Translations - Another dangerous form of Hadith
-
Peace Liquidharma,
This is strange and disturbing. Couldn't they have used a different coloured glue? Or is it some kind of practical joke that the Saudi princes couldn't help but play?
The problem is that larger Tektites are rarer and get more expensive. This is why they used small relatively inexpensive ones that they glued together with this brownish epoxy. You can find them here for around $100
http//www.meteorites-for-sale.com/catalog/tektites-for-sale.html
They have them on special now so you also get a 10% discount if you spend over a $100. So for a cheap price you could have your own Black Stone just like the one in Mecca. )
So as brother RasulHamsa indicated, for those who are jaleous of Sunnis because they have a Black Stone, they can spend about a $1,000 and make an even bigger and better Black Stone of their own. ) What is more is that they can use their favorite color for the epoxy and they don't have to settle for the Saudis' brown epoxy which is so old fashioned.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Q_student,
Hadith modern of Old ,Quran has clearly declared not to believe it
When Quran forbids to believe any "Hadith" other than Quran. No arguement can influence me at least.Because Quran is Supreme.
There is no argument. I showed you the reality of your filthy stone cube idol with pictures that you can see with your own eyes. You are free to not believe your own eyes and instead live in a delusional state imagining that your filthy stone cube idol is " " talked about in the great reading. As you said, millions do anyway so millions+1 won't make a difference to me and I am sure that hell can accomodate 1 more stone cube idolizer.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Just like you were insisting that Lahori Ahmediis are considered Muslim in Pakistan then I copied pasted the amendment in Constituition of Pakistan.While your claim was without any evidence.
Actually, I DID post evidence concerning that issue, and I plainly stated the difference between the Lahori Ahmadis and the Qadianis. They are two completely different groups, which I provided proof of...
Look at his Translations
Satan A Temporary "god"*
Recall that your Lord said to the angels, "I am placing a representative (a temporary god) on Earth." They said, "Will You place therein one who will spread evil therein and shed blood, while we sing Your praises, glorify You, and uphold Your absolute authority?" He said, "I know what you do not know."Source = http//www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm
The Computer Is The Creature*
At the right time, we will produce for them a creature, made of earthly materials, declaring that the people are not certain about our revelations.
Foot note on this verse about 2782*2782 (2+7+8+2 = 19) The computer was required to unveil the Quran's mathematical miracle, and it proved that most people have discarded God's message (see Appendices 1 & 19).
Source http//www.submission.org/suras/sura27.html
Who has not read these translations ???? You or I
Obviously you... ) We're talking about TRANSLATIONS here, bro, not interpretations. Rashad Khalifa, even according to the passage you just posted from his translation, INTERPRETS the "khalifa" to be Satan, but he correctly TRANSLATES the word as 'represenative'. In 2782, he INTERPRETS "al daabba" to be referring to a computer, but he correctly TRANSLATES the word as a 'creature'. There is a big difference, even in this case, between a translation and an interpretation. His interpretation led him to believe in certain things, but this doesn't mean he deliberately mistranslated an Arabic word to fit his own understanding. He simply placed his interpretation in parentheses, like nearly all of the other Qur'aanic translators...
-
Actually, I DID post evidence concerning that issue, and I plainly stated the difference between the Lahori Ahmadis and the Qadianis. They are two completely different groups, which I provided proof of...
Obviously you... ) We're talking about TRANSLATIONS here, bro, not interpretations. Rashad Khalifa, even according to the passage you just posted from his translation, INTERPRETS the "khalifa" to be Satan, but he correctly TRANSLATES the word as 'represenative'. In 2782, he INTERPRETS "al daabba" to be referring to a computer, but he correctly TRANSLATES the word as a 'creature'. There is a big difference, even in this case, between a translation and an interpretation. His interpretation led him to believe in certain things, but this doesn't mean he deliberately mistranslated an Arabic word to fit his own understanding. He simply placed his interpretation in parentheses, like nearly all of the other Qur'aanic translators...
Khalifa = does not mean representative (again wrong translation) .Adam was representative of whome ?
In parenthesis he clearly rights ,temporary god and the heading of it Satan -temporary god.
The same goes to Daabba.
Who has given the right to filthy minded Mufassirin old / New to "interpret and distort the meanings of the Quran?
These are what I calle Fabricated Hadiths .
In old days themes were concocted and Attributed to Prophet PBUH
In Present days themes (interpretations) are concocted and Attributed to Quran (Allah)
Any fabricated material is Satanic in Nature.
Quran forbids to believe in this satanic Fabricated Material.Regards
-
Khalifa = does not mean representative (again wrong translation) .Adam was representative of whome ?
Dude, are you kidding me? You want to base this claim off the literal translation? Fine. The LITERAL translation of "khalifa" is successor or replacement, or a substitution. So, you'd rather believe that Adam (or Satan) was Allah's replacement or His successor? Did Allah go somewhere and substitute Adam in His place? Personally, that sound conflicting with certain other Qur'aanic verses, so I'd rather interpret this as referring to a represenative... How would you translate 230?
In parenthesis he clearly rights ,temporary god and the heading of it Satan -temporary god.
That's because this is his INTERPRETATION. He translated the word as "represenative".
The same goes to Daabba.
Yes, he INTERPRETED the passage as referring to the computer, but he translated it as "creature". Is this a faulty translation in your opinion? How would you translate "daabba"?
Who has given the right to filthy minded Mufassirin old / New to "interpret and distort the meanings of the Quran?
These are what I calle Fabricated Hadiths .So, what would you call your idolization of a 'black rock', circling and kissing it?
Any fabricated material is Satanic in Nature.
Quran forbids to believe in this satanic Fabricated Material.Define "fabricated material"? Fabricated by whom? You're saying that EVERYTHING outside of the Qur'aan is false and satanic?
-
Dude, are you kidding me? You want to base this claim off the literal translation? Fine. The LITERAL translation of "khalifa" is successor or replacement, or a substitution. So, you'd rather believe that Adam (or Satan) was Allah's replacement or His successor? Did Allah go somewhere and substitute Adam in His place? Personally, that sound conflicting with certain other Qur'aanic verses, so I'd rather interpret this as referring to a represenative... How would you translate 230?
That's because this is his INTERPRETATION. He translated the word as "represenative".
Where did Allah say that "That Adam is His Replacement /Representative.
Representative = One who represents in the absence of some one?
I am waiting for evidence from you that Adam was Allah's representative or Replacement
Regards -
Peace
Unless the Quran is a collection of words with no meaning we can claim it could not be translated. But if the Quran is a book to be understood then the words have meaning but people do not generally know them meanings, hence different intepretations. I feel to intepret the Quran you must first be cleanced with all knowledge of muslim practises and previous translations and start from first principles.
Peace
Hope
-
peace all,
AQ = al quran
Like all ahadith/narrations, some can be good, some can be bad, hence AQ itself saying that it is the best and most truthful hadith/narration etc.
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Hadith_in_Quran.htm
And of course, bro Ayman is right in the sense that as soon as one reads something, in order to understand it, their brain interprets/translates whatever they have just read into an understanding. In other words, even if one reads directly from the Arabic of AQ, a reader is still interpreting/translating. This can be proven when several Arabic readers each walk away with different understandings even though they have read the exact same thing. This will not happen all the time, but some of the time. To not understand such a simple point implies a fault in one's reasoning ability or logic and if so, something much worse than a corrupted translation is a corrupted mind, because if one has the latter, then they will find it difficult to differentiate between good info and bad info..... whilst if they have a sound mind then they will often be able to spot a corrupted translation.
"to know oneself is the path to true enlightenment" - confucius
-
Where did Allah say that "That Adam is His Replacement /Representative.
Representative = One who represents in the absence of some one?
I am waiting for evidence from you that Adam was Allah's representative or ReplacementWhen did I say this? Can you quote me on this?
I said that "khalifa" literally means successor, or replacement. Since Allah says in the Qur'aan that He is creating a "khalifa" and placing him on the earth, does this mean that Allah is placing His "replacement" on the earth? Or is it referring to His representative, which is how Rashad Khalifa translated it? Which one is more likely to you? How would YOU translate the word "khalifa"?
-
When did I say this? Can you quote me on this?
I said that "khalifa" literally means successor, or replacement. Since Allah says in the Qur'aan that He is creating a "khalifa" and placing him on the earth, does this mean that Allah is placing His "replacement" on the earth? Or is it referring to His representative, which is how Rashad Khalifa translated it? Which one is more likely to you? How would YOU translate the word "khalifa"?
Khalifa = Successor
From where you are placing "His" ? Provide the evidence please..
What is the source of "Representative ,please provide evidence.
What is the source of interpretation "temporary god ,satan?? Provide the evidence
Regards -
Khalifa = Successor
From where you are placing "His" ? Provide the evidence please..
What is the source of "Representative ,please provide evidence.
What is the source of interpretation "temporary god ,satan?? Provide the evidenceOkay... So, when Allah said that He is placing a "successor" on the earth, who was this person (Adam) succeeding? Who was the person, or group of people, that he was replacing? Are they mentioned in the Qur'aan? If you interpret the Head to be Allah Himself, then "khalifa" would have to be translated as representative, since Allah can't be replaced or substituted by anyone. And regarding the "temporary god" issue, maybe you should ask Rashad Khalifa, the translator. That's his interpretation, not mine.
http//www.submission.org/satan/representative.html
-
Okay... So, when Allah said that He is placing a "successor" on the earth, who was this person (Adam) succeeding? Who was the person, or group of people, that he was replacing? Are they mentioned in the Qur'aan? If you interpret the Head to be Allah Himself, then "khalifa" would have to be translated as representative, since Allah can't be replaced or substituted by anyone. And regarding the "temporary god" issue, maybe you should ask Rashad Khalifa, the translator. That's his interpretation, not mine.
http//www.submission.org/satan/representative.html
For the sake of your information ,Allah does not need any Representative. Is this RK influence ,that you are Creating Allah's Representative.
As far asking RK is concerned ,why are you defending him. You very know that he was a LIAR as he blamed the Quran and Allah for lying.
Either stop defending that Liar or justify his interpretations.Regards
-
For the sake of your information ,Allah does not need any Representative. Is this RK influence ,that you are Creating Allah's Representative.
As far asking RK is concerned ,why are you defending him. You very know that he was a LIAR as he blamed the Quran and Allah for lying.
Either stop defending that Liar or justify his interpretations.Is such negativity and slander necessary, brother? -\
Rashad Khalifa simply interpreted this passage as referring to Allah's "representative", just like you've interpreted the passage to refer to a successor. Is this a crime? I'm not defending Rashad Khalifa, I'm simply saying that maybe you should try to understand his views (and why he believed in them) before you judge him, especially considering the fact that he's no longer here to defend himself.
How did he accuse Allah and the Qur'aan of "lying"? Can you cite some examples of where he made this claim? Please quote it and, if you can, post the link.
-
Is such negativity and slander necessary, brother? -\
Rashad Khalifa simply interpreted this passage as referring to Allah's "representative", just like you've interpreted the passage to refer to a successor. Is this a crime? I'm not defending Rashad Khalifa, I'm simply saying that maybe you should try to understand his views (and why he believed in them) before you judge him, especially considering the fact that he's no longer here to defend himself.
How did he accuse Allah and the Qur'aan of "lying"? Can you cite some examples of where he made this claim? Please quote it and, if you can, post the link.
Did not Quran (Allah ) say that Quran is Preserved ?
RK said ,"no it was adulterated for 1400 years" .
Is this not a blame on the Quran ?Allah said "No one can change my words"
RK said ,"No, Code nineteen can change it and he threw out two verses".
Is this not a blame on the Quran ??
Is the Quran Lying and RK (LIar of the Century ) Correct ?
Regards -
Did not Quran (Allah ) say that Quran is Preserved ?
RK said ,"no it was adulterated for 1400 years" .
Is this not a blame on the Quran ?No. God says that the Qur'aan is preserved in a "master tablet". Obviously this isn't talking about the Qur'aan that we have today, since where would this master tablet be?
Allah said "No one can change my words"
RK said ,"No, Code nineteen can change it and he threw out two verses".
Is this not a blame on the Quran ??
Is the Quran Lying and RK (LIar of the Century ) Correct ?This is metaphorical. It's saying that nobody can change the commands of God, since He executes them. It can't be talking about His words, as in the scripture, since the scriptures also confirm that the Torah is the word of God. And 80% of Muslims today would adamantly declare that the Torah has been altered. Isn't this still changing the words of God, even if they're not in the Qur'aan? What makes them any less hypocritical, as liars, than you claim Rashad Khalifa is? If he is a liar, then obviously they are too, right?
-
Peace
The issue of the added two verses puzzles me...
not because there is some maths gizmo trick that proves it should not be there,
but there is indeed hadiths that say it has been added by scribes without witness, and that is very controversial...
even for those who do not accept most hadith as I do;
why did this hadith come about?
not only it involves Ali (Allah blesses his soul), but curiously enough, no Muslim Sect bothered to implement the finding of the hadith, and thus remove the two ayahs?
also what did the Scribes think the gain would be by adding the two ayahs? if they were indeed added at the end of Ch 9?No. God says that the Qur'aan is preserved in a "master tablet". Obviously this isn't talking about the Qur'aan that we have today, since where would this master tablet be?
This is metaphorical. It's saying that nobody can change the commands of God, since He executes them. It can't be talking about His words, as in the scripture, since the scriptures also confirm that the Torah is the word of God. And 80% of Muslims today would adamantly declare that the Torah has been altered. Isn't this still changing the words of God, even if they're not in the Qur'aan? What makes them any less hypocritical, as liars, than you claim Rashad Khalifa is? If he is a liar, then obviously they are too, right?
-
No. God says that the Qur'aan is preserved in a "master tablet". Obviously this isn't talking about the Qur'aan that we have today, since where would this master tablet be?
This is metaphorical. It's saying that nobody can change the commands of God, since He executes them. It can't be talking about His words, as in the scripture, since the scriptures also confirm that the Torah is the word of God. And 80% of Muslims today would adamantly declare that the Torah has been altered. Isn't this still changing the words of God, even if they're not in the Qur'aan? What makes them any less hypocritical, as liars, than you claim Rashad Khalifa is? If he is a liar, then obviously they are too, right?
Mashallah ! Typical Rk thinking.
Preserved in Master Tablets???. May I ask you ,is there any RK who can try to change the Quran.Even Satan has no access there.There is no need to say that it is preserved in master Tablets.
This can only be said for the place where there are Likihood of Satans and RKs who can try to change it.Use common sense.As far as Your metaphorical theory is concerned. It is part of that mania which is deluded with the concept whatever you mind says ,declare it metaphorical.
For muslimsRK and his followers may say that this verse is not part of the Quran. It was added later.After all there must be some way to make the integrity of the Quran doubtful.
They can also say that It is metaphorical.------> metaphorical -------> metaphoricalIt is the reason Quran said
(50)
BTW Where is Allah's REPRESENTATIVE as per RK ? I am looking for it.
Note Your Quran whose author is RK might not be protected but Our Quran whose author is Allah is fully Protected Alhamdulillahi
Regards
-
Peace Idriss.III,
The issue of the added two verses puzzles me...
not because there is some maths gizmo trick that proves it should not be there,
but there is indeed hadiths that say it has been added by scribes without witness, and that is very controversial...
even for those who do not accept most hadith as I do;
why did this hadith come about?
not only it involves Ali (Allah blesses his soul), but curiously enough, no Muslim Sect bothered to implement the finding of the hadith, and thus remove the two ayahs?
also what did the Scribes think the gain would be by adding the two ayahs? if they were indeed added at the end of Ch 9?I think that you have it the other way around. Khalifa removed the 2 verses as a result of the Hadiths. He merely used numerology to justify this preconception from Hadiths. Had the Hadiths mentioned different verses then he would have applied his numerology to these.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace and blessings Ayman,
Allow me to wonder, 9128-129 seem two pretty inconspicuous verses.
Surely adding these does not corrupt the Message either way.
Corruption worth talking about would be if ayahs were indeed removed from the original, and accepting that
this did not happen is a leap of faith, this is where Belief comes into force, because after all we need to take
Allah's word for it.
I do because of accepting the Message as really being the Word of Allah, and hopefully being a Believer, but how about others?
Another intriguing thing about belief is when you look at other faiths, for instance many Christians and Jews
will swear that their parts of the Bible constitute the unadulterated and infallible words of God despite the contradictions therein
(we know where these come from).
That explains how the Muslims who cling to Hadith justify their Beliefs too.. and it is very hard to shift such mind frames...
What do you think?Peace Idriss.III,
I think that you have it the other way around. Khalifa removed the 2 verses as a result of the Hadiths. He merely used numerology to justify this preconception from Hadiths. Had the Hadiths mentioned different verses then he would have applied his numerology to these.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
Khalifa removed the 2 verses as a result of the Hadiths. He merely used numerology to justify this preconception from Hadiths. Had the Hadiths mentioned different verses then he would have applied his numerology to these.
Is there any proof for this? OF COURSE NOT! Rashad Khalifa openly rejected the hadiyths, even writing a book on why everyone should reject them.
"Quran, Hadith, and Islam" (http//www.submission.org/qhi.html)
Also, he plainly stated in his research that he believed in the corruption (fabrication) of those verses, based on his mathematical calculations, BEFORE he realized the hadiyth concerning them. What you're stating is speculation, not fact.
Peace,
Ahmad
