Liberate wrote:Any rational individual is wondering why you are translating words differently to those of recognised scholars and claiming seasoned islamic scholars
H2O wrote:..its just a matter of choice of words to express the Arabic having the same denotation.
As in regards of certain words yes I would say there is a difference. One example is the translation of the Arabic word "nutfah" some translate it as a mingled drop, or sexual discharge. This is their interpretation and not a literal meaning of the word. We translate it as " a trickler or a thing that trickles" which is more the literal meaning of the word rather than interpretation.
Who are we?
Numerous times you have mentioned 'we' when talking about your translations, is this a royal we? did you make a typo, you have said it several times now for it to become very unlikely a typo
How many people am I talking to?
You, humble guest and your wives?
In order to distinguish a translators interpretation of a word or a literal rendering, you would have to know Arabic which is not upon you
Guess we are back to square one. In your discussions with everyone so far regarding arabic you stress how much arabic you know, and how little the other side knows. You even suggest everybody who has translated the koran did not know and understood the koran properly, you even suggested Yusuf Ali a Cambridge graduate didn't know english properly. Tell me something why should anybody believe you are more versed in arabic and it's interpretation than Sher Ali, Yusuf Ali, Hilali and Khan, Pickthal, Ibn Kathir et al?
WHERE ARE YOUR ARABIC SCHOLAR QUALIFICATIONS TO DISMISS THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THESE SCHOLARS AS FOOLISHNESS?
. The difference of words we chose contrary to what other scholars rendered is no different from our example of the translators in the above posts who contradicted each other. Question is which translation is accurate? As for you, you would choose the one that will suit you better, even after you know other scholars translated something else different.
So since they contradict each other, they have in effect knocked themselves out and left your interpretation as the correct one? How about adding another probability into the mix, that you are in error too, have you thought about that?
H2O Quoted Quran:
YUSUFALI: To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
Liberate Wrote:
Now you are interpolating your own meaning into Yusuf's Ali's translation? I wonder why you did that , this is what it says:
10:47 To every people (was sent) an apostle: when their apostle comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
As you no doubt are aware apostle is a strictly greek term and is only used for the original disciples of Jesus, so if we take this verse to it's logical conclusion all the apostles went to every nation on earth?
Well here we go. If I remember correctly you posted up the meaning of the word "
rasool" to mean "messenger" sometime back in which the Arabic of 10:47 says " wa li-kulli ummatir-
rasool....". So even though its wrong to translate "rasool" as apostle rather than "messenger" you still use this as an advantage to criticize the Quran when in fact its the translators error not the Quran. SO your criticism is not on Quran but on the translator
You were so convinced that whatever I translate is wrong but the translators are right but yet they still contradict each other in translation so you use a translation that you can use to your advantage.
So now you went for the long shot, you claim I Interpolated the translation of Yusuf and made some changes so you can justify your wishful thinking ideas. These are the links to those translations:
YUSUFALI: To every people (was sent) a
messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/010.qmt.html
second source for Yusuf
[47] To every people (was sent) a
Messenger: when their Messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
http://quran.al-islam.com/Targama/DispT ... a=47&t=eng
They all use "messenger" ~ rasool, so tell me who made the change now ? It sounds like someone is trying to appeal to a Christian mentality, I sigh at them for having such inclination
This is the problem with islam. I am arguing with you based on rationality you are arguing with me based on legalism, and semantics. Let us say that the koran says it is ok to rape captured women (which it does). If I was to tell you to prove to me that this is in the koran, you would happily go about and search for the aforementioned verse come back to me and say there I found it I believe in it because it is in the koran I have proved my point you have been shown for not reading the koran you don't understand arabic ... It doesn't occur to you the irrationality of what you have just done, you are giving me something completely irrational, immoral, just plain strange if coming from the same God we serve but since it is in your holy book it is incumbent on you to believe in it no matter how ridiculous it sounds, reason is out of the window, morality is out of the window, no matter how ridiculous since it is in the koran you are obliged to follow it.
Even if your koran has a statement that messengers have been sent to every nation on earth? Is it logical? Does it make a modicum of sense? Where are the evidences for these messengers for every single nation? Surely they would be stories afloat from tribes and civilisations left right and centre of the messengers with their holy scriptures and divine book telling them to follow allah.
Let us take the case of the flood in the Old Testament. Now if such an occurence occurred then we should expect to hear stories from several civilzations of a similar Genesis flood event from several tribes the world over (as every ancestor should trace their origins to this flood), it would be rational to expect such stories what do we hear:
In every continent there are legends of a great flood that only a few individuals and their families survived, in india the man identified is known as Manu who put his family in a ship, from the chinese he is known as Fuhi, from the Aztecs he is known as Tapi, from Scandanvia he is known as Noe, the Incas, Aborigines, and parts of Africa all have a very very similar Genesis flood story.
What about this stupendous claim from the koran that allah sent messengers to every nation, yet there is no evidence for these mass prophets from anywhere? apart from the plagiarised biblical prophets where are these prophets?
Not to mention that the reason why I confronted you over the issue was to show you just how illogical your koran only stance is?
If you are going to argue that if hadiths contradict the koran (in your opinion) you are going to reject it thats your perogative (
in that case you are going to have to reject several hadiths some of them puitting Mohammed in a good light for example every single hadith that talks of Mohammed's miracles because the koran said he didn't do any), what about in areas where the koran and the hadiths match up, the story of the sun running it's course to give an example:
"And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (Q. 6: 38)
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Narrated Abu Dhar:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (Q. 6: 38)
It is an illogical story. What do you do? It is incumbent upon you to believe it, this is the word of allah but you know it is stupidty so what do you do? Re-interpret and insult anybody else over their knowledge of arabic (be it Ibn Kathir or Mohammed himself) who confronts you over it. It reeks of desperation and I have to wonder what on earth you are doing in a religion if you'd rather re write the religion than follow it's decrees.
If you honestly expect to get brownie points for proving the stupidity of your koran be my guest.
BTW
www.quranbrowser.org Yusuf Ali's sura 10:47 says apostle.
Liberate wrote:Look who is talking, which koran should I read don't they all have terrible translations?
Read the preface to each translation, the translations are not the Quran, but are their interpretation. Also I have no need for a translation, you do, but you pick and choose which one you want that appeals to your criticism.
Do you recall telling me that quranic arabic is different from modern arabic? Does it even occur to you why the scholars say it so? Quranic arabic does not conform to the rules of arabic what you get is a series of contradictions ridiculous comments and an erratic commentary not knowing which individual is speaking in the first, second and third person. Do you honestly believe the copy in heaven of the koran is this erratic? Are you that gullible?
Liberate wrote:Here is more from the article:
A German academic fears a violent backlash from orthodox Muslims because of his "blasphemous" theory that the Koran has been changed and revised. Such a backlash is not to be taken lightly; the Salman Rushdie affair is a solemn reminder of the power of an angry Muslim community. After the author wrote his novel satanic verses, which was considered by Muslims to be blasphemous, a fatwa , or religious decree, was pronounced against him in 1989 that left him fearing for his life. Rushdie has only recently reappeared in public after nearly 10 years in hiding.....
It is
nice[!!!] to see this garbage article again which has already
been trashed on another forum not related to freejesus forum (See Quote in Blue below) ~ which are the comments made about that article on
http://forums.about.com/ab-islam/messages under Quran & Sunnah/Burning of the Quran
If an article from a respected scholar gets trashed in a
forum it means what? the article has no credibility?
I my self have been tracing Puin, he hasnt come up with anything else. As a matter of fact in the same article he was offered a challenge on safe grounds for a debate with a scholars on the issue and Mr Puin has remained Mute ever since. Continueing where Liberate left off in the the original post.
Maybe Puin knows what 'safe' in islam is, it is ok in islam to lie, to deceive, and then to spring a surprise mujaheddin attack in the name of islam, I am sure Puin was aware of this, the same with Suliaman Bashear the scholar who was thrown from a second storey window by his students for suggesting the koran was created gradually rather than direct from allah.
..This is blasphemy, according to orthodox Muslims, and is not entirely accepted by other academics...
That is all you needed to say, that tells us the individual saying it is a muslim and is not looking at the article in an objective manner.
...next are the comments ellaborated on it from another Forum [Let me guess these are objective scholars on these forums ]spoken of above:
Its is clear Puin accusation are THEORIES and not FACTS. He even admits that the copy he stumbled upon is DEFECTIVE. He complains about TEXTUAL VARIANCES not word differences. [It is defective because every 5th word doesn't make any sense]
...As for the statement of the Quran being written in the Purest of Arabic is an exageration even by muslims of what the Quran actually says that was fuel for Puin and Critics of islam to burn. Allah states that the Quran is "arabiyyin mubeenin" ~ clear Arabic (Ref. 26:195...16:103...) so that Arabic Speaking people may understand it (Ref. 43:3)
Didn't you say earlier arabic people do not understand quranic arabic? If you want to post rebuttals that contradict what you say be sure to get your lies in order.
I would like to know how did THEORY turn into FACTS. The article says over and over THEORY but Liberate takes it as FACTS
Do you realise he is the only scholar to be allowed access to those koranic manuscripts (precisely because he is one of the most respected in his field)? and he has been denied further access by the Yemeni authorities because of his FINDINGS not theories. Maybe he should act like most western scholars collect lots of money from the Saudi government proclaiming the miracles of the koran such as the fly and the poison and antidote on it's wings but never becoming a muslim.
Liberate wrote:Why should anyone believe a word of the above, when you have no arabic scholar qualifications to say any of this, where are your credentials?
Why should someone believe a word you say who has never read the Quran but still makes blind comments about it, who has studied criticism about islam but has not cared to hear the objective to it. As I said long time before if it is something against islam you believe if it something for islam you disreguard as false.
As to the matter of Tahkeel or diacritical marks introduced to the written script of the Quran during the development of the Arabic script it self is irrelevant when the preservation of the Quran was more dependant on orally than it was by writing
Let me get this straight people who can't read or write somehow are going to produce perfect written documents from what they heard? The same document in heaven too, after Uthmann, Zaid, their scribes, Abu Bakr, Ali, Al Hajjaj, and two later imams in the 10th century handled and amended it, was allah also keeping up in heaven?
Liberate wrote:I suggest you read the history of arabic calligraphy and weep
I am laughing actually.
It tells a great deal about you, and your motives for being on this forum, you also chose to laugh when I confronted you about the fish liver being eaten in paradise, if you chose to make mockery of your religion that's up to you, it's your religion at least be sure your conscience is clear.
From
http://www.sakkal.com/ArtArabicCalligraphy.html :
With the increasing number of non-Arab Muslims, there was a greater need for facilitating reading and learning of Arabic. Since several letters of the Arabic alphabet share the same shapes, and since vowels are not clearly indicated, some reform was needed to avoid confusion, and a system of Naqt or I'jam (letter-pointing), and Tashkeel (vowel indication) was developed.
Abul Aswad al Du'ali (d. 688) was the legendary founder of Arabic grammar, and is credited with inventing the system of placing large colored dots to indicate the Tashkeel. It was used with the Kufic scripts, but proved to be somewhat cumbersome to use with smaller scripts, or in ordinary writing.
The Ummayad governor al Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al Thaqafi enforced a uniform system to distinguish letters by using dots, which he asked two of al Du'ali's students to codify.
Al Khalil ibn Ahmad al Farahidi (d. 786) devised a tashkeel system to replace Abu al Aswad's. His system was universally used since the early eleventh century, and included six diacritical marks:
Fathah (a), Dammah (u), Kasrah (i), Sukun (vowelless), Shaddah (double consonant), and Maddah (vowel prolongation) which is applied to the Alef.
... Al Khalil ibn Ahmad al Farahidi devised a tashkeel system to replace Abu al Aswad's. His system was universally used since the early eleventh century, and included six diacritical marks to indicate the small vowels attached to Arabic letters
Notice the dates, Mohammed was dead by 632AD, where was he when the Hajjaj and his scribes were adding to the koran?
Liberate wrote:the very next verse says if they reject Mohammed they rejected the messengers too and they came with scriptures and the divine book, this is the succeeding verse hence every nation has been sent a book and scriptures, is this not implied? yes or no?
The verse did not say The Messengers to imply all messengers sent by Allah, but says 35:25 makes an example using your preferenced translation
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
The verse is indefinite as to messengers whereas is only making an example of some of the prophets.
Remember long time ago what you said when we gave out perspective of the a bible verse you said :
I am going to say the same word in reverse " It takes a certain Christian arrogance to tell us our beliefs when it is clear you do not understand that verse. "
Thank You for you input and we have demostrated how much you would stretch your self to prejudice a book you have never read, cause if you did you would have found this [ Don't you mean you just found it? ].
No. It was bait on a hook, also I was too lazy to go look up those other verses, so I just quoted what I knew from memory in Arabic then translated but at the same time not being void of the other verses. I thought that would be sufficiant but apparently it wasnt cause you took it to such a extent as you made a statement about me and was caught red handed in prejudice and in wanton.
Liberate wrote:There is no evidence whatsoever every nation had an apostle or messenger or prophet
O yes there is , its called World Theology in comparitive religion. Care to explain how portion of Christian and Jewish beliefs and laws are in other religions that existed years before Judaism and Christianity.
Please read my fourth post in this thread. What Jewish and Christian laws and beliefs? Would you care to cite your sources pls your say so is inadequate. So allah sent prophets to all these countries to worship allah but in the end they all turned into other religions mostly pagans? You are arguing from circular logic, if everybody corrupted the true religion then the sikh, the Ba'hai can argue their religious figures held the true message and Mohammed corrupted it. Where is the evidence for the 124,000 prophets from allah with their scripture and divine books preaching the oneness of allah? You mean for 124,000 prophets there is no evidence for them apart from the plagiarised biblical prophets? Are you this gullible?
Liberate wrote:Again where does it say this: "all Heralds ie Prophets were not messengers. There are two types of Prophets. 1) Nabiy and 2) Rasoolan Nabiyyan. Some Heralds were only Prophets and some were Prophetic messengers."?
I posted the verses of the Quran for you, whats wrong cant you read ? Since we have disagreement as to translations ~ which they contradict each other, there can be no dispute or doubt about the Quran it self
Prophet ~ In English has multiple meanings http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... &x=12&y=16 . The common greek meaning is " one who for tells the future " ~ which can be applied to even a pagan in which the word is originally greek derived. In the Arabic language "Nabi" means "One who declares tidings and news from G-D" Ref. Edward Lane, Al- Mawrid, and Hans Wehr Arabic dictionaries and Lexicon.
So your question should first be what is our deffinition of "Prophet" which is obviously contrary to your dogma of the term whereas in islam it does not mean "one who prophecies ie a Seer"
Back to arguing in terms of semantics, in that case you are a prophet yes?