3:7 A MATTER OF PUNCTUATION MARKS. WHICH IS CORRECT?
-
Peace dear brother Wakas,
Can you provide a trans. of 37 for me, so I can fully understand (and compare/verify etc.) what you meant.
- He is the one who descended on you the book. From it are judging signs that are the cradle/origin of the book, and others that are confusing. So in the case of
(1) Those who have blurriness in their hearts, they follow what is confusing from it (the book) desiring a problem and desiring its (the book's) original interpretation. And none knows its (the book's) original interpretation except The God. And,
(2) Those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We have faith in it (the book), both (types of signs) are from our Lord."
And none remember other than those with intellects.
- He is the one who descended on you the book. From it are judging signs that are the cradle/origin of the book, and others that are confusing. So in the case of
-
Peace dear brother Kyle,
Thank you for your kind comments.
On the other hand, those who have blurriness in their hearts desire ("ibtigha'a") the original 100% true meaning.
I disagree with that, why wouldn't we desire the 100% true meaning of anything?
Why desire the impossible? Brother, please remember that the hidden whisperer plays on our desires.
Everything is related. If you understand the 100% true meaning of the book then you would understand the whole universe and creation. Only our Lord understands that.
I only desire mercy from my Lord.
With that said, I take the beginning of this verse to mean;
(37) He is who descended on you The Book
Al Kitaab is the ever unfolding book of our lives which will be handed to us in either our right or left hands at the end of this test, it is not this reading(quran)**
Right now, the way I understand "the descended book" is that it is this book that descended on the prophet and that we are reading. Of course, I could be wrong so I will study this more, but for now, this is my understanding.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
Peace be upon you Ayman,
You are making good sense. Let me think on this for a while.
I think I will start a thred on Al Kitaab also.
-
Peace be upon you,
After thinking on that I agree, because it is not talking about getting the 100% understanding of this reading(quran), it is talking about the 100% understanding of life. This reading is only a guide in this life, and it is possible to remember these messages in order to discipline your life, although you will never understand life 100%.
Comments.
-
Peace brothers Kyle, Ayman, all,
Al ghayb means unseen, but it does not mean unknown. We cannot see electricity, but we know about it.
This is my understanding of the news of ?Al ghayb?, they describe events which passed or will pass respectively in a far past or a far future and where we were absent or we have not the possibility to be present In other word, we are ghaibeen (absent) and we know this news through the quran.
Ahmad Shabir
344 (O Messenger) We are revealing to you these events of history / the news of the unseen so that you may dispel conjecture and rumor. You were not there when the monks cast lots and contended with one another to take hold of (the young beautiful) Mary after Zechariah.Thalika min anba-i alghaybi nooheehi ilayka wama kunta ladayhim ithyulqoona aqlamahum ayyuhum yakfulu maryama wamakunta ladayhim ith yakhtasimoona
2844 And (O Prophet) you were not present on the Western slope (of Mount Sinai) when We expounded the Commandments to Moses, nor were you among those who witnessed his times.
2845 Nay, but between them and you We brought forth many generations, and long was their life-span. And neither did you dwell among the people of Midyan, conveying to them Our Messages. Nay, but We have been sending Messengers.
2846 And neither were you present on the slope of Mount Sinai when We called Moses. But you are sent as an act of your Lord?s Grace, to warn people to whom no Warner has come before you, so that they may reflect. ((323), (366). Prophet Ishmael, the ancestor of Arabs, cannot be considered a Prophet to them since Children of Ishmael multiplied and inhabited Arabia as the Arab community long after his death. See (2125) and introduction to Surah 11 Hud).
Regarding resurrection, that is simply when one comes out of darkness of ignorance.
The following verses are sufficient for me, I do not need to follow what is similar because I believe the language in the quran is straightforward and not an enigma.
515 O People of the Book! Now has come to you Our Messenger, to make clear to you much of what you have been concealing from yourselves and others. He ignores much of the irrelevant accounts and pardons much of your misdeeds. Now has come to you from Allah a Beacon of Light and a Clear Book.
516 Through this Book Allah guides to paths of Peace, those who seek His Approval. He brings them out of darkness into the Light of His Grace, and guides them to the Straight Path.
And those who deny Our signs, they are deaf and dumb, in darkness.(639)
141 A.L.R. Alif. Laam. Ra. Allah Aleem the Knower, Raziq the Provider. A Divine Writ is this that We have revealed to you (O Prophet). So that you may bring forth all mankind, by their Sustainer?s leave, out of darkness into Light. On to the Way that leads to the Almighty, the Owner of all praise. (145), (3343).
145 (Moses spoke the language of his people.) We sent him with Our Messages, saying, "Bring your people from darkness to Light and remind them of the days of Allah (when different nations earned His Blessings). Verily, there are lessons in the history of nations for those who are steadfast in their resolve to rise as a community and wish that their efforts be fruitful.? (SHUKR or gratefulness is not just the verbal proclamation of 'Thank God!' It pertains to our efforts bearing fruit, and then our sharing of the fruit of success with the servants of Allah).
Peace dear sister Marie, brother Kyle, all,
I think that both views I see here on this thread are based on a wrong reading of 37.
The first mistake comes from the wrong understanding of what the verb "ta'awiluh" is referring to.
The verb "ta'awiluh" is referring to a singular masculine while "ayat mutashabihat" is plural feminine. The ONLY singular masculine object in the sentence is "al-kitab" (the book). Hence, "ta'awiluh" must refer to "al-kitab" and NOT to "ayat mutashabihat".You are right. I thing, this is the same wrong reading for 345 and 4171.
The word "ta'awiluh" is not equivalent to "seeing it", "knowing it", "understanding it", or even "interpreting it". The word "ta'awiluh" comes from "awal" which has the meaning of primary/first/original. So what is being talked about here is not any "knowledge" or "interpretation" but it is the original 100% true meaning intended by The God.
Maybe the word "ta'awiluh" ?al-kitab? is other thing than the original 100% true meaning intended by The God in His Book.
The following verses bring an additional lighting
752 We have given them a Book of Knowledge that explains the Guidance in full detail. It is a Mercy for those who accept it. (It has the Power to change hellish societies into paradise on earth).
753 Are they waiting until the consequences stare them in their eyes / the realization of His threat and His promises? The Day the consequences appear / it?s true realization will come, those who disregarded it will say, ?The Messengers of our Lord did bring the Truth. Are there any intercessors to intercede on our behalf? Or can we be returned that we behave differently from our past?? They have put their ?Self? in loss and their own forgery fails them. (They will seek mediation for their mutual conflicts and long for starting from scratch. Since they have hurt their "Self", they have lost the power of judgment and they would need help. They have been fabricating unworkable systems).
Hal yanthuroona illa ta/weelahu yawma ya/tee ta/weeluhu yaqoolu allatheenanasoohu min qablu qad jaat rusulu rabbina bialhaqqifahal lana min shufaAAaa fayashfaAAoo lanaaw nuraddu fanaAAmala ghayra allathee kunnanaAAmalu qad khasiroo anfusahum wadalla AAanhum makanoo yaftaroona
459 O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, the Central Authority of the Divine System, and those whom the System has appointed as office-bearers. If you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to the Central Authority. If you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day, this is the best approach for you, and more seemly in the end / That is better destiny / That is better and more suitable for knowing
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanooateeAAoo Allaha waateeAAoo alrrasoola waolee al-amri minkum fa-in tanazaAAtum fee shay-infaruddoohu ila Allahi waalrrasooli in kuntumtu/minoona biAllahi waalyawmi al-akhiri thalika khayrun waahsanu ta/weelan
Marie
-
Peace sister Marie, brother Kyle, all,
Maybe the word "ta'awiluh" ?al-kitab? is other thing than the original 100% true meaning intended by The God in His Book.
In addition to 753 and 459 please see 126, 1221, 1237, 1244, 12100, 12101.
The 100% true meaning of something is also the realization of something. Hence, both the 100% true meaning of a dream and the meaning of the dream actually being realized is one and the same.
Now an interesting thing to note is that in 126 The God taught Youssef "min ta'awil al-ahadith" (some of the interpretation of sayings). Hence, even Youssef, a prophet, would have been able to know some of the 100% true interpretation of "ahadith"/sayings, but not all.
As a side note, especially for brother Kyle, dreams (which now we know from chapter 12 are a type of "ahadith") tend to be mostly symbolic but sometimes contain literal events. For example, notice in the dreams of Youssef's jail mates that the symbolism of the dream is mixed with events that will literally happen. Now the book is described as "ahsan al-hadith". The book does have symbolic meaning in addition to the literal meaning (where it can be understood literally). Hence, symbolic and literal understandings are not mutually exclusive and both can be valid and complement each other.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
Peace dear ayman, all
The verb "ta'awiluh" is referring to a singular masculine while "ayat mutashabihat" is plural feminine. The ONLY singular masculine object in the sentence is "al-kitab" (the book). Hence, "ta'awiluh" must refer to "al-kitab" and NOT to "ayat mutashabihat".
I think this is incorrect, ma tashabaha min hu(what is ambiguous of it) is another singular masculine object which "ta'awiluh" can refer to
There is a shift in the verse from (Ayatun)mutashabihatun to ma tashabaha min hu.
Ayatun mutashabihatun(fem,plur.)(ambiguous signs/messages/utterances/directions) are later refered to as ma tashabaha min hu(what is ambiguous of it/book)-masc,sing. And thus "ta'awiluh" can refer to ambiguous signs/uteerances or more precisely to what is ambiguous. which is given the context more plausible understanding.
decisive signs` meaning is obvious and the meaning of undecisive or ambiguous signs or utterances is prone to differing interpretations and their meaning is known only to The God, that is, it is best judged/determined by decisive signs, since the book is consistent and The God is explaining his words ones by means of the others..
Peace and all the best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace brother Zlatan, all,
Peace dear ayman, all
The verb "ta'awiluh" is referring to a singular masculine while "ayat mutashabihat" is plural feminine. The ONLY singular masculine object in the sentence is "al-kitab" (the book). Hence, "ta'awiluh" must refer to "al-kitab" and NOT to "ayat mutashabihat".
If ?ma tashabaha min hu(masc, sing)? refers to ?Ayatun mutashabihatun(fem,plur.)?, we should read ?ma tashabaha min(ha") (fem, sing) or ?ma tashabaha minhunna"(fem, plur) and ?ibtighaa alfitnati waibtighaa ta/weeliha" (fem, sing) or "ta/weelihinna" (fem, plur) ? instead of ?ta/weelihi (masc, sing)?
Personally, I don?t attribute the same meaning to ?Ayatun mutashabihatun / the similar sign? and ?ma tashabaha min hu / the false meaning?
See also the meaning of the word ?shubbiha / it appeared so? in 4157
I consider the quran does not contain any ambiguity.
Allah knows best
Marie
-
PEACE MARIE AND ALL
Personally, I don?t attribute the same meaning to ?Ayatun mutashabihatun / the similar sign? and ?ma tashabaha min hu / the false meaning?
See also the meaning of the word ?shubbiha / it appeared so? in 4157
I consider the quran does not contain any ambiguity.
Good point, Marie. Al-Quran cannot contain any ambiguity, because Allah, repeatedly, refers to it as the clear Book, hence, as you say, mutashabatun, cannot mean vague, unclear, ambiguous for that would constitute a contradiction. Mutashabatun, as you say, means similar/alike
270 They said Call on your Lord for our sake to make it plain to us what she is, for surely to us the cows are all alike, and if Allah please we shall surely be guided aright.
270 Qaloo odAAu lana rabbaka yubayyin lana ma hiya inna albaqara tashabaha AAalayna wa-inna in shaa Allahu lamuhtadoon
6141 And He it is Who produces gardens (of vine), trellised and untrellised, and palms and seed-produce of which the fruits are of various sorts, and olives and pomegranates, like and unlike; eat of its fruit when it bears fruit, and pay the due of it on the day of its reaping, and do not act extravagantly; surely He does not love the extravagant.
6141 Wahuwa allathee anshaa jannatin maAArooshatin waghayra maAArooshatin waalnnakhla waalzzarAAa mukhtalifan okuluhu waalzzaytoona waalrrummana mutashabihan waghayra mutashabihin kuloo min thamarihi itha athmara waatoo haqqahu yawma hasadihi wala tusrifoo innahu la yuhibbu almusrifeena
These ayats uses mutashabatun, to mean alike/similar, hence, how can it be any different with 37?
-
Peace Marie, Priest all
Marie wrote
If ma tashabaha min hu(masc, sing) refers to Ayatun
mutashabihatun(fem,plur.), we should read ma tashabaha min(ha") (fem,
sing) or ma tashabaha minhunna"(fem, plur) and ibtighaa alfitnati
waibtighaa ta/weeliha" (fem, sing) or "ta/weelihinna" (fem, plur)
instead of ta/weelihi (masc, sing)these observations are very incorect grammaticaly ... not only from the point of view of arabic language but judging by other languages as well..at least few that i am familiar with... the first three of the objections contains also big logical incorrectness..i am sure it was in haste so i ll not comment it...i would just comment the grammatical part...
it is not unusuall in arabic, as well as in other languages(not sure for franch) to describe or to reffer to the same entity with the terms differing in their gender and number....
Luckily, or due to the surplus of the similar cases, immediately after i have read your post i come upon upon the verse which has almost the same shift or switch in genders while still reffering to the same entity like 37.....
Its 17/33, it says
?wa la taqtuloo nafsa(fem) lleti(fem) harramallahu illa bil haqqi wa man(masc) qutile(masc) mazlooman fa qad ja`alnaa li waliyyihi(masc) sultanan?And do not kill the person(fem) which(fem) the god has made forbiden except rightfully, so whoever(masc.)is killed with injustice then we have already gave to his(masc) protector authority to kill...
It is not gramaticaly incorrect to reffer to ayatun mutashabihatun/ambiguous utterances (fem) with ?ma tashabaha(masc) /min hu/??what is ambiguous /of the book/?...its like saying the part that/which is ambiguous where the part not necessarily has to be of the same gender as ayatun....so the pronoun hi(masc) in ?taweelihi? could validly reffer to the ambigous part of the book or more precisely to what is ambigous of the book(masc), that is, back to ambiguous signs/utterances inspite they being of female gender...
Just like in 17/33 where at first killing of the person is proclaimed as forbiden in female gender(nafsal-letii) , and after that the example of killing of the person is given in the male gender(fa man kutila) and finaly the killing is allowed to protector of the killed in the case of just retaliation once again with reffering to the same entity by the male pronoun hi(waliyyihi-his protector)
Personally, I dont attribute the same meaning to Ayatun mutashabihatun
/ the similar sign and ma tashabaha min hu / the false meaningYes, i was aware of it...The same understanding is hold by aidid saffar and i am still pondering over it... however it essentially doesnt differ much from my current understanding presented at this thread or this forum generally....currently i found it gramatically suspicious, more complicated, and less competent or capable of connecting all the points of the passage into a consistent structure... (maybe ill elaborate on this detaily later in this thread)
See also the meaning of the word shubbiha / it appeared so in 4157
Yes i know about that meaning...however, its irrelevant to the discussion cause one of the valid meanings of shbh or its derivatives in arabic is ambiguity.... btw ?it was made vague or ambiguous to them?(shubbiha lehum) would fit even better, particularly because of the continuation ?wa innaladhina khtalafoo fihi la fee shakkin min hu, ma lehum bi hi min `ilmin?-translated
?those who differed in regards of it were truly in doubt in regards of it, they possesed no knowledge in regards of it...?It was made vague or ambiguous to them.....they were really in doubt, and they possesed no knowledge...
But nevertheless its irrlevant oto the topic cause one root can have more meanings be it related or even not related....I consider the quran does not contain any ambiguity.
To denie ambiguity in the book is to denie the book itself...there
s a lot of ambigity in the book...and theres so many examples of it that i found it redundant to cite it to someone who study the book daily like you..... of course the book as a whole isnt ambiguous....representing or leading parts of book are its decisive or precise statements...and in their light ambiguous stuff is clarified...Best wishes, Zlatan
PRIEST_BOKMEI wrote
Good point, Marie. Al-Quran cannot contain any ambiguity, because Allah,
repeatedly, refers to it as the clear Book, hence, as you say,
mutashabatun, cannot mean vague, unclear, ambiguous for that would
constitute a contradiction.Arent we used to say that sentences of the gods book explain each other...
Is that a contradiction too?Is it smart to say that since sentences are clear thers no need for their explanation?
And if there`s no ambiguity why we need other sentences to explain each other?
The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...
Mutashabatun, as you say, means
similar/alike270 They said.
6141 And He it is Who produces
These ayats uses mutashabatun, to mean alike/similar, hence, how can it be any different with 37?
A word can have one or more then one valid meanings ...they may be releated and they may be totaly unrelated... this is an inherent feature of arabic and a few other languages i am familiar with.. and it wouldnt make me wonder if thats the case with all the languages....
Similarity, ambiguity and vaguenes are very related notions and the former produces and creates the (two) later...so there`s no big deal in the fact that all these meanings are attached to the same root or word.....this particular ramification is maybe(and maybe not) due to the particularities of the paradigm(6th form of the verbs) in which root shbh is used in 3/7 and all the possible meanings this paradigm offers.....( ill look up into gramar book to check and maybe inform you later of my findings)
And the reason why i think the meaning of mutashabihat in 3/7 is ambiguous or undecisive is because of the context of the passage and the context of the book as a whole...
In 3/7 the mutashabihat is contrasted with muhkamat which means tightened, perfected, strong, restrained, decisive, precise utterances or signs, and consequently mutashabihat is best rendered as ambiguous or undecisive or unrestrained sayings....prone to differing interpretations as to their meaning ....
This is abused by those in whose hearts is a deviation... .Instead of following precise sayings, clear of themselves, which are leading part of the book and which need not interpretations, they follow ambiguos part by seeking to mislead or to make discord and seeking to interpret it, while its interpretation is known only to the God, that is , the sayings of the book are only allowed to be interpreted or explained by its other sayings which solely and exclusively represent the god....
make sense to me...
Best wishes, Zlatan
-
Salam br Zlatan,
I understand your reasonning, but I think the word "ta/weelihi" at the end of the verse refers to the book usually.
Ta/weel of the book will come in the light of 752-53.The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...
121 A.L.R., these are the signs of the clarifying Scripture.
121 We have sent it down an Arabic Quran, perhaps you will comprehend- A.L.R., these are the signs of the Scripture, and a clear Quran.
Allah knows best
Marie
-
Salam br Zlatan,
I understand your reasonning, but I think the word "ta/weelihi" at the end of the verse refers to the book usually.
Ta/weel of the book will come in the light of 752-53.Peace Mary
The meaning or interpretation of the word taweel in 3/7 and 7/52-53 is clearly different. The interpretation /translation/ meaning of taweel asoutcome or consequences seems more plausible and makes more sense in 7/52-53 and meaning "meaning/interpretation " makes more sense in 3/7...
As for taweelehu in 3/7 reffering either to the book or to "what is ambiguous of it", it makes no real difference to the meaning of the passage...
The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...
121 A.L.R., these are the signs of the clarifying Scripture.
121 We have sent it down an Arabic Quran, perhaps you will comprehend- A.L.R., these are the signs of the Scripture, and a clear Quran.
Recently when we have discused salat you have said that "I think it is not black or white. We have to consider the context of each verse"...
and now it seems to me that you have formed exactly such a black-white view on this topic....
what we need here, like in many other topics, is a kind of 3 dimensional view...two dimensional or black-white view simply isnt true...
Quran being clear is not in contradiction with having some undecisive or ambiguous elements cause considered as a whole( and remember it is the way it should be considered) it is clear...(besides imo mubeen can mean clarifying as well not solely clear)
I am sure you know enough of arabic gramar to know of its indefinite pronouns.... they are an essential part of arabic language ...they are in their nature ambiguous...and we can do nothing about it...does it mean that theres no single book in arabic that is clear? does it mean the God`s book is not clear or The God is a liar? Does it mean that in order to make the book decisive The God must avoid indefinite pronouns? Of course not...(imagine how clustered and cucumbersome such a book or discourse would look like)
See for example verse 4/159...there are so many indefinite elements in it that one studying it in isolation will have a hard time defining to who or what are reffering its indefinite elements; namely pronoun "hi"(meaning it/him or his) which is used twice and which can reffer to several almost equaly valid yet differring objects/meanings
- Jesus. 2. The follower of the book 3. it/that which is previously stated or the book/revelation in general 4.The God
(remember pronoun "hi" is used twice so there is a possibility of cross combining its objects so theoreticaly we have even more meanings; plus there is indefinite verb yakoonu which could refer either to the God or Jesus)
Dont you agree this passage is ambiguous?
best wishes,
Zlatan
-
Salaam,
Zlatan, your analysis is faulty at best. The Arabic word 'man" is not masculine, it is used for masculine,feminine, singular,dual plural. It is described as an indeclinable conjunction.. Everyone should look up the definition for themselves in Lane, Omar, Lisan al arab,etc. You translated
"so whoever(masc.)is killed with injustice then we have already gave to his(masc) protector authority to kill... '
The word you translate as "so" is wa, and would mean "and" here, your translation would work if the word was fa. In the English language, the word "so" in the sentence you gave is giving a cause and effect, fa does that in Arabic,not wa. Again, I hope everyone checks a good dictionary to verify what I'm saying is true. You also make a big deal out of the fact that nafsa is feminine. Nafsa is feminine in nature, but is used in Arabic to describe both men and women, as are many other nouns in ArRabic. Finally, look where the verse switches,, it refers back to the word 'man', which is used for both masculine and feminine.
-
Peace cathedral !
I almost completely agree with your analysis and that`s exactly what i was saying....
Your analysis actually proves validity of my claim that "ta`weelahu" in 3/7 CAN validly reffer to the ayatun mutashabihatun inspite of the difference in gender...
There are some of your points with which i disagree... but which are imo irrelevant to the topic... i think "wa" can render the same meaning as "fa" the same way as "and" in english can render "so"... i think there is plenty of examples for it in the book, one being this very verse you quoted........
As for "man/who/whoever" it is gramatically speaking masculine, at least in this verse(masculine verb used with it and it is reffered to in the verse as "hi" in waliyyhi/his protector)...of course "man" can reffer to feminine objects just like, in a way similar particle, "ma/what" (occurs in 3/7 in "ma tashabaha min hu/what is ambiguous of it") can reffer to feminine, as well as masculine objects...
although "man/who" can stand for both genders i think that when it is used in a general sense( like in this verse) it is of a masculine gender...there are plenty of such instances in the book and it is always reffred to with "masculine words"content of this post EDITED
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace be upon you,
I will repeat some of my understandings so I can get caught back up with this debate.
Does he God deliver a message to us that we cannotunderstand? Are we just to be blind followers of a book just because it is claimed to be from the God?
If I sent ayone here a message in the mail and when you read it it said "kjgogpn ;jouyiyhd khugwutgw", would that be logical? Especially if there was something I really wanted you to know?
Since when do we start sentences with "AND"? Isn't that a word that connects , not starts off sentecnces?
(37) ...None knows its interpretation except the God AND those with knowledge. (they) say, "we have faith in it, all from at our Lord...
-
Peace be upon you all,
(1221) ... We highly positioned/secured to Joseph in the earth/Planet Earth, and to teach/instruct him from the stories interpretation ( min ta/weeli al-ahadeethi )
So is it the God and Joseph that know the correct interpretation, and the rest of mankind just guess at it? Or did the God intsruct Joseph in the WRONG interpretation,being that only the God knows the correct interpretation?
I would say that the God teaches ALL of those who aquire knowledge the CORRECT interpretation through thier daily life experiences.
-
Peace be upon you Kyle , all
Since when do we start sentences with "AND"? Isn't that a word that connects , not starts off sentecnces?
There is at least a hundred sentences which beggin with the particle ?waw? in the great reading...but their number is probably greater...its only my rough aproximation....how did you missed them is a mistery to me...maybe the reason is that translators often omit ?waw? from the begginings of the verses considering them redundant....
Kyle, excuse my eventual conjecturing but the correct reason is probably that you are writing and reading here too much posts and devoting much too energy in the search of the highly speculative and dubious ultra-hyper-extra-symbolical theories, to note such a simple fact....
Generaly many people on this forum are writing and reading much too posts speculating on most bizzare possibilites and wild guesses while devoting too little time to the night study of the book itself.......
Kyle you have become an ultra-lateral thinker....
True, the lateral thinking is good at excavating new facts and finding the solutions to the problems when the standard vertical thinking fails....but you have made the lateral thinking your default mode..the wild ride on the bike of your fantasies in my humble opinion leads you to the eternal fire...be aware of it...maybe its a time to study more seriously and thoroughly....
Best wishes, Zlatan
-
PEACE ZLATAN
I didn't see this post from you.
Arent we used to say that sentences of the gods book explain each other... Is that a contradiction too?
I don't know what you are saying here?
Is it smart to say that since sentences are clear thers no need for their explanation? And if there`s no ambiguity why we need other sentences to explain each other?
Just because something is clear doesn't mean that it cannot be further elaborated on. So, no, I don't see a problem with that.
The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...
Well, then you are in contradiction with Allah, because He defines His Quran as clear. For example, I'm certain that you read something when you were in the 5th grade and it wasn't clear to you, however, in the 8th grade it was. Now, did the writing on the page change or did your understanding change? What was on that page was clear in the 5th grade, but you simply didn't understand it then. It is the same with Al-Quran.
Mutashabatun, as you say, means
similar/alike270 They said.
6141 And He it is Who produces
These ayats uses mutashabatun, to mean alike/similar, hence, how can it be any different with 37?
37 37 He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.
37 Huwa allathee anzala AAalayka alkitaba minhu ayatun muhkamatun hunna ommu alkitabi waokharu mutashabihatun faamma allatheena fee quloobihim zayghun fayattabiAAoona ma tashabaha minhu ibtighaa alfitnati waibtighaa ta/weelihi wama yaAAlamu ta/weelahu illa Allahu waalrrasikhoona fee alAAilmi yaqooloona amanna bihi kullun min AAindi rabbina wama yaththakkaru illa oloo al-albabi
-
Allah has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful Message in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects) the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble thereat; then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of Allah.s praises. Such is the guidance of Allah. He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as Allah leaves to stray, can have none to guide.
-
Allahu nazzala ahsana alhadeethi kitaban mutashabihan mathaniya taqshaAAirru minhu juloodu allatheena yakhshawna rabbahum thumma taleenu julooduhum waquloobuhum ila thikri Allahi thalika huda Allahi yahdee bihi man yashao waman yudlili Allahu fama lahu min hadin.
If we take your position that, mutashabitun means allegorical/ambiguous, then ayat 37 and 3923 are in ciontradiction, because ayat 3923 says that the entire Quran is mutashabitun--allegorical/ambiguous, while 37 only says parts of it are. How do you explain this?
A word can have one or more then one valid meanings ...they may be releated and they may be totaly unrelated... this is an inherent feature of arabic and a few other languages i am familiar with.. and it wouldnt make me wonder if thats the case with all the languages....
If this is true, then wouldn't Al-Quran be ridden with discrepancies and contradictions...how is this possible?
Similarity, ambiguity and vaguenes are very related notions and the former produces and creates the (two) later...And the reason why i think the meaning of mutashabihat in 3/7 is ambiguous or undecisive is because of the context of the passage and the context of the book as a whole...
I think to refer to Allah's Quran as ambiguous when He says that it is clear, is a problematic proposition to me.
-
-
Salam Damon, all,
Salaam Marie and all,
Marie Wrote
Peace Kyle, Damon, all,
I belive the quran is a clear message, consequently I don't think there is some verses in the quran we wil never understand them.
The quran explains itself (100%) and not partially.Our Lord increase un in knowledge
Yes, you are essentially correct. The Quran DOES explain itself. I believe that this is just a part of the overall system GOD has in place in order for us to understand the Mutashabihaat Verses of The Book. Other parts of the overall system of increasing our knowledge would include, different life experiences, scientific and intellectual/educational advancement, the sharing of knowledge and wisdom with others, sincerity and humility of the individual, and of course whether or not we are meant to be properly guided by GOD.
I'd like to add this at my last post, I think our comprehension of similar verses is relative and progressive. Only Allah knows the 100% total truth.
The Clear Message as I see it are those verses which are considered Mukhamat, which are Self - Explanatory. I do believe that there are verses of The Quran that we may never understand based on three reasons.
I think we are speaking about the same thing but we express them differently.
We could understand all verses but at different degrees, we agree the humans do not hold the absolute science.
If I don't understand some verses today, I could understand them progressively in the future Inshaa Allah
I think we cannot say there are verses of the quran that we may never understand because Allah said that His message is clear, He doesn't speak only about the verses which are Self - Explanatory (Mukhamat).
If we understand some verses in different way, that doesn't imply we can never understand them and converge towards a common comprehension (relative and progressive) Inshaa Allah
I don't say that we will attain the 100% total truth.
Our goal is to seek and improve our knowledge until the death.
Marie