Which is your favourite interpretation(into English) of the Quran?

Ervin

Salam.

I was just wandering which interpretation of the Quran do you like the best? In case you haven’t checked out different interpretations of the Quran into English, I would suggest to do so and than come back and let us know which one, if you wish to do so.

I am not literate in Arabic, I can only speak southern Slavic language spoken by Bosnians, Montenegrins, Croatians and Serbs( which is pretty much one same language) and obviously English. However, from the research that I have done on the time internet it seems that the Monotheist group version on the Quran is so different from other versions that it seems flawed. However, like I said, I don’t know Arabic( apart from some words) so it’s harder for me to work this out.

Thanks

Mazhar

Salam.

I was just wandering which interpretation of the Quran do you like the best? In case you haven’t checked out different interpretations of the Quran into English, I would suggest to do so and than come back and let us know which one, if you wish to do so.

I am not literate in Arabic, I can only speak southern Slavic language spoken by Bosnians, Montenegrins, Croatians and Serbs( which is pretty much one same language) and obviously English. However, from the research that I have done on the time internet it seems that the Monotheist group version on the Quran is so different from other versions that it seems flawed. However, like I said, I don’t know Arabic( apart from some words) so it’s harder for me to work this out.

Thanks

May be you find all alike.
https//www.islamawakened.com/

Ervin

Peace Mazhar and thanks.

I had a look at that link and they all say in Fatiha ...Merciful Compassionate, or some other word that means those two. Now, the monotheist group interpretation says Almighty Merciful. How can Compassionate also mean Almighty? Or how come pretty much all of them interpret one way and the monotheist group interprets differently? And it’s not only this word? There are other places where the interpretation just doesn’t make sense to me.

Layth

Salam Ervin,

The reason for the difference is because we choose to study the Quran while allowing it to speak for itself.

Most translations are simply a copy of each other - so if one makes a mistake, the rest will most likely repeat the same.

Here is why Alrahman is translated as "Almighty"

https//free-minds.org/al-rahman-al-raheem-most-important-pair

Mazhar

Salam Ervin,

The reason for the difference is because we choose to study the Quran while allowing it to speak for itself.

Most translations are simply a copy of each other - so if one makes a mistake, the rest will most likely repeat the same.

Here is why Alrahman is translated as "Almighty"

https//free-minds.org/al-rahman-al-raheem-most-important-pair

ٱلرَّحْـمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيـمِ

It is an Adjectival Phrase.
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00003.%20Ar%20Rehman/2.gif Ar'Reh'maan This unique, rarest of the rare Personal Name of Allah the Exalted has widely been discussed by scholars, Muslims, Jews and Christians included, for determining its meanings by considering it as an exclusive Attribute of the Sustainer Lord of the Universes. George Sale had translated it as "the most merciful" and John Medows Rodwell as "compassionate". The other translators in timeline have merely copied them and likewise translated it as an adjectival with synonyms or synonymous words like "most gracious"; "the beneficent"; "the All-merciful". No translator and exegete, to the best of my knowledge and study, considered it as Proper Name.

Grand Qur’ān is perhaps the only book about which scholars, both believing and non-believing, quite often opt not to adhere to otherwise well accepted norms of behaviour - academic discipline of transferring a book of one language to another language. Just one example suffices to prove this unusual practice. One of the basic obligations of a Translator, who has self-assigned the task of translating a book into another language, is that he should firstly thoroughly study it to locate the Proper Nouns and identify them whether it is name of a person/sentient, place, or organization. We have in academics means and methods to distinguish a Proper Noun - Personal Name in a lengthy text. None seems to have cared to resolve whether Ar'Reh'maan is the Proper Noun - Name of Allah the Exalted, despite the fact that it finds mention for fifty-seven times in the text of Grand Qur’ān; fully declinable in all cases, nominative, accusative and genitive.

With regard to nouns, the basic distinction in languages is common noun and proper noun. The perception of the contents of source text may be distorted extensively if it is not resolved about a noun as to whether it is a common noun or proper noun, and whether it is descriptive or non-descriptive.

http//haqeeqat.pk/Allah-Ar'Reh'maan.htm

Iyyaka

ٱلرَّحْـمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيـمِ

It is an Adjectival Phrase.
http//haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00003.%20Ar%20Rehman/2.gif Ar'Reh'maan This unique, rarest of the rare Personal Name of Allah the Exalted considered it as Proper Name.
http//haqeeqat.pk/Allah-Ar'Reh'maan.htm

Basmala bis'mi l-lahi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīmi"
=> (in bold) N – masculine noun.
Question n°1 determined by annexation with the word l-lahi ? yes or no ?
If yes, then question n° 2 singular or general meaning ?
So, if determined + singular = unique, right ? If so then which name is unique ?

Mazhar

Basmala bis'mi l-lahi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīmi"
=> (in bold) N – masculine noun.
Question n°1 determined by annexation with the word l-lahi ? yes or no ?
If yes, then question n° 2 singular or general meaning ?
So, if determined + singular = unique, right ? If so then which name is unique ?

بِسۡمِ ٱللَّهِ
These three words, a preposition, a common noun and a Proper Noun constitute the first grammatical unit. It comprises of a Prepositional Phrase + Possessive Phrase.
http//haqeeqat.pk/1.BismilAllah.htm

First Noun is also Definite by construct. The Name of Allah. So it is distinct name of Entity Allah. And that is immediately mentioned in same case ending as Badal.

Amra94

Ja citam prevod od Abdel Haleem i ucim arapski na corpus Quran.

Ervin

Peace.

Thanks Layth, Mazhar and the rest.

I haven’t fully read all of the answers, but I do plan to. I sort of get the gist.

Ok, the following is another example where it seems way to different between Monotheist group and others. The following

And recall that We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh. They inflicted on you terrible persecution, killing your sons and sparing your women. Therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.

The above says “sparing your women”.

While the Monotheist group says” raping your women”.

Now, can you please explain to me how does one meaning of the word means “sparing”in Arabic and the other “raping”?

By the way, I am not sceptical about the existence of God( I know God exists, atheism for me is a strong delusion for instance). I just am looking for a accurate revelation from Him/God.

Also, I must say that some Monotheist group translations in the Quran ( and explained by the natural republic) make much more sense than the traditional. Just thought I say this so that you know I am not being biased.

Thanks

Iyyaka

Ok, the following is another example where it seems way to different between Monotheist group and others. The following

And recall that We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh. They inflicted on you terrible persecution, killing your sons and sparing your women. Therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.

The above says “sparing your women”.

While the Monotheist group says” raping your women”.

Now, can you please explain to me how does one meaning of the word means “sparing”in Arabic and the other “raping”?

Thanks

Peace Ervin,

(24911)
wayastaḥyūna
?
CONJ – prefixed conjunction wa (and)
V – 3rd person masculine plural (form X) imperfect verb
PRON – subject pronoun

Interesting questioning.

This allows among other things to emphasize the role of propositions to understand the meaning of a word as well as its literal context (the wa and the form X have an incidence here).

The form x appears 9 times in the quran and it takes 3 different meanings depending on the preposition

Form x + min = blush, be ashamed of ..
=> 2 times in
Form x + an = do not dare to do something out of modesty or reserve.
=> 1 time in
Without preposition
=> 6 times including verse .
2 options
3.1 leave alive, let live
3.2 live

the textual context and syntax are clear and point to proposition 3
there is a contrast between the plight of children and that of women

the children are put to death and,
by contrast, their mothers are alive.

Now, should we adopt the meaning 3.1 or 3.2 ?

a little detour through the senses of the form x
The form x comes from a state verb (form I verb ḥayya = to live with the idea of shrinking), then the meaning of the form x may have an estimated value (judge as ..). So, to summary

The basic state verb meaning "to be alive".
Estimate will therefore mean here "to consider someone or something as alive".

Indeed, after the death of her child, by addition of murder, which mother can feel alive? She would like to be dead in their place..something is dead in her even if outside she is alive.

So, in conclusion, we can translate the by " and let your women as alive ..".
The word "sparing" is good but not precise enough to give depth to the meaning of this word in the context of the history of Moses and Pharaoh.

Mazhar

The distinct characteristic - personality disorder of Fir'aoun and his trusted Chieftains portrayed in Qur’ān is self-exaltation - self-aggrandizement - Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They had all the properties of self-aggrandizers like use of technique of "divide and conquer"; aggressive ruthless behaviour; taking advantage of the people around him; arrogant, haughty behaviours; engaging in false accusations, distortion campaigns; character assassination attempts; malicious gossip; amplifying their own image, and outburst of rage; but despite his facade he himself suffered from low - diminishing esteem.

He was a ruthless monarch who indulged in genocide of one national group by determined and systematic killing of their new born sons and leaving women who were incorporated in the conquering group. By this he not only kept that group in subjugation - enslaved but it was also aimed at controlling their demographics and not to let increase the percentage of their young males. Slaughtering of their new born sons is also mentioned at other three places 7141; 146 ; 284

http//haqeeqat.pk/Fir'aunPharaoh.htm

Ervin

Peace and thanks everyone.

To those who might give answers as to the actual words meaning that I asked(especially the one in number 8 post), please can you keep it simple and as brief as possible? Otherwise I am going to have to get familiar with English grammar. Grammar or not grammar, when you go into technicalities please try and keep it brief!

As to those not familiar with the monotheist group Quran or the natural republic, you can download it by just googling

Monotheist group Quran PDF. And

The natural republic PDF. Which is also from the monotheist group.

Thanks

huruf

neither in 7141, in 146 or in 284 is it said that fira3wn killed or ordered to kill any new born. It speaks of "abnaahum", their sons, in 28.4, "abnaakum", your sons, in 14.6 and in 7.141.

This seems similar to what is said in aya 3.61
فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وَأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَتَ اللَّـهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ ﴿٦١﴾

And if anyone should argue with thee about this after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say "Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray humbly and ardently, and let us invoke God's curse upon those who are telling a lie."
In this aya it says "...abana'ana", our sons, and "abana`akum", your sons". They could hardly be newborn, a least all of them. Does not say "your new born sons"nor ou "new born sons".

Salaam

Mazhar

neither in 7141, in 146 or in 284 is it said that fira3wn killed or ordered to kill any new born. It speaks of "abnaahum", their sons, in 28.4, "abnaakum", your sons, in 14.6 and in 7.141.

This seems similar to what is said in aya 3.61
فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وَأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَتَ اللَّـهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ ﴿٦١﴾

And if anyone should argue with thee about this after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say "Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray humbly and ardently, and let us invoke God's curse upon those who are telling a lie."
In this aya it says "...abana'ana", our sons, and "abana`akum", your sons". They could hardly be newborn, a least all of them. Does not say "your new born sons"nor ou "new born sons".

Salaam

يُذَبِّـحُ أَبْنَآءَهُـمْ وَيَسْتَحْيِىۦ نِسَاءَهُـمْۚ

He used to slaughter their sons and purposely let their women live.

وَأَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَـىٰٓ أُمِّ مُوسَـىٰٓ أَنْ أَرْضِعِيهِۖ

And Our Majesty verbally communicated to the Mother of Mūsā that, "You keep breast feeding him —

فَإِذَا خِفْتِ عَلَيْهِ فَأَ لْقِيهِ فِـى ٱلْيَـمِِّ

Then when you would have apprehended danger upon him, thereon you place him in the river; (Nile-by placing him in the chest) —

وَلَا تَخَافِـى وَلَا تَحْزَنِـىٓۖ

And you should not feel fear and nor feel grief —

إِنَّا رَآدُّوهُ إِلَيْكِ

Our Majesty will certainly revert him back in the same condition/place to you —

وَجَاعِلُوهُ مِنَ ٱلْمُـرْسَلِيـنَ .2807٧

And We will appoint him as one of the Messengers."

فَٱلْتَقَطَهُۥٓ ءَالُ فِرْعَوْنَ لِيَكُونَ لَـهُـمْ عَدُوّٙا وَحَزَنٙاۗ

Thereupon, the men of Fir'aoun (Pharaoh) picked him up so that he may become for them an antagonist and cause of grief.

إِنَّ فِرْعَوْنَ وَهَٟمَٟنَ وَجُنُودَهُـمَا كَانُوا۟۟ خَاطِـِٔيـنَ .2808٨

-- Indeed Fir'aoun (Pharaoh) and Ha'maan and troops of both were long been wrong doers --.

وَقَالَتِ ٱمْرَأَةُ فِرْعَوْنَ قُرَّتُ عَيْـنٛ لِّـى وَلَكَۖ

And the wife of Fir'aoun (Pharaoh) said to him, "He is cool comfort of eye, soothing for me and for you —

لَا تَقْتُلُوهُ عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَنفَعَنَا أَوْ نَتَّخِذَهُۥ وَلَـدٙا

You should not kill him, perhaps he may benefit us or we may affectionately adopt him as son."

وَهُـمْ لَا يَشْعُـرُونَ .2809٩

And they had no idea/perception/clue .

http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/Tabweeb/2.22%20095%20Binaan/5.gif It includes son, new born, child, and of any age.

Iyyaka

neither in 7141, in 146 or in 284 is it said that fira3wn killed or ordered to kill any new born. It speaks of "abnaahum", their sons, in 28.4, "abnaakum", your sons, in 14.6 and in 7.141.
Salaam

Peace Huruf,

Yes you're right (i made a mistake - thanks)

abnāakum = your sons,
So nisāakum in (249) = daughters by contrast (in the textual context)

Then, the translation is "letting live your daughters" or "sparing your daughters".

Exactly like in Exodus 116 and Exodus 122
https//biblehub.com/exodus/1-16.htm
https//biblehub.com/exodus/1-22.htm

huruf

Peace Huruf,

Yes you're right (i made a mistake - thanks)

abnāakum = your sons,
So nisāakum in (249) = daughters by contrast (in the textual context)

Then, the translation is "letting live your daughters" or "sparing your daughters".

Exactly like in Exodus 116 and Exodus 122
https//biblehub.com/exodus/1-16.htm
https//biblehub.com/exodus/1-22.htm

Exodus may say what it may say, but we cannot make the Qur'an say what it does not say because it happens that exodus says something different. The Qur'an is quite capable of saying new born if that is what it wants to say. No need to feed it to it.

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

abnāakum = your sons,
So nisāakum in (249) = daughters by contrast (in the textual context)

peace, nisakum/womenfolk yours -- mothers, aunts, wives, sisters, nieces, daughters, etc.

https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/4/vers/23/handschrift/15
https//i.postimg.cc/4NrCXYJt/ch4v15-23.jpg

https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/33/vers/59/handschrift/107
https//i.postimg.cc/t473WkQL/ch33v53-62.jpg

Iyyaka

Dear Huruf, Noon waalqalami

nisakum/? yours -- mothers, aunts, wives, sisters, nieces, daughters, etc. = YES..In arabic it is a general term for woman.
So, now, we have to take into account the historical and textual context

2.1. Textual context (passage 247 to 249)

Verse 249 is part of a wider passage which is addressed DIRECTLY to "yābanī is'rāīla" (sons of israel - verse 247), and which begins in verse 240.
We are in the Medina context (controversy with the Jews)
Verse 249 reminds them how much God has granted them favors, and reminds them of stories they know and on which the Quran does not question the veracity - This story is therefore known and the Quran takes it back.
We can therefore confirm the words of the Quran by the Bible and clarify the meaning of nisakum in this particular context.

2.2. Textual context (verse 146 - liqawmihi = "to his people&quot

146
And Moses said to his people "Remember the blessings of God upon you that He saved you from the people of Pharaoh; they were afflicting you with the worst punishment, and they used to slaughter your children, and rape your women. And in that was a great test from your Lord." (The Quran A Monotheist Translation)

This time, it is Moses who speaks directly to his people and the speech is addressed to adult women and men of the group. (kum/"your" - it doesn't concern them directly as a person).
So it refers to a big emotional events for parents killing children (and we know by verse 249 that it is sons).

2.3. Textual context (verse 249 - slaughtering # to let alive)

As i said, there is a link and a contrast between this two parts of the sentence
249
yudhabbiḥūna/slaughtering abnāakum/your sons wayastaḥyūna/AND letting live nisāakum/your women-daughters.
=> there is a difference in treatment between male and female.
So, as "abnāakum" refers to the "sons", "nisāakum" refers here to daughters.

By doing this act, Firaun not only killed sons but he would like also to destroy a community.
He knew that he will also figuratively killing girls who will not be able to live their entire role as women belonging to the Hebrew people (their lose their identity without men to form a married couple, and protection too) => After short-term punishment (death of sons) comes long-term punishment (many women adult without husbands).

NB Quran is clear when it corrects the Bible like in verse 254 but it is another subject.

peace

huruf

One can fantasize as much as one likes on things that are not explicit, but that is what it is. When it is taken as moral questions, no problem but when it is taken as history BIG PROBLEM.

And that is the question. The Qur'a wcoul hae been as explicit as the Exodus, but does nto talk of rape rather says that women were sought to be kept alive, which, on the other hand, forms part of many civilised behaviour in times of war. The qur'an does not say the same as the exodus, say, and the Qur'an says also that many older "texts" are made to say things that God did not say. Particularly old testament is formed by original texts but by translations into greek which are very much more recent that the orginal texts would have been. It owul be the originalt texts, or the pats of them that were revealed those that the Qur'an corroborates, not those that have gone through unknown or known hands.

So please, no corroboration for "historical" particulars from Qu'an which are deduced to the taste of the deducer but which ARE NOT THERE.

Salaam

Iyyaka

One can fantasize as much as one likes on things that are not explicit, but that is what it is. When it is taken as moral questions, no problem but when it is taken as history BIG PROBLEM.

And that is the question. The Qur'a wcoul hae been as explicit as the Exodus, but does nto talk of rape rather says that women were sought to be kept alive, which, on the other hand, forms part of many civilised behaviour in times of war. The qur'an does not say the same as the exodus, say, and the Qur'an says also that many older "texts" are made to say things that God did not say. Particularly old testament is formed by original texts but by translations into greek which are very much more recent that the orginal texts would have been. It owul be the originalt texts, or the pats of them that were revealed those that the Qur'an corroborates, not those that have gone through unknown or known hands.

So please, no corroboration for "historical" particulars from Qu'an which are deduced to the taste of the deducer but which ARE NOT THERE.

Salaam

Just a little comment In context (Verse 249) we are not in a situation of war but of strong oppression.
peace.