakes.
Example:
Byt
Baitun
When more and more Muslims of non-Arab origin and also many ignorant Arabs' [Yaqut reports in his book irshad that al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf himself once read ahabba in 9: 24 wrongly as ahabbu, see GdQ. 111, 124, note 6.] studied the Qur'an, faulty pronunciation and wrong readings began to increase. It is related that at the time of Du'all (d. 69H/638) someone in Basra read the following aya from the Qur'an in a faulty way, which changed the meaning completely: :
That God and His apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans' (9: 3).
'That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle.'
The mistake occurred through wrongly reading rasulihi in place of rasuluhu, which could not be distinguished from the written text, because there were no signs or accents indicating the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorised the correct version he could out of ignorance easily commit such a mistake. [See also fihrist, 1, pp. 87-8.] The signs or accents to prevent such problems were introduced not long before the i'jam and then got the shape they have to this day: [Hughes,T.P.: A Dictionary of Islam London,1895 p.687.]
. The diacritical marks were applied by the reading of the majority Qari whom memorized the entire Quran which was learnt direct from the Prophet and transmitted in same manner by the Qari to others who also became Qari.
Sources pls, the few qurra some say as few as 5 who could not read or write were long dead if they translated what they memorised to a network of successive mass memorisers why does the earliest quranic fragments circa 800AD (150+ after the death of Mohammed)
NOT HAVE ANY DIACRITICAL DOTS OR VOWELS, how do we know who is talking in the first person or third person, who is being active or passive, what represents the letters B,T,H who made these adjustments which so called prophet was watching them and giving them prophetic advice to make these changes?
The oldest fragments date to the eighth century, not the seventh. They were found in a pager grave on the loft rafters of the Mosque of Saria’a in 1972. Aberrations from the accepted text abound, including the order of the verses, textual variations, and artistic embellishments. Gerd Puin, the leader of the German team analyzing the scrolls said, “Revisions are very clearly written over earlier, washed-off versions. What the Yemeni Qur’ans suggest is an evolving text rather than the word of God revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad.” Puin went on to declare: “The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. A fifth of the Qur’anic text is incomprehensible. This is what has caused the anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language.”
Many scholars who have handled the koran's authencity believe
"the koran is not an authentic book it was fabricated 150 years later" This quote comes from a muslim cleric whose home was fire bombed, I don't need to tell you why.
Liberate wrote:Why don't you read the next verse:
35:25 And if they treat thee as a liar, those who were before them also treated their Messengers as liars. Their Messengers came to them with clear Signs, and with the Scriptures, and with the illuminating Book.
Are you an Arab ? Do you speak Arabic ? The verse in context is refering to a Herald being sent to his nation and former Heralds that were sent to their nation.
Do you have a short attention span or is someone masquerading as your nick?
Did you not say every nation had been sent a herald
Did I not tell you by implication every nation has been sent a book
Did you not tell me to read the koran since if it is in the hadith you are ready to reject it as you have done all along ( it's plain laughable to tell me you accepted 95% of hadith when you rejected and or retranslated every single one):
It is interesting digging deeper in the hadiths to see why they ask these questions, the hadiths say that the first thing created was the pen and it wrote all that would happen, by default every prophet therefore has to have a book, (ofcourse h20 no doubt will tell you he doesn't believe those hadiths but those same hadiths are where he is getting his stance that all countries have been sent with messengers, a contradiction that only the lingeage of Jacob would have the prophetic lineage, and a contradiction with the koran where it mentions that Abraham and Ishmael and the sons of Jacob have prophetic lineage)
Let me remind you of what you said:
Maybe you should stop DIGGING in deep to Hadeeth and start DIGGING in deep to the Quran. What does the Quran say ?
Quote:
[35]Verily We sent you (Muhammad) with the truth as a Warner and a Herald, and there was no nation that a Herald didnt pass through it.
...
Sura 35:25 the very next verse says:
And if they treat thee as a liar, those who were before them also treated their Messengers as liars. Their Messengers came to them with clear Signs, and with the Scriptures, and with the illuminating Book
Have all nations been sent with heralds with books? yes or no?
As I said I am no longer addressing any of your arabic translational rhetoric until you prove you are an arabic scholar.