How was the holy book compiled?
-
I am not on the same understanding on this...
The 'min qablihi' is specially after the 'tatloo'... had it been before the tatloo, it would have had the same meaning but would have include the next statement after the 'wa' conjunction... 'Maa Kounta' applies for both... It is similar to C language P
Also, the following verse support this...
8015 (Written) by the hands of scribes-
And not by the hands of the messenger... Since the 2948 says Muhammad did not write.. It also means that he was not a scribe... While the Quran was written down by many scribes... On other verses, Muhammad is commanded TO RECITE to the people...
- Did you notice the 2 negation signs in that verse... both are not same and does not have same weight... For one it is 'MAA' which denotes a negation in the past tense... Like 'maa akaltou' I did not eat! So Muhammad did not read any scripture before so that he can plagiarize...
Now the second negation does not use MAA but LAA which is normally used for the present tense... LAA AZHABOU ILAL MASJID... I AM not going to the mosque... So that part should translate to 'AND YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO WRITE WITH YOUR RIGHT HAND'.... and not translated in the past tense... Because this trait of Muhammad remained till his death... It denotes continuity of that trait...
This is my opinion of the issue...
Wassalaam
Salaam Way finder
I believe Truthseeker 1 is correct. These two points you put to refute TS1's understanding are not accurate
-
You do not have to trepeat the whole items of the first phrase sentence IF the second phrase is identical in time and value; in other words, if the second phrase does not contain a repetition of all the items, it means that they are the same or of the same value.
-
Maa kunta wa laa "kuntaa"; in other words maa ...wa laa is a style of neither nor, and is insignificant in proving or refuting your understanding.
-
In Arabic you usually start by the whole/general and descend to the partial/specific. If "wa laa taktubuhu" was a whole, the whole sentence will be of a wrong, incomprehensible style.
-
is with reference to a book and is also with reference to the same about about which ability of is negated. Therefore negates ability of both reading and writing a book with the right hand BEFORE revelation of Quran and not afterwards. This also clarifies that the Messenger was a right handed person. In those days, there were myths and misconceptions about left handed people.
By the way how much time is required to enable a matured fully grown Arab to become familiar with 28 particles and how are they shaped; and conjoining of those particles to make a word?
Hardly a part of night, for an interested person.
The moment he is fimiliar with the shape of particles he will start reading a book and with little practice start writing. -
Salaam
Anyone want to comment on this translation please! Saying just 'I agree' is not fair enough... If you see it is not correct, then please try to provide the right translation and an explanation for the use of words if possible...
Thank you.
http//i40.tinypic.com/anlthk.gif
-
Peace WayFinder,
This is incorrect. The word "kataaba" is a past tense verb, and it literally means "he wrote". The word used in the passage is "iktatabaa", and it literally means "he wrote it". So, the passage doesn't say he subscribed to (or learned) the message; it literally says that Muhammad WROTE DOWN what was dictated to him...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
This is incorrect. The word "kataaba" is a past tense verb, and it literally means "he wrote". The word used in the passage is "iktatabaa", and it literally means "he wrote it". So, the passage doesn't say he subscribed to (or learned) the message; it literally says that Muhammad WROTE DOWN what was dictated to him...
Peace,
Ahmad
Salaam brother,
So is KATABA ( Form I) and IKTATABA (Form XIII) the same to you?
Can you do a grammatical analysis on the verse? Because in the way you are telling it, I see some big headaches ahead. P HIYA is replacing which noun?
Also, who dictated the stories to him because the subject for the TOUMLAA is feminine.... About AlayHI... the pronoun HI is replacing which noun? -
Couple of years back there was a debate on this topic , Ahmad Bhagat was contesting that prophet Mohammad (pbuh)was illiterate, there were some very good arguments from both the sides.
Prior to that thread , I was sure that Mohammad was not illiterate, but then Brother Ahmad presented a certain argument against it , which could not be refuted. After that i changed my opinion and stuck with the traditional understanding of Mohammad being illiterate.
Let me see if I can dig up that important discussion.
siki
-
Couple of years back there was a debate on this topic , Ahmad Bhagat was contesting that prophet Mohammad (pbuh)was illiterate, there were some very good arguments from both the sides.
Prior to that thread , I was sure that Mohammad was not illiterate, but then Brother Ahmad presented a certain argument against it , which could not be refuted. After that i changed my opinion and stuck with the traditional understanding of Mohammad being illiterate.
Let me see if I can dig up that important discussion.
siki
Thanks siki
However, I am still waiting for him to give the right explanation of the 255... I have outlined the blurred points in the post above... So far, no one is showing up...
-
Salaam
Anyone want to comment on this translation please! Saying just 'I agree' is not fair enough... If you see it is not correct, then please try to provide the right translation and an explanation for the use of words if possible...
Thank you.
http//i40.tinypic.com/anlthk.gif
Here are two persons, one who has writen down what is alleged as "tales of the past" and the others who dictate those "tales of the past".
If one reads it with its earlier context, everything seems distinctly evident.
This is one person about whom people alleged that this {Quran} is nothing except lies that he has compiled.
And this is the second allegation that in compiling that he has been assisted by others.
=
=
=
And finally it is clarified that their statement is absolutely false. What he has written is not tales of the past but
-
"Yameenika" must have been mistranslated. And there is nothing in the verse that denotes the word 'Hand' in the translation. maybe the translation would have read as, " And you were not among those who narrated (or read out) to them from any scripture in the past nor had you written it "biyameeenika" (perhaps 'Yameen' is a metaphor for righteousness and success) -with the help of your aides- so that the doubters could falsify.
-
Peace WayFinder,
So is KATABA ( Form I) and IKTATABA (Form XIII) the same to you?
Yes, these two words mean nearly the same thing. The meaning of "kataaba" specifically refers to writing something down, and it's in the past tense form; so it literally means "he wrote it". The word "iktatabahaa" carries the same meaning, and it's also in the past tense form; it literally means "he wrote it down". Some define this phrase as "he caused it to be written", but this is not accurate. It specifically relates to someone writing something down; in this case, the writer (or scribe) was Muhammad.
HIYA is replacing which noun?
I don't understand your question. Can you please explain what you mean by this? The word "hiya" means 'she', or, when referring to a feminine object, 'it'. So, what do you mean by replacing something?
Also, who dictated the stories to him because the subject for the TOUMLAA is feminine.... About AlayHI... the pronoun HI is replacing which noun?
It's not replacing anything. The sentence doesn't say WHO dictates the information; it simply says that someone is dictating it. The word "alayhi" simply means 'on him' (or 'to him'. So, again, this sentence states that someone is dictating a message to Muhammad in the mornings and evenings, and Muhammad writes the message down... This message was the Quran, it was dictated to Muhammad, and he was writing this message down exactly as it was delivered to him, with HIS OWN HAND. This is why the scriptures state that GOD teachs by means of the pen, which, as you know, is used for WRITING...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
Why believe those, whoever they are, that said/accused the prophet of writing? wasn't the prophet also accused of being a man under the influence of magic?
-
Why believe those, whoever they are, that said/accused the prophet of writing? wasn't the prophet also accused of being a man under the influence of magic?
That is a good point...
That is not a good point. Writing is a physical act, while saying that what he has written are tales of the past is an opinion about the matter written. The statement is made by the opponents to other people. Anyone desirous of convincing others about his opinion does not lie about a physical fact to render his opinion about the matter as tales of past a foul assertion in the eyes of listners. If he was known and acknowledged as a person not capable of writing, the listners would have declared the opponents, who said that, as liers and would have paid no attention to their opinion or might have spontaneously rejected that.
-
"Yameenika" must have been mistranslated. And there is nothing in the verse that denotes the word 'Hand' in the translation. maybe the translation would have read as, " And you were not among those who narrated (or read out) to them from any scripture in the past nor had you written it "biyameeenika" (perhaps 'Yameen' is a metaphor for righteousness and success) -with the help of your aides- so that the doubters could falsify.
With
Right hand
Your -
That is not a good point. Writing is a physical act, while saying that what he has written are tales of the past is an opinion about the matter written. The statement is made by the opponents to other people. Anyone desirous of convincing others about his opinion does not lie about a physical fact to render his opinion about the matter as tales of past a foul assertion in the eyes of listners. If he was known and acknowledged as a person not capable of writing, the listners would have declared the opponents, who said that, as liers and would have paid no attention to their opinion or might have spontaneously rejected that.
Peace,
Practicing/performing magic is also "a physical act". If one goes by the logic stated above that "Writing is a physical act", then it must be true that the prophet was performing magic, regardless of how well and to what extense. Otherwise, similar to what Mazhar reasoned above, if the prophet was known and acknowledged as a person not capable of performing magic, the listners would have declared the opponents, who refered to the prophet as "assahhir/the magician", as liers and would have paid no attention to their opinion or might have spontaneously rejected that.
-
Practicing/performing magic is also "a physical act". If one goes by the logic stated above that "Writing is a physical act", then it must be true that the prophet was performing magic, regardless of how well and to what extense. Otherwise, similar to what Mazhar reasoned above, if the prophet was known and acknowledged as a person not capable of performing magic, the listners would have declared the opponents, who refered to the prophet as "assahhir/the magician", as liers and would have paid no attention to their opinion or might have spontaneously rejected that.
But what about it?
With
Right hand
YourPeople not necessarily use "assahhir" for someone in the sense or perception of a performer of magical tricks; they use to convey a perception of being lier. The Messenger did not show them any sign, despite their asking for it, which could have conveyed some negative idea to people corresponding to assahhir as a performer of magic. The base of "sehr" is also a lie, illusion.
-
But what about it?
With
Right hand
YourPeople not necessarily use "assahhir" for someone in the sense or perception of a performer of magical tricks; they use to convey a perception of being lier. The Messenger did not show them any sign, despite their asking for it, which could have conveyed some negative idea to people corresponding to assahhir as a performer of magic. The base of "sehr" is also a lie, illusion.
The magic we are talking here is not about street magics I guess... But more like some powerful dark powers which they claim the Messenger possessed... I guess they accused him for such mainly because his message started having effect on the people and the started to submit themselves to Allah and follow the messenger... So, the opposing party sees this as something strange, therefore, they start to call him SAAHIR because according to them, his message was having some magical powers of the people who listened to it... That is my opinion.
-
But what about it?
With
Right hand
YourPeace,
about what?
People not necessarily use "assahhir" for someone in the sense or perception of a performer of magical tricks; they use to convey a perception of being lier. The Messenger did not show them any sign, despite their asking for it, which could have conveyed some negative idea to people corresponding to assahhir as a performer of magic. The base of "sehr" is also a lie, illusion.
Can one find support for this perception in the book alQur'an?
On the contrary, one finds in alQuran that the accusers meant exactly "sahhir/magician" and not liar, by emphaticall calling him "sahhir/magician, kaththab/liar". See the first few verses in sura 38.
-
The magic we are talking here is not about street magics I guess... But more like some powerful dark powers which they claim the Messenger possessed... I guess they accused him for such mainly because his message started having effect on the people and the started to submit themselves to Allah and follow the messenger... So, the opposing party sees this as something strange, therefore, they start to call him SAAHIR because according to them, his message was having some magical powers of the people who listened to it... That is my opinion.
Peace,
Even if one goes against what is clear in alQuran, and agrees that they meant "liar", one would still be hogged by the reasoning of Mazhar because lying is also a physical act, and so the prophet must have been known and acknowledged as a person who lies. And so per this way of reasoning, if the prophet was known and acknowledged as a person not capable of lying, the listners would have declared the opponents, who refered to the prophet as "assahhir/the liar", as liars and would have paid no attention to their opinion or might have spontaneously rejected that.
My sincere apologies if the readers get a headache out of this reasoning.