Questions/Comments on the Quran

are not shawls, the end of the story . rotfl

Dear bkanwar2 When I am talking or writing about Allah SWT in the English language, I have absolutely no problem using the term God in order to get a point across which relates to Allah SWT as the Lord of the Worlds, the Almighty, the Supreme, the Creator, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the One and Only, the Merciful, the Beneficent or any other of His attributes. Like I said before, for me, God is God when utilising the English language. I really am not going to investigate, lose sleep or debate until 'the cows come home' regarding the term God in the English language. It really is a simple concept. Once again 17110 Say "invoke God, or invoke the Most Gracious by whichever name you invoke Him, His are all the attributes of perfection. And be not too loud in thy prayer nor speak it in too low a voice, but follow a way in-between; Peace

I thought it was funny, but there's an obvious logical inconsistency. Hassan is an atheist so he's not concerned with maintaining any kind of theological integrity.

Please read the ayat in it's context. Before and after. In other words read way before 995 and then way after 995. You will understand it easier. Peace

Peace David, In 14 it is customary to imagine a "dagger alif" ( &#1577 in the word malik, though I'm not sure why. If you look at all the occurrences of the word, it is never spelled with an alif (http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?root=mlk#(141)) and in the well known chapter 114 we say, "malik al-nas" with a short vowel sound. In ancient times, normally not just short vowels but also long vowels wouldn't have been shown. The showing of long vowels in Semitic languages is a device called Matres Lectionis ( http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis ). The majority of the great reading doesn't use Matres Lectionis in the medial position but it does show some erratic use of Matres Lectionis even in the Medial position. For example, the word Sa7iBh in 940 shows no long vowel while in 7184 it shows a long vowel SaA7ibhim. http//www.salamiran.org/Religion/Quran/PAGE173.GIF http//www.salamiran.org/Religion/Quran/PAGE193.GIF What is even more strange is that not only the long Alif vowels are sounded but not written but some Alif are written but not sounded. For example, the final Alif in words like are silent and are not sounded at all. In this case the final Alif is not serving as a letter (whether consonant or long vowel) at all but almost like a vocalization mark indicating that the final Waw is pronounced as a long "ou" as opposed to a consonantal "w". So back to your comment about "mlk", I agree that in this case, whether it is "malik" or "maAlik" can be ambiguous, especially since, as far as I know, both would fit in the contexts. I would say that unless the context and common sense clearly suggests otherwise then there is no reason not to accept the present shown vocalization of "malik" and "maAlik" but there would be nothing wrong if one deviates from it. At the beginning of chapter 30 we hear about the Romans either losing then winning, or winning then losing, depending on how the words are read. The historical record should clear this matter up, though I have not sufficiently studied the matter to comment. The point is that identifying the point in history will help us read it correctly, not the vocalizations. I actually don't think that the historic record would clear this up in the way that you think by finding for example a neatly inscribed and detailed record of every battle won and lost by the Romans. This would be a rather optimistic and highly unusual thing to expect. What we need to do is to look at how the historic record interrelates not just from the military stand point but also from the social and religious points. As with any long-term conflict, the Romans undoubtedly won and lost several times. What we know historically is that in the end they lost and had to completely abandon their Eastern empire. We also know historically that after the Nicene and into the 6th century CE the Romans were intolerent of other creeds and even other sects within Christianity that they viewed as heretic. On the other hand, the Persians at that time were more tolerant of other creeds and therefore Jews and Christian sects such as Nestorians, which were viewed by the Romans as heretic took refuge in the Persian-affiliated Lakhmid areas of Arabia. The Romans in their writings about the war complain about being invaded and defeated by an alliance of Arabs, Jews and heretic Christians who took refuge in the Arabs' territory (see Hoyland, "Seeing Islam as Others Saw it&quot. Another interesting thing that a Roman chronicle mentions is that the Arab kingdom that conquered them began when Heraclius, king of the Romans, was in his eleventh year and Khusrau, king of the Persians, was in his thirty-first year and the Arabs began to carry out raids in Palestine. This translates to 620-21CE when according to traditions the prophet hadn't even emigrated yet! So the traditional chronology is probably skewed by about a dozen years and it is entirely possible that the chapter of the Romans is talking about battles where the prophet himself fought against the Romans. What we also know historically is that the Romans were Trinitarians. We know for sure that the word Christian is never mentioned in the great reading. Trinitarians are mentioned in 573 and are condemned as unappreciative rejecters. So when the great reading is talking about the "nasara", most likely this refers to the Nestorians who believed that Jesus is the human son of god but didn't believe him to be god like the Monophysites (572) and didn't believe in a Trinity like the Roman Trinitarians. So there is absolutely no reason for those who have faith to be happy when the Roman Trinitarians who are unappreciative rejecters win. So the context points to winning then losing. Peace, Ayman

1094 And if thou ( Muhammad ) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee , then question those who read the Scripture ( that was ) before thee . Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee . So be not thou of the waverers . 1095 And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah , for then wert thou of the losers . Is it possible for him to doubt and deny ? Peace jawad_mugniya, all How do you know that these verses are related to Muhammad from the context? or to him exclusively? I think that these verses are directed to the reader.

I suggested that instead of making a tune and start dancing presuming it from Qur'aan first read what the Qur'aan said. Wow, I never thought of that - thanks!

The narrator is not Allah, nor Sulaiman but a third person who is witnessing the mobilization of Sulaiman's army and describes what he sees, hears etc. Yes you are right the narrator is not Allah nor Suleiman . the narrator is Michael Emerson from the TV show LOST . He's very good at that !!!!! and you are completly "LOST IN TRANSLATION" Salam

Believers pronounce the above two statements. Why? {refer 5728] This is the linguistic understanding of this part of 5728. Radically different from which is being questioned above. O you sleepy inadvertent, whom ever want to be safe and secure. Be cautious of the fact that, One, is not a deity for worship and adoration. And in order to safe guard and secure yourself, come and be with the message and communication from the One and Only. Badar

And here's a question about Jahannum How can a God be both "The Most Merciful of those who show Mercy" yet torture billions of his creation for eternity?

Well I think you rightly objected to the POW translations but your translation isn't remotely similar. Can you explain the context for this aya please? One may read the verses in sequence http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/033.%20Al%20Ahzaab/033.%20C%20Al%20Ahzaab.htm

It is also forbidden Munzir. It is the action of the kaffir. Imitating the kaffir is haram so, if you do it, Allah and Muhammad will hate you. But I'm a hippie. O0 >D

It makes you wonder about global warming .... sun

Peace, I think it means slaves.

In terms of physical copy, the one I read the most is by M. Abdel Haleem, mainly for its easy readability. I bought the Haleem version on the recommendation of quranicpath.com and have enjoyed it so far.

Bro Latif since you are back on this forum. Let us discuss this word further for mutual benefits. Please, see concerns I have. Badar

Brother Latif, just replace all place of Allah, with it's real meanings of "One who is not a deity for worship and adoration". See how beautiful these will become. In addition, likely more widely accepted as well. Badar

http//Agree with you on the differences. But the verse doesn't say if it's after his crucifixion or during his birth or during his lifetime. Pl focus attention on the circled and underlined words, they loudly announce that it was to save them from the life threat http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/23.50a.gif And We gave both two of them a safe and protected abode towards an elevated/mountainous place; a place of long safe stay and verdurous. http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/023.D%20%20Al%20Momenoon.htm http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/temp09%203.55d.gif when Allah said; "O Easa, I will segregate/isolate you and I will raise you towards Me and I will rid you from the impurity/company of those who have refused to accept ; http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/03.%2001--.htm

One can write at his own or he may write that which he is dictated to write. For comparison and cross reference pl see 2282 http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/002.325.gif and the scribe must not refuse to write down since Allah has taught him, therefore, he must write down and the party under liability should dictate remaining mindful/fearful of Allah and should not reduce anything of liability/obligation.

"This is the method of transformation prescribed by Allah. And who can prescribe a more balanced and appropriate course of transformation other than Allah? And we are for Him the sincere allegiants". This is the concluding part of the quote which believers are telling other people, assigning a term, definition to what they have said. Noun Singular, feminine; accusative; definite being first noun of Possessive Phrase with definite second noun ; Root ; The basic perception infolded in the Root is to bring about changes in a thing to transform it in a manner that it gives a different and new look to its dimensions. is the method and procedure by which a cloth or something is coloured by merging and sinking it in the coloration water/liquid.