3:7 A MATTER OF PUNCTUATION MARKS. WHICH IS CORRECT?
-
Peace be upon you Zlatan,
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
Because the translators have placed "stops" where they felt approriate does not mean it is correct. Lets go through some of them so that I can be convinced this is the way the God intended it.
...maybe the reason is that translators often omit ?waw? from the begginings of the verses considering them redundant....
I am against ommision of any word.
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....
I am in search of the Truth, and yes, I exert MUCH energy in that process. I am sorry that you disagree with symbolisms. I refuse to believe that sticks turn into snakes for only a certian group of people while the rest are forced to just believe that it did.
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.......
I strongly agree, myself included.
Kyle you have become an ultra-lateral thinker....
I don't even know what that means
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....
Thank you for the advice. Is there some topic in particular where you feel I need more study? Please advise me.
-
Peace PB, all,
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?
Thank you for bringing up this excellent observation. I think that allegorical and ambiguous are not synonyms.
In fact, if one looks at the highly allegorical signs in the great reading, they are very easy to understand and are not ambiguous at all. For example, when we hear in the great reading that those who reject the signs of The God are deaf, no one ever thinks that they are really physically deaf but everybody understands it as an allegory. Therefore those highly allegorical signs are actually very clear and far from being ambiguous and even the staunchest literal interpreters understand them allegorically and never physically.
I think that the problem arises when signs, for example, can be SIMILARLY interpreted as physical and/or allegorical. Hence, they are "mutashabihat"/SIMILAR. I don't think that it is right to say that the 100% true interpretation of such signs is allegorical or to say that the 100% true interpretation is physical. I think that the allegorical and literal understandings are not necessarily mutually exclusive and (for now) only The God knows the 100% true interpretation.
Based on this excellent observation of yours, I would like to correct my earlier translation of 37
- 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 similar. So in the case of
(1) Those who have blurriness in their hearts, they follow what is similar 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.
This leads to an interesting proposition. If the highly allegorical signs were in fact the easiest to understand and as we saw everybody agrees that they are allegorical, would that make them the "mo7kamat"/judging signs?
Thanks and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
-
Peace be upon you Ayman,
I think that the problem arises when signs, for example, can be SIMILARLY interpreted as physical and/or allegorical. Hence, they are "mutashabihat"/SIMILAR.
I disagree, the vision given to Joseph is like the stories that are given to us, Josephs vision was not literal, because planetary objects did not prostrate to him, but a SIMILITUDE was shown to him. He understood this when the event happened because he had aquired knowledge. Similarly, when we read that a stick turned into a snake or a river was split in two, we should not be looking for the literal interpretation of that, but the SIMILITUDE in LIFE. D
I do not see the debate as being between physical and allegorical, but instead LITERAL and allegorical.
I don't think that it is right to say that the 100% true interpretation of such signs is allegorical or to say that the 100% true interpretation is physical. I think that the allegorical and literal understandings are not necessarily mutually exclusive and (for now) only The God knows the 100% true interpretation.
This is what I mean, we are stradling the fence here. Do you think that the splitting of the sea by tapping it with a stick is even .0001% LITERAL? I do not and I do not expect that the God would want me to believe something that goes against the rules He created.
-
Peace brother Kyle,
I disagree, the vision given to Joseph is like the stories that are given to us, Josephs vision was not literal, because planetary objects did not prostrate to him, but a SIMILITUDE was shown to him. He understood this when the event happened because he had aquired knowledge.
Actually, this vision is the ONE vision that Yusuf didn't know the 100% true interpretation of. Hence, he asked his father about it. Later on when it was realized, he remembered it and said "this is the true interpretation of my vision". This indicates that he DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE the interpretation before that instance.
Moreover, Yusuf did give a literal interpretation of one of his jail mates dreams.
Similarly, when we read that a stick turned into a snake or a river was split in two, we should not be looking for the literal interpretation of that, but the SIMILITUDE in LIFE. D
Actually, a tsunami does make water recede before it comes back crashing down. As far as I remember, in one incident in Hawaii it was reported that the bottom of the ocean was visible for 20 or more minutes. Hence, a tsunami large enough would make it possible for people to cross safely a narrow water way and then very high water would come back crashing down on the people who cross after them.
I do not see the debate as being between physical and allegorical, but instead LITERAL and allegorical.
What is the difference?
This is what I mean, we are stradling the fence here. Do you think that the splitting of the sea by tapping it with a stick is even .0001% LITERAL? I do not and I do not expect that the God would want me to believe something that goes against the rules He created.
I think that the key here is the RULES HE CREATED. Is it The God or the stick that split the sea?
I think that you are right that water in the great reading has a symbolic meaning. However, one doesn't have to exclude any literal meaning to get a symbolic lesson out of a story.
At the end, "understanding" itself is "allegorical". We don't have literal sticks in our mind even though we can think about them.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
PEACE AYMAN
Thank you for bringing up this excellent observation...Based on this excellent observation of yours...
While I have an ego that, at times, is glacial in its dimensions, I cannot take credit for this observation, darn! x This is an observation of my instructors which came out during one of our study groups.
Now, if only I could convince you that, Iblis, was not one of the malaika, my ego would be restored! lol
I think that allegorical and ambiguous are not synonyms. In fact, if one looks at the highly allegorical signs in the great reading, they are very easy to understand and are not ambiguous at all...Therefore those highly allegorical signs are actually very clear and far from being ambiguous and even the staunchest literal interpreters understand them allegorically and never physically.
I agree in the main. Simply, because we cannot immediately understand an ayat, doesn't mean that it is at all ambiguous, and, to refer to it as such, is to be in contradiction with Allah, where He refers to His ayats as being clear. However, some of the allegories i.e. the Cave allegory, eludes me, still, it is quite clear to those who do understand it.
I think mutashabitun, includes both the metaphorical/allegorical and ayats which simply require other ayats to further explain/develop them i.e. 234 requiring 1850 and 1649-50, to further develop/explain it
Anyway...does this work/make sense?
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 similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the elaboration of others; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the parts which are similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the elaboration of others , 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.
Peace
-
Peace be upon you brother Ayman,
Actually, this vision is the ONE vision that Yusuf didn't know the 100% true interpretation of. Hence, he asked his father about it. Later on when it was realized, he remembered it and said "this is the true interpretation of my vision". This indicates that he DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE the interpretation before that instance.
Yes, I agree. That is not different from my understanding. My position is that the Book of life(al kitaab) is continuously unfolding everyday in front of our eyes and ears. These stories that we are given are being played out everyday so that we might do the same and finally get the true interpretation. We do not get it by saying "only the God knows" and no one else, I believe we get it by serious study and observation. By applying these stories to our lives, not keeping them "literal" thus stuck back in time where we cannot verify it nor apply it to right now in our lives.
Moreover, Yusuf did give a literal interpretation of one of his jail mates dreams.
Yes, he did. I do not fully understand the interpretation of Josephs story. I will keep this observation in mind as we go along. My thoughts on this verse is that what your mind focuses on (your vision) is what comes to be.
idolfree1 wrote
Similarly, when we read that a stick turned into a snake or a river was split in two, we should not be looking for the literal interpretation of that, but the SIMILITUDE in LIFE.Actually, a tsunami does make water recede before it comes back crashing down. As far as I remember, in one incident in Hawaii it was reported that the bottom of the ocean was visible for 20 or more minutes. Hence, a tsunami large enough would make it possible for people to cross safely a narrow water way and then very high water would come back crashing down on the people who cross after them.
So why did Musa touch the water with his stick? Was he trying to fool his followers into thinking he had some magical powers? What would the lesson be in TODAYS PRESENT LIFE for us if we are to believe that the God gave Musa special powers to cause Tsunamis to escape his oppressors , while so many are oppressed today?
idolfree1 wrote
I do not see the debate as being between physical and allegorical, but instead LITERAL and allegorical.What is the difference?
Lets take ruku and sujood as an example. Both you and I agree that this is SYMBOLIC as far as we do not have to actually get on the ground and do the traditional movements. That is debating between the LITERAL (traditional style) and the Allegorical(What both you and I understand). But we cannot make the mistake and say that they are not PHYSICAL because PHYSICALLY reaching in your pocket and PHYSICALLY giving a poor person some money is a PHYSICAL act. Going out to a street corner and passing out flyers calling the people to the right path is a PHYSICAL act. Al of this is prostrating(sujood) and is physical, just not the TRADITIONAL "phyhsical" prostration.
Was I successful in clarifying that?
idolfree1 wrote
This is what I mean, we are stradling the fence here. Do you think that the splitting of the sea by tapping it with a stick is even .0001% LITERAL? I do not and I do not expect that the God would want me to believe something that goes against the rules He created.I think that the key here is the RULES HE CREATED. Is it The God or the stick that split the sea?
I don't think the sea was split , literally. But for the purpose of discussion, it is the God who does all things. But then what is the reason for telling Musa to touch the water with the stick?
I think that you are right that water in the great reading has a symbolic meaning. However, one doesn't have to exclude any literal meaning to get a symbolic lesson out of a story.
I only exclude that which contradicts reason. I donot know of any human being who can touch water with a stick and make it split in two so that people can walk across. I have no other option but to reject that understanding until I see otherwise. The Symbolic understanding helps me to progress in life.
At the end, "understanding" itself is "allegorical". We don't have literal sticks in our mind even though we can think about them.
Yes, we can CREATE all of these stories in our MINDS(nafs), just as we are mental creations in the "Great Mind". It is very powerful to envision a man trapped by a river and the God telling him to tap the water with his stick and it opens up and they are saved. I do it all the time. But we should not take it to the level that we can make this happen literally. We have to apply the SIMILITUDE. We cannot make the same mistake that those who call themselves "christians" made with the SIMILITUDE that was shown to them regarding Isa, son of Mariam.
-
PEACE PRIEST
PEACE ZLATAN
I didn't see this post from you.
Judging by your coments in it you didnt see the rest of them either
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?
I meant if they are already clear why they need other sentences to explain themthat would be contradiction in your black-white view of the bookwhy would he God have said thus we explain our messages/signs if they are already clear(of course if you agree with this translation b tw I am not sure its the correct trans.).
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.
how it happened that explaining has now become further elaboratingyou see that you are able of 3d thinkingthen why not applie same logic to ambiguous messages of the bookyou are very strict, rigid and inflexibile when it comes to translating word mutashabihat as ambiguous and on the other side you allow great freedom to yourself in translating byynand later on in a new post translating mutashabihat as "similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the explanation of others
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.
I didnt reffered to the whole book as ambiguous, though even that wouldnt be wrong.as I have already explained in the previous post there being some ambiguous elements in a writing doesnt make that writing ambiguous as a whole generally you need to take of 2- d glasses and put 3-d glasses on and even the 4-d glasseswe need a holistic and intelligent approach
Study carefuly the human languages and you
l notice that ***e v e r y thing is relative**, everything is depending of c o n t e x t and sometimes even of tone of the voice.. its absolutely wrong to take any statement of any writing to the extreme and as absolute.and this is particularly case with the great readingrather than a simple compilation of isolated sentences, the Quran is a doctrine, a final product that we get after we sensibly and very carefuly mix and interreact all this sentences... its is a new whole and not simply any of its sentences in isolation the whole of itIn one of the previous posts I have even suggested other topic for checking of my claimsstudy the topic of intercession , of knowing the gayb and of the guiding, and if you wish any other topic and you will find many contradictions with the black and white reasoning
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.
You have given a nice example then what prevents you to accept ambiguous as a translation for mutashabihat..ambiguous might simply mean double or multiple meaning.
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?
I have reffered to mutashabihat as ambiguous, indecisive, indefinite, unrestrained and maybe some other similar term but n e v e r as allegorical it is very weird that you ascribe it to me
And the passages are not in contradiction if we take that in 3/7 mutashabihat means ambiguous. simply the word as any other word can have more than one meaning in 39/23 its meaning is probably consistent or similar and the meanings even can be totally opposite. the same message can be expressed in diferrent wording and vice versa, different and quite opposite ideas can be expressed with the the same words or wording.. this is a well proven fact in many languages if one denies it then he is in denial of reality and the truth to say that a word can have only one single meaning is utterly wronga word can have an indefinite number of meanings
And even if we translate it to mean ambiguous in 39/23 it wouldnt necessarily be a contradiction.everything is relative and everything is depending of context and of the a s p e c t or point of view of the speaker or the one who study the message or to whome message is addressed....
For example the god is the mercifull and the same god is strong in punishementand you can even find these two definitons in a single sentence in the great reading.it simply require 3-d thinking to reconcile between these two etremes.He is the first and the last. And He is the hidden and the apparentno contradiction.just put on 3-d glasses or reasoning
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?
You need to excercise logical thinking morehow existence of the words with several meanings make Quran ridden with discrepancies and contradictions ?
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.
I didnt reffered to the whole Quran as ambiguous but I spoke of it having ambiguous elements.and theres no book in arabic without these ambiguous, indecisive or indefinite elementsyet there are many clear books in arabic.
If I say the Lakers have the fastest team in NBA, does it mean that each and every of their players is faster then any player from the other teams.. of course not however if you put 2-d glasses and exercise black and white thinking you could argue that thats exactly the case
as I have said you need to exercise logical thinking3-d thinking, 4-d thinking, thinking in colour, you need to note the r e l a t i v i t y of everything , particularly of everything saidin the God
s book and in any other speechand to leave quranalonersdogmas and preconceived notions about Arabic langageI have read your newest post and it seems that we agree what is mutashabihat though its hard for you to spell it -ambiguous.maybe you more like undecisive or undefined or indefinite or unrestrained as the translation? Ambiguous is just a word helping us to put it most simply.it means double or vague or multiple meaning and your translations is a bit cucumbersome similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the explanation of others and is more an interpretation than translation
try to put this cucumbersome translation in 39/23 and see if it fit
If a sunnie have made a similar acrobatic you would probably hang him up
To translate mutashabihat as similar simply does not make sense..almost nothing in the verse 3/7 makes sense in that case
No disrespect just a discussion.
best wishes, Zlatan
-
PEACE ZLATAN
Judging by your coments in it you didnt see the rest of them either
No need to be defensive, simply because you have this issue wrong, learn from it.
how it happened that explaining has now become further elaboratingyou see that you are able of 3d thinkingthen why not applie same logic to ambiguous messages of the bookyou are very strict, rigid and inflexibile when it comes to translating word mutashabihat as ambiguous and on the other side you allow great freedom to yourself in translating byynand later on in a new post translating mutashabihat as "similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the explanation of others
For example, let's use you. It is abundantly clear that you are a defensive fellow and that is sufficient to describe your behavior here at FREE-MINDS. Now, I could further elaborate by saying that, your defensiveness, is a result of your pride, pride being, the dissatisfaction with the truth, the truth being, you have this issue wrong and you don't want to accept it. Do you see, now, the relationship between clear and elaboration? wink
PREIST 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.
ZLATAN You have given a nice example then what prevents you to accept ambiguous as a translation for mutashabihat..ambiguous might simply mean double or multiple meaning.
Yes, it is an excellent example and it completely nullifies your entire arguement. Your desire to hold on to the superstitious notion that, Al-Quran, is ambiguous in part, prevents you from accepting the obvious that...Allah, says His Book is...clear. Now, either Allah is right and you are wrong or you are right and Allah is wrong, however, you both cannot be right. So, which is it?
Quote 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?
I have reffered to mutashabihat as ambiguous, indecisive, indefinite, unrestrained and maybe some other similar term but n e v e r as allegorical it is very weird that you ascribe it to me
LOL! Well, pardon the heck out of me, will ya? O.k., so, you want to define mutashabihat as ambiguous, indecisive, indefinite, unrestrained, fine, however, these terms are more anti-Quranic than allegorical! Even allegorical, as Ayman, correctly points out, doesn't inherently mean the ayat still isn't clear! What are you thinking about...so much for your logic, eh?
And the passages are not in contradiction if we take that in 3/7 mutashabihat means ambiguous. simply the word as any other word can have more than one meaning in 39/23 its meaning is probably consistent or similar and the meanings even can be totally opposite.
In your above quote, you want to define Allah's ayats as "indecisive", yet, in your following quote, you are anything but decisive! i.e. "probably" and "can be", hardly decisive terminology. All you are doing is guessing/conjecturing/extrapolating. Come on, pull yourself together here.
And even if we translate it to mean ambiguous in 39/23 it wouldnt necessarily be a contradiction.everything is relative and everything is depending of context and of the a s p e c t of the speaker or the one who study the message or to whome message is addressed....
"Wouldn't necessarily"...hmmm...more guesswork. Anyway, Allah, doesn't define His ayats as relative, but decisive, similar, and consistent in meaning. If your position was correct, that, words can have contrary or opposite maening, then, Al-Quran would be a study in Philosophical Relativism and Contradiction...can't you, in your profound logic, understand that obvious consequence of your musings?
For example the god is the most mercifull and the same god is strong in punishementand you can even find these two definitons in a single sentence in the great reading.it simply require 3-d thinking to reconcile between these two etremes.He is the first and the last. And He is the hidden and the apparentno contradiction.just put on 3-d glasses or reasoning
I have no idea what you are trying to express here. Allah, clearly, says that He is The Merciful and that He is strict in punishment, so, what is your issue here? What same words have different meanings here?
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....
While this certainly is true with languages, it is totally untrue about Allah's Ayats. You are mixing things up, calm dowm.
You need to excercise logical thinking morehow existence of the words with several meanings make Quran ridden with discrepancies and contradictions ?
Huh??
I think to refer to Allah's Quran as ambiguous when He says that it is clear, is a problematic proposition to me.
I didnt reffered to the whole Quran as ambiguous but I spoke of it having ambiguous elements.and theres no book in arabic without these ambiguous, indecisive or indefinite elementsyet there are many clear books in arabic.
Oh, now it's "ambiguous elements", I see, cool. Could any of those elements be...ayats? If so, then, you are saying the same thing now that you've been saying all along. Was that logical?
If I say the Lakers have the fastest team in NBA, does it mean that each and every of their players is faster then any player from the other teams.. of course not however if you put 2-d glasses and exercise black and white thinking you could argue that thats exactly the case
Huh? If you state that the Lakers are the fastest team in the NBA, and that is true, well, what is unclear/ambiguous about your statement?? My goodness, what are you talking about??
as I have said you need to exercise logical thinking3-d thinking, 4-d thinking, thinking in colour, you need to note the r e l a t i v i t y of everything , particularly of everything saidin the God
s book and in any other speechand to leave quranalonersdogmas and preconceived notions about Arabic langageEnough with your logic harangue already, because you've established quite clearly that, it is your "logic" which is severely challenged.
I have read your newest post and it seems that we agree what is mutashabihat though its hard for you to spell it -ambiguous.maybe you more like undecisive or undefined or indefinite or unrestrained as the translation? Ambiguous is just a word helping us to put it most simply.it means double or vague or multiple meaning and your translations is a bit
No, we do not agree on what mutashabihat means. My understanding is that, it means consistent/similar/alike, and not ambiguous, indecisive, undefined or any other un-Quranic adjective you can come up with.
Btw, you shouldn't comment on my misspelling of a transliterated term, especially, given that, you cannot spell such a common term as...referred correctly.
To translate mutashabihat as similar simply does not make sense..almost nothing in the verse 3/7 makes sense in that case
Then, it is time for someone to properly translate the ayat.
No disrepect just a discussion.
None taken, because you certainly, after what you've presented here, leave alot to be desired.
-
Peace all,
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.
4162 allows us to light up 37
- But those of them who are firm in knowledge, as well as the believers, they believe in what was sent down to you and what was sent down before you; and those who hold the contact-method, and those who contribute towards betterment, and those who believe in God and the Last Day; to these We will give them their reward greatly.
Lakini alrrasikhoonafee alAAilmi minhum waalmu/minoona yu/minoona bimaonzila ilayka wama onzila min qablika waalmuqeemeenaalssalata waalmu/toona alzzakatawaalmu/minoona biAllahi waalyawmi al-akhiriola-ika sanu/teehim ajran AAatheeman
The qur?an is its own best commentary.
All prise to Allah
Marie
- 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 PRIEST BOOKMEI, all
PRIEST
For example, let's use you. It is abundantly clear that you are a defensive
fellow and that is sufficient to describe your behavior here at FREE-MINDS.
Now, I could further elaborate by saying that, your defensiveness, is a
result of your pride, pride being, the dissatisfaction with the truth, the
truth being, you have this issue wrong and you don't want to accept it. Do
you see, now, the relationship between clear and elaboration?You have just proved that words might have several meanings cause the word whose root you consider the opposite of unclear now you used in an another meaning....
Others might argue with you elaborating that i am defensive not because of pride but because I was badly treated in childhood or because I am having problems in my marriage or because of simply being ignorant or because as a true believer I am finding find myself obliged to defend the healthy reasoning and the God`s word and the truth which is frequently attacked here ... truth being mutashabihat means ambiguous in 3/7 etc.
You see there are several different explanations for my behaviour....and it wouldnt be wonder if someone who read your calling me "a defensive fellow" reading it in isolation of the rest of the passage find it ambiguous or undefined or unprecise....he also might think there are also some offensive felllows who attack something or ofend someone which am I defending
PRIEST
Even allegorical, as Ayman, correctly points out, doesn't inherently mean the ayat still isn't clear! What are you thinking about...so much for your logic, eh?>>>>
Excellent, now you have it.....a sentence( or word) having two gramatically or syntactically totally valid meaning isnt inherently unclear....if it is having double or multiple meaning or is being ambiguous that does not inherently mean that it is unclear...or generally unclear.. or unclear in the sense that it contradicts claims that The God`s book is clear....one(particularly one with healthy reasoning and knowledge of the precise/muhkamat sayings) easily and cearly can recognise the correct meaning...however, inspite of this there is a valid(from the point of grammar or language)room for claiming that the other intepretation is a correct one, no matter how illogical and nonsensical it is...
This very debate about 3/7 and its meaning proves my point...... you maybe do not agree with someone`s else understanding of 3/7, however, existence of several differing interpretations which are, at least gramatically speaking valid, nullifies much of your reasoning...
PRIEST
in your following quote, you are anything but decisive! i.e. "probably" and "can be", hardly decisive terminology. All you are doing is guessing/conjecturing/extrapolating. Come on, pull yourself together here. >>>>
I have said "probably" because the meaning fits (and that was enough for answering the question posed in the debate)however i am not at such a degree of knowledge to exclude all other possibilities...thats why i say probably.....and i have said "can be" because there are arabic words or roots with the two opposite meanings... its not guessing or conjecturing.. i am the one who has the knowledge of it and thats why i am cautious... while on the other hand you are of small knowledge and because of that you denies existence of these phenomenons with the assurance and conviction which is quite unappropriate for someone who is far from being very knowledgeable in arabic...
Quote
Z And even if we translate it to mean ambiguous in 39/23 it wouldnt necessarily be a contradiction.everything is relative and everything is depending of context and of the a s p e c t of the speaker or the one who study the message or to whome message is addressed....PRIEST "Wouldn't necessarily"...hmmm...more guesswork. Anyway, Allah, doesn't define His ayats as relative, but decisive, similar, and consistent in meaning. If your position was correct, that, words can have contrary or opposite maening, then, Al-Quran would be a study in Philosophical Relativism and Contradiction...can't you, in your profound logic, understand that obvious consequence of your musings?>>>>>
Yes, everything said( and not only said) is relative....there`s no need for The God to mention it to us literarly or verbatim(though the message glaringly emanates throughout the book).....it is of a basic postulates or axiomes of human languages and human thinking that meaning depends at what or with whom it is related to...... for example, if me, while i am persuading a player of bosnian national basketball leage to change his colours and to become a member of my team (instead of that of a rival neighbor towns) say to him" the players of MY team has the best salaries "... that does not inherently mean that i am the richest man in the world... but just that we offer better salaries than other bosnian towns no matter how small the amounts of money we may pay compared to the salaries in the world...
I wonder how it might escape your attention.... the book of the god is a full of examples that everything is relative....its a wonderfull exposition on the topic of relativity....one of the proofs is that there are many contradicting wordings in it....
Quote
Z For example the god is the most mercifull and the same god is strong in punishementand you can even find these two definitons in a single sentence in the great reading.it simply require 3-d thinking to reconcile between these two etremes.He is the first and the last. And He is the hidden and the apparentno contradiction.just put on 3-d glasses or reasoningPRIEST I have no idea what you are trying to express here. Allah, clearly, says that He is The Merciful and that He is strict in punishment, so, what is your issue here? What same words have different meanings here?>>>>
The issue is that someone with 2-d reasoning might find it contradicting that The Merciful is the same god who will place a milions of people or nations in hell torturing them there with schorching fire and boiling water..."how someone merciful, let alone The Merciful, might do that" i hear them asking....then i answer them that the God being merciful and torturing endlessly people are two aspects of the same God....generally The God is mercifull, but in a specific cases He might be not so merciful....in the same way the statements "being clear" and "being ambiguous" are two aspects..and thus they arent inherently contradicting....generaly or as a whole the book`s messages or passages are clear and precise but being isolated many of them are subject to differing meanings...
You didnt answered about The God being zahir and batin(my trans. being the apparent and the hidden)?
They are clearly antonymes or opposites....is that contradiction?Quote
Z 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....PRIEST While this certainly is true with languages, it is totally untrue about Allah's Ayats. You are mixing things up, calm dowm.>>>>
But arent "Allah's Ayats" came down in arabic or one of the languages??
Do you suppose that when The God is sending down the guidance that He somehow suppres all the rules of the languages for a moment?
The claim which is almost paradigmatic of quranaloners I met that "1 word is strictly = one single meaning", is not far from the traditionalists` claims of arabic being divine or heavenly language....
Quote
Z You need to excercise logical thinking morehow existence of the words with several meanings make Quran ridden with discrepancies and contradictions ?PRIEST Huh??
I think to refer to Allah's Quran as ambiguous when He says that it is clear, is a problematic proposition to me.>>>>
We need not to go any further from the very first word of the book and check its meanings in any dictionary or throughout the God
s book to clearly witness that its words might well have several different meanings....people trying to translate the book without knowing this simple fact are conjecturing and folowing something they have not knowledge of...Quote
Z I didnt reffered to the whole Quran as ambiguous but I spoke of it having ambiguous elements.and theres no book in arabic without these ambiguous, indecisive or indefinite elementsyet there are many clear books in arabic.PRIEST Oh, now it's "ambiguous elements", I see, cool. Could any of those elements be...ayats? If so, then, you are saying the same thing now that you've been saying all along. Was that logical? >>>>>
Ask anyone who know arabic and he will confirm this to you....many pronouns in arabic, just like in many other languages, are of indefinite meaning.... they might reffer to singular and plural as well, they might reffer to different objects or subjects etc..... and they are an essential part of arabic language ...and they are found in abundance in the God`s book....they are in their nature ambiguous...and we can do nothing about it...
And that does not mean that the God
s book is not clear or ambiguos.... And that does not mean that in order to make the book decisive The God was forced to avoid these indefinite pronouns....One of the reasons for the usage of these elements is that the book and our everyday speech would be clustered and cumbersome without them....We in our daily speech and the God in his message would need a GB of space for a simple message or conversation...The Gods messages are sometimes like a telegraph messages... short and informative...this gives a specific strenght , colour and style to the book...and this is well due to these indefinite pronouns...By the way, see verse 4/159...in my humble opinion it is an excellent example of mutashabihat messages of the book....now i am going to pose a question to you, and to repeat my question to Marie in the same time.....
There are so many indefinite elements in the verse 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?
Quote
Z If I say the Lakers have the fastest team in NBA, does it mean that each and every of their players is faster then any player from the other teams.. of course not however if you put 2-d glasses and exercise black and white thinking you could argue that thats exactly the casePRIEST Huh? If you state that the Lakers are the fastest team in the NBA, and that is true, well, what is unclear/ambiguous about your statement?? My goodness, what are you talking about?? >>>>>
Its not about being ambiguous or not, its aboout having no contradiction in stating 1 that they are the fatsest team and 2. that they inspite of this have some not-so-fast or even slow players ...thats because the first is a general statement and the second is not.....As a whole or as a team lakers might be the fastest inspite of having slow players... thats because the very fast players, which are considered the prototype or basis, or main part or "ummu" of the lakers, may compensate or provide for the vices of slow players making them fastest as a team.....
the same goes for muhkamat and mutashabihat or decisive and ambiguous sayings....muhkamat might provide for the indefiniteness of mutashabihat and thus make the book decisive or plain as a whole or make its messages decisive or clear in general....
Quote
Z I have read your newest post and it seems that we agree what is mutashabihat though its hard for you to spell it -ambiguous.maybe you more like undecisive or undefined or indefinite or unrestrained as the translation? Ambiguous is just a word helping us to put it most simply.it means double or vague or multiple meaning and your translations is a bitPRIEST No, we do not agree on what mutashabihat means. My understanding is that, it means consistent/similar/alike, and not ambiguous, indecisive, undefined or any other un-Quranic adjective you can come up with.
Btw, you shouldn't comment on my misspelling of a transliterated term, especially, given that, you cannot spell such a common term as...referred correctly. >>>>
But what sense does it make?
Heres your understanding
3/7
The book is consisting of
1 decisive/precise/tightened ayats
2 similar/consistent/alike(i.e. the same)ayats(comment in the brackets is mine-Z)- those under 1 are ummu/basis/prototype/leading part/essence of the book
- those in whose heart is a deviation follow what is similar of the book or the similar part...
If the both types of ayats are of the same kind (theres no basis for any diference between them based on your translation) why the god has divided the signs/messages into 2 categories?
a. And why the first one are called ummu of the book and the others are not?
b. And why those in whose hearts is perversion follows exactly the 2nd category if they are the same as the 1st?
Now, try to put my translations in 3/7 and we get a perfect congruence and the answers.....
The book consist of
1.decisive/precise/tightened ayats
2.undecisive/unprecise/ambiguous ayats3.those under 1 are by their nature basis or leading part of the book because they are decisive, firm tightened and can not be intepreted differently
4. those who have deviation in their hearts follow the ambiguous category because this is also perfectly due to their ambiguos nature... they are, unlike precise statements under 1, prone to diferent interpretations...Theres no need now for asking the question under a and b cause they are answered by the translation itself....
PRIEST >>>Btw, you shouldn't comment on my misspelling of a transliterated term, especially, given that, you cannot spell such a common term as...referred correctly.>>>>
I have no idea what you are talking about, my objection was to your translation being cumbersome and that being a sign of its incorrectness...since the translation similar/consistent/alike of itself wasnt enough for solving the problems and coming up with a sound meaning, you have been forced to provide 10-words translation of mutashabihat in the another post to provide for the gap... your translation itself(similar/consistent/alike), if we take it to be correct, testifies to existence of ambiguity or double/multiple meaning in the book....
Then, it is time for someone to properly translate the ayat. >>>
maybe
Best wishes, Zlatan
-
peace be upon you Kyle, all!
Kyle wrote
Peace be upon you Zlatan,
Quote
ZThere 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 meKBecause the translators have placed "stops" where they felt approriate
does
not mean it is correct. Lets go through some of them so that I can be
convinced this is the way the God intended it.see for example verses 286-12. btw its very alarming to me that you require
me to cite to you something thats was to be find an extreme abundance in the
bookQuote
ZKyle, 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....KI am in search of the Truth, and yes, I exert MUCH energy in that process.
I
am sorry that you disagree with symbolisms. I refuse to believe that
sticks
turn into snakes for only a certian group of people while the rest are
forced to just believe that it did.Its a postitive sign to spent so much energy in the search but i am afraid
you are spending it wrong way....and i do not nescessarily disagree with
all the symbolysmes....on contrary i believe there is much of symbolism in
the book...just like there s much of symbolism and allegories in our
everyday language....however to accept it, it must be sensible and not
contradict other passages and logic....Theres no sense to force symbolysm under every cost, mostly at the cost of healthy reasoning, and inventing it out of blue....the message of 3/7 is exactly this...theres no way for such a subjective, highly speculative and unsubstantiated interpretations....which you rushly and hastily claim based on insuficient knowledge of the book, based on interpretation of the passage isolated from the rest of the book, based on ignorance of the basics of the arabic
language and language and logic in general...excuse my emphasis on logic but the way you create your symbolismes leave strong impression that you think that it need not to be logical at all...As you have said its a 6th year of your studying the book...this way you can
spend the next sixty years and you still wont be anywhere far from this
point...imo its a time to learn at least basic of arabic and its grammar
...and to start think normaly and coherently... when i am looking you how
you fill the forum with GB of nonsense and how you judge based on wrong
information and based on ignorance and how you twist and turn the words of
the book and the logic I can not help myself thinking you are on LSD or
alcohol....add to it mzs and similar neolexicologistsand neogrammarriansposts and youll know why i feel like Alice in wonderland everytime i enter
this forum....asking myself seriously if the title of the site was free
minds or free of minds....Quote
ZGeneraly 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.......KI strongly agree, myself included.
i hope you`ll get better... recieve my support for that...
Quote
ZKyle you have become an ultra-lateral thinker....KI don't even know what that means
lateral thinking is, roughly explained, a kind of thinking which goes an
unnusual ways or unexpected points of views or aspects or from different
perspectives....however its not an absolute substitute for vertical thinking
and firm logic, just a helping tool when the first can not find the way...Quote
ZTrue, 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....KThank you for the advice. Is there some topic in particular where you feel
I
need more study? Please advise me.as said by sabo to mz, do the mercy to yourself and learn some basic grammar
of arabic...and buy some good dictionary...study also your mother
tongue....there are many phenomenons which you denie in arabic(or you was in
denial of)which are present in english as well....also try to write less and
think more....Peace, best wishes,
Zlatan
-
Peace PRIEST BOOKMEI, all
PRIEST For example, let's use you. It is abundantly clear that you are a defensive fellow and that is sufficient to describe your behavior here at FREE-MINDS. Now, I could further elaborate by saying that, your defensiveness, is a result of your pride, pride being, the dissatisfaction with the truth, the truth being, you have this issue wrong and you don't want to accept it. Do you see, now, the relationship between clear and elaboration?
You have just proved that words might have several meanings cause the word whose root you consider the opposite of unclear now you used in an another meaning.... Others my argue with you elaborating that i am defensive not because of pride but because I was badly treated in childhood or because I am having problems in my marriage or because of simply being ignorant or because as a true believer I am finding find myself obliged to defend the healthy reasoning and the God`s word which is frequently attacked here ... truth being mutashabihat means ambiguous in 3/7 etc. You see there are several different explanations for my behaviour....and it wouldnt be wonder if someone who read your calling me "a defensive fellow" reading it in isolation of the rest of the passage find it ambiguous or undefined or unprecise....he also might think there are also some offensive felllows who attack something or ofend someone which am I defending
It is apparent that, you do not understand the meanings of words, meaning, to "defend" one's position, is qualitatively different than being "defensive" about one's position. For example, what is clear is that, you are defensive, hence, whether it is due to pride, an abusive childhood or marital issues, the consistent and clear thing is that, you are defensive and the explanation for it...is the elaboration. When Allah uses a term in Al-Quran, it is used clear/consistent manner and whatever elaboration which follows simply reinforces the clarity/consistency in which that term is being used. Hence, if your story were being told in Al-Quran, you would be clearly defined as defensive throughout and, Allah, could use all three of the above elaborations in regard to it. You have failed to make your case, try again.
PRIEST Even allegorical, as Ayman, correctly points out, doesn't inherently mean the ayat still isn't clear! What are you thinking about...so much for your logic, eh?>>>>
Excellent, now you have it.....a sentence( or word) having two gramatically or syntactically totally valid meaning isnt inherently unclear....if it is having double or multiple meaning or being ambiguous does not inherently mean that it is unclear...or generally unclear.. or unclear in the sense that it contradicts claims that The God`s book is clear....one(particularly one with healthy reasoning and knowledge of the precise/muhkamat sayings) easily and cearly can recognise the correct meaning...however, inspite of this there is a valid(from the point of grammar or language)room for claiming that the other intepretation is a correct one, no matter how illogical and nonsensical it is...
"Excellent"?! Whatever it is that I have, it certainly isn't wht you are proffering, please get that straight, thanks. "Allegorical", as Ayman said and which I agree with, isn't an unclear matter nor does it have contradictory or contray meanings relative to the rest of Al-Quran.
This very debate about 3/7 and its meaning proves my point...... you maybe do not agree with someone`s else understanding of 3/7, however, existence of several differing interpretations which are, at least gramatically speaking valid, nullifies much of your reasoning...
Listen, Allah says that, his Quran is clear and consistent throughout
22 This Book, there is no doubt in it...
151 Alif Lam Ra. These are the verses of the Book and (of) a Quran that makes (things) clear.
181 (All) praise is due to Allah, Who revealed the Book to His servant and did not make in it any crookedness.
Main Entry CROOKEDNESS characterized by lack of trustworthiness
Given the above ayat and definition, if Allah's Quran were based on your notions, it would be full of discrepancies, contrariness and contradictions. no, Zlatan, it your position which lacks reason.
PRIEST in your following quote, you are anything but decisive! i.e. "probably" and "can be", hardly decisive terminology. All you are doing is guessing/conjecturing/extrapolating. Come on, pull yourself together here.
I have said "probably" because the meaning fits (and that was enough for answering the question posed in the debate)however i am not at such a degree of knowledge to exclude all other possibilities...thats why i say probably.....
Well, you used "pobably" which is term denoting uncertainty, conjecture, speculation. If you don't know, then you shouldn't state that, Allah, uses contradictory wording or that His Quran is unclear and indecisive. Thus, are you willing to retract those comments, base on your admission here?
and i have said "can be" because there are arabic words or roots with the two opposite meanings... its not guessing or conjecturing.. i am the one who has the knowledge of it and thats why i am cautious... while on the other hand you are of small knowledge and because of that you denies existence of these phenomenons with the assurance and conviction which is quite unappropriate for someone who is far from being very knowledgeable in arabic...
LOL! You have knowledge, yet, you refer to Allah's Quran as unclear, indecisive, relativistic, and contradictory, despite, 22 and 181 LOL! Hmmm...so tell me, how does your extensive knowledge of the Arabic, allow you to have the position which you do, relative, to ayats 22, 151, and 181?
Z And even if we translate it to mean ambiguous in 39/23 it wouldn?t necessarily be a contradiction?.everything is relative and everything is depending of context and of the a s p e c t of the speaker or the one who study the message or to whome message is addressed....
PRIEST "Wouldn't necessarily"...hmmm...more guesswork. Anyway, Allah, doesn't define His ayats as relative, but decisive, similar, and consistent in meaning. If your position was correct, that, words can have contrary or opposite maening, then, Al-Quran would be a study in Philosophical Relativism and Contradiction...can't you, in your profound logic, understand that obvious consequence of your musings?>>>>>
Yes, everything said( and not only said) is relative....there`s no need for The God to mention it to us literarly or verbatim(though the message glaringly emanates throughout the book).....it is of a basic postulates or axiomes of human languages and human thinking that meaning depends at what or with whom it is related to...... for example, if me, while i am persuading a player of bosnian national basketball leage to change his colours and to become a member of my team (instead of that of a rival neighbor towns) say to him" the players of MY team has the best salaries "... that does not inherently mean that i am the richest man in the world... but just that we offer better salaries than other bosnian towns no matter how small the amounts of money we may pay compared to the salaries in the world... I wonder how it might escape your attention.... the book of the god is a full of examples that everything is relative....its a wonderfull exposition on the topic of relativity....one of the proofs is that there are many contradicting wordings in it....
Once again, it is apparent that, you do not understand the meanings of words. "Relative", that is, matters being in relationship to/having connectiveness to other matters and, "relativistic/relativism", which is the positon of being positionless and where contradictory terms, pertaining to the same matter, are both valid and true. To refer to Al-Quran as contradictory, when clearly Allah has stated the exact opposite, is hypocrisy/kufr. I don't know what you are thinking about??
Please provide one example of where Allah uses words in contradictory wording. If you can, then, 181, is a lie. This should be interesting.
Quote
Z For example the god is the most mercifull and the same god is strong in punishement?and you can even find these two definitons in a single sentence in the great reading?.it simply require 3-d thinking to reconcile between these two etremes??.He is the first and the last?. And He is the hidden and the apparent?no contradiction?.just put on 3-d glasses or reasoningPRIEST I have no idea what you are trying to express here. Allah, clearly, says that He is The Merciful and that He is strict in punishment, so, what is your issue here? What same words have different meanings here?>>>>
The issue is that someone with 2-d reasoning might find it contradicting that The Merciful is the same god who will place a milions of people or nations in hell torturing them there with schorching fire and boiling water..."how someone merciful, let alone The Merciful, might do that" i hear them asking....then i answer them that the God being merciful and torturing endlessly people are two aspects of the same God....generally The God is mercifull, but in a specific cases He might be not so merciful....in the same way the statements "being clear" and "being ambiguous" are two aspects..and thus they arent inherently contradicting....generaly or as a whole the book`s messages or passages are clear and precise but being isolated many of them are subject to differing meanings...
You didnt answered about The God being zahir and batin(my trans. being the apparent and the hidden)? They are clearly antonymes or opposites....is that contradiction?
Post the ayat(s) so that I can see what you are referring to.
Z 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....
PRIEST While this certainly is true with languages, it is totally untrue about Allah's Ayats. You are mixing things up, calm dowm.>>>>
But arent "Allah's Ayats" came down in arabic or one of the languages?? Do you suppose that when The God is sending down the guidance that He somehow suppres all the rules of the languages for a moment? The claim which is almost paradigmatic of quranaloners I met that "1 word is strictly = one single meaning", is not far from the traditionalists` claims of arabic being divine or heavenly language....
Yes, Allah's ayats came down in Arabic, however, don't you think that Allah knows the language, however, don't you think He avoided using terms and concepts which would cause discrepanacies and contradictions?
Are you not a Quran only and alone Muslim?
QuoteZ You need to excercise logical thinking more??how existence of the words with several meanings make Quran ridden with discrepancies and contradictions? ?
PRIEST Huh?? I think to refer to Allah's Quran as ambiguous when He says that it is clear, is a problematic proposition to me.>>>>
We need not to go any further from the very first word of the book and check its meanings in any dictionary or throughout the God
s book to clearly witness that its words might well have several different meanings....people trying to translate the book without knowing this simple fact are conjecturing and folowing something they have not knowledge of...There is no question that words can have several different meanings in the Arabic lexicons and dictionaries, however, Allah, doesn't use all of those different meanings for a term in His Quran...just one, from what I've seen. For example, the term Jinn, has various uses/meanings in the Arabic language, however, which of those definitions does He use in regard to them in His Quran?
Quote Z If I say the Lakers have the fastest team in NBA, does it mean that each and every of their players is faster then any player from the other teams?.. of course not? however if you put 2-d glasses and exercise black and white thinking you could argue that that?s exactly the case?
PRIEST Huh? If you state that the Lakers are the fastest team in the NBA, and that is true, well, what is unclear/ambiguous about your statement?? My goodness, what are you talking about?? >>>>>
Its not about being ambiguous or not, its aboout having no contradiction in stating 1 that they are the fatsest team and 2. that they inspite of this have some not-so-fast or even slow players ...thats because the first is a general statement and the second is not.....As a whole or as a team lakers might be the fastest inspite of having slow players... thats because the very fast players, which are considered the prototype or basis, or main part or "ummu" of the lakers, may compensate or provide for the vices of slow players making them fastest as a team.....
You continue to miss the point of your own example, to wit, if the Laker TEAM, is the fastest TEAM in the league , by however which means that conclusion was arrived at, and, if is true, then what is unclear/ambiguous/indecisve about that? You need to discard this example, because it doesn't work for you, but for me and I don't think that is what you want. Do you see how convoluted your above arguement is? Now, that is an example of ambiguity.
the same goes for muhkamat and mutashabihat or decisive and ambiguous sayings....muhkamat might provide for the indefiniteness of mutashabihat and thus make the book decisive or plain as a whole or make its messages decisive or clear in general....
Allah says that, His Quran is
Main Entry CLEAR free from obscurity or ambiguity easily understood UNMISTAKABLE capable of sharp discernment KEEN b free from doubt
Now, Zlatan says, Allah's Quran is
Main Entry AMBIGUOUS doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness inexplicable capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.
If you are correct, then, Allah, in this ayat, agrees with you
3923 Allah, has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful Message in the form of a Book, AMBIGUOUS 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 God's praises. Such is the guidance of God He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as God leaves to stray, can have none to guide.
Now, if your interpretation is correct, then, Al-Quran, becomes inexplicable and contradicts Allah's statement that, His Quran is CLEAR.
The rest of your post was just re-hash, so I passed on it
-
Peace Priest Bokmei, all
Yes you maybe well right my usage of defensive probably isnt proper....excuse my poor english,whatever the example was totally redundant cause you have already in your writing unconsciously admited my point, that the single word can have two meanings.....1 to make clear something that wasnt clear and 2 to elaborate further something that was clear...
How is it that you denie the existence of multiple meanings of the words and in your translations and understanding you uphold exactly that belief?
Your objection in regards of my use of the term relative and not differentiating between relative and relativistic might be justified as well...excuse my poor english again, however i checked in a respectful dic and it has relative and relativistic as synonymes....nevertheless , my main point and message,that meaning of any saying or a word is highly dependable of context, is clearly spelled and proved in my posts....
Here are some of examples, which you asked for, that proves that contradicting wording does not necessarily mean a contradiction in meaning....
The book is full of such examples and that is one of the many wonderfull figures of the speech of this book.....I do not know if the intentional contradiction is classified in the science of rethoric or the science of stylistcs as a figure of speech.. if thats not the case then it should be corrected....
817 .....and you didnt throw when you did throw but The God threw....
478-79(FM) If any good befalls them, they Say This is from God, and if any bad befalls them, they Say This is from you! Say All is from God; what is wrong with these people, they barely understand anything said! Any good that befalls you is from God, and any bad that befalls you is from yourself.
Also, an interesting example of a seeming contradiction, particularly for this discussion is the book`s message that you and ayman have cited.... where it is said that The God places the barriers over the sight and hearts of the rejecters....
You consider it a contradiction if the God has used multiple meaning words in his book or if it has used ambiguous messages or passages in His book, but if that is a contradiction, then it is also contradiction( and a greater one!) that the one who sends the book to the people to guide them places barriers over their hearts sights and hearing in order that they not hear or understand it....
Some of the quranaloners incorrectly reject multiple meanings and relativity of the meaning of the words, a feature inherent in many if not all the languages, and superstitiously, inspite of the glaring evidence to the contrary, believe that The God must have been extremely carefull not to put any ambiguos element in his book in order to avoid any confusion of its recipients.... but how do they explain the fact that the same God has intentionaly placed the barriers over the hearts of some of its recipients in order to prevent them from understanding it?
Could this allegorical barrier be exactly the ambiguous elements?
The rest of your arguments and questions with be dealed with, The God, willing later....
Best regards and wishes, Zlatan
-
Excellent, now you have it.....a sentence( or word) having two gramatically or syntactically totally valid meaning isnt inherently unclear....if it is having double or multiple meaning or being ambiguous does not inherently mean that it is unclear...or generally unclear.. or unclear in the sense that it contradicts claims that The God`s book is clear....one(particularly one with healthy reasoning and knowledge of the precise/muhkamat sayings) easily and cearly can recognise the correct meaning...however, inspite of this there is a valid(from the point of grammar or language)room for claiming that the other intepretation is a correct one, no matter how illogical and nonsensical it is...
"Excellent"?! Whatever it is that I have, it certainly isn't wht you are proffering, please get that straight, thanks. "Allegorical", as Ayman said and which I agree with, isn't an unclear matter nor does it have contradictory or contray meanings relative to the rest of Al-Quran.
Yes there is nothing unclear but the verse , inspite of maybe not being a most suitable example, has, at least theoretically, double meaningand thats exactly what the ambiguity is aboutand this example or argument was about whether the verses might have double meanings or not
The god is placing a barrier which might be either physical yet invisible barrier or the barrier is an allegory, say a description of their attitude which the God, through the work of satan, inspires to them
Again, I admit the example is maybe not most properly choosenthe best example of double meanings are those sayings containing multiple meaning pronouns as hu, hi, and similarlike the verse 4/159 which is clearly ambiguous and i wonder why all those who propose that there is no smallest ambiguity in the book somehow forgot to take it into consideration....the verse is glaringly ambiguous.....why do they not take it into account when rejecting any possibility of existing any ambiguity in the book?
to be continued, GW
best wishes, zlatan
-
Peace be upon you Zlatan,
As you have said its a 6th year of your studying the book...this way you can
spend the next sixty years and you still wont be anywhere far from this
point...imo its a time to learn at least basic of arabic and its grammar
...and to start think normaly and coherently... when i am looking you how
you fill the forum with GB of nonsense and how you judge based on wrong
information and based on ignorance and how you twist and turn the words of
the book and the logic I can not help myself thinking you are on LSD or
alcohol....add to it mzs and similar neolexicologistsand neogrammarriansposts and youll know why i feel like Alice in wonderland everytime i enter
this forum....asking myself seriously if the title of the site was free
minds or free of minds....Interesting. Can you give me an example of one of my "nonsense" statements that I fill the forum with?
-
PEACE ZLATAN
Here is the MAIN ISSUE
Allah says that, His Quran is
Main Entry CLEAR free from obscurity or ambiguity easily understood UNMISTAKABLE capable of sharp discernment KEEN b free from doubt.
515 O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah;
299 And certainly We have revealed to you clear ayats and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors.
1015 And when Our clear ayats are recited to them...
2418 And Allah makes clear to you the ayats; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
2446 Certainly We have revealed clear ayats, and Allah guides whom He pleases to the right way.
Now, Zlatan says, Allah's Quran is
Main Entry AMBIGUOUS doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness inexplicable capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.
Now, what you are asserting contradicts what Allah says, so, would you please post the ayat where Allah, refers to His Quran as...ambiguous? Don't you see?, there is no ayat which can run contrary or contradictory to the above ayats, hence, your assertion, is neither valid, logical, or Quranic. If you were/are correct, then, Allah, in the following ayat, agrees with you
3923 Allah, has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful Message in the form of a Book, AMBIGUOUS 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 God's praises. Such is the guidance of God He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as God leaves to stray, can have none to guide.
Now, if your assertion is correct, then, Al-Quran, becomes inexplicable and contradicts Allah's statement that, His Quran is CLEAR.
How can you possibly resolve your contradiction?
-
Salams all,
sorry for interjecting, but I just wanted to add my own thoughts, since this topic seems to be interesting.
As I see it, this thread has revolved around the true meaning of ayah 37. I think the meaning is really quite clear, but it has been twisted for the advantage of certain people who wish to discredit and weaken the Quran.
The meaning of the word mutashaabih seems to be thrown around here for some reason. The meaning of this word is firmly established from various sources, and it does not mean ambiguous. First let me explain what my view of the meaning of 37 is, then the rest will be obvious.
The Quran is essentially saying that there are 2 basic kinds of verses. One deals with the real world in terms of how we live in it, the laws that apply here, things that have happened here, etc.. all the things that we can see/explore with our human minds. The other kinds of verses are things that are BEYOND human comprehension because of the limitations of our minds... such as heaven/hell. These are explained to us by SIMILITUDES (mutashaabih), such as gardens and fire, in terms of things that we can grasp. But people who are bent on creating FITNA, try to search and explore these things to the point of trying to figure out say the dimensions of hell, or the construction of the houses in jannah, or if Allah truly has a hand, or actually physically sits on a throne, etc... these people are creating fitna about things that only Allah can know because they are OUTSIDE the realm of the human comprehension, and transcend space-time and the physical world that we relate to.
Unfortunately, this verse 37 has been twisted to make it sound as though the Quran has some mystical ayaat which no one can understand its meaning... this is a totally invalid view.
As far as verse 3923, mutashaabihan is used to mean that the verses of the Quran RESEMBLE one another, and do not contradict each other etc.
that's my 2 cents.
wassalam
-
sorry for interjecting, but I just wanted to add my own thoughts, since this topic seems to be interesting.
Best wishes to you shuaib.
You are welcomeyes the topic is interestingI like that you have joined I have read your posts in Quran study group and your writing, in general, make much sense to mesome points where I disagree ill probably discuss with you later.
Actually I might start right now since our understanding of 3/7 obviously differ.
I am aware of your stance and in my pursue of the correct meaning I have come accross such or similar views a lot of times.heres my reasons for not upholding such a view of 37
1 First its a meaning of words muhkamat and mutashabihat which I have checked in several good dictionaries and grammar books, however since my Arabic is far from perfect, for the sake of discussion and being open to all possibilities, of which some I maybe not understand right now, I`ll accept your view as a gramatially and lexically valid.
2 The second difficulty which I perceive in the understanding under the question is inability to account for the fact that the ayats/signs/messages/utterances/sayings which belong in the category which you have described as mutashabihat are not the only ones which are followed and abused by those in whose hearts is a deviation?
Besides, arent those in whose heart is a deviation interested in abusing the ayats which refer to this word as well, shuldnt they been particularly interested in creating the discord or misleading by the misinterpretation of the matters referring to this world as well? Arent hese things more suitable for the cration of the discord and misleading?
Obviously the ayats which you classified as mutashabihat arent the only ones abused and thus it makes the understanding not fitting.
3 Third , why those ayats which you have classified as muhkamat are called mother, prototype, basis, source, of the book and why those which you have classified as mutashabihat are not?
All these difficulties dissapear if we accept my meanings of muhkamat and mutashabihat.( I have explained it several times in this thread and if needed I will repeat and elaborate again later).
As I see it, this thread has revolved around the true meaning of ayah 37. I think the meaning is really quite clear, but it has been twisted for the advantage of certain people who wish to discredit and weaken the Quran.
The meaning of the word mutashaabih seems to be thrown around here for some reason. The meaning of this word is firmly established from various sources, and it does not mean ambiguous. First let me explain what my view of the meaning of 37 is, then the rest will be obvious.
Which are these sources?
I checked in several very good dictionaries some of them are considered of the best works(lisanul arab for example) and they all included ambiguous or similar as one of the meanings for this word
The Quran is essentially saying that there are 2 basic kinds of verses. One deals with the real world in terms of how we live in it, the laws that apply here, things that have happened here, etc.. all the things that we can see/explore with our human minds. The other kinds of verses are things that are BEYOND human comprehension because of the limitations of our minds... such as heaven/hell. These are explained to us by SIMILITUDES (mutashaabih), such as gardens and fire, in terms of things that we can grasp. But people who are bent on creating FITNA, try to search and explore these things to the point of trying to figure out say the dimensions of hell, or the construction of the houses in jannah, or if Allah truly has a hand, or actually physically sits on a throne, etc... these people are creating fitna about things that only Allah can know because they are OUTSIDE the realm of the human comprehension, and transcend space-time and the physical world that we relate to.
Your understanding is based on a subjective interpretation rather than upon any translation of the verse
To witness this you just try to present or coin the translation on which it is based and you wont be able to offer any translation from which all this meanings could be extricated without subjective addition and overinterpretation-not based on the text or actualy wording of the translation
I am in a luck of time now il elaborate further if needed maybe tomorrow..
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Salams Zlatan,
thanks for your warm welcome.
Well after reading your post, I'm not sure but I think we do agree on some points.. it's always good to start with the common ground. Anyway, I do disagree with some of your reasoning. Let me explain.
First, let me just establish something which I think is quite obvious. I think pretty much all Muslims can agree that there is a physical world, and then an "afterlife" or nonphysical world. The Quran, since it deals with all reality, discusses both the real tangible world, as well as the intangible afterlife. Obviously, since the intangible aspects of the "afterlife" can only be known to us by description in terms of things we can relate to, things that we can conceive of in our physically limited minds (similitude). So, there are verses of the Quran that deal with the physical world and those that deal with the "afterlife" which are explained through similitudes.
So regardless of what you think the true meaning of 37 is, I think all Muslims can agree that a simple way to divide the verses of the Quran are verses dealing with the physical world (how to eat/drink, marry etc), and the intangible (characteristics of Allah, jannah, jahannam, etc). So even if you reject the interpretation I gave of 37, I am sure that you would still agree with the statements I made in general, right? I just want to make sure we are on the same page.
Since you replied in such an organized manner, it makes it easier to reply.
1 First it?s a meaning of words muhkamat and mutashabihat which I have checked in several good dictionaries and grammar books?, however since my Arabic is far from perfect, for the sake of discussion and being open to all possibilities, of which some I maybe not understand right now, I`ll accept your view as a gramatially and lexically valid?.
Okay.
2 The second difficulty which I perceive in the understanding under the question is inability to account for the fact that the ayats/signs/messages/utterances/sayings which belong in the category which you have described as mutashabihat are not the only ones which are followed and abused by those in whose hearts is a deviation?
Well this reasoning makes little sense to me. There are millions of ways to reject faith and commit kufr. The purpose of a single verse is never to describe ALL the ways... it's merely describing ONE way that people can take the words of the Quran and create fitna.
3 Third , why those ayats which you have classified as muhkamat are called mother, prototype, basis, source, of the book and why those which you have classified as mutashabihat are not?
Well first of all you have to have an understanding of umm. A basic translation can be understood as "the basis for." So, what this says is that the muhkamaat ayahs which are the tangible verses that deal with the PHYSICAL world in which we live, form the basis. The verse is explaining that the backbone and basis of the Quran are really the muhkamaat verses which deal with things that we as human beings perceive and experience. This makes sense to me because THOSE are the things that we actually practice and implement. And it is understanding of the physical world that gives us our understanding of the mutashaabihaat in the first place.
All these difficulties dissapear if we accept ?my? meanings of muhkamat and mutashabihat?.( I have explained it several times in this thread and if needed I will repeat and elaborate again later).
Well I think I have explained how these "difficulties" are really not there in the first place.
As far as sources for the word meanings, I have lisaan al arab and other lexicons... and I agree that there are some words derived from the root which can mean unclear... but a special kind of unclear. When 2 things are very similar and it is difficult to discern the differences, that is where this menaing is coming from. But anyway, lisaan al arab does give a specific meaning to mutashaabihaat, and it is similitude. Only for shabbaha or shubha does it add the item of "ambiguity."
But I think your point has an element of truth, and that is present in the word for a reason. There is obviously ambiguity about the REAL characteristics of Allah and what jannah is REALLY like. We only know a little through the similitudes, but we know that it's not REALLY a physical throne that Allah actually SITS on... we just know that its SOMETHING like that.
The only thing I am not adding for now is a "translation" as you asked for (because of lack of time right now). But you may surmise from the above that I have gone through that process already.
walaikum assalam
-
Peace be upon you Shuaib,
I think you gave an excellent understanding of 37. I disagree only on one point (I think).
That point is that the God is talking about "al kitaab", not "al quran". These are two different words for two different concepts. The God is telling us in 37 about the SIGNS(ayaat), not verses, in the book of life(al kitaab). Remember, we are writing our own books(kitaab) with the actions we make in life, we are told that we wil recieve this book in either our right or left hand at the end of this all.
al quraan, the reading, is a guide to al kitaab, and in this guide we are told about the two types of signs in life, that which is straightfoward, like how you can put water in a freezer and make ice, or how fire burns, the physical side as you stated very clearly in your response, then we have the side of LIFE that is not so clear, the MENTAL/SPIRITUAL side. There are people who like to use the mental/spiriytual side to mislead mankind, like scholars, priests, imams, rabbis, presidents, dictators, etc.
Only those who are well grounded in knowledge can have access to the God's higher realms and get the true understandings, not the 100% full understanding of all things, but indeed the ful understanding of the message that is sent tto us in order for us to be guided. That which we cannot understand cannot be a guide.
Brother Shuiab, please tell me if you see the difference, we agree on principle, just differ on the word "kitaab".
Thank you for helping to clarify this for me in my own Mind.