The Qur'an is corrupted in translation and text is alter how can it be trusted?
-
So if the Qur'an was not written by a god you believe it has no value good logic?
My view of its value has zero to do with the writer, only the content, from the small amount Badar has translated it is clear it is a book of great value if correctly translated, it is irrelevant who wrote it, and always was, it seems you are conflicted by the need to "believe" in a guide which must have invented superstitions, and fantasy added, if it is a guide that has merit on its own then why would it have no value if it did not supporting religions, gods, worship, prayer, ritual, superstitions, hierarchy, riba usury, etc., if it actually did not support these things when translated?
What people want to invest in the book is there choice, the same sentence may be interpreted by the reader in several ways if they have certain predisposed biases, but the main thing is that the sentence is translated in itself without bias, each word considered purely from a linguistic point if view.
-
So if the Qur'an was not written by a god you believe it has no value good logic?
My view of its value has zero to do with the writer, only the content, from the small amount Badar has translated it is clear it is a book of great value if correctly translated, it is irrelevant who wrote it, and always was, it seems you are conflicted by the need to "believe" in a guide which must have invented superstitions, and fantasy added, if it is a guide that has merit on its own then why would it have no value if it did not supporting religions, gods, worship, prayer, ritual, superstitions, hierarchy, riba usury, etc., if it actually did not support these things when translated?
What people want to invest in the book is there choice, the same sentence may be interpreted by the reader in several ways if they have certain predisposed biases, but the main thing is that the sentence is translated in itself without bias, each word considered purely from a linguistic point if view.
Who's Badar and what's so special about his translation?
-
Peace Makaveli,
Badar Kanwar has been working on the grammatical and lingustic nature of ancient Arabic, language before it was transformed through hadith, religions and hierarchical governments, and slowly he is revealing the real message, and as he learns he is improving the translation, as he works alone and in his spare time, and as he has to revise his work when he discovers new information, the translation is slow.
-
Peace Makaveli,
Badar Kanwar has been working on the grammatical and lingustic nature of ancient Arabic, language before it was transformed through hadith, religions and hierarchical governments, and slowly he is revealing the real message, and as he learns he is improving the translation, as he works alone and in his spare time, and as he has to revise his work when he discovers new information, the translation is slow.
Thanks.
-
Who's Badar and what's so special about his translation?
In my view his translation is garbage until proven otherwise. One of its fundamental flaws is it throws cross-referencing (i.e. intra-Quran comparison) in the bin, or if he does utilise it he doesn't mention it. In my view the reason why he does not utilise/mention it is because actually employing cross-reference would require monumental effort on his part AND would disprove his translation.
Almost certainly AN has not verified much, if anything, of Badar's translations. Love to be proven wrong if AN can produce an article/post wherein he has done so.
-
I have looked at Badar s work,and just like numerous other works it is complicated and has zero evidence behind the changes he puts to the Arabic words.
Where is the dictionaries/base work of what he claims his translation is from contained?
Some of it does not make sense either. Just look how long it is taking as well?By the way Abdun Nur,The Qoran is from GOD,written by humans under the watchful eyes of GOD s invisible soldiers (Inspired). I know some will say so is the bible,the difference is we have an intact original work here.
The content will speak for itself.So other books should also be judged by their contents as well.GOD bless.
Peace. -
If it is based on a referenced and reasoned approach ,then why the delay?
Do you agree that we need to see a big chunk translated to be able to base our comments on the translation?
But so far it is not the case.
I think ,like many ,when they come to halt,it means there are contradictions and anomalies/mistakes... in their work. My opinion.
GOD bless.
peace. -
In my view his translation is garbage until proven otherwise. One of its fundamental flaws is it throws cross-referencing (i.e. intra-Quran comparison) in the bin, or if he does utilise it he doesn't mention it. In my view the reason why he does not utilise/mention it is because actually employing cross-reference would require monumental effort on his part AND would disprove his translation.
Almost certainly AN has not verified much, if anything, of Badar's translations. Love to be proven wrong if AN can produce an article/post wherein he has done so.
Dear Waqas, instead of asking others why don't you try to prove step by step, translation of just one word, Allah as garbage. It up to you to prove, I have laid my evidence step by step. I can post the latest version of its translation steps again, which is slightly different from original. Are you or anyone, anywhere on this planet earth up to the task?
-
I have looked at Badar s work,and just like numerous other works it is complicated and has zero evidence behind the changes he puts to the Arabic words.
Where is the dictionaries/base work of what he claims his translation is from contained?
Some of it does not make sense either. Just look how long it is taking as well?By the way Abdun Nur,The Qoran is from GOD,written by humans under the watchful eyes of GOD s invisible soldiers (Inspired). I know some will say so is the bible,the difference is we have an intact original work here.
The content will speak for itself.So other books should also be judged by their contents as well.GOD bless.
Peace.Good logic, please present your evidence that Quran is from God? Don't give me the circular logic of Hadith proving your point. This is an Oxymoron. All current Quran translation/explanation is Hadith based. Hence, trying to prove one by other is just keep spinning your wheels with getting anywhere.
Regards,
-
Good logic, please present your evidence that Quran is from God? Don't give me the circular logic of Hadith proving your point. This is an Oxymoron. All current Quran translation/explanation is Hadith based. Hence, trying to prove one by other is just keep spinning your wheels with getting anywhere.
Regards,
That Quran is from "God" is evident from what it says. In the real interpretation of it, it declares things of the future before they had happened and then I am not talking about some cleaving of stone on the moon or something, which is in the Khalifa version.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Peace Man of faith,
you are talking about postdiction which involves explanation after the fact.
This is an effect of hindsight bias that explains claimed predictions of significant events such as plane crashes and natural disasters. In religious contexts, theologians frequently refer to postdiction using the Latin term vaticinium ex eventu (foretelling after the event). Through this term, skeptics postulate that many biblical prophecies (and similar prophecies in other religions) appearing to have come true may have been written after the events supposedly predicted, or that the text or interpretation may have been modified after the event to fit the facts as they occurred. Alternatively the prediction is so vague, catch-all, or otherwise non-obvious that over time somewhere on earth an event can be fitted into the vagueness of the prediction.
-
I would add.
Your argument may lead to the question "What is the point of a prediction that cannot be interpreted correctly before the event?" However, the argument is not that the prediction could not have been interpreted correctly prior to the event, but simply that it was not in the case in question, thus the question is working from a false premise. Of course, any "prediction" that is so vague as to not be correctly interpreted before the event it allegedly "predicted" is functionally equivalent to no prediction at all.
-
I agree the prophecy must not be ambiguous but quite clearly declared. In the interpretation I have it is.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Does it have a location, date, time, clear description of participants and events, if so what is the purpose of the prophecy, is it to prevent the event? to record the event? if the prophecy is not absolutely clear in both detail and purpose what is the point?
-
It is not ambiguous but not so elaborate although yet clear enough to understand that the author knew what was going to happen when it was being written, saying that Quran has been made according to certain people themselves and not what it is supposed to say. The authenticity in that is Quran has obviously been forced a nonsensical interpretation on top of an innocent discourse and then kept that way until someone could decipher that segment of text and see the writing says that was exactly what was going to happen. That is a safe prophecy, yet the author knew exactly what was going to happen and the expression is clear as glass.
Another thing, which is not a prophecy, but Quran says Solomon was dealing with the kings of Babylon and tried to make them behave righteously (because they did not).
That is consistent because years after Solomon's rule the whole Jewish population was taken captive by Babylon and later rescued by a Persian emperor (shah'an'shah or king of kings), when the Jewish society had suffered years of bad kingship, as evidently only David and Solomon plus a few subsequent kings had behaved properly in order to keep the kingdom healthy.Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Peace Bkanwar2.
I do not believe you are asking me this,quote
Good logic, please present your evidence that Quran is from God? Don't give me the circular logic of Hadith proving your pointI have conversed with you in the past,I have repeated numerous times in many of my posts that I do not follow hadith . I also repeated many times about the mathematical composition of Qoran ,the contents of Qoran,the style of Qoran.
You do not read my posts? But what about when we are talking to each other,do you just skim it /ignore altogether ?
I am sorry I am failing to understand why you are asking me about the circular logic of hadiths or anything to do with hadiths!!!!!I give up. I may be naive,but it seems some members do not read posts!!!Why do they take part then? Does this not seem to be unfair? How can you do justice to views if you do not read them?
That explains perhaps why questions are asked numerous times?!!!
That also explains why people keep writing the same stuff. Only what they made their mind about. Nothing else will even interest them. Nothing else is worth a look at. And they call others dogmatic?!!!!
Look brother. I am sorry if I went on a bit here,but I find people who do not read posts and comment on them rude.
Never mind how other translations cannot be trusted,the real question isCan themselves be trusted?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace, it is now common knowledge the translated text is corrupted and the Arabic text has not remained unaltered from the original, how then can it be trusted as a source of guidance?
Can you clarify what you mean by "the translated text is corrupted", please ? A translation, e.g. in English, is not the original text, and like for any other text, different translators can make different translation.
The Arabic text of Qur'an has certainly be altered from the original text written by Muhammad. This is why we find testimonies of Qur'an of Ibn Mas'ud, Qur'an of Ubay, Qur'an of Ali, Qur'an of Hafsa, etc.
We even find in the palimpsets of Sana'a variations of Qur'an that have never been attested by Arabic authors.But the most blatant alteration is the alteration of the meaning of the words itself, under the influence of the Sira and the Sunna.
I would say that the right approach to uncover the original message is to appeal to different scientific disciplines history and philology.
Philology is the science to study the language and its evolutions from written documents.
Here we are to study Arabic from quranic corpus and possibly other written sources at the same time.
That way we can discover how some words have changed meaning from the 7th century to now, and what meaning they can probably have in Qur'an.
We can also discover if some later interpolations have been done, because in that case, the words are not used the same way as the rest of the text.We can also confront the meaning uncovered by philology to history. For example, the meaning of Qur'an resulting of a philological analysis is not fully aligned with the history of Muhammad as told in the Sira an-Nabawi.
The philological analysis clearly points at a vocabulary describing a period and place of great troubles at the time Qur'an is written, whereas in the Sira an-Nabawi, revelation starts in a peaceful time in Hedjaz.
Also the place doesn't match.On the other hand, philological analysis is aligned with the history in Northern Arabia, and places writing of original Qur'an among warfare and among theological disputations involving various Christians sects and Jewish sects.
It is in this precise context that the claim of Qur'an that it is a book of guidance starts to make sense.
