Questions/Comments on the Quran

The word , as it happens all the time with the Qur'an is a case with the tendency to assign proper names that bear not connection to their meaning, and many times to to understand that they do not come from Arabic, but are forewign words that are transcribed some way. In fact, if I am not seeing wrong, the word itself is a very common word pattern in Arabic of the same form as So if we look at the value of root lam-ya-seen, its meaning is given in the dictionnaries as "to be brave, valiant, courageous" , in form II, lam-ya-ya-seen, it would be "to stick to, to plaster..." So, in fact, Ilyas as character, whether single person or group, would be considered as a somebody distinguished by their courage and steafastness. So indeed I tend to agree withgood logic's take that the expression 'ill yaasin, two words, is a play of words to mean the people that as 'Ilyaas who were like him, stedfast and courageous. That is, he left spiritual inheritors. I do not see as a mere ressort to get out of a grammar or phonetical jam, but as an ingenious way to express a spiritual tradition of which 'ilyaas would be the mark and example. And 'Ilyaas is not foreign word but a clear marking of the distinguished trait of one of the prophets and his following. It is a proper name, but a meaning that has become a proper name for their holders. Salaam Salaam

Fight those who fight you is also a highly misinterpreted verse, which people believe justifies the so called "defensive war". I already wrote a bit about it here before, I will repeat there is no way a community will remain unbiased when it comes to a war. What is a defensive war? They have applied some economic sanctions on us so let us nuke them? Secondly, you cannot build an army based on Qur'an only, you need side literature and other socio-political instruments in order to do that. Either Qur'an or various legal acts that describe penalties for all sort of criminal, economic, administration and other forms of violations. Thirdly, no peaceful community will stand against an army which is trained and has access to weapons. Qur'an is not about any form of socio-political regulation be it the state or a hippy-like community, it is a book for personal wisdom no matter what culture or the state or the community or whatever you belong to. So any verses that hint to any form of social regulation are severely mistranslated. There is nothing to protect and no one to fight against. People are merely dust, and dying in the cause of Allah means sacrificing one's own life to prevent evil, not to fight in a war. If you read verses 474-5 very carefully and unbiased you will understand what I am talking about, unless of course you are too biased with traditional interpretations of anything. I could not care less if my country was destoryed since it never was there, there are no borders, they were created artificially. Next I would also like to bring in the verse of the Qur'an which states, take the best from the law. I can't recall the verse number now, but just like with most controversial things in the Qur'an the reader is required to apply his morals and mind in order to understand. In the eye for an eye it clear says it is better for you to abstain from your "right" to revenge, and many other verses have similar pattern of first, making you think you are allowed to something, but then telling you what is better. While I believe it is a translational bias, I also think the Qur'an is based in the code-like structure, so even a highly perverted translation will allow a righteous person understand the meaning, not matter how perverted the translation is (and it is). There are no four wives as the limit to marriage (4129). You can have as many wives as you want, but that would also mean that you disobey the kitab, since having many wives automatically means having slaves/workers to exploit since that sort of a project would require tremendous amount of resources and no man can raise that much by working for his own sake. And having slaves or being a lord for someone is violation of other verses. If there is a limit of four wives, please tell me how many wings do angels have (351)? Also, many people critisize tradition of abrogation, but that's what Gerrans does. Look at his 2189 - he translates it as pilgrimage, but at the same time he outlines that it is forbidden to apporach al masjid al haram. That is inconsistency. So the verse is there, but it is forbidden? That is abrogation. That being said, you did not convince me nor did you understand the verse in the subject due to personal bias and unclear "bigger picture", such as the problem of "abrogation" and the naive belief in the defensive wars. I am not saying you have mentioned hajj or abrogation, but if you believe Sam Gerrans on some topics you know his stance on the al masjid al haram, and I know many Qur'an alone followers also follow this opinion. So Qur'an is not preserved and can be abrogated? And I never do that, but I will do it now, in conclusion I will quote something some of you might be pissed off at. I will just leave it here for you to contemplate on Thou have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

Quran is not a 'living being' it doesn't say anything. In Wakas' style, bring 5 strong points to prove it. Hint You contradicted yourself

Salam, huruf Who benefits from this the most? When you see, for example, a bunch of ISIS idiots destroying the artifacts of Iraq, I think the answer is very obvious The so-called "State of Israel" an entity built on a religious lie. And they know this very well. Deep down, they know that they have no basis for their existence in the region. Therefore, they want to wipe out those testaments in Iraq, written in stone, which will expose them. They destroy the large pieces (which cannot be moved), and they steal the smaller artifacts and sell them in the black market, or put them on display in the museums of Europe, where people can look at them from afar, and not think too deeply about their true nature. I have even read reports that they put them under the soil of Palestine, in order to "discover" them there in the future. The Wahabi state they call "Saudi Arabia" what is this state? It has no cultural depth at all. Ruled by a family of mental retards who have no constitution to speak of, no civil law, and no culture other than the Petro-Dollar and sitting around feast tables of rice and meat. There is a psychological inferiority complex the Wahhabis have with all the countries around them that actually have a historical and cultural depth (Iraq-Syria-Yemen). These countries must be destroyed, they must be maintained in a state of strife and internal warfare for all eternity, their culture must be obliterated, in order for the world's attention to be diverted from the real issue that continues to gnaw at the consciousness of the Saudis that they have no history, and no real cultural depth. The only thing they desperately cling to is a cube-shaped room, 11 meters in length, covered with a piece of black cloth, which their ancestors claimed is the House of God. This, and their filthy Petro-Dollar is the only thing that sustains the life of pomp, whoring and prostitution that their princes want to maintain. Do not fall for their propaganda, when they say that they want to "save Yemen" from the spread of Persian influence. This is only a cover used to conceal their true intention to mask their false history by destroying all the centers of real civilization around them. In order for the Gulf countries to continue to exist, and for their Petro-Dollar to be sustained, and for them to continue building their sky-scrapers and towers, they must turn Iraq, the Levant, and Yemen into a hell. But God is watching, and he is preparing a surprise for them. They can plan and scheme all they want, but they cannot fool humanity forever. Peace. Indeed brother of Mankind. Like your books by the way! It's interesting

I think 434 does pose a problem for most Quran based islam translators, hence variation/etc but that is probably because they haven't read www.Quran434.com kathalika yadribu Allahu al haqqa wa al batila = in this way God propounds/cites the truth and the falsehood For this verse some use "collides", "puts/shows forth" (e.g. Ibn Kathir), "points out" (e.g. Al Jalalayn). and It is interesting to note from (11) and (12) that in similar contexts, The Quran switches from a non-literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. indicate) to a literal/physical use of DRB (e.g. strike / put forth / point out), by stating what the physical objects are and their interaction with the preposition "bi (with/by)". The only verses in which the preposition "bi" is used with DRB are 2431, 5713, 2663, 260, 7160, 273, 3844, 3793, and in all these occurrences the meaning is a physical usage wal yadribna bi khumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna = and let them draw/cast with their covers over/on their chests wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna = and let them not strike/stamp/move with their feet fa duriba baynahum bi soorin = then put forth between them with a wall idrib bi AAasaka al bahra fa infalaqa = strike with your staff the sea, then it split/separated idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa infajarat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then vented from it (twelve springs) idrib bi AAasaka al hajara fa inbajasat min hu = strike with your staff the rock, then gushed from it (twelve springs) idriboohu bi baAAdiha = cite /point out him with some of it (the murder) Wa khuth bi yadika dighthan fa idribbihi wala tahnath = And take with your hand a handful, then collide /put forth with it, and do not incline towards falsehood Fa ragha AAalayhim darban bi al yameeni = then he turned upon them striking with the right hand There are two verses that may need clarification 273 should be noted that a murder/crime is something specific and a real world tangible object and thus can be referred to as such. This might offer a possible reason as to why 273 was traditionally translated as it was, because if a murder/crime was not seen as a valid object/reference to DRB with, then the only other valid object would be the dead heifer. 3844 the act of DRB upon what/whom is not specifically mentioned, thus several interpretations may have existed at the time. Once the true context and meaning is identified as shown previously, this aspect becomes self explanatory and what/whom is not needed.

Root Words from this Root in the Grand Qur'aan a) Total occurrences 92 b) No of constructions 31 Nouns 12 Recurrence 48 Verbs 19 Recurrence 44 It occurs in 87 Ayahs of 49 Chapters. Ibn Faris stated ( &#1577 That it denotes any kind of adoration, magnificence, servitude, allegiance, or cult; and secondly any kind of effort, attempt and pursuit. The perception infolded in the Root reveals that its verbs will be in the category of normal verbs which are action verbs that carry a great deal of information in a sentence and can convey emotion and a sense of purpose that extends beyond the literal meanings of the words. An effort, attempt or pursuit is result - accomplishment oriented. Its focus is to achieve a purpose, an object or destination.

Thanks for the link.

According to Quranix.org that noun is masculine. And as an aside Shabbir Ahmed interpreted "it" as "Quran." No, it is feminine. Cross check from 655 where it is subject of feminine verb.

Peace Mazhar. I am glad you have checked my count. Thank you for confirming the overall total of 57. My apologies for verse 38 mistake. Can I ask why you requested such a count? GOD bless you. Peace. I want to have data of every consonant arranged in a table by ayah and progressive total for ease of cross check. Also, side by, mention of consonant with shadda, which makes the count slightly different but it helps how many times we pronounce its sound. If you have it, kindly share.

I want to post some more verses in the same spirit as the OP. 8416 Oh, I call to witness the twilight/rosy afterglow of sunset ("al shafaq.&quot 8417 And the night ("al layl) and all that it envelops/enshrouds. Al shafaq and al layl used separately - and night given a description of total darkness/covering with darkness.

http//www.haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/001.%20Al%20Fateha/1.04a.gif ?the Sovereign - the adjudicating Authority on "The Day of Judgment and Requital". These three words constitute two successive possessive phrases. Since the last possessive noun is definite, the first two nouns are also definite by construct. Grand Qur'aan is par excellence in self-referencing. This grammatical unit is mentioned once and what is signified by it is also the solitary event and the solitary day. It is excerpted from the information given later Contd Grammatical unit 6 of Divine Discourse

I think many men would avoid the lower regions of a woman during her menstruation whether or not a religious writing allegedly speaks anything about it. It is pretty much common sense and lame to have a writing point that out. If people still do get involved in the activity that is up to them. If anything it would be completely a health question and you can probably find answers in medical studies on the topic. But my best qualified guess is that the substances exiting the lower region are only somewhat (in my opinion) disgusting. Also, the substances come from something that would become a new life if fertilized, so it would seem strange if this was contagious or dirty, because if it was unclean then it would be a health risk for the woman. Concerning approaching women, it is always a matter whether the woman wishes that or not and there is never any absolute right for a man to approach a woman. I can understand a woman would not want something inserted during the period. Be well Qarael Amenuel

Salaam Sardar, Thank you for the lovely welcome and I am so pleased you enjoyed the post. Regards, Janet

peace all, There has been independent studies of revelation order based on analysis of chapter content (e.g. see chapter 7 of "Introduction to Quran" by Richard Bell, or chapter 2 of "Discovering the Quran" by Neal Robinson). Read/download here http//www.islam-and-muslims.com/islamic-books-online.html https//www.scribd.com/document/60357048/Bell-s-Introduction-to-the-Quran-Revised-by-Montgomery-Watt

Hi All, Humans have a habit of having names after animals and birds; for individuals as well as for the groups and tribes. Ant is English translation of the word Namal of Arabic language; it is a fact that a tribe or people existed at that time of Solomon with this name; and the name still exists; one could find it on the internet Namal Lake is located in Rikhi, a village on one corner of the Namal valley in Mianwali, Punjab, Pakistan. Namal College Namal University Namal Village Malik Moazzam Khan Namal, name of an individual. Any comments? Salaam It could be name of a tribe and some scholars of Quran have already interpreted these ayats as such like Parwez Ahmad and Dr Shabbir. Regards

Thank you wakas n huruf for input

I am talking about battle field. But well, all the countries always seem to say "they are defending themselves". If everyone is okay with that kind of description I don't see why the defense verses in Quran can be taken as questionable. Because there is that tendency to impose on humans in theory, a kind of "goodness" that in reality nobody would put up with and would repell them altogether. You may give the other cheek, but how many cheeks does one have, and would one give her own cheek and also the cheek of her children, when it is her or his duty to defend those children and even sacrifice her or himself for them? That would not be goodness but cowardice ad irresponsibility. What would be attained with that would not be peace but utter abject oppression and probably more death than otherwise. Power thirst has no limits. Salaam

..........2124 ........ ........ ........ 2125 ....... ........... 2127 In all above verses you can see a " " is written on top of Ibraheem. SO I guess it is different Arabic writing but question is why two different styles in the same copy of Quran. I think the oldest copy of Quran as posted by Noon should be taken as correct and it shows ibraheem Peace

Salam, In both verses the Arabic word " " which means "or" it never means "and". There is a much difference. If you read Quran it only allow sexual intercourse with marriage which is supported by Quranic verses 43, 24, 25 and 2432. Therefore, it is a misconception that sexual intercourse with one's slave is permitted without marriage. It is my interpretation and you don't have to agree with me. Regards, NK No doubt, no woman is permissible except after Nikah. " " is also used as "and/or". Or restricts the choice to either which is not the intended meaning. It is explained in the given link in my earlier post.

Thank you!!! No worries just doing my service to Allah (SWTY) ) group