The principles of faith in the Quran

unknownuser

peace AB,

I dont see anyone saying Yusuf Ali's interpretation is the correct one, so I dont know why you spent the majority of your post discussing this.

Peace

well I have to expose the confused who claim to be helping Islam, as indeed Yusif Ali caused a lot of propagandas with his silly and dodgy job of translating the Quran, yet his notes is more bizzare than his translation

How many non arabic speakers that man caused them to be confused?, well I can tell you a lot because I spent a year trying to fix a lot of flaws that was caused by his crappy translation, he lacks arabic for sure, but what puzzles me that he translated the Quran while he lacks arabic, that is funny

Can you simply answer the following two points

taqfu in 1736 is in the imperfect form (an action in the process of being done) according to my grammar sources, and in all others it is in the perfect form (an action done). Perhaps that makes sense because it is "We" in the other occurrences, whilst in 1736 it is directed to us.
Does this change anything?

The words has nothing to do with "We" or "Us" the word was only used in 3 locations to stress that Allah caused prophets to follow each other, ONLY ONE CONTEXT, the word Qaffaya is perfect to be used in this context, in 1736 the word give us a non complete context while there is another words that Allah used over 170 times to express following

the 'shadda' is above the Fa in 287, 546, 5727 (x2), but NOT in 1736.

QAFA in 1736 is verb form I
QAFFA in 287, 546, 5727 (x2) is verb form II

Does this change anything?

of course it does in the pronouonciation and the meaning, The word QaFfaYa, MUST alway have a shadda on the letter F, while the other word "Wa Qa Fa" does not have shadda on the F, hence they are totally different words in letters and in meaning, if it is "Qa Ffa Ya" then in 1736 the "La" should make the shadda dissppear and a full stop in the pronouncieation on the last letter F must be inforced, i.e "La Ta QQif" , in 1736 we can see a dumma on the F hence it is a present in an prder tense verb with no shadda on the F

unknownuser

Also the arabic word "Wa Qa Fa" has two common meanings

To Stand Up

To Stop

If both meanings contexted in 1736, both meaning will be valid as a metaphor regarding arguing

peace

mquran

as I stated, the above was my last comment regarding this subject, but it will be rude not to respond to a comment direct to me, well I reckon 1736 may apply to you

for your knowledge, Jiddal also means discusion it does not have to be an arguement

AB, the reason why we differ is what I call different 'etymological strategies' . I've had this problem with Anwar Goins (who has unparalelled scholarship in Arabic, in my experience) before he takes his meaning from the dictionaries straight to al-quraan without al-quraan playing an active role. I find that unacceptable.

Jidaal in al-quraan is used as follows
argue with them (jaadiluhum) in ways that are best and most gracious

so to me, 'jidaal' acquires meaning the more its used in the book. This is how I build my world-view of al-quraan.

unknownuser

Hi AhmadBahgat,

Then you would translate the ayat as follows?

You shall not argue without knowledge. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
Right?

Perfect bro, thanks

In your translation, u have 'argue' . Is there an arabic word meaning 'argue' present in that particular verse?

no there is not, but this is a common metaphor in the arabic world that represent arguing, I explained this before to Nadeem, this how the verse sounded to me BEFORE I READ THE TAFSIR BY 4 MAJOR ONES AND SURE THE MAJORITY WAS THE SAME, SO I FELT HAPPY AND CONFIDENT TO TAKE THAT MEANING

for me the highest on the list is "not to argue when you lack knowledge"

anyway, verse 1736 is clear as light that it means "DO NOT ARGUE WHEN YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE"

but what I'm 100% posutive about is 1736 means "DO NOT ARGUE WHEN YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE"

The word "argue" in Arabic doesn?t exist in 1736 and yet Ahmedbaghat insists that it is clear as light and 100% positive, defining it yet further as a metaphor. Go figure this one out. This is getting abnormally hilarious, especially when coming from a highly influenced Arabic linguistic, as he so confidently and vehemently professes. roll lol

And here is another case (emphasis in bold & underlined)

I've had this problem with Anwar Goins (who has unparalelled scholarship in Arabic, in my experience) before he takes his meaning from the dictionaries straight to al-quraan without al-quraan playing an active role. I find that unacceptable.

History and ah yes, NATURE has shown enough evidences amongst disgruntled yet highly skilled and influential linguists. I mean the fatwa driven professionals.

unknownuser

The word "argue" in Arabic doesn?t exist in 1736 and yet Ahmedbaghat insists that it is clear as light and 100% positive, defining it yet further as a metaphor. Go figure this one out. This is getting abnormally hilarious, especially when coming from a highly influenced Arabic linguistic, as he so confidently and vehemently professes. roll lol

well don't take it as to argue then, how about

Do not stop at things that you lack knowledge in

now this advice is to you mister non arabic speaker

I challenge anyone to fault the above translation