Differences in translation of verse 39:18

siki

The literal translation of Al-Quran would be the reading/recitation/recital ... Al-Quran is the reading of Al-Kitaab but in Arabic this time. In the past, it used to be in other languages... All the scriptures are part of the Al-Kitaab ... The main Book which rest with God alone... There are many other attributes given to this Arabic Reading of Al-kitaab such as quraan (reading), Qawl (saying), Ahsan Al Hadith (best discourse), kalaam (speech), Nur (light), hudaa (guidance), rahma (mercy), furqaan etc etc .. The list is quite long... But they all reflect the nature of the the divine scripture.

Quran is the reading of ALkitab but in arabic this time,

agreed,

In the past it used to be in other languages.... alll the scriptures are part of al kitab,

partially agree , but i would modify , All the scriptures do contain Al kitab,

The main book which rest with GOD alone,,,

agreed,

There are many other attributes given to this Arabic reading of al kitaab such as qurraan, ( reading),,,,

Do not agree, why are you translating the word Quran?

I would say , A compilation which contained A part of Alkitab in a certain language given to prophet Mohammad , is being identified As AlQuran.

we will continue

siki

WayFinder

Quran is the reading of ALkitab but in arabic this time,

agreed,

Glad we agree

In the past it used to be in other languages.... alll the scriptures are part of al kitab,

partially agree , but i would modify , All the scriptures do contain Al kitab,

Either I did not express myself well or you probably misunderstood because what you said above is exactly what I wanted to say. I hold the view as well. However, they do not contain Al-Kitaab as a whole, but they form part of the Al-Kitaab. So we have agreement here as well

The main book which rest with GOD alone,,,

agreed,

Great.. one more... Praise God... we are not so different...

There are many other attributes given to this Arabic reading of al kitaab such as qurraan, ( reading),,,,

Do not agree, why are you translating the word Quran?

I am translating quran because it is meant to be translated because, although it is a noun, it might not be a proper noun. Look at the verses 7517/7518 please... we have the word quraan but with the pronoun attached to it... therefore it implies that this word is noun... and not a proper noun. For example you would not be able to attach a pronoun to Muhammad/Musa/Isa since they are proper nouns. In the verses I pointed out, you should translate Quraaanahu as its recitation/reading rather than His Quran.

Thank you

Mazhar

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/039.%20Az%20Zumar/Temp%2001%2039.17a.gif
therefore you, the Messenger guarantee/give glad tidings to My Servants;
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/039.%20Az%20Zumar/039.%20A10.gif
those who make themselves attentively listen the Word/Grand Qur'aan thereby/resultantly they incline themselves to act/follow, in letter and spirit, the best course described in that/Grand Qur'aan

3918

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/039.%20Az%20Zumar/39.55b.gif
And you people incline yourself to physically follow, in letter and spirit there being none third party in between, the Best Course of Action of that/Grand Qur'aan which has since been sent upon/for you people from your Sustainer Lord
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/039.%20Az%20Zumar/39.55d.gif
before the point in time that the infliction may come to you people all of a sudden
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/039.%20Az%20Zumar/Temp%2001%2039.55b.gif
while you people do not have its perception".

siki

I am translating quran because it is meant to be translated because, although it is a noun, it might not be a proper noun. Look at the verses 7517/7518 please... we have the word quraan but with the pronoun attached to it... therefore it implies that this word is noun... and not a proper noun. For example you would not be able to attach a pronoun to Muhammad/Musa/Isa since they are proper nouns. In the verses I pointed out, you should translate Quraaanahu as its recitation/reading rather than His Quran.

All the books that i have in my house are , "Readings" but they are different from each other, How do i identify each?

How do we identify this reading which was descended to Mohammad pbuh , from other readings which were sent earlier, containing Alkitab?

And from God's standards , if he does not give a name to this reading, He should not have given names to previous readings containing Alkitab? But he does, Injeel , torah etc?

By this standard, Injeel and Torah , in their respective languages, must translate as "Readings" Do They ?

If yes, then the below statement of God is ambigious

2-185 The month of scorching heat, in which the Quran was sent down as a guide and clarification of the guidance and the criterion

Because then, how would we differentiate which "reading" is Allah referring to in above particular ayah? He is just saying that i sent down a reading in shahr ramadhan? it could be some reading sent down to Moses or Jesus or maybe some other reading to its respective reciever?

let us continue

siki

WayFinder

All the books that i have in my house are , "Readings" but they are different from each other, How do i identify each?

How do we identify this reading from other readings that came previously, containing Alkitab?

siki

Very easy... none of them would have all the description of Al-Kitaab and functions altogether... all these without contradiction or crookedness.

Mazhar

Look at the verses 7517/7518 please... we have the word quraan but with the pronoun attached to it... therefore it implies that this word is noun... and not a proper noun. For example you would not be able to attach a pronoun to Muhammad/Musa/Isa since they are proper nouns.Look at the verses 7517/7518 please... we have the word quraan but with the pronoun attached to it... therefore it implies that this word is noun... and not a proper noun. For example you would not be able to attach a pronoun to Muhammad/Musa/Isa since they are proper nouns.

Please give it a second thought and please elaborate the point further. "Hu" suffixed pronoun is always definite. One of the words in quoted Aayat is a verb with suffixed "hu" which is the object of verb.

WayFinder

Please give it a second thought and please elaborate the point further. "Hu" suffixed pronoun is always definite. One of the words in quoted Aayat is a verb with suffixed "hu" which is the object of verb.

You are right.. However, with an AL prefixed with the word, it would become a noun.

WayFinder

All the books that i have in my house are , "Readings" but they are different from each other, How do i identify each?

How do we identify this reading which was descended to Mohammad pbuh , from other readings which were sent earlier, containing Alkitab?

And from God's standards , if he does not give a name to this reading, He should not have given names to previous readings containing Alkitab? But he does, Injeel , torah etc?

By this standard, Injeel and Torah , in their respective languages, must translate as "Readings" Do They ?

If yes, then the below statement of God is ambigious

2-185 The month of scorching heat, in which the Quran was sent down as a guide and clarification of the guidance and the criterion

Because then, how would we differentiate which "reading" is Allah referring to in above particular ayah? He is just saying that i sent down a reading in shahr ramadhan? it could be some reading sent down to Moses or Jesus or maybe some other reading to its respective reciever?

let us continue

siki

Never forget to look at the complete message as a whole bro... Reading/The Reading is always referring to the current reading being revealed to Muhammad to him people.

siki

Never forget to look at the complete message as a whole bro... Reading/The Reading is always referring to the current reading being revealed to Muhammad to him people.

Do not agree bro.

This particular ayah does not give us any such clue that GOD is talking about "The Reading" which He has sent down to Mohammad .

Moreover in such a case, this reading should not contain any reference regarding previous readings.

But it has , and plenty of them.

peace

siki

siki

Way finder.

Bro, we are discussing this issue to reach a certain conclusion, which is

Can we identify A reading of God, sent down to Mankind via prophet Mohammad, containing Alkitab, with some proper Noun, which could be "Quran" ?

You must consider that sometimes a word can work both as a proper noun and a common noun.

siki

siki

wayfinder,

salam brother,

I worked on your assumption that "Quran is a common noun" and i find it to be wrong because "Alquranu" is a masculine proper noun. The ayah down below may further support my view on the subject,

7-204 When the Qur'an is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace that ye may receive Mercy or
And if the Quran is being read, then listen to it and pay attention, that you may receive mercy.

If we translate the word quran as reading, then this ayah is saying " when reading is being read " ? and in this particular case the reading ( "Al Quranau &quot is proper noun with absolutely no ambiguity.

So, Now i am very sure that Alquran is a proper noun, which can be identified as a reading which contains part of Alkitab and also AL qaul of creator, in Arabic language compiled in a certain sequence, sent down via the lips of prophet Mohammad.

siki

WayFinder

I agree with you brother... Indeed 'The Quran' is a proper noun which refer to Al-Kitab. Same as all the other attributes like Az-Zekr. Even if we are translating them... 'The Reading' will still be a proper noun but conveying a clear message that it is something which should be read.

siki

I agree with you brother... Indeed 'The Quran' is a proper noun which refer to Al-Kitab. Same as all the other attributes like Az-Zekr. Even if we are translating them... 'The Reading' will still be a proper noun but conveying a clear message that it is something which should be read.

Thanks Brother, so, after this conclusion, let me re explain the problem with Mazhar's translation, so that you can re evaluate your stance.

Mazhar translates/refers/understands the arabic word ALQaul,"" as Grand Quran, and also the word Al haque as Grand Quran. I strongly objected to this translation/referral, due following reasons.

Al quran is a name given to a reading by God which contains his words in Arabic in a certain sequence sent through prophet Mohammad.
contains God's word and Al haque, True.
Does Only contain God's words and Al haque? In my opinion this is a false statement ,
and that is why I objected to his translation , because it makes a reader believe so.
I declared statement No 3. wrong because, "Allah's word existed before Quran was sent". "Allah's haq existed before quran was sent".

I have been insisting on him, that when God uses the word "Al quale" , or "Al haque", it is by design, and when he uses the "pronoun" it is again by design,

He can't translate "Al quale or Al haque" as "Grand Quran"

siki

WayFinder

I agree with you as it comes to the literal translation... We should stick to the true meaning of each word and not substitute the translation. However, as a sidenote, we can indicate the x here is referring to y because of so and so... This will make sense... I do not think we should be separating kalaamullah/shifah/hikmah/alqawl/alhaq etc etc... Because all of them, in our quranic context are referring back to the revelation.

siki

I agree with you as it comes to the literal translation... We should stick to the true meaning of each word and not substitute the translation. However, as a sidenote, we can indicate the x here is referring to y because of so and so... This will make sense... I do not think we should be separating kalaamullah/shifah/hikmah/alqawl/alhaq etc etc... Because all of them, in our quranic context are referring back to the revelation.

I get your point, but brother had his referral be like this,

scriptures or
Quran, Injeel, Taurat, etc,

It would have been OK, but if it makes a believer believe that , It means "Quran only" That is the problem , and a big one.

Our understanding of God's word is plagued with translator's personal"baggage" which misguides honest learners. We have to be very careful with GOd's words.

And who knows this better than Mazhar ? But when Mazhar himself commits the same error and somebody points it out, Mazhar, instead of contemplating turns to intimidation and ridicule using foul language/abuses and person's lack of knowledge regarding Arabic.

peace

siki

Mazhar

Our understanding of God's word is plagued with translator's personal"baggage" which misguides honest learners. We have to be very careful with GOd's words.

And who knows this better than Mazhar ? But when Mazhar himself commits the same error and somebody points it out, Mazhar, instead of contemplating turns to intimidation and ridicule using foul language/abuses and person's lack of knowledge regarding Arabic.

I keep trying to give explanaton from various angles to make one understand the point. Nowhere ever one will find that I was the first to use any offensive term. Once a moderator softly warned through PM, about this idiot or stupid word; and I told to go back to the thread and see what has been responded, and compare which of two is more serious. The point was well taken and was agreed.

The purpose is to share knowledge. It is stated that I do not put in parentheses anything except either it is written in Qur'aan at another placed or to indicate the connotations attached to Arabic word which cannot be indicated in word by word translation or with one single word.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02.gif
and they acknowledged/accepted which has gradually been sent/communicated to Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam,

and how that Grand Qur'aan is described by Allah?

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02c.gif
and that-Grand Qur'aan which was sent to him is "Alhaqqu"-"The statement of proven fact" from their Sustainer Lord;

"Huwa" is a detached PERSONAL PRONOUN for third person; masculine; singular referring to , and we know it is Grand Qur'aan as told at many places in Qur'aan. And this "Huwa" is Subject of the nominal sentence and "" in nominative case is the predicate of Huwa.

siki

I keep trying to give explanaton from various angles to make one understand the point. Nowhere ever one will find that I was the first to use any offensive term. Once a moderator softly warned through PM, about this idiot or stupid word;

Mazhar

You resorted to abusive language when i pointed out your intellectual dishonesty while debating a point. Taking advantage of my patience , you even repeated your abuses second time.

Good that the Mods were active and took notice of your abuses at their own, I never reported.

When you had no logical explanation to my objections , you got irritated and repeatedly abused me, leaving me no option but to highlight "your work" in the mirror of your own translations.

The point was well taken and was agreed.

Which point? point of the mods , or mine? ;D

siki

siki

It is stated that I do not put in parentheses anything except either it is written in Qur'aan at another placed or to indicate the connotations attached to Arabic word which cannot be indicated in word by word translation or with one single word.

No , I did not mean my objection to be understood the way you are understanding above,

When the wordings, or the context is clearly pointing towards certain meanings there is no harm in doing so. I understand, that you are not doing a literal translation, but locking a meaning when the Arabic or the author is not intending to do so, is a mistake, and a big one.

siki

siki

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02.gif
and they acknowledged/accepted which has gradually been sent/communicated to Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam,

and how that Grand Qur'aan is described by Allah?

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02c.gif
and that-Grand Qur'aan which was sent to him is "Alhaqqu"-"The statement of proven fact" from their Sustainer Lord;

"Huwa" is a detached PERSONAL PRONOUN for third person; masculine; singular referring to , and we know it is Grand Qur'aan as told at many places in Qur'aan. And this "Huwa" is Subject of the nominal sentence and "" in nominative case is the predicate of Huwa.

Mazhar

Was above reference quoted by you earlier , or not? you did not. Is alhaque quoted above, similar in context to your previously quoted example ? which is,

10-108 Say "O ye men! Now Truth hath reached you from your Lord! those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss and I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs

You are proving apple , by giving me example of an orange, let me show you how,

In 47-02, Al Hague is referenced as sent down to Messenger which is by name being mentioned as Mohammad, clearly and unambiguously locking the meanings as ALquran.

Whereas in 10-118 it does not. And that is my objection, not for Alhaque in 47-2.

siki

siki

Mazhar salam Brother

Your insistence on a mistake by giving misleading examples is indeed alarming. You think you can wrap it up in fancy grammar, or sophisticated words and hence deceive readers to digest it innocently?

Flagrant use of such tactics by you, made me say in the past that " you are intellectually dishonest" .

And if you are not doing this by design, then chances are "you are intellectually bankrupt" and hence are incapable of comprehending these finer issues. And with this honesty or wisdom, you have taken upon yourself to translate God's words and/or to correct previous translators mistakes?
GOD help us please!

siki