Questions/Comments on the Quran

Well if you believe "Yusef Ali's" translation - I have no arguments , as i i find a lot of flaws in it. peace sorry but what kindas of flaws do you find in it? is it in his choice of words or is it just that it's more modern and a bit English? I kinda like his interpretation because of his writing stlye, do know of any better one's I can check out, I like the Longfellow interpretation as well. what am I missing in the other interpretations?

You are absolutely right about dharaba, HP_TECH. It does mean alternatively highlight or to say about something prominently. If you reveal something as in exposure (make known) then the word is well used. If you go and complain about someone you may 'dharaba' them, revealing their true nature. The metaphorical application is that you "push the person forward" to cause them to be in the light (highlighted). Moses does put forth his rod towards and hardly strikes out in thin air towards the water. Same word is used when Moses is claimed to "strike" a rock, but he puts his rod forth rather than strike the rock. In the above occurrences 'dharaba' is used. Reflect. Dharaba does not imply striking at all, but unspecified movement towards any item, physical or abstract. You may use it to say you draw a sword and might put it forth towards a person, but it is not a slash. Could likely be used to say you put the edge towards someone's throat, but it does not say any more than that. Be safe Amenuel I agree. It is clear as a day that this ayat is talking about exposing a women to other family/friend members so they can give advice before they get a divorce (as in 435). The video of "scholar" is full of assupmtions to fit thier interpretation and yet stay "politically correct" and in the end he's talking about the adultery which is nowhere mentioned in the ayat I could point to many more contradictions in his lecture but I don't like long posts...and the "best" thing is when he says "God could've said this or that..." and later on he doesn't stick to that method all the way...

I think you must have not been reading my posts. I have posted a map showing the origins of Islam in detail, even twice. Proto-islam started when judeo-nazarenes started indoctrating their Arab neighbours. More specifically those in the Syrian desert eventually fleeing to Medina. http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Genealogy-Islam.PNG It is. The original message is from God. The Uthmanic Quran you dispose of today however contains many human adaptations. We don't know. All we know is Muhammad seems to have been influenced by a "waraqa" of Nazarene origin (making it probable Khadidja was Nazarene as well as she was related to "waraqa&quot. Soon after these events Muhammad became the commander of the Arabo-Nazarenes making attacks on the Holy Land. I agree the names are irrelevant. Quran hardly mentions those. All I was proving here is that one of the few occurrences of it in Quran has been tampered with to make Muhammad the paraclete Jesus was talking about. Peace yo this is backward

It is not so difficult to check Lane's lexicon which is a bridge between English and Classical Arabic. It does not teach much Arabic grammar though. Concerning lexical meaning you can see the word refers to the "clothing" of an object if looking in ancient lexicons, e.g. a human body. A garden could possibly be referred to as since it is a body of land within borders. Regarding Arabic grammar I am still researching. Things are not as they seem. Popular Arabic knowledge is erroneous to a large extent and grammar works differently in reality. But, with it still clearly gives reference to an object, a specific attachment or an uncountable attribute (singular). Be safe Amenuel

Peace Arnold and everyone, The Qur'an orders us to investigate nature so we can understand God and His System (3191), He also says there are no flaws in His Design (506), and that there is no change in His Kalimaat, Decrees and Blueprint of the Universe (1827). In 3030 He clearly states He will not change or replace the current Universe, as this is of the best design, la tabdeela means no substitute/replacement. And we know through studying the universe that it has fixed laws running it. Bringing all these together shows God works through the laws of the universe, and not simply with direct interference, breaking His own rules. As in the words of Paul Davies ?There is no doubt that, even in the crude form, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer applied to the laws of nature is far superior then the designer considered in the previous section (of his book red.), who violates the laws of nature from time to time by working miracles in evolutionary history. Design-by-laws is incomparably more intelligent than design-by-miracles. If I were an omnipotent being who wanted to make an inhabited universe like ours, and I could achieve this simply by conjuring up what I wanted when I wanted it, I wouldn?t regard my activities as very clever. But to select a set of laws that, without nay periodic fixing up and micromanagment, can bring a universe into being and bring about self-organisation, self-complexification and self-assembly of life and conciousness-well, that looks very clever indeed! So the ?intelligent?design beloved of the Intelligent Design movement strikes me as not very intelligent at all, in contrast to a designer of laws of nature which by themselves have such astonishing creative ability without the need for intervention and miracles. Intelligent design of the laws does not conflict with science, because it accepts that the whole universe runs itself according to physical laws, and that everything that happens in the universe has a natural explanation. There are no miracles other than the miracle of nature itself." So God's reaction towards Zulm, oppression, is already laid out in the laws of the universe. This does not mean God already pre-destined the punishment for this specific people at the beginning of the universe. God gave us freewill and endless possibilities to choose from, and He will fix not these choices for us. These are just simple laws of cause and effect that will react to any violation of human rights. Interesting post. And interesting quote from Paul Davies's book "The Goldilocks Enigma." The notion that either God intervenes in all human affairs, or he doesn't intervene at all, might be an either/or fallacy (false dilemma). I recommend this post http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606704.msg379805#msg379805

Peace bro You are most welcome Sorry but you are wrong because you have completely overlooked the word "ARSALNA" as such, you have read the verse out of context. The word not only means send but also if you read it in context, it means, "to keep up a correspondence / message, to exchange message / letters, to send to one another message / letters". Considering the fact that the verse itself mentioned about the language of the messenger and his people and to make things clear to his people, how shall the messenger convey the message in a language where his people could not be able to comprehend? From the verse which I quoted, i believe the Quran was not only sent down in Arabic but also in other languages, Sorry, but i do not see any logic... May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr insha ALLAH Peace bro Salaamun bro, These are the few places where the word ARSALNA is used 06006 07133 07162 Which simply says that the word ARSALNA = WE SENT. You cannot insert message in these aayaat bro. May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr mmKhan

Hi Good Logic, Thanks for your clarification for this matter. This question arise when I read a Malay translation which refer a beacon/light to prophet Muhammad. Thanks again

He was the last Messenger towards sons of Iesraa'eel. To know the time gap between him and Musa alahissalam pl consult 287 I dont think so, QS4V163 - I, We have revealed to you, as We revealed to Noah and the Prophets after him, that is, we inspired to Abraham and Ishmael, and Ishaq and Yaqub and the Tribes AND Esa and Aiyub and Yunus AND Harun and and Sulaiman, and We gave Davud a Portion of the Book. The prophets highlighted in Green are from the family of Abraham, while the Prophets highlighted in blue and purple are from the family of Amran. We all know that Harun was the brother of Musa, as such, we should be able to comprehend that he lived much earlier than than Esa. And also from the verse highlighted in purple, Harun was mentioned first, showing that he was the father of Davud and grandfather of Sulaiman. respectively although Sulaiman was mentioned first before Davud. From the verse highlighted in blue, Esa was mentioned first, as such, he was the forefather of Aiyub and Yunus! From this verse we would be able to see that the mother of Esa, Maryam, was the sister of both Musa and Harun. It is plausible that Maryam was the brother of Harun and half brother of Musa, considering the fact that she was called "Sister of Harun". Peace

In a post in this thread, I shared some of the teachings of the Quran. I would like to share another teaching from the Quran in this thread. Forced marriages are incompatible with islam Quran 2433 Let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. If those whom you have over them contractual rights seek the signature, then sign with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. Do not force your daughters into marriage when they have desired independence, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. But if anyone has compelled them, then considering their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

The qurnic term doesn't necessarily conjure up a negative connotation (on its own), had it been the case, the author wouldn't have added to it (in 3543). Ergo., vb. "deceive;" n. "deceit" & the attribute "best of deceivers" ... mkr underwent pejoration, & came to mean 'guile' in modern/post-quranic Arabic. Hope this helps @Yosemite. Slm

i recommend giving any of the following a try.. free-minds - http//tinyurl.com/free-minds-quran-pdf Muhammad Asad - http//tinyurl.com/M-Asad-Quran-translation-pdf Reformist - http//tinyurl.com/E-yuksel-reformist-quran-pdf Rashad Khalifa - http//tinyurl.com/r-khalifa-testament-pdf

I mean this ahleaqal.blogspot.com? No nothing to do with that website. However, here is an aid for any Ahleaqal's Aqal. In case they want to use it to over bewilderment of "how come"? 1071 Have you reflected about one who habitually gives untrue account whether intentionally or unintentionally regarding the state of ?submission? and ?obedience?? Syntactical Explanation This is an interrogative verbal sentence with a relative sentence/clause. Grammatical/Lexical Explanation The red is letter of interrogation, it followed by in black verb and in green is suffixed second person pronoun. This as a whole is a verbal sentence. Its meanings ?Have you reflected?. The verb root is Ra-Alif-Ya, its meanings ?he saw, considered or reflected?. This is a conjunctive/relative noun and used here substantively. It is relative sentence?s/clause?s subject or . Its meanings ?he who? This is a third person imperfect verb (second form) in nominative case. It is predicate or of the relative sentence. The verb root is ?Ka-Thal-Ba?. It means ?he told untrue account whether intentionally or unintentionally?. Since it is the second form which would add meanings of repeatedly or frequently to the root. Hence, habitually is added in translation. This is a combination of a preposition ?Ba? followed by a definite noun from root ?Dal-Ya-Noon? It is compound or phrase called . This in syntax constitute, about the predicate or . The root meanings ?he became lowly or submissive or obedient?. 1072 As a consequence of this action such an individual is driven into the isolation. Syntactical Explanation This is a copulative nominal sentence. Grammatical/Lexical Explanation The beginning is with copulative particle ?Fa?. This is followed by a demonstrative noun meaning ?this? which is the subject or of the sentence. The copulative particle ?Fa? usually connects two clauses, showing that the latter is immediately subsequent to the former in time, or that it is connected with it by some internal link, such as that of cause and effect. It may be rendered as ?consequently?. However, this demonstrative noun ?this? can only make sense, if bring forward the concept that ?fa? is connecting ?this? with. Hence, translation of ?As a consequence of this? This what? The action clause before. The action of submission and obedience. Therefore, meanings of ?as consequence of this preceding action?. This is a relative clause or sentence. It as a whole constitute as the predicate or of the nominal sentence. However, it has its own part being clause or sentence. is a conjunctive noun used substantively as subject or as of relative sentence. It is connecting/relating some concept from previous verse. Hence, it is translated as ?such an individual?. This an imperfect verb in indicative case. It is predicate or of the relative sentence. It is root is ?Dal-Ayn-Ayn? meanings ?he pushed or repelled or drove?. Finally is which is definite noun. This in syntax constitute, about the predicate or of relative sentence. The root is ?Ya-Ta-Miim?, its root meanings, ?he became isolated or solitude?. 173 So, one doesn?t rise with passion against the subsistence of perpetual oppression and humiliation. Syntactical Explanation This is a copulative and negative sentence. Grammatical/Lexical Explanation ?Waw? is a copulative particle. It is followed by a negative particle ?La?. ?waw? is translated as ?so? and ?La? as does not. This is an imperfect third person singular verb in indicative case. Its root is ?Ha-Dad-Dad?. Its meaning is ?he instigated or rouse with ardor?. It has third person pronoun built in it as subject or agent of the sentence or . It is particle with several meanings, due context ?against? is used. It is It is a phrase or .. It is combination of two nouns, first is from root ?Tay-Ayn-Miim?. It is an adjective at the measure of . Its root has several meanings, however due context ?subsistence? as used. The second noun is definite noun from root ?Siin=Kaf-Nun?. It is at measure of which is adjective meaning doing something like machine, mechanically or habitually. The root meaning ?lowliness, humiliation, oppression or poverty of mind. The meanings of perpetual is added from measure?s meaning. This is syntactically called ?about subject or verb/action? or 1074 Therefore, great sorrow is for such deluded individuals. Syntactic Explanation This again a copulative sentence. Grammatical/Lexical Explanation The beginning is with copulative particle ?Fa? explained above. It followed by interjection meaning ?Alas, Woe or great sorrow?. There are three words in this apparently one word. At start, is a preposition with several meanings due context, ?for? is selected. It makes a phrase or compound as . It is followed by definite article ?Al?, although if preposition ?Lee? is prefixed the ?Alif? of ?Al? is dropped in spelling. This followed by an adjective from root ?Sad-Lam-Ya? verb form II. It is plural and in genitive case due preposition ?Lee?. Its root meaning is ?he deluded or deceived? 1075 These are neglectful and heedless about that which is conspicuous for them. Syntactical Explanation This is relative clause or sentence. Grammatical/Lexical Explanation This is relative noun plural used substantively. It is also subject or of relative sentence. Since it relates to antecedent which is in the previous verse and is definite noun i.e., . The predicate or of this relative sentence is . This is active participle in nominative case from root ?Siin-ha-Waw?. It?s root meanings is ?he was neglectful or heedless?. This is third person plural noun. It is used as used ?separator? . It separates the from another relative clause . It is a phrase or compound called as . This is a preposition with several meanings but due context ?about? is used in translation above. It is called in grammatical terms as . Whereas, is itself a phrase called . It has two parts. First is genitive noun from root ?Sad-Lam-Ta? followed by third person plural noun. The root ?Sad-Lam-Ta? means ?it was conspicuous or clear?. Together these two words form a as well of the . Since it is separated from antecedent and the antecedent is indefinite. The rule of language dictates that there will be no copulative or relative noun. However, when translated into English it will need one. Hence, words ?that which? are used in translation above. 1076 These are the ones who keep reflecting. Syntactic Explanation This again a relative nominal sentence. Grammatical/Lexical Explanation Same explanation as previous verse. It as copulative or relative noun and is referring to ?ones to whom it is conspicuous? in the previous verse. It is third person plural noun. It is used here for emphasis and hence word ?the? is used in translation. It is imperfect third person plural verb (form III). Its root ?Ra-Alif-Ya?. Its meanings ?he saw, considered or reflected?. It syntactically the predicate or of the sentence. 1077 Therefore they keep guarding with the great attentiveness. Syntactical Explanation Since it has copulative particle at the start, practically it is part of previous verse. Grammatical/Lexical Explanation The copulative particle at the start ?Waw?, translated as ?therefore?. It is followed by a third person plural imperfect verb from root ?Miim-Nun-Ayn?. Its meanings ?he remained prevented or guarded?. This is followed by a definite noun from root ?Miim-Ayn-Nun?. Its root meaning ?attentiveness?.

Salute my sister As there is much Logomachy, I suggest working on a quranic lexicon first. The meaning/s of each quranic term/locution need to be objectively studied/scrutinized (in the quranic writ & the shemitic tree). Slm I agree. sun

sorry i didn't finish the post i'm just checking back, i was going to say does anyone have a problem with denatured meat, just to hear some opinions. i think horse meat would need to be denatured it's going to be pretty much all muscle, i've be building strength and of course you think that eating raw meats are going to great but even sushi is denatured by vinegar and salt. does anyone think that your metabolism and body functions determine just how your body fights an organism, if i were a giant could i eat only raw meat my body is just a fuel burning mass of muscle? say alcohol which is a poison, the bigger you are the less damage it will do (unless you increase the amount) but if two men of the same weight yet different fitness builds were to spin around in circles will the more fit man fall over. also yeah i think people die from diseases and e.coli because they are to weak has a bull ever died from e. coli (a healthy bull) you hear about mad cow but not mad bull...maybe it's because bulls are always angry. don't forget we are also subject to darwin's fitness test lolz

nice i remember that verse i have the yusef ali quran it's "deface the fair nature" slitting the ear is like branding or marking them like our cows can graze together but mine are the ones with slit ears or my name branded on them. i say if it's to mark them off as your cattle your placing your mark on them, like it your tattoo said ranch property then that would affect your life and the fair nature you once had, even on a women a tattoo would deface her she could be treated differently and end up in sin just because stereotypes and superstitions following the marking.

Yea I have tried playing around with the translation file but it causes errors

hawk99 and JavaLatte, rotfl

Where exactly do you get your assumption that the Quran is older than we thaught? if anything it confirms that the Quran came when it is generaly excepted that it did to the Prophet Muhammad Assumption? Lol....it is not assumption, it is the truth. Its all in the Quran. You just need to scrutinize the verses, including watching out for the tenses. Further, the Quran 0544 !, We sent down the Taurat, in it Guidance and light; judge them by it the Prophets, those who had submitted, that is, those who were Jews. And the Rabbis, and the scholars, with what they were entrusted of Book (of) ALLAH and they were to it witnessess... The above verse proofs that all Prophets, their job is to protect the Book of ALLAH against any distortion, corruption, so on and so forth... So it does not make any sense if the Last Prophet was sent down 300 years after the creed of Nicene which means the Prophet was sent when the Book had already been distorted? What protection can he gave when the Book that he was supposed to protect had already gone virus? It contradicts verse 0544.

I have interpreted bayt as "conceptualization", not sure if that is possible to compare with meditation. Be safe Amenuel

I think the 'ten' is metaphorical/sarcastic and is more geared towards the detractors of AQ. I am sure when The Messenger was revealing the message to others he had his skeptics and so on. Another way to read it 'oh you think I am making it up? Cool. Write ten more like it then.'