will it be possible for any other country to land on moon.

HP_TECH

I could be wrong but I thought that in your translation the THEM in "...We have made them..." is referring to "lamps".
If that is indeed the case, then that is imo not correct.
The HA () is fem. and singular, "lamps" is mas. and plural.
And yes I know that like all translations do this "them" translation, but I think that is wrong.

Yes I am aware of it look at free-minds translation

675 And We have adorned the lower heaven with lamps, and We made it with projectiles against the devils; and We prepared for them the retribution of the blazing Fire.

It makes no difference to the message being conveyed in the ayaat.

Why don't we focus on the actual meaning implied shall we?
I will ask again to you and whoever else is reading what is your interpretation of this ayaat?

Bender

Yes I am aware of it look at free-minds translation

675 And We have adorned the lower heaven with lamps, and We made it with projectiles against the devils; and We prepared for them the retribution of the blazing Fire.

It makes no difference to the message being conveyed in the ayaat.

RED You can not be serious about this.

Why don't we focus on the actual meaning implied shall we?
I will ask again to you and whoever else is reading what is your interpretation of this ayaat?

To formulate it with the words used in your translation, it should be read something like this imo

And certainly We have beautified the nearest heaven with lamps, and We have made the nearest heaven a ruzjuman for devils, and We have prepared for the devils a punishment (of) the Blaze.

HP_TECH

RED You can not be serious about this.
To formulate it with the words used in your translation, it should be read something like this imo

And certainly We have beautified the nearest heaven with lamps, and We have made the nearest heaven a ruzjuman for devils, and We have prepared for the devils a punishment (of) the Blaze.

It makes no difference if you are understanding that the heaven entails beauty and "projectiles".
Look at free-minds translation that should suit your argument. The heaven is made "with"or "as" projectiles.
It does not change the fact that there is a hifzan =guarding/protecting "mechanism" in the heaven above equipped with ruzjuman =projectiles

Hey Bender, take for example the ayaatin describing Suleyman and his turning to Allah because of his preference of the good things over the Remembrance of Our Lord.

Some people erroneously translated tawarat as "they were hidden" while the form of the verb is clearly 3rd person singular feminine. The sun =shamsa is a genitive feminine noun.
Now it would make much more sense that the sun is the thing being hidden in the horizon, rather than the horses in the cloak of nighttime's darkness, because the setting of the story is in a late afternoon, which is followed by evening as the sun sets a time which it is not completely dark and objects are still perfectly visible. After evening there is night in which light has completely dissipated from the sky and visibility decreases considerably.
It would be a stretch to imagine that the setting of the story jumped from afternoon to immediately night time and complete darkness.
But you know what Bender?? Either interpretation you take, does not rob the ayaat of its meaning whatsoever. We can still gather from either interpretation that it was getting dark!! Right?

Your argument about 675 is similar to that case.
It might be a bit of a stretch to assume that the heaven which is described as a structure is made as a ruzjuman, when it is much more sound to understand the ayaat conveying that the Heaven is beautified with lamps and these lamps are the ruzjuman or that the heaven due to containing these lamps is a ruzjuman or acts as a ruzjuman.

The root ra jim mim also encompasses shooting stars, stones being cast, thrown and etc..
This is further evidence supporting the notion of projectiles being referred to the lamps, stars, constellations.

Also the former disbelievers would ask their Prophets to make the sky fall upon them in pieces if they were indeed truthful, hence, another notion and evidence of the sky being synonymous with the constellations, stars, heavenly bodies capable of falling upon the earth.

After all the stars are placed in the sky so either way it is as projectiles or contains the projectiles.
The minor details you are focusing on take none away from the meaning the Quran is conveying whatsoever.

So yes I am absolutely serious it makes no difference

Stay humble man

peace

Bender

It makes no difference if you are understanding that the heaven entails beauty and "projectiles".
Look at free-minds translation that should suit your argument. The heaven is made "with"or "as" projectiles.
It does not change the fact that there is a hifzan =guarding/protecting "mechanism" in the heaven above equipped with ruzjuman =projectiles

Hey Bender, take for example the ayaatin describing Suleyman and his turning to Allah because of his preference of the good things over the Remembrance of Our Lord.

Some people erroneously translated tawarat as "they were hidden" while the form of the verb is clearly 3rd person singular feminine. The sun =shamsa is a genitive feminine noun.
Now it would make much more sense that the sun is the thing being hidden in the horizon, rather than the horses in the cloak of nighttime's darkness, because the setting of the story is in a late afternoon, which is followed by evening as the sun sets a time which it is not completely dark and objects are still perfectly visible. After evening there is night in which light has completely dissipated from the sky and visibility decreases considerably.
It would be a stretch to imagine that the setting of the story jumped from afternoon to immediately night time and complete darkness.
But you know what Bender?? Either interpretation you take, does not rob the ayaat of its meaning whatsoever. We can still gather from either interpretation that it was getting dark!! Right?

Your argument about 675 is similar to that case.
It might be a bit of a stretch to assume that the heaven which is described as a structure is made as a ruzjuman, when it is much more sound to understand the ayaat conveying that the Heaven is beautified with lamps and these lamps are the ruzjuman or that the heaven due to containing these lamps is a ruzjuman or acts as a ruzjuman.

The root ra jim mim also encompasses shooting stars, stones being cast, thrown and etc..
This is further evidence supporting the notion of projectiles being referred to the lamps, stars, constellations.

Also the former disbelievers would ask their Prophets to make the sky fall upon them in pieces if they were indeed truthful, hence, another notion and evidence of the sky being synonymous with the constellations, stars, heavenly bodies capable of falling upon the earth.

After all the stars are placed in the sky so either way it is as projectiles or contains the projectiles.
The minor details you are focusing on take none away from the meaning the Quran is conveying whatsoever.

So yes I am absolutely serious it makes no difference

Stay humble man

peace

It makes for sure a difference, except if you want to read it anyway how you like it to be, then it makes no difference.

peace

HP_TECH

It makes for sure a difference, except if you want to read it anyway how you like it to be, then it makes no difference.

peace

I don't get why you are avoiding to explain your interpretation. Is it perhaps because it makes no sense?

Bender

I don't get why you are avoiding to explain your interpretation. Is it perhaps because it makes no sense?

Perhaps I already did

"To formulate it with the words used in your translation, it should be read something like this imo

And certainly We have beautified the nearest heaven with lamps, and We have made the nearest heaven a ruzjuman for devils, and We have prepared for the devils a punishment (of) the Blaze."

Where ruzjuman is ofcourse NOT "projectiles".

HP_TECH

Perhaps I already did

"To formulate it with the words used in your translation, it should be read something like this imo

And certainly We have beautified the nearest heaven with lamps, and We have made the nearest heaven a ruzjuman for devils, and We have prepared for the devils a punishment (of) the Blaze."

Where ruzjuman is ofcourse NOT "projectiles".

You are missing the essential point what are you interpreting this Verse as, iyo what is being conveyed by Allah?
What is your understanding of ruzjuman if it is not the most obvious "projectiles" /"pelted stones"/i.e. comets, shooting stars, asteroids ???
A lot of you claim that my interpretations are regressive for the deen but my interpretation is truthful and points to Allah describing another wonderous of His Signs and observable scientific phenomena

So what is your full and complete understanding Bender?

imrankhawaja

Imran are you Pakistani? I thought you was Egyptian wow

it dosent matter as long we have same God and same color of blood with same emotions, lol, i m not rasict in any sense, but one day i will go to egypt if God wants me to, lol

imrankhawaja

This universe is full of wonder... and as time progress it will be revealed..
The underwater life is just a very tiny fraction of wonder available in this universe..
Very soon another 'strange' life form will also be revealed..

Thus how could anyone say that God's revelation has ended 1400 years ago?

green yeh no doubt abbout it,

red , yeh everyday science is giving us new surprises , i was watching a documentry in which they research on some island and they find 10000 new species which was never seen before,

blue infact 1400 years ago God give us the complete set of research in the shape of quran to explore things infact quran is nothing more than a miracle by itself, and if we think properly thats what the reason prophet muhammand never claim any miracle , it was the age of literature and learning science works, with the passage of time understanding of natural laws revelaed by geniuis and interestingly every genius claim they seen dreams about their discovries which help them a lot to soliving equations, infact miracles age people never changed much and they reject it like in the era of moses and jesus christ they show live miracles to them but they still continue to disbeleive,

the time of revelation of quran was in perfect order with modern age and it requirements,

imrankhawaja

Where ruzjuman is ofcourse NOT "projectiles".

this word in sense of noun used twice once as a MISSILE/PROJECTILE/STONE once as a guess,

18 22
675

but missiles is some metaphorical sense it may be wrong we have to go to root meaning for this then we will b able too understand what does it really means
ALLAH KNOWS BEST

interestingly missiles were not invented at the the time of revelation,lol so interpreting it for the people of that time may confuse them

HP_TECH

this world in sense of noun used twice once as a missile once as a guess,

18 22
675

but missiles is some metaphorical sense it may be wrong we have to go to root meaning for this then we will b able too understand what does it really means
ALLAH KNOWS BEST

Why do you guys pretend yo don't know about ruzjuman?
Why not just take a look at PRL

Ra-Jiim-Miim = to stone, cast stones, stone to death, curse, revile, expel, put a stone (on a tomb), speak conjecturally, conjectures, guess, surmise, the act of beating or battering the ground with the feet. rajmun - conjecture, guesswork, missile. rujum - shooting stars, throw off, damned, thrown off with curse. marajim - foul speech. marjum - stoned.

rajama vb. (1)
perf. act. 1191
impf. act. 1820, 1946, 3618, 4420
n.vb. (rajm, pl. rujum) 1822, 675
pcple. pass. 26116

rajim n.m. 336, 1517, 1534, 1698, 3877, 8125

It denotes throwing/casting or pelting stones in Classical Arabic Lexicons

http//ejtaal.net/aa/img/ll/10/ll-1090.png

Let us stop pretending and seek the truth genuinely if you are Muslimina

Bender

You are missing the essential point what are you interpreting this Verse as, iyo what is being conveyed by Allah?
What is your understanding of ruzjuman if it is not the most obvious "projectiles" /"pelted stones"/i.e. comets, shooting stars, asteroids ???
A lot of you claim that my interpretations are regressive for the deen but my interpretation is truthful and points to Allah describing another wonderous of His Signs and observable scientific phenomena

So what is your full and complete understanding Bender?

Red I think razjm means something like "valueless".

Blue There are more words in your translation with which I do not agree, like "nearest heaven", "lamps" etc but to put it in the same words as your translation, I think it should be understood something like this.

"And certainly We have beautified the nearest heaven with lamps, and We have made the nearest heaven valueless for devils, and We have prepared for the devils a punishment (of) the Blaze."

Bender

this word in sense of noun used twice once as a MISSILE/PROJECTILE/STONE once as a guess,

18 22
675

but missiles is some metaphorical sense it may be wrong we have to go to root meaning for this then we will b able too understand what does it really means
ALLAH KNOWS BEST

interestingly missiles were not invented at the the time of revelation,lol so interpreting it for the people of that time may confuse them

Hi,

stoning/missiles/projectiles/etc does not make in a single verse sense.
Most of times the word is used with shaytaan, and there is one thing for sure shaytaan is not stoned.
Where it is used with people like in 3618

It also does not make sense.
WA =AND
What is there to punish left after stoning? So stoning or similar understandings have to be filtered out.
Stoning is nothing more then a shaytaan act invented by some evil shayateen.

By the way I believe that there are no primitive words in the quran as "stoning".
Stoning/beheading/electric chair/etc are not rich words, I believe quran uses only rich words like torture/painful/degrade/etc

HP_TECH

Red I think razjm means something like "valueless".

Blue There are more words in your translation with which I do not agree, like "nearest heaven", "lamps" etc but to put it in the same words as your translation, I think it should be understood something like this.

"And certainly We have beautified the nearest heaven with lamps, and We have made the nearest heaven valueless for devils, and We have prepared for the devils a punishment (of) the Blaze."

wow

Bender are you familiar with corpus and word for word translations. They are the most accurate translations for that matter.
Which translations do you use. Because using corpus.quran.com I can see grammar, syntax, morphology, transliteration, root concordance and it has a link for the trilateral root of words directly to Project Root List----> which has links to an archive of over 2 dozens of Arabic Lexicons.

This is the pipeline I utilize to ensure the translation is accurate I do not satisfy myself with a miser Sahih translation.
This is not MY translation.

This is how ALL translators translate this ayaat and others.

What are your methods?

Bender think deeply.

What other possible twisted interpretation can you give into before you accept that what I am telling you is the sound truth?

1)There is no aspect of the root ra-jim-mim that conveys "valueless" it makes no sense in these ayaat describing the devils being "repelled".

Do not make up stuff just because you are unsure, you are essentially saying about Allah what you do not know. Fear Allah if you are indeed a Muslimina brother and take heed in my explanations.

You cannot do away with the interpretation I and the other poster Recluse have brought forth.

2)Valueless makes no sense in this context not in all the other instances in the Quran.

3)You have a primitive understanding of ruzjuman to mean stoning as the chucking of stones.
But it entails a much more sophisticated meaning, like "projectile comet/shootingstar/asteroid" This is an observable scientific phenomena being described by Allah. Another Sign, how can you deny this? It is clear.

4)Did Allah not make stones rain down on the companions of Lut?
Was that also primitive?

6)For the benefit of all I have explained that these translations are canonical and academically sound.
Now you bring forth your work and methodology or else stop talking about disagreeing with these translations, if you have no material.

Bender