The Forgery of Significations
-
Salam Uq,
Apologies for the very late reply, and lengthy post.
Anyway, it is very interesting that you decided to quote 144. More translations here http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=14&verse=4.
Using the translation that you have provided, the first part of the verse says that, "We sent not a messenger, except in the tongue of his kinsmen to be clear with them."
So it implies that God will always send a messenger (to a person or group of people) who will always speak in the language/tongue that the person or the group of people must understand.
The Q is a compilation of the revelations received by Muhammad the nabiyy, and since he was an Arab, the Q is understandably in Arabic. Muhammad did not compose, write nor compile the Q, but some people after him decided to compile the revelations he received into a book. That's the Q that we now have.
If say, you were an Eskimo, has God sent you or your group of people a messenger who spoke in the language that you or your group of people understand?
And if there was nothing that you know of regarding this matter, does it mean that God has never sent a messenger to you or your group of people?
And consequently therefore, the first part of verse 144 is a lie. Is it?
Now, the second part of the verse is even more interesting "God then misguides whomever He wills, and he guides whomever he wills. He is the mighty, the judicious.?
Since this part is related to the first (note the presence of 'then' in this second part of the verse), and lets say that there has never been a messenger sent to you or your group of people, then there is no possibility that God will guide nor misguide you or your people? And God is judicious, remember?
So of course we must take note of 2143 (some translations here http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=143). We read in this verse that (Arberry), "but God would never leave your faith to waste."
When we have the full faith in God that He is compassionate, merciful, judicious and wise, and that as our Lord (rabb), "He teaches man what he knew not" (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=96&verse=5), and that we appoint Him as our teacher, reference, friend, helper and supporter in our daily lives, are we still fearful that God will misguide us?
But really, who are the misguided? Or the people that God will surely misguide? Do we not learn about this in the Q?
Are they not the 'thalimeen'? But what is 'thalim'? Browse here (http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Zlm) for some ideas.
Here is from Hans Wehr "unjust, unfair, iniquitious, tyrannical, oppressing; tyrant, oppressor; offender, transgressor, sinner."
Here is from Lane "Acting wrongfully, unjustly, injuriously, or tyrannically and wronging ; or treating, or using, wrongfully, etc."
And to further assist you, here is the verb entry by Hans Wehr "to do wrong or evil; to wrong, treat unjustly, ill-treat, oppress, beset, harm, suppress, tyrannize (s.o.), commit outrage (upon s.o.); to act the tyrant, act tyrannically (toward or against s.o.)."
The word that could generally represent all the meanings entered by Hans Wehr and Lane for the term 'thalim' is 'prejudice' (http//thesaurus.com/browse/prejudice).
The messages brought by past 'anbiya' and messengers always contained 'different or strange' ideas from those already known by the people. The idea of the singularity or omnipotence of God is very strange to past communities, even in the 6th & 7th Century. In fact the idea that majority ideas are always wrong is still a strange idea, even to many of us now.
But to those who have full faith in God and the last day in this earth, they treat every different or strange ideas that downed upon them with open-mindedness (without prejudice) and immediately they ask God for further clarifications. God knows, so we don't, and thus it is only proper for us to only seek for God's counsel.
Books and dictionaries are study tools that assists, but the final word must come from God when we have full faith in God.
The theory is that God is the teacher. We learn about this in the Q.
The practice is simply to appoint God as our teacher. The way of learning with God as our teacher dictates that we must first empty the cup - rid the mind of all ideas or attain zero mind. We do this in meditations. Automatically all past learnings, ideas and theories will degenerate into mere information (that could be correct or incorrect according to God) that we are very much detached from. The concept is detachment from attachment.
To be detached from our 'mind' (ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) is a very difficult exercise indeed. We have spent many years learning, or much money was spent for them, and some have even be identified by them. All these demand a very strong faith in God and equally strong will to be successful is studying with God as our teacher.
As our teacher, God will always be the reference, or the first and only reference. We used to first employ uncle Google, or asked around for ideas. God has always been the number 5, if not 20. Yet we dare say that God is "al-awwal"!
If we acknowledge that God is "al-awwal", then we must appoint God as the number 1, or the first in reference, and better still in everything that we need to know or do. We should take the lessons of Ibraheem, Yaaqub, Zakariya, Maryam and Moosa (just to name a few). The Q also mentions that we should put God as the first in our mind on waking up from sleep (you will not read about this in popular translations).
Or that we must immediately seek for God's guidance whenever invited to a meeting or a date. Or that we must make our meditations the approach to God whenever we need to attain God's guidance.
These are very different or strange ideas to you. Are they wrong? Are they correct? But who is to tell you other than God?
And I must only speak for myself here. I don't create new meanings, nor forged them out of prejudice or fancy, no matter how different or strange they seemed to you.
As I have frequently wrote, get God to tell you the truth.
Your lengthy post is excellent, but these are mere tools for language studies. But the Q is not an ordinary book. It was never revealed by any man, neither composed by any man. The Q is from God. And again I repeat, the final word on the true meaning of the Q must come from only God.
May God guide us all correctly.
Cheers!
mohammed noh -
Peace all.
I'm very dissapointed because I am lag of this discussion cause I'm rarely online in that time.
I have heard the arguments that zin does not mean fornication, and that nis? does not mean women, and that salh does not mean prayer. These arguments, in my view, are invalid. I will say the following about these arguments
You're true uq, translating the Quran too literally or only use harfiyah tarjamah will be very misslead indeed.
I mean even we reject hadith or some tafsir kitabs as source for fiqh, aqidah, fatwa, but atleast we can still use them to found some Islamic terminologies.
The easy example is the meaning of word "junub" in 56.
Junub in literal meaning is "far" like in QS 2811, in that ayat the word "junub" translated in to "far".But it's imposibble if we translate the word "junub" as "far" in 56.
So the conclusion is we may translate the Quran literally but dont forget about tafsiriyah translation.To be detached from our 'mind' (ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) is a very difficult exercise indeed. We have spent many years learning, or much money was spent for them, and some have even be identified by them. All these demand a very strong faith in God and equally strong will to be successful is studying with God as our teacher.
As our teacher, God will always be the reference, or the first and only reference. We used to first employ uncle Google, or asked around for ideas. God has always been the number 5, if not 20. Yet we dare say that God is "al-awwal"!
Yes Abang Muhammad Nuh, Allah is our only guru in "Islamedeena" ( 268, 2187, 2219)
But the Allah's explanation is ayah in the Quran itself, not the translation.
Translation science is human problems and we must use our intellegence from Allah to learn it.Translation is one of the way to understanding Allah's explanation of Islam (the Quran)
Salaam
-
Salam Earthdom,
I beg to disagree with your views here
But the Allah's explanation is ayah in the Quran itself, not the translation.
Translation science is human problems and we must use our intellegence from Allah to learn it.Since the passing of Muhammad the nabiy, later on the rasool, in the 3rd decade of the 7th C, we have yet to find a translation (in our case should be in English or Malay) of the Q that could appease our hearts. And those translations were done by masters, no less, of the the languages involved. But why?
Why are we having differences in understanding even the basic theories and practices taught in the Q? Is it a case of one having a more refined grasp of the Arabic language than the others? And therefore we should leave the translation of the Q to this person?
And the more than a billion people who professed to be true Muslims have found it hard to denounce religious massacres simply they follow the translator's idea that 'oqtul' rigidly means 'kill' as in putting to death by shedding the blood.
Lets look at 2191 here http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191. Did you really presume that the compassionate and merciful God has commanded massacre in this verse? Even when i 2191 (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191) God has issued a warning that we should not transgress the limit? So what kind of God do we presume He is then?
Lets look at Hans Wehr's entry "to kill, slay, murder, assasinate (s.o.); to mitigate, alleviate (sth., e.g. the cold, hunger, etc.); to mix, dilute (sth. with, e.g., wine with water); to know, master (sth., e,g, skill)."
And when there was a command from God, "... faoqtuloo anfusakum thalikum khayrun lakum AAinda bari-ikum ..." (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=54) Did God ask us to kick the bucket, then? Or is it better for us to be dead?
As in my earlier post in this thread, our biggest enemy is prejudice (thalim). When prejudiced we only subscribed to some sets of notions or ideas.
So to me, the thing to kill is the notions.
In 224 it should read, "... then kill your notions, that is better for you in the sight of your Creator ..."
"What notions?" you may ask. It is that idea of adopting the calf mentioned earlier in the verse.
And for 2191, to me it is, "And kill their notions wherever you find them, and express your views against them because they have expressed their views against you. But the temptation is greater on the kill. But don?t strive against them on the forbidden occasion of reverence, unless they strive against you on it, so if they strive against you, kill their notions. Like that is the retribution for disbelievers."
"... But the temptation is greater on the kill. ..." "How about this?" you may also ask. It means, while in deliberations, we are quite often tempted to kill. Kill here implies killing the persona or simply to character assasinate. This we come across quite often here in FM.
The Q is more often addressing issues very close to our hearts than the person next or opposite to us, because the Q is a guide on us becoming. The oblivious will become arrogant while the mindful will become humble.
But still, you may choose to continue subscribing the ideas contained in your post. I have no problem whatsoever about it. We all enjoy the freedom of choice. You have yours, and i have mine.
May God guide us all correctly.
Cheers!
mohammed noh -
Peace abang Joe Betik.
Thank you for your explanation.Actually Arabic grammar and translation is not my main and my main discipline, instead i study it in autodidact ways.So maybe I little bit confused to reading your explanation.
And the more than a billion people who professed to be true Muslims have found it hard to denounce religious massacres simply they follow the translator's idea that 'oqtul' rigidly means 'kill' as in putting to death by shedding the blood.
Yeah it's the true, why some radical Muslim intepretate Quran based on their hatred and forget if all the verses in the Quran is correlated each other.
It's like the verse 551, for how the Sunni translate the word "auliya" with simple minded by saying if we musn't use Yahudi and Nasrani as our leader.
They didn't care if the word "auliya" have multiple meaning such like "helper, best friend etc"
Plus they also didn't care if Jews and Nasrani mentioned in 551 is the hypocrite people who attacking Muslim, instead they keep descriminating Jews or Nasrani by using ayat 551 as their bases.Regards.
Tegar -
Spiritual texts, enven while dealing with everyday hapennings, are open texts. No use putting a lid on them, because they are nourishment for the individual, and I highlight individual, because they have the potential to awake any person, to evoque very personal things to every person. In facct that happens with any text. But the spiritual texts, being inspired, they go very deep into the conscience, subconscience, and all the recesses of the human mind and feelings.
Also, conditionning is the most powerful limit to reading what may be enclosed in a word, a phrase, a set of phrases.
We may follow paths that may be do not take us where we thoought they would, but at the very least that provides as always, with a better grasp of whatever we are trying to clear or get to. And also it gives us width of understanding in general, of fats and words and what is behind the words. Language is anything but rationhal. It is rational to some extent, but it is our let out for everything we experience cosncious or unconscious, more so the unconscious. We let the cat out through words. And we let the cat out when we understand certain words, expressions in one way and not in another.
But most conditioning, and most lethal comes from previous assumed "correct" interpretations, of which assumption we are not even conscious.
Salaam
-
peace joe betik,
If say, you were an Eskimo, has God sent you or your group of people a messenger who spoke in the language that you or your group of people understand?
And if there was nothing that you know of regarding this matter, does it mean that God has never sent a messenger to you or your group of people?
And consequently therefore, the first part of verse 144 is a lie. Is it?
I do not see how 144 can be said to be a lie with the reasoning you have provided. 144 is simply saying if/when God sends a messenger to a people it is done so in the language of those people, i.e. the messenger speaks their language.
Perhaps you are also combining 1646, but even then I do not follow your reasoning.
An Eskimo may not be aware of a messenger being sent but this does not mean a messenger was not sent.
Perhaps you can clarify.
-
peace joe betik,
I do not see how 144 can be said to be a lie with the reasoning you have provided. 144 is simply saying if/when God sends a messenger to a people it is done so in the language of those people, i.e. the messenger speaks their language.
Perhaps you are also combining 1646, but even then I do not follow your reasoning.
An Eskimo may not be aware of a messenger being sent but this does not mean a messenger was not sent.
Perhaps you can clarify.
Peace Wakas,
May God guide us all correctly.
Perhaps the more appropriate verse to be read together with my related post is 1047 (corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=10&verse=47).
And I am with you when you wrote, "An Eskimo may not be aware of a messenger being sent but this does not mean a messenger was not sent."
A matter worth pondering upon is, "Was a 'rasool' (messenger) ever sent to Muhammad the 'nabiy' (lets just say that Muhammad the 'nabiy' was the person who received the Q we now have) prior to his appointment as a 'rasool'?"
The underlying ideas in the 2 paragraphs above may give us some pointers, hopefully, on who actually is the rasool
a. for a person such as Muhammad, Ibrahim, Isha, Moosa, Zakariya, Maryam, or even you and me, etc.;
b. for a community/group of people such as the people around Muhammad, Ibrahim, Isha, Moosa, Zakariya, Maryam, or even you and me, etc..Cheers!
mohammed noh -
Peace all.
I'm very dissapointed because I am lag of this discussion cause I'm rarely online in that time.
You're true uq, translating the Quran too literally or only use harfiyah tarjamah will be very misslead indeed.
I mean even we reject hadith or some tafsir kitabs as source for fiqh, aqidah, fatwa, but atleast we can still use them to found some Islamic terminologies.
The easy example is the meaning of word "junub" in 56.
Junub in literal meaning is "far" like in QS 2811, in that ayat the word "junub" translated in to "far".But it's imposibble if we translate the word "junub" as "far" in 56.
So the conclusion is we may translate the Quran literally but dont forget about tafsiriyah translation....
Salaam
Salam Earthdom,
May God guide us all correctly.
I trust I have to post a commentary on the first part of your post. As for the second part of your post, I have already posted my comments.
- Literal translation.
I read the Q to understand the message, and if ever I posted my personal understanding of the verses, then they are just my personal understanding. Although I seek God's counsel in my studies, never I do not claim to hold the sole truth of the meaning of the verses. It is up to God to reveal the meaning to me. And even then, I could have missed something or other. Thus I used to remind anyone reading my posts to simply consider to ponder. Otherwise forget it.
- You have taken the word 'junub' in support of your stand that we cannot disregard "tafsiriyah".
Lets now look at 'j-n-b' here http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=jnb.
Here is Hans Wehr's entry for 'junub' "in a state of major ritual impurity; not belonging to the tribe, not a kinsman."
While here is an edited version of Lane's entry ?Ajnab? signifying A stranger; as also a man who is distant, or remote or distant, or remote, in respect of relationship or not a relation; and ?Janeeb? signifies one alighting, or descending and abiding, or settling, as a stranger, among a tribe ?Jaru aljunub? The person who is one's neighbour, but who belongs to another people; who is not of one's family nor of one's lineage; who is of another lineage than he of whom he is a neighbour; who is not a relation or one who is distant, or remote, in an absolute sense or the person who is not a relation to another, and who comes to him, and asks him to protect him, and abides with him such has the title to respect that belongs to him as neighbour of the other, and to his protection, and as relying upon his safeguard and promise.
If you have the time to spend, please browse Lane's Lexicon here http//www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/
So how could we understand 56 (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=6)?
Lets ponder on my personal understanding
You people who have believed, when you attend to a relationship/communion/gathering, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads and wash your feet up to the two ankles. And if you were ?junuban?, then have yourselves cleaned/a bath. And if you were ill or on a journey, or one of you comes from the latrine, or you have had sex with women but could not find water, then resort to an agreeable goodness, so wipe your faces and hands. God does not intend to put you in any difficulty, but He intends to make you clean, and to complete His comfort for you, so that perhaps you might be grateful.
So what is 'junuban', then? Couldn't it be related with the idea of 'far' as you have asserted?
I trust it should, since the Q is consistent in word usage and meaning. The meaning has to be consistent with word usage.
In the above verse it relates to people who are 'far' or 'distant' from the group that was having the relationship/communion/gathering. So, 'junuban' in this verse could refer to 'newcomers' or 'strangers' to the event. People who come from distant places strictly for the event could also fall into this category. This must not be confused with those on a journey (AAala safarin), for they didn't make the journey purposely to attend the event; they just dropped by, rather.
An example of such event is like a lecture on the the forbidden occassion of reverence that was held in London. Some people took the bus to attend the lecture. Some had to drive only for a few minutes. But some had to take the train across the Europe, while some others had to take flights across the Pacific Ocean.
So those who had to take a long journey purposely for the event and those newcomers/strangers to the the people or the subject to be lectured upon, they are essentially 'junuban'.
Lets now look at 443 (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=43).
Lets ponder on my personal understanding
You people who have believed, don?t approach relationship/communion/gathering when you are intoxicated, not until you know what you are saying, and not ?junuban? unless crossing path, and be it only after you have yourselves cleaned/a bath. But if you were ill or on a journey, or anyone of you came from the latrine, or have had sex with women but did not find water, then resort to an acceptable goodness, and so wipe your faces and your hands. Indeed God is pardoning with forgivness.
I hope you can now notice that the meaning for 'junuban' in verse 443 is consistent with verse 56.
We also note that 'junuban' in 443 is related with the next phrase, i.e. "... wala junuban illa AAabiree sabeelin ... ."
The phrase "... illa AAabiree sabeelin ... ," is the clue. In this verse we don't cross path with God, but with people - acquaintances and strangers.
It is normal that we would say hello and spend some time exchanging news or even personal experiences and comprehensions. Sometimes the acquaintance(s) or even us have strangers or newcomers in our company.
Sometimes the event is scheduled, at times impromptu. At times we would be discussing family matters, while at others we might be having a discussion on company marketing strategy. Even at others we might be approached by people with questions. All this is about 'salat' = relationship/gathering among people. It could be just two, or it could be in the thousands.
Preparing for the 'salat' = 'communion (with God)' is also the same - we need to prepare ourselves as mentioned in verse 56 and 443. We commune with God by meditation (bayt), everytime on waking up from sleep (musbiheen) as mentioned in Chaper 68 and every night as mentioned in Chapter 73.
So now comes the big question, "Am I doing 'the forgery of signification' simply because i do not follow others' understanding/translation, eventhough the meanings I have could easily be found in the dictionaries/lexicons?"
But please also note this again Although I have a different comprehension regarding the Q from others, it does not mean that I consider their translations or understandings to be wrong. Never. To each his own, indeed.
Cheers!
mohammed noh -
Thank you abang Muhammad Nuh, your explanation about "junub" is very helpful.
I have no comment for your explanation, and I want study more so I will became smart like you.
Salaam from Indonesia
Tegar Abdul Hutama -
This is offtopic, but perhaps I should also put a note here that in all my years of studying and discussing the lessons of the Q, I am now almost sure that the Q is not for any Tom, Dick and Harry. The Q is only for those who wanted to be true servants of God, thus willing to sacrifice their priceless possession and love, i.e. the mind.
It is not that God is against the mind that He created for us. No. He created the mind for us to think, to have common sense or to subscribe simple logic.
In the first revelation (Chapter 96) we learn that God created man to be dependant on Him, but do we always have God in the equations of the things we think and do? Isn't it common sense that since God created man to be dependant on Him, man should reciprocate by depending on God for everything. Isn't it common sense too when we learn that God teaches man what he knew not, we should reciprocate by learning with God as the teacher?
And a servant of God is one who appreciates/values the relationship/connection between himself/herself and God. As in any relationship, communication is key, thus he/she must talk to God, though one should never have this idea that God will surely speak to him/her. In the Q we learn that God is the ever-listener whenever we talk to Him. We also learn that He answers all of our prayers/du-a, no matter how oblivious we are of God's answers.
A servant of God also does whatever is commanded without questions, lest they become like the 'banee isra-eel' in the hadith of the heifer in Chapter 2.
But most people, even in this forum are careless or oblivious of the very basics of becoming true servants of God. They became servants of their very own minds, instead. They turned arrogant because they have ideas/notions (baneen) or good grasp of the Arabic language. Indeed, they have turned into the very proofs for the truth of the many hadith in the Q, because they are careless about the God who revealed the Q they claimed to study.
My apology, but I write this because I fear for some of you. "God knows best," is the perfect attitude, and therefore when we accept that we are not beholders of the truth, then we should never make dubious remarks on God, on the Q or on others. We must have respect for God, and of course for ourselves for having that attitude of "God knows best".
Indeed when we hold the truth, it will surely lead us to become humble peacemakers, but if we hold the false, it will definitely lead us to become arrogant instigators. We come across these terms in the Q that we study, and as such, this is how we should measure ourselves, I suggest.
May God guide us all correctly.
Cheers!
Mohammed NohBrilliant!! bravo
You put words to my thoughts!
