-=[ Correction/Modification to FM Translation of AlQuraan ]=-

A_Submitter

Salam,

237 Adam then received words from His Lord, so He forgave him; He is the Forgiver, the Merciful.

Small error-His with small h.

Salam

A_Submitter

Salam,

212 No, they are the corruptors, but they do not perceive.

Maybe an error, the o. Checked word "corrupters", it occurs many times, corruptor only once.

Salam

Layth

Thank you. I will amend and upload the fixed file.

A_Submitter

Salam,

Just a letter error.

2124 And Abraham was tested by commands from His Lord,...

capital H to small.

Salam

A_Submitter

Salam,

a letter error

988 Their reward with their Lord are gardens of delight with
rivers flowing beneath them, abiding therein eternally. God is
satisfied with them, and they are satisfied with Him. That is for
whoever is concerned towards His Lord.

Capital H.

Salam

parvez_mushtaq

Assalamualaikum
i just noticed the translation of surah rum
302 The Romans have won.
303 At the lowest part on the earth. But after their victory, they will be defeated.

this translation is just in contrary to all the translation available

Ahmad Ali
The Romans have been conquered
Ali Qarai
The Byzantines has been vanquished
Amhad Khan
The Romans have been defeated.
Arberry
The Greeks have been vanquished
Corpus
Have been defeated the Romans
Daryabadi
The Byzantians have been overcome.
Hilali & Khan
The Romans have been defeated.
Maududi
The Romans have been defeated
Muhammad Sarwar
The Romans have been defeated in a nearby land and after this defeat,
Pickthall
The Romans have been defeated
Qaribullah
The Romans have been defeated (by the Persians)
Sahih Intl
The Byzantines have been defeated
Talal Itani
The Romans have been defeated.
Wahihuddin Khan
The Romans have been defeated
Yusuf Ali
The Roman Empire has been defeated-

as well as it is against the historical fact
is it a mistake or is there any explanation for this translation

Novice

There are two points already discussed in another thread if I recall correctly

1- The word Ghulibat vs. Ghalabat

Assumption that scribes might have put a "Dummah" insted of a "Fatah" on this word hense Ghulibat Ar-Rum meaning
Roman were overcome.

2- Battle of Mu'tah

Muslim army was defeated in this battle hense Ghalabat Al-Rum meaning Roman overcame.

Noon_waalqalami

There are two points already discussed in another thread if I recall correctly

1- The word Ghulibat vs. Ghalabat

Assumption that scribes might have put a "Dummah" insted of a "Fatah" on this word hense Ghulibat Ar-Rum meaning
Roman were overcome.

2- Battle of Mu'tah

Muslim army was defeated in this battle hense Ghalabat Al-Rum meaning Roman overcame.

Peace there were no marks; need to listen to recitation "at that time" or use context ...

http//oi67.tinypic.com/2iiecnn.jpg

Layth

Salam,

The translation is correct as it has used the context of the verses and not the narrative that people associate with the meanings.

Let me clarify

When a word stands "out of context", then the only thing we can do is to dig back to the older manuscripts to verify its correctness;
However, in some words where the difference is in the dialectal marks and not the spelling (such as "GhAlabat" an GhUlibat&quot we have a problem as the older/original texts have no "dialectal marks";
In these cases, we are forced to look again at the "context" for the correct answer.

Now, in 302, you have an "incident" which occurred with the Romans (let's assume we don't know if it was a win or a loss).

In 303, it tells us that this "incident" occurred at a location which is the "lowest part of the earth" (adna alardh).

And, that after this "incident", its "opposite" will occur (303).

And that this "opposite incident" will occur in a "few years" from then (304).

An when this "opposite incident" occurs, the believers will rejoice (304)

And what the believers are rejoicing is a "victory" from God (305)

When you put the above context together, its is pretty straightforward

A battle with Rome takes place
The battle occurs around the area of the Dead Sea
Rome is victorious
God promises the believers that after Rome's victory, they will be defeated - in a few years
And that on that day the believers will rejoice with a victory from God.

Historical analysis (based on physical evidence of battle site and graves)

Battle of Mu'tta which occurred between the Roman an Muslim armies at the area around the Dead Sea (town of Mu'tta in Jordan);
Muslims lost badly, commanders killed, army retreats in defeat;

According to the history (not verified by physical evidence, but is in-line with the Quran's predictions), the Prophet a few years later led an army against Rome in the "Battle of Tabuk" upon which Rome was routed and defeated.

parvez_mushtaq

Walaikumsalam rahamatullahi wabarakathahu

Salam,

The translation is correct as it has used the context of the verses and not the narrative that people associate with the meanings.

Let me clarify

When a word stands "out of context", then the only thing we can do is to dig back to the older manuscripts to verify its correctness;
However, in some words where the difference is in the dialectal marks and not the spelling (such as "GhAlabat" an GhUlibat&quot we have a problem as the older/original texts have no "dialectal marks";
In these cases, we are forced to look again at the "context" for the correct answer.

I may agree with you in regards to the literal translation because ,in case of no dialectal marks this can be done .but ,all these marks were made much before 8 or 9th century .suppose , we are/were not aware of these marks then we could have left with one option .
in the case Quran ,everything was furnished and quran was given in the present form within hundred years of its revelation .

your translation is correct literally but it contradicts the historical evidences .let me make note of it

Now, in 302, you have an "incident" which occurred with the Romans (let's assume we don't know if it was a win or a loss).

In 303, it tells us that this "incident" occurred at a location which is the "lowest part of the earth" (adna alardh).

And, that after this "incident", its "opposite" will occur (303).

And that this "opposite incident" will occur in a "few years" from then (304).

An when this "opposite incident" occurs, the believers will rejoice (304)

And what the believers are rejoicing is a "victory" from God (305)

When you put the above context together, its is pretty straightforward

A battle with Rome takes place
The battle occurs around the area of the Dead Sea
Rome is victorious
God promises the believers that after Rome's victory, they will be defeated - in a few years
And that on that day the believers will rejoice with a victory from God.
Historical analysis (based on physical evidence of battle site and graves)
Battle of Mu'tta which occurred between the Roman an Muslim armies at the area around the Dead Sea (town of Mu'tta in Jordan);
Muslims lost badly, commanders killed, army retreats in defeat;

According to the history (not verified by physical evidence, but is in-line with the Quran's predictions), the Prophet a few years later led an army against Rome in the "Battle of Tabuk" upon which Rome was routed and defeated.

firstly the area is around death sea which is nearest as well as ,as you have said lowest part of earth .both are correct
on the same location ,all the four things happened
1.Romans defeated by Persians
2.Romans defeated Persians
3.Romans defeated Muslims
4.Muslims defeated Romans

in the case of point numbers 1 and 2 ,all the historians agree that if there had not been Byzantine?Sasanian War of 602?628 then it would have been very difficult for Muslims to establish Islam .those were religious wars and they (both Romans and Persians ) were exhausted by those wars .historians even think that Heraclius lived too long .if had died before Arab conquering of Romans then his name would have been written in golden letters in the christian history .

So these wars were the master game plan of ALLAH subhanavatala which your translation deny .how can we expect quran to neglect such huge historical event happening those days .Byzantine?Sasanian wars were not the ordinary wars going on in the close proximity during the birth of Islam

In case of point number 3 if i agree with you then what will happen to the point number 4
your claim is that there is no physical evidence(which i agree) for the battle of tabouk except the traditional references .if we have to deny the traditional reference in the beginning then we should generalize it whole through the translation .if quran was talking about battle of tabouk then why there was physical evidences referring to the conquering of the same location during umar rasaiallahuanu .the ultimate victory came to Muslims during uamr rasiallahuanu and it was not during the battle of tabouk

So point 4 negates 3

however , if we translate ghulibat in verse 30.2 then all this historical facts fit perfectly that is
1.Romans defeated
2.Romans will be victorious
3.Muslims will defeat those victorious mighty Romans and they will rejoice

Layth

Salam,

firstly the area is around death sea which is nearest as well as ,as you have said lowest part of earth .both are correct
on the same location ,all the four things happened
1.Romans defeated by Persians
2.Romans defeated Persians
3.Romans defeated Muslims
4.Muslims defeated Romans

I do not see why you have brought 4 events into play when the verses we are speaking about are only referring to 2 (the incident with Rome and its opposite).

The story of the Roman/Persian war is the common one spun out in explanation of the verses. But, as can be pointed out simply, this is a wrong reference as the believers are referred to as part of the conflict - not the pagans or people of the book. Also, the Roman-Persian war is a series of wars that lasted 26 years (602-62 and was fought in many places from Egypt to Turkey, so it cannot be described as 2 battles which is what the Quran is speaking of.

Going back to history, you would agree on the Battle of Mutah in 629 and that it was fought against Rome with the result of the Muslims being defeated? I also gather you would agree it was fought near the Dead Sea? If so, then we have part 1 of the verse matched with a historical context.

If we are looking for part 2 (the opposite event), I quoted the battle of Tabuk while clearly mentioning I have not seen any physical evidence for this. You have quoted the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 which is where the Muslims defeated the Romans (with physical evidence). I accept your quote as being the more accurate and therefore is the part 2 event which compliments part 1 and matches 100% the verses we are reading.

parvez_mushtaq

Salam,

I do not see why you have brought 4 events into play when the verses we are speaking about are only referring to 2 (the incident with Rome and its opposite).

I want to emphasis that on the same location (nearest and lowest part of earth) all, the four things had occurred .so we cannot single out the Battle of Mutah

The story of the Roman/Persian war is the common one spun out in explanation of the verses. But, as can be pointed out simply, this is a wrong reference as the believers are referred to as part of the conflict - not the pagans or people of the book. Also, the Roman-Persian war is a series of wars that lasted 26 years (602-62 and was fought in many places from Egypt to Turkey, so it cannot be described as 2 battles which is what the Quran is speaking of.

The reference about the believers is in the verse 30.04
.......
The reference in this verse is talking about the future of the believer ,naturally ,in other words ,about a prophecy which is about to happen with in few years .

Quran mention both about the battles that were won(badr as well as conquering of mecca) and lost(battle of uhad) .but surah rum does not make any reference or an indication about the war that Muslims fought with Romans (Battle of Mutah). The following verses after 30.02 and 30.03 ( 30.04- 30.06 )makes it clear that the war is going to happen in the future .

Moreover , the defeat of Romans was the worst in the history of Christians .the capture of Jerusalem was considered as a major blow to Christians .Many churches in the city (including the Church of the Resurrection or Holy Sepulchre) were burned, and numerous relics, including the True Cross, the Holy Lance, and the Holy Sponge, were taken away by the Persian .It was considered as a mark of divine displeasure.Understandably ,the most talked about event of those days .

All the evidences as well as the flow of verses makes it very clear that the verse 30.02 is talking about the comprehensive defeat of Romans

A_Submitter

Salam,

the text in bold, is it correct?

2194 The restricted month may be met within the restricted month, and what is forbidden may be met with retaliation. Whoever attacks you, then you shall attack him the same as he attacked you; and be aware of God, and know that God is with the righteous.

Salam

Layth

Salam,

The Arabic says "Alshahr Alharam Bil Shahr Alharam" (the restricted month for the restricted month)

A_Submitter

Salam,

an extra word in bold "not"

56 O you who believe, if you rise to carry out the education-process, then wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you have had intercourse, then you shall purify. And if you are ill, or traveling, or you have excreted feces, or you have had sexual contact with the women, and you cannot not find water, then you shall select from the clean soil; you shall wipe your faces and your hands with it. God does not want to place any hardship on you, but He wants to purify you and to complete His blessings upon you that you may be thankful.

Also, in next verse, isn't last sentence part of the previous sentence;

512 God has taken the covenant of the Children of Israel and raised from them twelve representatives, and God said ?I am with you if you hold the education-process, and contribute towards purification, and believe in My messengers, and support them, and lend God a loan of righteousness; then I will cancel your sins and admit you into estates with rivers flowing beneath them.? Whoever rejects after this from you, then he has strayed from the path.

Salam

Layth

Salam,

Thanks. All fixed and uploaded

http//free-minds.org/sites/default/files/quran.pdf

A_Submitter

Salam,

Verse below, he needs capital h, in bold

520 And Moses said to his people ?My people, remember the grace of God upon you that he made among you prophets, and made you kings, and he gave you what He had not given any from the worlds.?

Next verse small letter h in bold

521 ?O my people, enter the holy land as God Has decreed for you, and do not turn your backs, or you will become losers.?

Salam

A_Submitter

Salam,

I'm wondering if verse below is missing a "to", underlined.

2221 And do not marry the female polytheists until they believe; for a believing servant is better than a polytheist, even if she is pleasing to you. And do not give in marriage to the male polytheists until they believe; for a believing servant is better than a polytheist, even if he is pleasing you. These invite to the Fire, while God is inviting to Paradise and forgiveness by His consent. He clarifies His revelations for the people that they may remember.

Salam

Wakas

peace Layth,

The following translation contains clear errors

FM translation
273 We said "Strike him with parts from it." It is thus that God brings the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you may comprehend.

Errors
him = the murdered soul/nafs is feminine
parts = is actually singular, i.e. a part
it = feminine

The most logical, practical, accurate and grammatically correct translation is discussed here
http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1
13)

idriboohu bi baAAdiha = cite /point out him with some of it (the murder)

The above is commonly translated as "strike him (the murdered person) with part of it (the heifer/cow)" taken from the previous verses. The traditional commentators say this act brought the murdered person back to life and he identified his murderers in this case. However, this understanding becomes extremely weak when all the evidence is taken into account, which we will now analyse, beginning with an accurate translation according to the Arabic

M=masculine, F=feminine, P=plural, S=singular

And when you (M,P) killed a soul (F,S), then you (M,P) accused each other in it (F,S), and God shall bring out what you (M,P) were hiding/concealing.
So We said "idriboo him (M,S) with some of it (F,S)." Like this God revives the dead (P) and He makes you realise His signs/revelations, maybe you reason/comprehend.

Please read M.Asad's notes on the above

Muhammad Asad - End Note 57 (273)
The phrase idribuhu bi-ba'diha can be literally translated as "strike him with something of her " -and this possibility has given rise to the fanciful assertion by many commentators that the children of Israel were commanded to strike the corpse of the murdered man with some of the flesh of the sacrificed cow, whereupon he was miraculously restored to life and pointed out his murderer! Neither the Qur'an, nor any saying of the Prophet, nor even the Bible offers the slightest warrant for this highly imaginative explanation, which must, therefore, be rejected-quite apart from the fact that the pronoun hu in idribuhu has a masculine gender, while the noun nafs (here translated as "human being&quot is feminine in gender from which it follows that the imperative idribuhu cannot possibly refer to nafs. On the other hand, the verb daraba (lit., "he struck&quot is very often used in a figurative or metonymic sense, as, for instance, in the expression daraba fi 'l-ard ("he journeyed on earth&quot, or daraba 'sh-shay' bi'sh-shay' ("he mixed one thing with another thing&quot, or daraba mathal ("he coined a similitude" or "propounded a parable" or "gave an illustration&quot, or ala darb wahid ("similarly applied" or "in the same manner&quot, or duribat alayhim adh-dhillah ("humiliation was imposed on them" or "applied to them&quot, and so forth. Taking all this into account, I am of the opinion that the imperative idribuhu occurring in the above Qur'anic passage must be translated as "apply it" or "this" (referring, in this context, to the principle of communal responsibility). As for the feminine pronoun ha in ba'diha ("some of it&quot, it must necessarily relate to the nearest preceding feminine noun-that is, to the nafs that has been murdered, or the act of murder itself about which (fiha) the community disagreed. Thus, the phrase idribuhu bi-ba'diha may be suitably rendered as "apply this to some of those " for it is obvious that the principle of communal responsibility for murder by a person or persons unknown can be applied only to some and not to all such cases.

Muhammad Asad - End Note 58 (273)
Lit., "God gives life to the dead and shows you His messages" (i.e., He shows His will by means of such messages or ordinances). The figurative expression "He gives life to the dead" denotes the saving of lives, and is analogous to that in 532 . In this context it refers to the prevention of bloodshed and the killing of innocent persons (Manar I, 351), be it through individual acts of revenge, or in result of an erroneous judicial process based on no more than vague suspicion and possibly misleading circumstantial evidence.

Additional notes
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) killed the soul/person.
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) were concealing (i.e. it was them who did it, as confirmed by the start of 272).
The part in red cannot refer to showing them how God resurrects the dead to simply show God can do it, as suggested by some commentators, as this is nowhere in context, would not require a murdered person, and would go against the example of Abraham, see 2260 (in which Abraham taught birds to incline to him and then called them from afar and they returned to him, i.e. their master). Not to mention that this would be a strange way for God to show how He does it, as it involved using partners to do the task.
"the dead" (al mawta) is plural thus weakening the common/traditional interpretation further, as it is not in this manner God revives the dead elsewhere in The Quran.
The part in blue must fulfil the goal God will bring out what they were concealing - further compounded by linking use of "fa/so" between 272 and 273.
The expression "God revives the dead" may also mean God revives the spiritually dead, i.e. them who were in the wrong (see the clear examples of 6122, 2780, 3050-52, 824), thus, this seems the most likely interpretation in my opinion. Although, M.Asad's is also possible.
The previous stories in this chapter are separated by "ith / when / ", and are all self-contained lessons. The story of the cow is independent of the story before it and the one following it that of the murdered soul.
The only masculine in the context are those who committed the murder and thereafter accused each other, hiding the truth. The only feminine in the context is the murdered soul, and the act of murder in which they accused each other in (i.e. this is the closest preceding feminine to / bibadiha).

Thus, applying the most likely option, we have "idriboo him (i.e. each one accused) with some of it (the murder)".

All we need now is to consider "idriboo" to see if there is a meaning that fits. Lane's Lexicon states that DRB on its own can mean "to point or make a sign", i.e. point out or indicate. When we re-read the context of 272-73, it becomes obvious the perpetrators were accusing each other (i.e. pointing the finger at each other, so to speak) to conceal the truth that they did it, so God was to bring forth what they were concealing so We said "point out him with some of it (the murder)". The only ones doing the pointing/accusing were the guilty. Thus, whomever of them (i.e. of the ones accused) was pointed out by the others also accused was assigned some part/responsibility of the murder. In this way, they could not escape what they had done, and indeed, God exposed them and brought out what they were concealing. The end result was that they took collective responsibility, each of him a part. Sharing of a sin/crime if a group were responsible is mentioned elsewhere in The Quran, e.g. 2411.

Further, other Classical Arabic meanings of DRB can also be used, such as cite, propound, indicate, assign, put/show forth.

Interestingly, in the tafsir of "al-Jalalayn" (see altafsir.com) it says the revived murdered soul pointed out his murderers. Ironically, this comes close to the truth; possibly indicating a remnant of the true understanding of this verse still remained, and likely became superficial/superstitious over time.

As a side note, for an understanding of "ddaara'atum", see Lane's Lexicon. In it, it specifically states the translation we have used. By deduction, we can work out it does indeed mean "you accused each other". The whole phrase literally means "you averted/repelled/pushed away each other". What are they averting/repelling/pushing away? The Quran tells us, it is "feeha = in it". Thus, the only possibility is they are literally pushing away in the dead body (highly unlikely), OR, they are pushing away in the murder, and logically, the latter can only mean they were pushing away the accusation or the sole responsibility for it. This is further proven by what follows, when it says they were concealing/hiding. Thus, one simply needs to ask what can they (the ones who did it) possibly be concealing by repelling each other in the murder? The translation option then becomes obvious.

To conclude, the understanding presented here fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing the subject of murder, specifically, that there is life in al qisas/equivalence (the law of just recompense) for those who use their intellect, 2179, and provides us with a self-contained explanation.

Abdul-Hadi

Greetings and Peace, all group

Small typographical error

979 Those who criticize the volunteers among the believers in chari- ties; that they only have their efforts to give; so they mock them. GOD mocks them, and they will have a painful retribution.

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi