2 questions concerning chapter/surah 30 about the romans...

Jack

302
Yusuf Ali
The Roman Empire has been defeated-
Pickthal
The Romans have been defeated
Shakir
The Romans are vanquished,
"Progressive Muslims"
The Romans have won.

303
Yusuf Ali
In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious-
Pickthal
In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious
Shakir
In a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome,
"Progressive Muslims"
In the lowest part of the earth. But after their victory, they will be defeated.

304
Yusuf Ali
Within a few years. With God is the Decision, in the past and in the Future on that Day shall the Believers rejoice-
Pickthal
Within ten years - Allah's is the command in the former case and in the latter - and in that day believers will rejoice
Shakir
Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice,
"Progressive Muslims"
In a few more years. The decision before and after is for God, and on that day the believers will rejoice.

305
Yusuf Ali
With the help of God. He helps whom He will, and He is exalted in might, most merciful.
Pickthal
In Allah's help to victory. He helpeth to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful.
Shakir
With the help of Allah; He helps whom He pleases; and He is the Mighty, the Merciful;
"Progressive Muslims"
With God's victory. God gives victory to whom He wishes; He is the Noble, the Merciful.

Question 1

Why does free-minds translation of 302 "the romans have won" while most others translated it as "the romans have been defeated/vanquished" . Can somebody break down the arabic here?

Question 2

Are these set of verses accurate of the historical account? can sombody expand on that... don't know much about ancient history...

I'm interested in all views. Thank you in advance!

Wakas

peace bro, all,

There are many tools online which can help. All of the following can be found on www.studyquran.org

For example, the word for word Arabic-English translation
http//www.quraninenglish.com/cgi-local/pages.pl?/contents

Chapter 30
http//www.quraninenglish.com/cgi-local/pages.pl?/quran&img=1435

Once you see what each word is, you can work out its root, or go to www.openburhan.com and look up chapter 30, click on the word you want to research and it will give you most of the roots.

Once you have the root, go to PRL and read its grammar, every occurrence and Classical Arabic meanings from Lane
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

#########

Ghulibati (root Ghayn-Lam-Ba) alrroomu (root Ra-Waw-Miim)

Jack

peace bro

thanks a lot !

unknownuser

Peace, DArgento.

It all depends on how you accentuate the Arabic words and . . Note that the text doesn't change in either case. It's only the accentuation which changes. You have to know Arabic in order to understand what I'm talking about.

1- Traditional interpretation

The traditional interpreters accentuate the two words to be read as such Ghulibat / sayaghliboun., respectively.
Hence the meaning is that the Byzantines suffered defeat at the hands of Persians, but then, later on they will be victorious, and on that day, the faithful (followers of Muhamad, ie the Muslims) will rejoice. When we ask them the following question

Why would the Muslims be happy when the Byzantines defeat the Persians?

They will claim that it's because the Persians are kafirs who worship fire, while the Byzantines are faitful Christians!! (This is kind of absurd if you ask me).

2- FM interpretation

The FM interpretation is based on accentuation of the two words to be read as Ghalibat / sayoughlaboun., respectively.
This is the opposite of the traditional interpretation. It's telling us that the Byzantines have been recently victorious, but will later on be defeated.
However, it is not clear at the hands of whom...(I am leaning towards accepting the theory that the defeat promised in 304, at a low point of the earth, was in fact at the hands of the Muslims themselves).

We have to do some historical research to support this, however.

In either case, if you remove the accentuation marks from the Arabic letters, the text will be identical in either case.

Peace...

Mazhar

"They will claim that it's because the Persians are kafirs who worship fire, while the Byzantines are faitful Christians!! (This is kind of absurd if you ask me)"

But if you reverse the meanings, matter will remain the same? Would it not then be abusrd, in your opinion?

Layth

Peace,

Brother Pazuzu gave a very clear reply. The change is possible in meaning without having any change in the letters/words since it is the accentuation that is questioned.

In the traditional understanding, they have Rome being defeated (according to them by the Persians - which is not found in the Quran) at a place called the lowest/nearest part of earth and then a few years later they have the Romans winning (again against the Persians - not from the Quran) and then in the traditional interpretation, the believers rejoice (because the Persians worship fire, but the Romans worship Christ!).

The whole mess above is resolved by simply using one`s logic and reversing the accentuation with no change to the letters/words.

Rome has won (against the believers who are the second party spoken of in these verses). The defeat took place at the lowest point on Earth (this would be the area around the Dead sea, which makes sence since Rome was garrisoned in Petra and in Jerusalem - both around the dead sea area). In a few years, Rome will be defeated, this is the promise of God to Hsi messenger and the believers.

Historically the corrected reading corroborates with the battle of Muta which took place between the believers and the Romans near the area of the Dead Sea and in which the believers were defeated taking casualties with the survivors retreating. Apparently the leader of the battle group was Zaid Ibn Thabit (the Prophets adopted son who is mentioned in the Quran) and graves for him and the fallen believers exist in the town/area of Mu`tah.

A few years later, we are told that the Prophet (in the last expedition before his death) led the army north against the Romans in what was termed the battle of Tabuk (Tabuk being the region/area north of Medina but south of Jerusalem). The outcome of this battle was a total retreat of Rome and a victory for the believers.

I would say that the corrected reading of 301 fits perfectly not only with logic but also with reported military history.

unknownuser

Peace,
Apparently the leader of the battle group was Zaid Ibn Thabit (the Prophet`s adopted son who is mentioned in the Quran)

Really??!!?!?

Jack

here you go OPF

3337 And you said to the one who was blessed by God, and blessed by you "Keep your wife and reverence God," and you hid inside yourself what God wished to proclaim. And you feared the people, while it was God you were supposed to fear. So when Zayd ended his relationship with his wife, We had you marry her, to establish that there is no wrongdoing for the believers in marrying the wives of their adopted sons if their relationship is ended. And God's command is always done.

unknownuser

here you go OPF

3337 And you said to the one who was blessed by God, and blessed by you "Keep your wife and reverence God," and you hid inside yourself what God wished to proclaim. And you feared the people, while it was God you were supposed to fear. So when Zayd ended his relationship with his wife, We had you marry her, to establish that there is no wrongdoing for the believers in marrying the wives of their adopted sons if their relationship is ended. And God's command is always done.

Thanks. It's rare to see the name of a non-prophet in the Quran.

Mazhar

More names are also there, non messengers.

unknownuser

Thanks. It's rare to see the name of a non-prophet in the Quran.

Better confirm that verse with code-19!

Mazhar

http//fstav.freeservers.com/emperors/heraclius.html

amuslim

peace bro, all,

There are many tools online which can help. All of the following can be found on www.studyquran.org

For example, the word for word Arabic-English translation
http//www.quraninenglish.com/cgi-local/pages.pl?/contents

Chapter 30
http//www.quraninenglish.com/cgi-local/pages.pl?/quran&img=1435

Once you see what each word is, you can work out its root, or go to www.openburhan.com and look up chapter 30, click on the word you want to research and it will give you most of the roots.

Once you have the root, go to PRL and read its grammar, every occurrence and Classical Arabic meanings from Lane
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

D

#########

Ghulibati (root Ghayn-Lam-Ba) alrroomu (root Ra-Waw-Miim)

Salaam Wakas,

Thank you brother for those great tools, it is much appreciated.

Wa Salaam

TheNabi

Peace

These ayat/signs you reference concern a future condition/state .

Joe

Mazhar

Brother DArgento,

The Romans were overpowered at a point which is the lowest on earth, refers to that point. Why Muslims felt grieved, it is because only the Christian are the one who have love for us, and they are the people who do not indulge in . President Bush and his policies do not reflect/nor are synonym to christianity. We must share their sorrows and difficulties. And Allah forbid, if they are in sorrow we should also feel grief.
And let me tell you this point has been researched years back. I am trying to find the article where I had read this; this was by Harun Yahya and perhaps also by another one.

progod

Peace,

Adnaa can also mean 'most appropriate'. It could be in the the most appropriate land (place in the land).

Godbless,
Anwar

Mazhar

Dear Anwar,

You say "They were defeated in the most appropriate land". Does it convey any sense?

And between the two words there is also which confirms a specific point on earth.

progod

Peace,

Yes it does have sense. "They were defeated in the most appropriate land/place." Fee does not take away this possiblity. Brother, think on what you said a little more. When God says that he put mankind on the earth, (feel-ardi) does this mean a specific place on the earth? No. Please be careful not to try to invent things only to justify your position.

Godbless,
Anwar

Mazhar

My dear brother,

I could never expect this sort of opinion and comparison from you. You have yourself translated the word to refer to a point on earth, and that point you call ?the most appropriate?. I called that point ?lowest in earth?. And you must know that is the feminine of which has always been used as masculine at all 11 occurrences.
And perhaps I need not point it out that this word reflects a comparison, and all its 11 occurrences there is a comparison between two things. The translators have interpreted this word at places as ?most suitable? in relation to some acts. But the basic meaning of the word is low, near. I do not recollect that any lexicon had shown the meanings of this word as ?most appropriate?. I hope you have not relied only upon the interpretation of the word in a given situation and could refer to some lexicon giving this meaning to the word .

From the victory and defeat point of view any place could be called strategic not most appropriate. Please believe me,? They were defeated in the most appropriate land" seems inappropriate statement. Brother, if Progressive Muslims are not making any difference between the text and the actual word, how a Linguist like you could afford to approve their superfluous derstanding.

progod

Peace,

Why do I have to look this stuff up for you? I'm kind of growing a little tired of you challenging my opininons without doing the reseach yourself. If you don't know, just say you don't know. If you need to look it up, say you need to look it up. But why do you need to disagree without doing the research first?

To you the most appopriate land, is too vague. It is not that it doesn't make any sense. But what makes you think that some battle where the Romans were defeated has to be the lowest point on earth. Where they were defeated could have been the most appropriate place for many reasons. But we need to consider the reasons why that land would have been the most appropriate place for their defeat (although God knows those reasons). The idea makes perfect sense on its own, we just would like to know the reasons why.

I went straight to Wehr and got
closer, nearer, situated lower ndown, lower, inferior, smaller, of less significance; more appropriate, better suited, more sutable

Then i went to Lane and saw two main distinctions

Lowness lower which extends into the meaning of of less signficance, worse, inferior

&

Closeness closer, nearer which extends into more appropriate, more suitable

So adnaa can mean 'Most near, most apporiate (nearer, more appropriate) or most low, most inferior (lower, worse)

As it concerns the gender adnaal-ardi is suitable. Whether you saw this as lowest or nearest doesn't make a difference. In this sort of idaafa construction the first part can be masculine even though the second part is feminine. For instance you can say akhdarul-ardi (the green part of the land), or fee akhsabul-ardi would be in the most fertile land or part of the land. It would be dunyaa if it were 'feel-ardi-dunyaa' Ard would have to come first and adnaa if an adjective of ard would convert to the feminine dunyaa.

Futhermore fee doesn't mean a point in the land. It just means 'in' or 'on.' What indicates a point in the land is adnaa (most appropriate, most low or closest (point) in the land) That point which I had to put in parenthesis is undestood within adnaa and its position with al-ardi. Just like if I say huwa raheemun, I have to say 'a merciful man' even though it is just 'a merciful' in Arabic and man is understood.

So instead of disagreeing, please look up the word before assuming that the word means only what you remember it meaning or only the meaning you are familiar with (I have been guilty of this in the past as well so don't take this personal it goes for me as well). And please don't try to act as if you are dissapointed in me for something that you do not fully understand but have made a premature decisioin about.

Godbless,
Anwar