The holy valley of Tawa

phoenix1

peace AB,

welcome back.

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5984.0
please answer this young man's question.

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed, All,

Peace mate

First, I hope your trip was enjoyable.

It was but also very exhausting though I recovered Alhamdullellah

You quoted 1674 but did not quote 1673. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 2 ayat connected?

Of course I didn?t quote 1673 because I can?t see any connection or very lil if there is any, but I?m open to listen to your view on how they are connected, but don?t you agree that 1674 is more connected to 1675 and 1676?

Transliteration Fala tadriboo lillahi al-amthala inna Allaha yaAAlamu waantum la taAAlamoona
Literal So do not give the examples/proverbs to God, that God knows and you do not know.
Free-Minds So do not give parables to God. God knows while you do not know.
Rashad Khalifa Therefore, do not cite the examples for GOD; GOD knows while you do not know.
Yusuf Ali Invent not similitudes for Allah for Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
Shakir Therefore do not give likenesses to Allah; surely Allah knows and you do not know.
Pickthal So coin not similitudes for Allah. Lo! Allah knoweth; ye know not.
Arberry So strike not any similitudes for God; surely God knows, and you know not.

If this is the case, then the context of 1673 is vital to understanding 1674.

Brother Tay, while you have not added anything really, to bring a list of different translations is not a strong argument against the Arabic Quran if you ask me, however let?s analyse each one of the above

1- Literal So do not give the examples/proverbs to God, that God knows and you do not know.
Ahmed says the key word is , ?To Allah? pronounced ?Lillah?, and clearly it is something that belongs to Allah, NOT ABOUT ALLAH. We have zillions of examples in the Quran that will confirm this crystal clear fact that ?Lillah? means ?To Allah?, or ?Belongs to Allah?, also the second part of the verse as understood literally ? that God knows and you do not know? must be considered because it is the reason of the warning at the first part of the verse, so if the first part is about Allah, then the second part should be understood as ?because Allah knows about Himself and you don?t know about Him?, hhhhhmmmmm, surely does not make any sense, we know that Allah knows about Himself and everything in the heaven and earth, what is new here?, and He also told us there is nothing like Him

(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle by this means does He multiply you there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).

(11)

-> See, , ? there is nothing whatever like unto Him?

-> Another possible hint, in 1674 we read , translated as ? Invent not similitudes for Allah?, the similitudes may NOT be about Allah because it is plural ?Amthal?, which contradicts the Tawheed message of the Quran about Allah, therefore it can be plural if the meaning is about inventing many metaphors and associating them to Allah as if He intended to it be that way without telling us as such.

Let?s look at a few examples to the very important key word ?Lillah? ?To Allah?

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,

(2)

-> See, Praise be to Allah, ?Lillah?, , not Praise be about Allah

Say To Allah belongs exclusively (the right to grant) intercession to Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth In the End, it is to Him that ye shall be brought back.

(44)

-> Again, Intercession belongs to Allah, ?Lillah?, , not Intercession be about Allah.

Say To whom belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth? Say To Allah. He hath inscribed for Himself (the rule of) Mercy. That He will gather you together for the Day of Judgment, there is no doubt whatever. It is they who have lost their own souls, that will not believe.

(12)

-> And again, All that is in the heavens and on earth belong to Allah, ?Lillah?, , not All that is in the heavens and on earth be about Allah.

There are zillions of examples but that should be enough to prove that the ?Amthal? ?Metaphors? mentioned in 1674 is about inventing metaphors to Allah, NOT ABOUT ALLAH

Looking at the other translations and realizing the above logical context we can take it that most of the translations are accurate

2- Free-Minds So do not give parables to God. God knows while you do not know.

Ahmed says sure and I agree that it is about parables to Allah and not parables about Allah because Allah knows when it is a parable or when it is not, and we sure don?t know that, this is obvious because He is the one talking in the Quran not us.

3- Rashad Khalifa Therefore, do not cite the examples for GOD; GOD knows while you do not know.

Ahmed says sure and I agree that it is about examples for Allah and not parables about Allah because Allah knows when it is an example or when it nis not and we sure don?t know that, this is obvious because He is the one talking in the Quran not us.

4- Yusuf Ali Invent not similitudes for Allah for Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Ahmed says can?t agree more

5- Shakir Therefore do not give likenesses to Allah; surely Allah knows and you do not know.

Ahmed says Mister Shakir went too far in here, he translated it as likenesses (plural) to Allah (singular), not sure how this will work with him if Allah told us in 4211, , ? there is nothing whatever like unto Him? and as you can see Allah used the singular word ?Shai? as an example of the likeness of Him that does not exist in the human world., Mister Shakir translation to 1674 should be dismissed

6- Pickthal So coin not similitudes for Allah. Lo! Allah knoweth; ye know not.

Ahmed says, yeh that?s right we can not coin similitudes for Allah as He makes them Himself as He did many times in the Quran, in fact straight after 1674, in 1675 Allah gave us a parable then again in 1676 Allah gave us another parable as we will see later

7- Arberry So strike not any similitudes for God; surely God knows, and you know not.

Ahmed says fine if he wants to translate it that literal ?strike? as long as he meant that we should not invent parables for Allah because Allah does this for Himself as He did in 1675 and 1676 and many other locations in the Quran

Now you think that 1673 is related to this warning in 1674, let?s see

1673 And they serve besides God that which does not and cannot possess anything of the provisions from the sky or the land.

In conclusion, it seems that God is warning people not to make metaphors or similitudes in describing God.

It can?t be because He told us that there is nothing like Him as well He ?Darab? for us two metaphors in 1675 and 1676, how come you can?t see that?, well you see what you want to see at the end of the day and

To be continued......

unknownuser

It doesn't seem to say that we are not to take any ayat metaphorically.

Of course it does warn us from doing as such because if we do we will be saying lies about Allah as we will see in another comment but let?s look at 1674-76 again

74- Invent not similitudes for Allah for Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

75- Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly are the two equal? (By no means praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.

76- Allah sets forth (another) Parable of two men one of them dumb, with no power of any sort; a wearisome burden is he to his master; whichever way be directs him, he brings no good is such a man equal with one who commands Justice, and is on a Straight Way?

(74)
(75)
(76)

-> 1674, , ?Invent not similitudes for Allah?, we have 3 keywords in here ?Tadribbo?, ?Lillah? and ?Amthal?

?Tadribbo?, means ?to strike? but in the context with the word ?Amthal?, it means ?to create metaphors?, considering the word ?Lillah? with the context, then it means ?to create not metaphors to Allah or for Allah?, for the ones who say this verse means about Allah then they have to answer the second half of the verses, , ? for Allah knoweth, and ye know not ?, now we have a problem in hand an intellect problem that is, so they take the warning because Allah knows about Himself and we don?t know about Allah, hhhhmmmmm, man this is clearly confusing

firstly Allah knows about Himself and everything in the heaven and earth
secondly Allah told us a lot about Himself and one of the things He told us that there is nothing like Him
thirdly Allah told us that there are humans who knows Allah very well ?Rasikhoon Fi Al Ilm? so how come he tells us that we don?t know Him in 1674?

-> When we read 1675 everything should be clear regarding 1674, it starts like this , ? Allah sets forth the Parable of?..?, it is pronounced like this ?Daraba Allahu Mathalan??, for God sake we have almost the same three keywords ?Darab?, ?Allah? and ?Mathal?, can you spot the difference?, well the difference is like this

Allah is warning us in 1674 NOT to ?Naddrib Amthal to Him?
In 1675 Allah ?Darab a Mathal?
and again in 1676 Allah ?Darab another Mathal?

-> 1676 starts like this , ? Allah sets forth another Parable of?..?, it is pronounced like this ?Wa Daraba Allahu Mathalan??, again almost the same key words

Considering the more obvious meaning we see that everything makes sense, Allah is warning against inventing Amthal and associate it to Him, because He knows better when it should be a metaphor or not and to confirm that in the following two verses He gave us two examples of a metaphor that He told us in advance that ?Here is a parable?.?

The problem for those who set forth parables and say Allah meant as such is huge and I?m sure that they don?t realize their fatal mistake but that will be another comment that I will add later inshaallah

Salam Tay

unknownuser

Peace AB

I may be wrong but doesn't 1674 mean Do not make metaphors about God?

fala tadrebo lellah el amthaala enn allaha ya3lamo w antom la ta3lamoon

In other words don't say something like God is like an old wise man (aootho bellah)
Or did I mistranslate?

Peace bro

I hope I have responded to your question in my long comment

Cheers

Tay

Peace Ahmed,

Thank you for the detailed reply.

Of course I didn?t quote 1673 because I can?t see any connection or very lil if there is any, but I?m open to listen to your view on how they are connected, but don?t you agree that 1674 is more connected to 1675 and 1676?

I'd say they're all connected.

to bring a list of different translations is not a strong argument against the Arabic Quran if you ask me, however let?s analyse each one of the above

Bro, I just wanted you to focus on the words I underlined, which you ignored. You went on about everything except what I underlined. Perhaps some jetlag?

In any case, let's move on, shall we. The one thing you did not address...the use of the word "therefore" or "so" that begins ayah 1674. This is translated from "fa". This is certainly a connector, correct?

Let's keep this one point at a time for the sake of the readers and my own mind.

Peace,
Tay

unknownuser

Peace Tay

I agree that I haven?t addressed the ?Fa? ?Therefore?, I was actually working on it before you posted your comment but got interrupted by a friend, any way the ?Fa? is dealt like the ?Wa? i.e. it can be a start of a new and an independent sentence, here is a few examples from the Quran "Please read the corresponding English translation

(10)
(11)

(15)
(16)

(51)
(52)

-> See, and I have more than 50 other examples to show you that the ?Fa? can be used easy as a start of a new independent sentence exactly like the "Wa", therefore to tran slate it as ?Therefore? is a case of Arabic language ignorance, that?s all

cheers

Tay

Peace Ahmed,

Why is it Arabic language ignorance? If you were a translator, how would you decide whether or not to translate "fa" as "therefore" or not? Furthermore, in the examples you gave, it is true that the sentences are new, however, they are ceratinly connected to the previous sentences. This, I think, only further strengthens my point.

Peace,
Tay

p.s. if you could provide a use of the term "fa" that DID NOT connect two sentences or phrases, then you would have an argument.

(edited to add p.s.)

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

You made a very thorough analysis that I'm still tackling.
You made one interesting point that caught my eye-

?Tadribbo?, means ?to strike? but in the context with the word ?Amthal?, it means ?to create metaphors?, considering the word ?Lillah? with the context, then it means ?to create not metaphors to Allah or for Allah?,

It would then follow logically that if we're not creating metaphors, we're safe. I would say investigating the quran for allegorical meanings that coincide with the message is quite different from creating new story lines in order to understand the message. If I deeply investigated the reference of Moses in the holy valley of Tuwa, I'm not creating anything but rather discovering. If I make up a new story about Moses having coffee with his brother and along came a burning bush and call it all one big metaphor just so others won't reject it, I'd be guilty of the above aya you mentioned.
Peace

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

You made a very thorough analysis that I'm still tackling.
You made one interesting point that caught my eye-

Tadribbo, means to strike but in the context with the word Amthal, it means to create metaphors, considering the word Lillah with the context, then it means to create not metaphors to Allah or for Allah,

It would then follow logically that if we're not creating metaphors, we're safe. I would say investigating the quran for allegorical meanings that coincide with the message is quite different from creating new story lines in order to understand the message. If I deeply investigated the reference of Moses in the holy valley of Tuwa, I'm not creating anything but rather discovering. If I make up a new story about Moses having coffee with his brother and along came a burning bush and call it all one big metaphor just so others won't reject it, I'd be guilty of the above aya you mentioned.
Peace

peace bro

yes mate, it is the most safe path is to not to invent any metaphires and associate that cojecture to Allah, because He never said as such, also He always tells us in advance that here is a metaphor, so why following guesses?

my concern is regarding those who say that the story of Moses is a metaphor, or part of it like removing his shoe, well if that ios the case then the fire was a metaphor, his white hand was a metaphor and the snake was a metaphor and all the humans who believe in the Quran are being deceived by their god because all these were metaphores and he never told us a s such but he selected a few other things that are obviously metaphores and told us in advance "here is a metaphor", well the complication is now like this, we can not really know for certain which one is a metaphor if the message is that encrypted

cheers

unknownuser

Peace AB

Why can't it be both? In other words, why can't it be both physical with archeological sites and also contain symbolism that reflects a parallel spiritual journey? I think it only adds depth to the meaning of the example. Anyone can tell a story, but to show an example to mankind that has physically happened and symbolically reflects spiritual meanings, while staying in line with the overall message, that also follows a rhyme, has a mathematical code embedded into it, all while referring to a miriad of sciences, I believe can only be the work of our Creator. Praise be to God. It only adds to the beauty of the quran to discover spiritual meanings to the examples set forth in the quran. Nobody is adding or taking away anything from the story but simply pointing out yet another dimension. Would you agree with that?
Peace

unknownuser

Peace bro

Please man don't confuse me, the story happened for real because Allah never told us here is a metaphor, how you want to understand it is now up to you, and how you learn lessons from it is also up to you, I myself careless of any lesson regading taking off the shoe, all I care about that the story happened exactly as Allah said it

thanks

Tay

Peace Ahmed,

I have a few questions that may help in our mutual understanding of each other

4111 Then He turned to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth "Come both, willingly or unwillingly." They both said "We come willingly."

Did the heavens and the earth "speak" to God in the Arabic tongue as described in this ayah?
If so, please explain how a gas and a planet can speak.
If not, then please explain why you've chosen to accept this metaphor when God didn't tell us it is a metaphor.

Peace,
Tay

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

Peace bro

I have a few questions that may help in our mutual understanding of each other

Sure mate, i would like to understand the mates I converse with as much as I want them to understand where I'm coming from

4111 Then He turned to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth "Come both, willingly or unwillingly." They both said "We come willingly."

Did the heavens and the earth "speak" to God in the Arabic tongue as described in this ayah?

Well, did the verse said the language they used?, NO IT DIDN'T, the verse is a mere record about what happened without going into that details you are looking for, these details does not concern me the slightest, it makes no difference to me what language they used hence i don't need to know it neither I have to know it, what is important is this, if I suggest any language that they used then my suggestion is nothing but conjecture and surely Allah only knows what language they used, frankly they may have not used any language at all and used a totally differnt method of communication

If so, please explain how a gas and a planet can speak.

for me, i can't really know that the case was "If so" or "If not so", it is a mere record told to me by Allah and I will take what He said without adding/removing anything to what He said

If not, then please explain why you've chosen to accept this metaphor when God didn't tell us it is a metaphor.

Bro, did i say that verse is a metaphor?, NEVER EVER, for me the verse can't be a metaphor for three reasons

Allah didn't say in advance that it is a metaphor
The heaven and earth which were created by Allah may have the ability to talk but we just don't know how nor we can understand what we hear from them
the verse does not have any hint that conclusively and logically confirm that it is a metaphor

Just for your knoweldge and I stated this many times already, I take many verses in the Quran as metaphores, but only if any of the following exists

Allah said in advance "Here is a parable"
The verse has enough logic and common sense to conclusively confirm that it is a metaphor

Peace,
Tay

cheers

unknownuser

p.s. if you could provide a use of the term "fa" that DID NOT connect two sentences or phrases, then you would have an argument.

Peace bro

haven;t i done this already?

i posted three x 2 verses, in each case the two verses are not connected

cheers

Tay

Peace Ahmed,

You stated

frankly they may have not used any language at all and used a totally differnt method of communication

I respect your opinion, but understand that this suggestion of yours indicates a symbolic understanding of the text. The text clearly states that God spoke to the heavens(as gas) and the earth. The text clearly states that they both responded by saying, "We come willingly". If they didn't actually say these words, then the text is symbolic of something else entirely.

What is symbolism?
1 the art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations as a artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal, or otherwise intangible truth or states b the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits

for me, i can't really know that the case was "If so" or "If not so", it is a mere record told to me by Allah and I will take what He said without adding/removing anything to what He said

OK

Just for your knoweldge and I stated this many times already, I take many verses in the Quran as metaphores, but only if any of the following exists

Allah said in advance "Here is a parable"
The verse has enough logic and common sense to conclusively confirm that it is a metaphor

Excellent. I approach it the same way. I guess we just have different versions of logic and common sense. And there's nothing wrong with that.

i posted three x 2 verses, in each case the two verses are not connected

Actually, all your examples show "fa" connected one sentence to the next. Look

9010 And shown him the two highways?
9011 But he hath made no haste on the path that is steep.

See, there is a connection. He was shown 2 ways, BUT he avoided the harder path. 9011 cannot stand on it's own because it is referencing 9010.

9010 = he was shown 2 paths
9011 = he quickly chose the easy one

The same with your other examples. The "fa" connects one sentence to the other.

Peace,
Tay

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

Peace Mate,

You stated

frankly they may have not used any language at all and used a totally differnt method of communication

I respect your opinion, but understand that this suggestion of yours indicates a symbolic understanding of the text.

Thanks, but again please don?t try to play with I said, if you notice that I said at the end ? and used a totally different method of communication?, now for you to consider that the only way of talking is pushing the air through the throats, then you have limited the ability of Allah and the way He can talk and the ways He can make His creatures talk, for me anything is possible when it comes to the Creator, i.e. He can produce talks without having throats from the first place.

The text clearly states that God spoke to the heavens(as gas) and the earth.

Excuse me bro, did the verse said that Allah has a throat and He talked via pushing the air through it?, please confirm to me first how Allah talked and after that we will move to the heaven and earth and how they can talk, thank you

The text clearly states that they both responded by saying, "We come willingly". If they didn't actually say these words, then the text is symbolic of something else entirely.

Excuse again bro, you assumed two things that someone like me must consider a lie, sorry

you assumed that they didn?t actually say that, while the verse said they said that
you assumed then the verse is symbolic while Allah never told us ?here is a parable? in advance

now you need to tell us, do you expect that the heaven and earth have throats like us and talk the same way like us?

What is symbolism?
1 the art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations as a artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal, or otherwise intangible truth or states b the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits

bro, I really careless about the definition you posted above, I know very well what is symbolism as Allah showed me zillions of examples in the Quran

Excellent. I approach it the same way.

But I don?t think it is the same way really, you assume many things as metaphors while the following never happened

the verse said it is a metaphor
the verse have a hint that conclusively and beyond an atom weight of doubt that it has to be a metaphor

the above action by you is nothing but conjecture as will it is a clear cut act of inventing metaphors and associating it to Allah, while I never do that and surely both actions were warned against in the Quran so how come you say our approach is the same way?

I guess we just have different versions of logic and common sense.

Good this will definitely make our approaches very different, I guess we need to not to worry about our logics and just concentrate on the common sense and see which approach of ours is more commonly sensible

And there's nothing wrong with that.

I think there is bro, it is either I?m wrong or you are wrong

i posted three x 2 verses, in each case the two verses are not connected

Actually, all your examples show "fa" connected one sentence to the next. Look

9010 And shown him the two highways?
9011 But he hath made no haste on the path that is steep.

See, there is a connection. He was shown 2 ways, BUT he avoided the harder path. 9011 cannot stand on it's own because it is referencing 9010.

9010 = he was shown 2 paths
9011 = he quickly chose the easy one

The same with your other examples. The "fa" connects one sentence to the other.

Peace,
Tay

mate, you totally missed what I?m talking about, I meant GRAMATICALLY CONNECTED, nor the way different people understand it, and also I see the verses I posted not connected the way you described it

NOW PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION

DO YOU THINK THAT 1674 is connected to 1675 and 1676?

Let me remind you with the start of each before you give an answer

1674 ?Fa La Taddribo Lillah Alamtha?..?

1675 ?Daraba Allahu Mathalan???

1676 ?Wa Daraba Allahu Mathalan???

Cheers

warner

Peace All

Just because we want to stay and argue do we have to come up with the most childish
Of arguments. AB I do not know why you even care to reply other than say salam and put your efforts in another discussion.

Pahroah spoke to moses . Did he speak in Arabic. Did Adam, Noah , Abraham, Jesus, and many other figures from the past and different regions and countries speak in Arabic. C?mon Tay this is the Arabic translation of the conversations.

If some one says a computer speaks/communicates with another computer/equipment/modem today, it is no big deal. All these stuff made of
Metals and plastic communicating with each other and also with man ,
if you say this couple of hundred years back they will call you stupid or imbecile . The church might burn you in a stake . Metal talking to metal. Is it not possible for God if He wants to ?

C?mon I thought this forum is about intelligence

unknownuser

peace AB,

welcome back.

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5984.0
please answer this young man's question.

sorry mate, he does not have a serious question, just the old confusing shaitan calls, for him, if he does not believe that soliman existed then how come he believes that Allah exists?, using his own flawed logic that has nothing to do with belief, he needs to prove Allah existrance before he believes in Him

Salam

Tay

Peace Ahmed,

but again please don?t try to play with I said, if you notice that I said at the end ? and used a totally different method of communication?, now for you to consider that the only way of talking is pushing the air through the throats, then you have limited the ability of Allah and the way He can talk and the ways He can make His creatures talk, for me anything is possible when it comes to the Creator, i.e. He can produce talks without having throats from the first place.

I work with what you give me. And what you gave me was, in your words, "and used a totally different method of communication". The reality is, the qur'an does not tell you that they used a totally different method. This is what you extracted from the text by using your mind.

So, the text says "they talked".
Ahmed says, "they used a totally different method of communication".

Therefore, Ahmed takes the text as symbolic of something else.

Case closed.

Peace,
Tay

Tay

Peace Warner,

Pahroah spoke to moses . Did he speak in Arabic. Did Adam, Noah , Abraham, Jesus, and many other figures from the past and different regions and countries speak in Arabic. C?mon Tay this is the Arabic translation of the conversations.

Correct. These were people, and people speak. But do gases speak? Does the earth speak?

If some one says a computer speaks/communicates with another computer/equipment/modem today, it is no big deal. All these stuff made of
Metals and plastic communicating with each other and also with man

Exactly. The word "speak" is symbolic of another form of communication. I'm just illustrating to Ahmed that "symbolism" isn't some curse word. We use it all the time. And he uses it all the time. Yet somehow, he blocks this out and insults everyone who is capable of seeing that symbolism is in fact a major part of the Qur'an.

Frankly, I'm tired of it.

C?mon I thought this forum is about intelligence

peace

Peace,
Tay