Annoyances in the contents of a book.
-
Salaam,
Well, that's what ambiguous verses are referred to in the Quran, and I was drawing upon that. 37 The Quran clearly isn't about imitation etc, its about interpretation and thats where this would come into play.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, or what examples you want of ambiguity in other works. Anything could annoy a reader depeding on their lack of tolerance such as an unusual structure, or not fully explaining a position but making an assertion that requires everyone to accept it without any option for further clarification. But again, it would depend upon the individual reader and their level of tolerance.
Thanks. You have pointed out following that could annoy a reader
(1) Unusual structure;
(2) unsubstantiated assertions.What I am working is this claim --or first predication about the Book Grand Qur'aan
La Raiba Fehi Not at all anything annoying is contained in it---obviously its text.
-
Hi Mazhar, I hope all is well with you. I have a book I am currently struggling through, "imagine today is your last day". The most annoying part in this book is the stories that the author uses to connect a point. They are third person and corny. I sometime skim over pages because of the boring dialog between characters. It does not allow the reader to think or draw conclusions, at any point, and leaves you without any interest towards the upcoming chapters. I don't mind scenario stories in most books, but this was something different. I can't "imagine" anything from this book, the title gets you excited for something else, very misleading.
I also hate books that make a reference to something without explanation or fact. It is merely an opinion but without support. I may disagree with a subject matter but if it gaves me some sort of spring board to see that certain point of view, I might continue out of curiosity; otherwise it lacks credibility and I move on. (I find this in some theology books)
-
Hi Mazhar, I hope all is well with you. I have a book I am currently struggling through, "imagine today is your last day". The most annoying part in this book is the stories that the author uses to connect a point. They are third person and corny. I sometime skim over pages because of the boring dialog between characters. It does not allow the reader to think or draw conclusions, at any point, and leaves you without any interest towards the upcoming chapters. I don't mind scenario stories in most books, but this was something different. I can't "imagine" anything from this book, the title gets you excited for something else, very misleading.
I also hate books that make a reference to something without explanation or fact. It is merely an opinion but without support. I may disagree with a subject matter but if it gaves me some sort of spring board to see that certain point of view, I might continue out of curiosity; otherwise it lacks credibility and I move on. (I find this in some theology books)
Thanks, for pointing out this sort of annoying matter in a book.
-
Thanks. You have pointed out following that could annoy a reader
(1) Unusual structure;
(2) unsubstantiated assertions.What I am working is this claim --or first predication about the Book Grand Qur'aan
La Raiba Fehi Not at all anything annoying is contained in it---obviously its text.
Peace Mazhar,
You're welcome.
In terms of 37, I can't say as I have not investigated this independently. However, even if it doesn't, then there are terms in the Quran that can be considered more multimeaning or ambiguous to an extent, such as 434. And the idea that the scripture itself includes a test or challenge for some people or maybe some lesson for all of us, I believe is mentioned in translation about the scripture given to past groups, makes sense as I think we are supposed to learn a lot from how we consider, read and listen to the Quran as well as what we actually learn from the message. that's just my perspective thus far.
Oh, I see... are you going to include your conclusion here on this thread?
-
Peace Mazhar,
You're welcome.
In terms of 37, I can't say as I have not investigated this independently. However, even if it doesn't, then there are terms in the Quran that can be considered more multimeaning or ambiguous to an extent, such as 434. And the idea that the scripture itself includes a test or challenge for some people or maybe some lesson for all of us, I believe is mentioned in translation about the scripture given to past groups, makes sense as I think we are supposed to learn a lot from how we consider, read and listen to the Quran as well as what we actually learn from the message. that's just my perspective thus far.
Oh, I see... are you going to include your conclusion here on this thread?
Salamun alaiki,
When Qur'aan says about it self that nothing annoying is contained therein, it is only with reference to its own text. Any ambiguity in translated material is not the ambiguity of original text.
You have mentioned 434. Contradictions in the contents of a book are certainly annoying for a truth seeker. Similarly variations about a concept at different parts of a book are certainly annoying. Behavior towards and interaction with woman is itself a complete subject - concept.
Translations - take them as independent book- contain contradictory statements about conduct towards women. Therefore, such translation is inefficient, inaccurate and is not what is contained in the original text which is void of contradictions and variations.
-
Peace,
The Quran itself is perfect, but people have tried to twist its meaning over so many years that the words seem to mean something else now many times. That is what makes it annoying to read Quran, not knowing if it is right or wrong.
For example, do you truly believe that a man is allowed to beat his wife based on 434 as traditional muslims think? I doubt God gave such a right to men.
Or the story with the ants of the valley, which noshirk cleared out thankfully.
The blame is not on Quran, it is the same as when God had it written those years ago. But it makes reading the Quran annoying at times.
God bless you
-
Salamun alaiki,
When Qur'aan says about it self that nothing annoying is contained therein, it is only with reference to its own text. Any ambiguity in translated material is not the ambiguity of original text.
You have mentioned 434. Contradictions in the contents of a book are certainly annoying for a truth seeker. Similarly variations about a concept at different parts of a book are certainly annoying. Behavior towards and interaction with woman is itself a complete subject - concept.
Translations - take them as independent book- contain contradictory statements about conduct towards women. Therefore, such translation is inefficient, inaccurate and is not what is contained in the original text which is void of contradictions and variations.
Peace Mazhar,
I don't find it annoying at all tbh, although I can see how some may view it this was initially. In terms of 434, definitely, these are misinterpretations. My point was that, from what I have come across, the contentious point is that the word was multimeaning. But, as I think you already know, take a look at the rest of the Quran and we see that the message is of compassion, which basically goes without saying, towards each other. The Quran makes it very clear elsewhere, which is why it is odd that anyone could come to the conclusion 434 means wife beating, whether multimeaning words or not. It can be argued this is the affect of the hadith.
-
Peace,
The Quran itself is perfect, but people have tried to twist its meaning over so many years that the words seem to mean something else now many times. That is what makes it annoying to read Quran, not knowing if it is right or wrong.
For example, do you truly believe that a man is allowed to beat his wife based on 434 as traditional muslims think? I doubt God gave such a right to men.
Or the story with the ants of the valley, which noshirk cleared out thankfully.
The blame is not on Quran, it is the same as when God had it written those years ago. But it makes reading the Quran annoying at times.
God bless you
Peace Man of Faith,
I don't think anyone here truly believes that 434 means that, no. Although I'm not sure you were trying to address anyone.
-
Re 434
Just a quick note to say, The Quran does a good job on clarifying it's meaning, see www.Quran434.comOne must utilise the internal filter of Quran to ascertain the most accurate meaning.
-
Peace Mazhar,
I don't find it annoying at all tbh, although I can see how some may view it this was initially. In terms of 434, definitely, these are misinterpretations. My point was that, from what I have come across, the contentious point is that the word was multimeaning. But, as I think you already know, take a look at the rest of the Quran and we see that the message is of compassion, which basically goes without saying, towards each other. The Quran makes it very clear elsewhere, which is why it is odd that anyone could come to the conclusion 434 means wife beating, whether multimeaning words or not. It can be argued this is the affect of the hadith.
Evaluation criterion is simple. When we find in translations and exegeses contradictory statements about conduct towards women we should immediately conclude that these are inefficient, inaccurate and unfaithful renditions. Arabic word "Zaraba" never denotes beating unless qualified to indicate this signification. Those who employed this word beating even ignored its perception and meanings in English language.
The point is clarified
Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.
-
If reading, I find constant repetition, over and over again, annoying because it becomes boring. It can be repetition of the same events or same phrases or even same words. Howver if chanting or singing then I find repetition helpful to memorise chant/song or to emphasise the emotional content.
-
If reading, I find constant repetition, over and over again, annoying because it becomes boring. It can be repetition of the same events or same phrases or even same words. Howver if chanting or singing then I find repetition helpful to memorise chant/song or to emphasise the emotional content.
Thanks. Repetitive matter in a serious book certainly annoys. However, describing something again from a different angle that gives additional information is not repetition.
-
Yes, the unique of Quran is there are some repetitive verses, which repeated from chapter to chapter.Secondly verses in Quran has short sentence, the Third is Quran is in Arabic.
Because three points above,Quran was easily to be remembered.So if the Mushaf was gone, we can still depending on Hafiz Quran.
Proof http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyml6i2rdpU
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=syqjXp3kdJs -
Peace just reflecting about the repetition (sorry if these questions belong to a different topic) - in English, recite means to READ out loud. Why then, is the Quaran CHANTED? Is it chanted only by imams? Is it chanted only by those to whom God has blessed with a beautiful voice or is it required for every Muslim to learn how to chant it? What verses in Quran mention chanting as opposed to reading /reciting? When I watch Quranic channels on TV, I don't see the imams reciting/reading in Arabic. They CHANT the Arabic verses. If it's an English channel such as Huda TV they chant the Arabic and read/recite the English. Why don't they chant the English too?
-
Salaam @Lena.The power of Quran is not in It's Mushaf, but in I'ts "meaning"
What do you mean?chanted, recite is same for me, both of two is reading with speak.But I critize it too.
Why recite in Arabic?Of course it's Ulama's teaching which tafseered from Hadiths, but in Hadith no single verse says that "we must recite Quran in Arabic."
Like in salat, Is there any verses in Hadith which told us to Salat in Arabic?What ulama uses as bases is hadith which says "that we must salat like Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did"Btw hadith is for Arab only, since hadith contain conversation between Prophet n Sahabah who both of them understand Arabic.
Plus hadith is already fabricated -
Evaluation criterion is simple. When we find in translations and exegeses contradictory statements about conduct towards women we should immediately conclude that these are inefficient, inaccurate and unfaithful renditions. Arabic word "Zaraba" never denotes beating unless qualified to indicate this signification. Those who employed this word beating even ignored its perception and meanings in English language.
The point is clarified
Grand Qur'aan has prohibited domestic violence negating erroneous "belief" of beating one's wife.
Peace,
Yes, I agree. I've come across some articles and discussion on this already but thanks for sharing this resource!
Re 434
Just a quick note to say, The Quran does a good job on clarifying it's meaning, see www.Quran434.comOne must utilise the internal filter of Quran to ascertain the most accurate meaning.
Peace,
Thanks for this, both great resources.
