Free-Minds.org is another Sect...like Suni and Shia Sects.

Samia

Why are you running away from answering my Question Why Free-minds.org are translating 5-33 different from 5-38?

Running away? Why? Someone told you I signed this translation or participated in it?
I hope you don't ask me next time why Shakir said this or Yusuf Ali said that...
It's just like that.

Samia

Well, One is for the Cub and one for the thief, as I said before.

However, Yousuf's Brother story is not and cannot be used to cancel out 5-38 as I showed the reasons before.

Did I say that?
You said to Wakas "ask Samia", and Samia responded

Ask samia if there are two (2) Hwa in the "two red arabic words" or not? Further, ask her if one belongs to the Thief and one belongs to the Cup or not?

Wakas

peace Layth,

Salam,

Just to add my two cents worth...It seems from the Quran that Abraham was indeed married to two women. One who bore him Ismail, and, many years later, another who bore him Isaac.

The evidence for this can be found as follows

When Abraham is raising the foundation of the Temple, he is helped by Ismail, who, to help in such task, must at least have been a young adult.
When Abraham is visited in old age by the angels, and is given news of a son, he says his wife is barren and could not possibly have children (thus ruling her out from being Ismail's mother).
The conversation of Abraham with the angels always refers to one wife (he never says "one of my wives is barren"...he simply says "my wife is barren&quot which means that the mother of Ismail is no longer on the scene (having either passed away or been divorced) when Isaac is born.

Please chose your sources carefully. The current Torah/Bible is pretty much the same as todays Hadith (i.e. full of lies and conjecture).

IF it is taken literally as raising a physical building.
It can also mean WHEN the "angels" visited Abraham his wife was barren, i.e. at that time, not for all times past and present. She may have just been post menopause..... hence the age.
wives can be divorced or pass away, yes.

Based on the evidence presented.

noble

Peace all,
one thing I personally find very objectionable with some peeps in free-minds is that idea they have about allegorical and metaphorical aspects in the Quran which they take as far as arguing that Prophets, Angels, Jinns, and Quranic Stories inclusive of Hell fire and Paradise are just parables to teach us lessons and do not really exist or have not really existed in the past...
This makes a mockery of the Quran and Allah's Message, and removes any binding, because the whole thing becomes a work of pop bubblegum psychology, the kind of stuff you listen to at self improvement seminars, or philosophy seminars about the meaning of life...
I guess those who think that come from that kind of background too, in my opinion, not that I diss them, I flirted with this kind of thing for a while, but the message given is pretty shallow and only scratches the surface of reality, even if it says the opposite...

belH

Please chose your sources carefully. The current Torah/Bible is pretty much the same as todays Hadith (i.e. full of lies and conjecture).

Peace all,

Layth, There are no evidences in Quran say that the Torah and Injeel are or will be corrupted, but will be guarded as the Quran.
After all, The Ziker includes the Quran and what were revealed before the Quran.
To stand before God and say that we thought the Torah and Injeel are corrupted, and therefore, we did not give any weight to its contents will be hard to argue without authority from Quran. Actually, the only authority we Have is the hadiths that say that.

Based on the above, Would you agree that Today's Translations of the Torah, Bible, and Quran are full of lies and conjecture, but the Original Versions (Hebrew Torah, Aramaic Injeel, and Arabic Quran), which exist today are not corrupted.

Running away? Why? Someone told you I signed this translation or participated in it?
I hope you don't ask me next time why Shakir said this or Yusuf Ali said that...
It's just like that.

You are running away from saying the Truth...The truth that 5-33 free-minds.org's translation is correct and 5-38 is not...5-38 translation represents the Translator understanding and not the actual word by word translation. 5-38 translation is a Sectarian Translation as Shia and Suna's Translation of 24-2.

belH

peace Layth,

IF it is taken literally as raising a physical building.
It can also mean WHEN the "angels" visited Abraham his wife was barren, i.e. at that time, not for all times past and present. She may have just been post menopause..... hence the age.
wives can be divorced or pass away, yes.

Based on the evidence presented.

Peace Wakas,
If you believe in the Torah, Injeel and Quran, you wouldn't be Lost as you are today...you will know the True story of Abraham and Yousuf, and You will know that Hajj is to Jerusalem where Abraham built the Restricted House.

noble

Peace belH, all,
to realign back to the title of this thread and belH accusation that Free-Minds.org is a Sect...like Suni and Shia Sects.

Can belH ever so kindly enlighten me as what he means by the word Sect (in detail) that he labels Free-Minds.org, Suni and Shia?

We can then move better forward, because I am really unsure what is the purpose of this thread now... &nbsp

hope4

You are running away from saying the Truth...The truth that 5-33 free-minds.org's translation is correct and 5-38 is not...5-38 translation represents the Translator understanding and not the actual word by word translation. 5-38 translation is a Sectarian Translation as Shia and Suna's Translation of 24-2.

Peace

Sorry to butt into the conversation, but a little confused here. If you translate something word to word from one language to another will it make sense on the other end? Or do we look to translate something to presurve its meaning which is not necessarily word to word? Which is more important?

Peace

Hope

belH

Peace belH, all,
to realign back to the title of this thread and belH accusation that Free-Minds.org is a Sect...like Suni and Shia Sects.

Can belH ever so kindly enlighten me as what he means by the word Sect (in detail) that he labels Free-Minds.org, Suni and Shia?

We can then move better forward, because I am really unsure what is the purpose of this thread now... &nbsp

Peace,
As I said before, Since Free-minds.org are Claiming, In their Welcome Page ("WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND TODAY'S PRACTICES?&quot, that Their Understanding of Islam is the True Islam, then anyone who does not agree with their understanding can accuse them that they are a Sect (A group who hijacked Islam).
Thus, I'm in dispute with Free-minds.org until they do one of the following
1-Prove to me that their understanding is the right one; example why this is true

In Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (1276), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability...

2-Free-minds.org becomes Moderator and not Judge between the different understanding of Quran.

Otherwise, both have the right to accuse each others of being sectarians (because both claim that they represent the true Islam)

I hope you would save this post so you would not have to ask the same question again.
Peace

belH

Peace

Sorry to butt into the conversation, but a little confused here. If you translate something word to word from one language to another will it make sense on the other end? Or do we look to translate something to presurve its meaning which is not necessarily word to word? Which is more important?

Peace

Hope

Peace,

Translate Word by Word and let the Reader, who Does not know Arabic, decide about his understanding...otherwise, we will be misleading the readers who do not know arabic, by feeding them the translator understanding and not the True Message...The Majorities of Today's Bible, Torah, and Quran Translations are misleading because of the Translators being affiliated with different Sects that want to enforce their understanding in the translation.

ayman

Peace Layth, Wakas, everyone,

Just to add my two cents worth...It seems from the Quran that Abraham was indeed married to two women. One who bore him Ismail, and, many years later, another who bore him Isaac.
The evidence for this can be found as follows

When Abraham is raising the foundation of the Temple, he is helped by Ismail, who, to help in such task, must at least have been a young adult.

This doesn't negate that the same wife bore Ismail when she was young and Isaac when she was old.

Also, where does it say in the great reading that Abraham raised the foundation of the Temple? The exact wording used in "from the house"

And Ibrahim raised the foundations from the house with Ismael "Our lord accept this from us, you are the hearer, the knowledgeable".

Since one cannot raise physical foundations from a house then this favors the alternative understanding that brother Wakas was hinting at. Those foundations should be understood in the same way as we understand foundations in passages like these with no problem

Those before them have schemed, but the god came to their buildings from the foundations, thus the roof fell on top of them, and the retribution came to them from where they did not know.

9109-110. Is one who founds his building on forethought of the god and His acceptance better, or one who founds his building on the edge of a cliff which is about to crumble, so that it crumbled with him into the fire of Hell? the god does not guide the wicked people. Such a building that they built continues to cause doubt in their hearts, except that their hearts are severed. The god is knowledgeable, wise.

If we can understand those passages with no problem then why change 2127 to make it say "of the Temple" to force the meaning of a physical foundation? You even disregarded your own translation where you correctly translated the Arabic "min" as "from"

FREE-MINDS
2127. And as Abraham raised the foundations from the Dwelling with Ishmael ?Our Lord accept this from us, You are the Hearer, the Knowledgeable.?

When Abraham is visited in old age by the angels, and is given news of a son, he says his wife is barren and could not possibly have children (thus ruling her out from being Ismail's mother).

This is false. Abraham's wife clearly says that she can't have children because she is old not because she has always been barren regardless of age. In fact, barren is no where mentioned in 1172 and simply "old" is mentioned. In 5129 old is mentioned first and sterile is mentioned in relation to old.

FREE-MINDS
1172. She said ?O my, how can I give birth when I am an old woman, and here is my husband an old man? This is indeed a strange thing!?

His wife then approached in amazement. She slapped upon her face, and said ?I am an old sterile woman!?

Compare the above to Zakariah's wife who is described as "infertile" and there is no mention of her age

FREE-MINDS
340. He said ?My Lord, how can I have a son when old age has reached me and my wife is infertile?? He said ?It is as such that God does what He pleases.?

So according to those clear signs, Abraham always had one wife and she simply had Ismael when she was young and Isaac when she was old.

The conversation of Abraham with the angels always refers to one wife (he never says "one of my wives is barren"...he simply says "my wife is barren&quot which means that the mother of Ismail is no longer on the scene (having either passed away or been divorced) when Isaac is born.

I agree that there was always one wife on the scene. As we saw, this is perfectly in line with his wife having Ismael when she was young and Isaac when she was old.

Peace,

Ayman

hope4

Peace,

Translate Word by Word and let the Reader, who Does not know Arabic, decide about his understanding...otherwise, we will be misleading the readers who do not know arabic, by feeding them the translator understanding and not the True Message...The Majorities of Today's Bible, Torah, and Quran Translations are misleading because of the Translators being affiliated with different Sects that want to enforce their understanding in the translation.

Peace BelH

I understand your concerns and what you mean. However, is the meaning lost if we translate word to word? Or in a more simple way if we translate word to word will it make sense?

Peace

Hope

belH

Peace BelH

I understand your concerns and what you mean. However, is the meaning lost if we translate word to word? Or in a more simple way if we translate word to word will it make sense?

Peace

Hope

Peace Hope,
Would you prefer That Your LORD's Messages be delivered to You "Word by Word" , or would you prefer an "Interpretation of the Message" that is done by a Human who can make mistakes?

The Meaning will not be Lost as it is not Lost in the Arabic Version.
Peace

ayman

Peace Belh,

Translate Word by Word and let the Reader, who Does not know Arabic, decide about his understanding...otherwise, we will be misleading the readers who do not know arabic, by feeding them the translator understanding and not the True Message...The Majorities of Today's Bible, Torah, and Quran Translations are misleading because of the Translators being affiliated with different Sects that want to enforce their understanding in the translation.

You don't seem to understand what a translation is. Any translation is basically the translator's opinion of what he or she thinks the original author meant. This is true even if you are reading the great reading in the original Arabic since in your mind you are internally understanding it according to your own opinion. Even literal translations ultimately only reflect the translator's opinion about how a word should be literally translated since virtually all words can have multiple meanings. One of course could have a literal translation that somehow manages to put all the alternative (sometimes dozens) of meanings into the translation of one word separated by slashes or so on but what you will end up with will be virtually impossible to read. Also, due to differences in grammatical structures and so on literal translations end up being incomprehensible nonsense.

The way I see it is that as long as one is aware that the translation is nothing more than the translator's opinion then there is no problem. Otherwise, according to your logic there will be as many sects as the number of different understandings on each point in the great reading (in other words millions or even billions of sects). What you have to acknowledge is that the ultimate original interpretation is with the god. We can only try our best by setting our direction towards the truth and realize that each of us will be at a different point along the path but we are united in our direction. In the ending the losers are those who were not on the straight path to the truth, not those who were at the beginning of the path or have not progressed enough on the path.

Peace,

Ayman

noble

i will accept your answer even though you have not defined the word Sect.

A more correct title for the thread could therefore have been Free-Minds.org is just another Group claiming to represent True Islam...like Suni and Shia Groups.

Peace,
As I said before, Since Free-minds.org are Claiming, In their Welcome Page ("WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND TODAY'S PRACTICES?&quot, that Their Understanding of Islam is the True Islam, then anyone who does not agree with their understanding can accuse them that they are a Sect (A group who hijacked Islam).
Thus, I'm in dispute with Free-minds.org until they do one of the following
1-Prove to me that their understanding is the right one; example why this is true

In Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (1276), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability...

2-Free-minds.org becomes Moderator and not Judge between the different understanding of Quran.

Otherwise, both have the right to accuse each others of being sectarians (because both claim that they represent the true Islam)

I hope you would save this post so you would not have to ask the same question again.
Peace

ayman

Peace Belh,

The Meaning will not be Lost as it is not Lost in the Arabic Version.

But even many of the Arabic meanings have been lost. For example, your meaning of "kaaba" being some building or hill or rock or whatever in Jerusalem is different to the Sunni meaning of it being a cube in Mecca. So according to you, for them the meaning was lost. They would also say that you lost the meaning. So as you can see, even in the original Arabic, like translations, people can understand the same word in two completely different ways.

Peace,

Ayman

belH

This doesn't negate that the same wife bore Ismail when she was young and Isaac when she was old.

Peace all,

I will be constructive in my accusation to Ayman and anyone else who wants to mislead the readers

If Ayman Claims that He is Moslem, then Ayman Had to SAY the following

Say We believe in God and in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make a distinction between any of them and to Him we submit.
2136

Ayman had to say that he Believes in the Torah and Injeel.

And if Ayman Refuses to use the Torah and Injeel, beside the Quran as references when Judging an issue, then the following is a Message from the Lord of the Great Reading "The Quran"

Did you not see those who claimed they believed in what was sent down to you and what was sent before you? They wanted to seek judgment using evil, while they were ordered to reject it. It is the devil who wants to lead them far astray.
460

If any of the readers chooses to reject the supporting evidences from the Torah and Injeel that support that Abraham had Two Wives, and Abraham Had Built the Restricted House for people to make Hajj too, then they deserve to be Led Far Astray by EVIL.

Peace

hope4

Peace Belh,

You don't seem to understand what a translation is. Any translation is basically the translator's opinion of what he or she thinks the original author meant. This is true even if you are reading the great reading in the original Arabic since in your mind you are internally understanding it according to your own opinion. Even literal translations ultimately only reflect the translator's opinion about how a word should be literally translated since virtually all words can have multiple meanings. One of course could have a literal translation that somehow manages to put all the alternative (sometimes dozens) of meanings into the translation of one word separated by slashes or so on but what you will end up with will be virtually impossible to read. Also, due to differences in grammatical structures and so on literal translations end up being incomprehensible nonsense.

The way I see it is that as long as one is aware that the translation is nothing more than the translator's opinion then there is no problem. Otherwise, according to your logic there will be as many sects as the number of different understandings on each point in the great reading (in other words millions or even billions of sects). What you have to acknowledge is that the ultimate original interpretation is with the god. We can only try our best by setting our direction towards the truth and realize that each of us will be at a different point along the path but we are united in our direction. In the ending the losers are those who were not on the straight path to the truth, not those who were at the beginning of the path or have not progressed enough on the path.

Peace,

Ayman

Peace Ayman

Thank you for elaborating on this point. I feel with increased study one can eventually establish the truth/meaning/message. This is provided we are not static in our intepretations/understandings and truly possess a free-mind.

Peace

Hope

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

538 The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut/iqtaaoo their (THREE OR MORE) hands/aydiyahuma as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise.

Does this make sense to you?

Aydi (plural of "yad&quot = hands, means, resources, power, might, etc.

3845 Recall Our servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were resourceful (ulu al-aydee - lit. with many hands), and with vision.

5147 We constructed the universe with might/power (aydin), and We are expanding it.

Here you can see the god's law put into action by Joseph

1270 When he furnished them with their provisions, he placed the measuring bowl in his brother's bag. Then a caller cried out "O you in the caravan, you are thieves!"

1271 They said, turning towards them "What is it you are missing?"

1272 He said, "We are missing the measuring bowl of the King, and whoever finds it shall receive a camel-load; I guarantee this."

1273 They said, "By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!"

1274 He said, "What shall be the punishment, if you are liars?"

1275 They said, "The punishment is that the person who has it in his bag shall himself be held as penalty. It is such that we punish the evildoers."

The following is from http//www.geocities.com/islamicdiscussions/theft.htm

First, the presumed thieves were given the chance to come forward, acknowledge their wrongdoing, and then give back what they have stolen. They might even get a reward/or state compensation if it is found that they stole out of dire need and poverty.

Second, if they do not do so, they must be proven as thieves. Then, what was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners. Thieves should work to repay the fees involved in the whole process. They should also work to repay what was stolen in case they do not give it or the whole of it back.

This process put in application the theft punishment stated in 538 that is to cut off from the thieves resources and power. It leaves also the door open for thieves to repent and reform as God states in 539. This whole process is what is applied to thieves in some Muslim rural areas.

Had Joseph known that God's punishment for theft is marking or cutting hands (which his brothers would have apply), he would not scheme that way in order to keep his brother with him.

Someone would argue that was God's theft law for previous communities and we are not bound by it. Well, when God wants to change something, He specifies it (2187). Furthermore, Quran specifies when some laws do apply only for some communities (1611 and therefore we are not bound to apply them.

So, in conclusion we see that because of the 4 reasons mentioned above and the example of Joseph and his brothers in the Quran we conclude that the punishment for theft is to take away the resources and power of the thief and make him pay back all the cost to the person whose goods he stole. However, if he repents (539) Allah forgives him.

3927 We have cited for the people in this reading from every example, that they may take heed.

belH

So, in conclusion we see that because of the 4 reasons mentioned above and the example of Joseph and his brothers in the Quran we conclude that the punishment for theft is to take away the resources and power of the thief and make him pay back all the cost to the person whose goods he stole. However, if he repents (539) Allah forgives him.

Peace,
What do you mean by take him away? Do you mean Jail Him?