Which is your favourite interpretation(into English) of the Quran?

Ervin

Peace.

Thanks Layth, Mazhar and the rest.

I haven’t fully read all of the answers, but I do plan to. I sort of get the gist.

Ok, the following is another example where it seems way to different between Monotheist group and others. The following

And recall that We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh. They inflicted on you terrible persecution, killing your sons and sparing your women. Therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.

The above says “sparing your women”.

While the Monotheist group says” raping your women”.

Now, can you please explain to me how does one meaning of the word means “sparing”in Arabic and the other “raping”?

By the way, I am not sceptical about the existence of God( I know God exists, atheism for me is a strong delusion for instance). I just am looking for a accurate revelation from Him/God.

Also, I must say that some Monotheist group translations in the Quran ( and explained by the natural republic) make much more sense than the traditional. Just thought I say this so that you know I am not being biased.

Thanks

Iyyaka

Ok, the following is another example where it seems way to different between Monotheist group and others. The following

And recall that We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh. They inflicted on you terrible persecution, killing your sons and sparing your women. Therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.

The above says “sparing your women”.

While the Monotheist group says” raping your women”.

Now, can you please explain to me how does one meaning of the word means “sparing”in Arabic and the other “raping”?

Thanks

Peace Ervin,

(24911)
wayastaḥyūna
?
CONJ – prefixed conjunction wa (and)
V – 3rd person masculine plural (form X) imperfect verb
PRON – subject pronoun

Interesting questioning.

This allows among other things to emphasize the role of propositions to understand the meaning of a word as well as its literal context (the wa and the form X have an incidence here).

The form x appears 9 times in the quran and it takes 3 different meanings depending on the preposition

Form x + min = blush, be ashamed of ..
=> 2 times in
Form x + an = do not dare to do something out of modesty or reserve.
=> 1 time in
Without preposition
=> 6 times including verse .
2 options
3.1 leave alive, let live
3.2 live

the textual context and syntax are clear and point to proposition 3
there is a contrast between the plight of children and that of women

the children are put to death and,
by contrast, their mothers are alive.

Now, should we adopt the meaning 3.1 or 3.2 ?

a little detour through the senses of the form x
The form x comes from a state verb (form I verb ḥayya = to live with the idea of shrinking), then the meaning of the form x may have an estimated value (judge as ..). So, to summary

The basic state verb meaning "to be alive".
Estimate will therefore mean here "to consider someone or something as alive".

Indeed, after the death of her child, by addition of murder, which mother can feel alive? She would like to be dead in their place..something is dead in her even if outside she is alive.

So, in conclusion, we can translate the by " and let your women as alive ..".
The word "sparing" is good but not precise enough to give depth to the meaning of this word in the context of the history of Moses and Pharaoh.

Mazhar

The distinct characteristic - personality disorder of Fir'aoun and his trusted Chieftains portrayed in Qur’ān is self-exaltation - self-aggrandizement - Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They had all the properties of self-aggrandizers like use of technique of "divide and conquer"; aggressive ruthless behaviour; taking advantage of the people around him; arrogant, haughty behaviours; engaging in false accusations, distortion campaigns; character assassination attempts; malicious gossip; amplifying their own image, and outburst of rage; but despite his facade he himself suffered from low - diminishing esteem.

He was a ruthless monarch who indulged in genocide of one national group by determined and systematic killing of their new born sons and leaving women who were incorporated in the conquering group. By this he not only kept that group in subjugation - enslaved but it was also aimed at controlling their demographics and not to let increase the percentage of their young males. Slaughtering of their new born sons is also mentioned at other three places 7141; 146 ; 284

http//haqeeqat.pk/Fir'aunPharaoh.htm

Ervin

Peace and thanks everyone.

To those who might give answers as to the actual words meaning that I asked(especially the one in number 8 post), please can you keep it simple and as brief as possible? Otherwise I am going to have to get familiar with English grammar. Grammar or not grammar, when you go into technicalities please try and keep it brief!

As to those not familiar with the monotheist group Quran or the natural republic, you can download it by just googling

Monotheist group Quran PDF. And

The natural republic PDF. Which is also from the monotheist group.

Thanks

huruf

neither in 7141, in 146 or in 284 is it said that fira3wn killed or ordered to kill any new born. It speaks of "abnaahum", their sons, in 28.4, "abnaakum", your sons, in 14.6 and in 7.141.

This seems similar to what is said in aya 3.61
فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وَأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَتَ اللَّـهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ ﴿٦١﴾

And if anyone should argue with thee about this after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say "Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray humbly and ardently, and let us invoke God's curse upon those who are telling a lie."
In this aya it says "...abana'ana", our sons, and "abana`akum", your sons". They could hardly be newborn, a least all of them. Does not say "your new born sons"nor ou "new born sons".

Salaam

Mazhar

neither in 7141, in 146 or in 284 is it said that fira3wn killed or ordered to kill any new born. It speaks of "abnaahum", their sons, in 28.4, "abnaakum", your sons, in 14.6 and in 7.141.

This seems similar to what is said in aya 3.61
فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وَأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَتَ اللَّـهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ ﴿٦١﴾

And if anyone should argue with thee about this after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say "Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray humbly and ardently, and let us invoke God's curse upon those who are telling a lie."
In this aya it says "...abana'ana", our sons, and "abana`akum", your sons". They could hardly be newborn, a least all of them. Does not say "your new born sons"nor ou "new born sons".

Salaam

يُذَبِّـحُ أَبْنَآءَهُـمْ وَيَسْتَحْيِىۦ نِسَاءَهُـمْۚ

He used to slaughter their sons and purposely let their women live.

وَأَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَـىٰٓ أُمِّ مُوسَـىٰٓ أَنْ أَرْضِعِيهِۖ

And Our Majesty verbally communicated to the Mother of Mūsā that, "You keep breast feeding him —

فَإِذَا خِفْتِ عَلَيْهِ فَأَ لْقِيهِ فِـى ٱلْيَـمِِّ

Then when you would have apprehended danger upon him, thereon you place him in the river; (Nile-by placing him in the chest) —

وَلَا تَخَافِـى وَلَا تَحْزَنِـىٓۖ

And you should not feel fear and nor feel grief —

إِنَّا رَآدُّوهُ إِلَيْكِ

Our Majesty will certainly revert him back in the same condition/place to you —

وَجَاعِلُوهُ مِنَ ٱلْمُـرْسَلِيـنَ .2807٧

And We will appoint him as one of the Messengers."

فَٱلْتَقَطَهُۥٓ ءَالُ فِرْعَوْنَ لِيَكُونَ لَـهُـمْ عَدُوّٙا وَحَزَنٙاۗ

Thereupon, the men of Fir'aoun (Pharaoh) picked him up so that he may become for them an antagonist and cause of grief.

إِنَّ فِرْعَوْنَ وَهَٟمَٟنَ وَجُنُودَهُـمَا كَانُوا۟۟ خَاطِـِٔيـنَ .2808٨

-- Indeed Fir'aoun (Pharaoh) and Ha'maan and troops of both were long been wrong doers --.

وَقَالَتِ ٱمْرَأَةُ فِرْعَوْنَ قُرَّتُ عَيْـنٛ لِّـى وَلَكَۖ

And the wife of Fir'aoun (Pharaoh) said to him, "He is cool comfort of eye, soothing for me and for you —

لَا تَقْتُلُوهُ عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَنفَعَنَا أَوْ نَتَّخِذَهُۥ وَلَـدٙا

You should not kill him, perhaps he may benefit us or we may affectionately adopt him as son."

وَهُـمْ لَا يَشْعُـرُونَ .2809٩

And they had no idea/perception/clue .

http//haqeeqat.pk/roots/Tabweeb/2.22%20095%20Binaan/5.gif It includes son, new born, child, and of any age.

Iyyaka

neither in 7141, in 146 or in 284 is it said that fira3wn killed or ordered to kill any new born. It speaks of "abnaahum", their sons, in 28.4, "abnaakum", your sons, in 14.6 and in 7.141.
Salaam

Peace Huruf,

Yes you're right (i made a mistake - thanks)

abnāakum = your sons,
So nisāakum in (249) = daughters by contrast (in the textual context)

Then, the translation is "letting live your daughters" or "sparing your daughters".

Exactly like in Exodus 116 and Exodus 122
https//biblehub.com/exodus/1-16.htm
https//biblehub.com/exodus/1-22.htm

huruf

Peace Huruf,

Yes you're right (i made a mistake - thanks)

abnāakum = your sons,
So nisāakum in (249) = daughters by contrast (in the textual context)

Then, the translation is "letting live your daughters" or "sparing your daughters".

Exactly like in Exodus 116 and Exodus 122
https//biblehub.com/exodus/1-16.htm
https//biblehub.com/exodus/1-22.htm

Exodus may say what it may say, but we cannot make the Qur'an say what it does not say because it happens that exodus says something different. The Qur'an is quite capable of saying new born if that is what it wants to say. No need to feed it to it.

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

abnāakum = your sons,
So nisāakum in (249) = daughters by contrast (in the textual context)

peace, nisakum/womenfolk yours -- mothers, aunts, wives, sisters, nieces, daughters, etc.

https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/4/vers/23/handschrift/15
https//i.postimg.cc/4NrCXYJt/ch4v15-23.jpg

https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/33/vers/59/handschrift/107
https//i.postimg.cc/t473WkQL/ch33v53-62.jpg

Iyyaka

Dear Huruf, Noon waalqalami

nisakum/? yours -- mothers, aunts, wives, sisters, nieces, daughters, etc. = YES..In arabic it is a general term for woman.
So, now, we have to take into account the historical and textual context

2.1. Textual context (passage 247 to 249)

Verse 249 is part of a wider passage which is addressed DIRECTLY to "yābanī is'rāīla" (sons of israel - verse 247), and which begins in verse 240.
We are in the Medina context (controversy with the Jews)
Verse 249 reminds them how much God has granted them favors, and reminds them of stories they know and on which the Quran does not question the veracity - This story is therefore known and the Quran takes it back.
We can therefore confirm the words of the Quran by the Bible and clarify the meaning of nisakum in this particular context.

2.2. Textual context (verse 146 - liqawmihi = "to his people&quot

146
And Moses said to his people "Remember the blessings of God upon you that He saved you from the people of Pharaoh; they were afflicting you with the worst punishment, and they used to slaughter your children, and rape your women. And in that was a great test from your Lord." (The Quran A Monotheist Translation)

This time, it is Moses who speaks directly to his people and the speech is addressed to adult women and men of the group. (kum/"your" - it doesn't concern them directly as a person).
So it refers to a big emotional events for parents killing children (and we know by verse 249 that it is sons).

2.3. Textual context (verse 249 - slaughtering # to let alive)

As i said, there is a link and a contrast between this two parts of the sentence
249
yudhabbiḥūna/slaughtering abnāakum/your sons wayastaḥyūna/AND letting live nisāakum/your women-daughters.
=> there is a difference in treatment between male and female.
So, as "abnāakum" refers to the "sons", "nisāakum" refers here to daughters.

By doing this act, Firaun not only killed sons but he would like also to destroy a community.
He knew that he will also figuratively killing girls who will not be able to live their entire role as women belonging to the Hebrew people (their lose their identity without men to form a married couple, and protection too) => After short-term punishment (death of sons) comes long-term punishment (many women adult without husbands).

NB Quran is clear when it corrects the Bible like in verse 254 but it is another subject.

peace

huruf

One can fantasize as much as one likes on things that are not explicit, but that is what it is. When it is taken as moral questions, no problem but when it is taken as history BIG PROBLEM.

And that is the question. The Qur'a wcoul hae been as explicit as the Exodus, but does nto talk of rape rather says that women were sought to be kept alive, which, on the other hand, forms part of many civilised behaviour in times of war. The qur'an does not say the same as the exodus, say, and the Qur'an says also that many older "texts" are made to say things that God did not say. Particularly old testament is formed by original texts but by translations into greek which are very much more recent that the orginal texts would have been. It owul be the originalt texts, or the pats of them that were revealed those that the Qur'an corroborates, not those that have gone through unknown or known hands.

So please, no corroboration for "historical" particulars from Qu'an which are deduced to the taste of the deducer but which ARE NOT THERE.

Salaam

Iyyaka

One can fantasize as much as one likes on things that are not explicit, but that is what it is. When it is taken as moral questions, no problem but when it is taken as history BIG PROBLEM.

And that is the question. The Qur'a wcoul hae been as explicit as the Exodus, but does nto talk of rape rather says that women were sought to be kept alive, which, on the other hand, forms part of many civilised behaviour in times of war. The qur'an does not say the same as the exodus, say, and the Qur'an says also that many older "texts" are made to say things that God did not say. Particularly old testament is formed by original texts but by translations into greek which are very much more recent that the orginal texts would have been. It owul be the originalt texts, or the pats of them that were revealed those that the Qur'an corroborates, not those that have gone through unknown or known hands.

So please, no corroboration for "historical" particulars from Qu'an which are deduced to the taste of the deducer but which ARE NOT THERE.

Salaam

Just a little comment In context (Verse 249) we are not in a situation of war but of strong oppression.
peace.

huruf

Just a little comment In context (Verse 249) we are not in a situation of war but of strong oppression.
peace.

I said the war simply as a similarity it would be the same en in any situation of hardness that civilised people tend to protect women over men, simply just like in ships, women and children abandon first. You may of course see in your mind or visualize in your mind the events as it comes most probable to you, but that cannot be applied bacj to the Qur'an to make it say what it does not say in order to make it comply with a narrative that has turned out to be widespread, regardless of its accuracy to fact or not, and I find nothing wrong with visualizing things one way or another. But what I do not find acceptable is to constraint the Qur'an to a particular visualization which is not born by the text itself. It could be this it could be that, may be or may be not.

Obviously not all males were killed, far from it, otherwise no males could have gone with Musa in the night. In fact there is no particular mention in the Qur'an that there was scarcity of males in general or in any age bracket. Neither, If I rmemeber right in the exodus.

Salaam

Iyyaka

I said the war simply as a similarity it would be the same en in any situation of hardness that civilised people tend to protect women over men, simply just like in ships, women and children abandon first. You may of course see in your mind or visualize in your mind the events as it comes most probable to you, but that cannot be applied bacj to the Qur'an to make it say what it does not say in order to make it comply with a narrative that has turned out to be widespread, regardless of its accuracy to fact or not, and I find nothing wrong with visualizing things one way or another. But what I do not find acceptable is to constraint the Qur'an to a particular visualization which is not born by the text itself. It could be this it could be that, may be or may be not.

Say "Fantazise" or "constraint the Qur'an to a particular visualization" is not an argument.
I understand your view but the context is clear for me - I give you my QURANIC arguments - just meditate on them and make your opinion honestly - that's all (But if you don't believe in others kitab as the Quran says i can do nothing for you, and good luck (or misery) to understand Al-Quran !).

Obviously not all males were killed, far from it, otherwise no males could have gone with Musa in the night.

Fine remark so ? if it is the case then not all sons were killed but just a part of them - for me it concerns ONLY the new born (sons).
2)
(2499) yudhabbiḥūna (Verb form II = intensity and repetition)
=> This Arabic term is translated by the word "slaughter" but it is not strong enough I think because it was a "real carnage " (a big and large massacre). If we respect the word of Allah and if that concerns all the sons then it will only remain a few of them, creating a great imbalance.

peace.

huruf

Yes, fine, that is your view of the matter. Fine, no quarrel, but then again, by your own admission it is your understanding, not the text of Qur'an which makes you put new borns in. No new born in Qur'an. Could be or could not be, but sure some sons, of whatever age, were slain.
If you think that Qur'an orders us to believe in the bible as is, good luck to you, you will need a very wide throat to swallow all that is in it. The bible is what we call hadith. There are sure some authentic revelations in the lot, but you cannot take the whole lot as is. Otherwise Moise would be telling us his own passing away and the pains of childbearing ae meant to be a punishment to women for being bad. And that is in the kitaa you say that I should take for granted as being God's revelation.

It is good to make up one's mind on what is hadith and what is Qur'an, that the hadith goes back to older time than Qur'an, does not make it less of a hadith.

Salaam

Iyyaka

Salam huruf,

i quote you
The bible is what we call hadith. There are sure some authentic revelations in the lot, but you cannot take the whole lot as is.
"
Sorry to tell you but you seem confuse in your mind and i understand that.
If i follow your logic then hadith have to be rejected, So bible too and all text that is not Quran (I will also add others apocryphal texts).
But if you are honest, without bible or some traditions, it is impossible to understand a large part of the Quran.

The Quran is not an OVNI. In the same time, it confirms past messages (as you said very well) and also correct them or forget others..Not easy and i did, and i am doing, many mistakes (i accept it) by analyzing this text. But, therefore, the first thing before saying if it is Quranic or not it is necessary to study the texts of late antiquity. No choice. Not easy yes but it is a collective work.

But, and i am sure we are agree with that, the Great Quran gives us the key
548
"And We have sent down to you the Holy scripture by the truth, confirming what is between his hands from the Holy scripture and preponderant on it." " or "controlled ", and is used here to describe the Qur'an as the determinant factor in deciding what is genuine and what is false in the earlier scriptures].

So, for you verse 249 correct the Torah and for me not. That's how it is.
Peace.

huruf

Have I said hadith have to be rejected? No, I have not said that. Neither that they have yo be accepted, amongs other things, because hadith is nothing. It is a name given to an heterogeneous amount of saying or narrations, hawadith, they are not anything in itself just a convention to call things that are attributed, with reason or without it to a number of persons.

The bible is like that, an heterogeneous collections of different content and quality and origin.

Since they are not one thing but an amount of things (may be thousands of things ith nothing in common except having been collected under the label "hawadith" or "bible", each one with its particular nature an existence, to call the whole this or that is meaningless. Therefore itis not something to be rejected or acccepted, but each particular thing should be evaluated for what it is worth.

And remember, you mothe suffered pains to give you birth, because a woman, who is supposed to be the mother of all humans in existence, behaved badly. Tht is the Bible for you.

The Qur'an is not such. You take it or leave it, but to compare or equal it with hawadith (bible or otherwise) is to not represent the facts as they are.

Revelations there have to humanity, to all peoples, always, anothher thing is that they may have been recorded properly or not and whether they were mixed with other things or not, ot adulterated or not.

On the other hand it is not the matter that the Qur'an corrects the Torah or not. The important thing is the moral stand and teaching not whether so and so was did excatly this or that. For me it is plenty to kill anybody for self engrasiement, no need to make it into a Hollywood drama in order for it to give guidance and wisdom. And that is precisely what the Qur'an does not. I do not need to go outside the Qur'an to get the real thing or to add more spice to it because merely killing males is not bad enough and it has got to be killing new born in orde for it to be the real thing.

As far as I am concerned, the Qur'an, as it says of itself is complete, nothing is left out. Any outside adornment is just that and deflects from the substance.

Also, if one wants to read the bible, it is better to stick to it, see it in its own terms just as Christians and Jews do, not on any other terms, just as the Qur'an, see it in its own terms not on terms of other things. Mixing is the recipe to not get anything out anything.

Salaam

Noon_waalqalami

As i said, there is a link and a contrast between this two parts of the sentence
249
yudhabbiḥūna/slaughtering abnāakum/your sons wayastaḥyūna/AND letting live nisāakum/your women-daughters.
=> there is a difference in treatment between male and female.
So, as "abnāakum" refers to the "sons", "nisāakum" refers here to daughters.

peace, it was applied to womenfolk in general.
what is consistent meaning of word – shamed?

226 ان indeed الله the god لا not ىستحىى yastahyi/?

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=364

284 وىستحىى wayastahyi/and ? نساهم nisaahum/womenfolk theirs

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=49617

249, 7141, 146 وىستحىون wayastahyuna/and shaming نساكم nisakum/womenfolk yours

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=729