Jews not following Torah are like donkeys with Books
-
Ooooh! Hate speech from your side keeps increasing! bravo
Chicjen, Islamophobe,bringing personal vendetta out of the toilet etc!
Lets not forget 'racist', that's the jewel in the crown. A racist against her own people (and I don't mean Iranians either )
But the Quran is a perfect book right?
So why the need to malign every critique & apostate?
You gotta quit that delusion, pal. You're not a critic, you're a hater. Have you not looked at your anti-Muhammad rants on this thread. I got you to spill EVERYTHING thanks to your personal vendetta. Well done.
Surely its defensible?
So defend calling Jews, "Donkeys with books." I'll answer after you defend.
Aha, you will eh. We shall we see. Please see my next post.
-
Brother enjoys the company of sister with her boyfriend while having his own girlfriend by his side. Is this Reconstructionist "a movement in the United States, begun in the 1920s, emphasizing the idea that Judaism is a worldwide religious civilization and advocating continuous adaptation to contemporary conditions"
Seriously, are you folks nuts? Incapable of reading?
Yes, my boyfriend has a sister, so? He also has a girlfriend that is me.
I know his siter, I have met her many times, again whats' wrong with that?
She told me that her boyfriend is a Japanese Buddhist, I have met the boyfriend too, when a bunch of our friends went out for lunch one day. My boyfriend's sister told me that she's attended Buddhist meditation sessions.
What, WTF are you imagining Mazhar? Did I write that my boyfriend, his sister, her boyfriend & me have orgies? lol!lol! lol! ;D
Nope, we are extremely decent people, we don' do such stuff, the maximum we've done is have bacon, a taboo in my ex religion & my boyfriend & his sister's religion.
I know many Muslims who've been turned stupid due to Islamic doctrines & repeated inbreeding, but I didn't realise that the situation was as bad as all that! ;D
-
Lets not forget 'racist', that's the jewel in the crown. A racist against her own people (and I don't mean Iranians either )
You gotta quit that delusion, pal. You're not a critic, you're a hater. Have you not looked at your anti-Muhammad rants on this thread. I got you to spill EVERYTHING thanks to your personal vendetta. Well done.
Aha, you will eh. We shall we see. Please see my next post.
Again repeating the same stuff. As a person who despises racism, do you feel that calling people, "donkeys with books," is racist or not?
I am not Allah, attacking me won't make your Allah any better.
Yeah I dislike Islam, I've made no secret of that since I joined this forum, why do you need to get me to "spill" anything?
I told everything right at the beginning. Heck, every Muslim terrorist attack is called a "conspiracy" by many Muslims, now every apostate like me also has some deep, dark secret agenda?
lol! lol!lol! ;D
So with your strong objections to racism, please tell me,
Is calling people "donkeys with books," racist or not?
-
So defend calling Jews, "Donkeys with books." I'll answer after you defend.
I don't believe it's calling 'jews' donkeys with books for the following reasons
-
The word used is 'alladhina haadoo' which if you literally translate as 'jew' would equate to 'those who jewed'. This doesn't make linguistic sense at all. The word 'haadoo' if you see any arabic dictionary (lol, yeah right) and even in the Quran itself (7/156 - see phrase hudnaa ilaika) means 'they turned'. It's referring to people who are unlike believers, unable to commit to faith.
-
62/6 decries their mentality which is an exclusivist mentality. This mentality is universally present and one can test this mentality even in Sunnis or Salafees who say that THEY are God's chosen ones.
-
62/7 calls these people adh-dhalimeen or oppressors. THIS is the real trademark of their mentality and you can find the explanation of this word in many places in Quran. It is not referring to any religious group.
Now, instead of your usual derisive laughter which attempts to mask any lack of answers, I expect you address these three points should you disagree with them.
And now, your questions
Lets begin with these
-
You quote 62/5 which chastises the jews for not carrying the tauraat
-
According to you, this means that Quran wants them to follow the TORAH and that's why you quoted the laws from the Torah and you claimed Muhammad wanted them to follow these.
Is this correct or wrong? Upon your answer, we will proceed
-
-
I don't believe it's calling 'jews' donkeys with books for the following reasons
- The word used is 'alladhina haadoo' which if you literally translate as 'jew' would equate to 'those who jewed'. This doesn't make linguistic sense at all. The word 'haadoo' if you see any arabic dictionary (lol, yeah right) and even in the Quran itself (7/156 - see phrase hudnaa ilaika) means 'they turned'. It's referring to people who are unlike believers, unable to commit to faith.
Gee thanks!
"Those who Jewed indeed!" As you admit, this literally translated means, "Those who Jewed," ie linguistically meaningless. So that makes your perfect Quran not only full of hate speech, but linguistically flawed as well.
If I write, "Those who Muslimed," what does it mean? Thus even by your own admission & translation, the Quran is linguistically flawed. laugh
If you write, "Those who Muslimed, they turned," its grammatically very ill, so is your Allah's sentence construction!
-
Gee thanks!
"Those who Jewed indeed!" As you admit, this literally translated means, "Those who Jewed," ie linguistically meaningless. So that makes your perfect Quran not only full of hate speech, but linguistically flawed as well.
If I write, "Those who Muslimed," what does it mean? Thus even by your own admission & translation, the Quran is linguistically flawed. laugh
If you write, "Those who Muslimed, they turned," its grammatically very ill, so is your Allah's sentence construction!First and foremost, there were THREE points I made. Where are your other two answers. Your failure to upkeep your word shows your character.
To answer your question
This is why it cannot possibly mean 'jew'. The word is used IN THE QURAN ITSELF (verse 7/156 as I showed you) to mean 'turn'. Your favourite translators call it 'turned' in 7/156 yet due to Sunni racist bias, they translate 62/5 as 'jews'. And you, the consumer translations think the Quran itself is saying it.
62/5 is talking about people who have turned yet cannot commit themselves. They cannot carry tauraat (which we will see later once you answer my questions).
Right, I await you now to upkeep your word, 'Fawzia'. Lets see how much integrity you have.
-
First and foremost, there were THREE points I made. Where are your other two answers. Your failure to upkeep your word shows your character.
To answer your question
This is why it cannot possibly mean 'jew'. The word is used IN THE QURAN ITSELF (verse 7/156 as I showed you) to mean 'turn'. Your favourite translators call it 'turned' in 7/156 yet due to Sunni racist bias, they translate 62/5 as 'jews'. And you, the consumer translations think the Quran itself is saying it.
62/5 is talking about people who have turned yet cannot commit themselves. They cannot carry tauraat (which we will see later once you answer my questions).
Right, I await you now to upkeep your word, 'Fawzia'. Lets see how much integrity you have.
Can't you construct a short post without newer personal attacks? ???
From racist to chicken to lacking integrity to lacking character to lacking knowledge of classical Arabic etc! rotfl
I can only go on to later stuff if the earlier explanations are clarified right?
As it happens they're not, so how & why do I answer & deal with more?
You yourself admitted
I don't believe it's calling 'jews' donkeys with books for the following reasons
- The word used is 'alladhina haadoo' which if you literally translate as 'jew' would equate to 'those who jewed'. This doesn't make linguistic sense at all.
If it means, "those who Jewed" it shows a grammatically flawed sentence, so what am I to do with this grammatically flawed sentence please?
How do I proceed?
Then you disagree with 4 translators I provided, ones accepted & recognized by millions of Muslims globally.
Why should I accept your translation as any more authentic & meaningful tht 4 people combined?
AND if the Quran is either grammatically flawed or incapable of being translated or even understood correctly by 4 different writers, then it isn't a very good book in the first place!
Then it shouldn't claim to be a universal religion applying & trying to proselytize millions of non Arab Muslims, nor should it apply to modern Arabs who don't all follow Classical Arabic either! !
Infact, if a holy book which claims to be in "clear language" has so much confusion in the simplest translations or understandings, then it should stop making its grandoise claims! peace
-
I can only go on to later stuff if the earlier explanations are clarified right?
Actually, wrong. The other 2 answers are not linguistic, they are contextual so as it happens, you owe me two answers besides the bottom two answers concerning the torah aswell.
You yourself admitted
If it means, "those who Jewed" it shows a grammatically flawed sentence, so what am I to do with this grammatically flawed sentence please?
How do I proceed?
You proceed by answering why you agree with your translators why you choose to translate it to mean 'jew' when
a. the dictionaries themselves gives a host of meanings.
b. the quran ITSELF uses the word in a different way.You need to tell me why you side with these folks.
Then you disagree with 4 translators I provided, ones accepted & recognized by millions of Muslims globally.
Why should I accept your translation as any more authentic & meaningful tht 4 people combined?
Because my translation is consistent with the QURANIC usage of the word. The author of the Quran used the VERY SAME root to mean something else yet for this ayah 62/5, your translators understood 'alladhina haadoo' as 'jews'. This is quite simply to do with the constructed history where Muhammad was portrayed as an anti-semite. Now since you speak of 'genuine scholarship' , why don't you tell us why you believe in the history of ibn hisham which is a redaction of the original ibn ishaq's seerah? This is the seerah which first proposed the meaning as 'jews' and it came ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS after Muhammad.
AND if the Quran is either grammatically flawed or incapable of being translated or even understood correctly by 4 different writers, then it isn't a very good book in the first place!
Hmm, this is coming from the person who thinks its beneath her to study Arabic! You refuse to get into the subject because of your malignant opinion of the Muslims but you don't mind choosing a side when it comes to this. Where's your personal integrity, 'Fawzia'?
Then it shouldn't claim to be a universal religion applying & trying to proselytize millions of non Arab Muslims, nor should it apply to modern Arabs who don't all follow Classical Arabic either! !
Infact, if a holy book which claims to be in "clear language" has so much confusion in the simplest translations or understandings, then it should stop making its grandoise claims! peace
LOL, if the book was confusing, it wouldn't tell us HOW to read it!
Quran We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that you may logically think (la3allakum ta'qiloon).
The arabic language of the Quran, with its systematic roots and derivatives uses words in such a way that, if you translate a word wrongly, it would appear awkward in other contexts. That's why, after 1400 years of Sunni accretions, we can see past the hadith-racist influenced translations and see Quran ITSELF uses the words. Of course, that requires studying the language, something beneath you.
I await my other two answers. Don't forget them, ok ? Your decency obliges you.
-
Actually, wrong. The other 2 answers are not linguistic, they are contextual so as it happens, you owe me two answers besides the bottom two answers concerning the torah aswell.
You proceed by answering why you agree with your translators why you choose to translate it to mean 'jew' when
a. the dictionaries themselves gives a host of meanings.
b. the quran ITSELF uses the word in a different way.You need to tell me why you side with these folks.
Because my translation is consistent with the QURANIC usage of the word. The author of the Quran used the VERY SAME root to mean something else yet for this ayah 62/5, your translators understood 'alladhina haadoo' as 'jews'. This is quite simply to do with the constructed history where Muhammad was portrayed as an anti-semite. Now since you speak of 'genuine scholarship' , why don't you tell us why you believe in the history of ibn hisham which is a redaction of the original ibn ishaq's seerah? This is the seerah which first proposed the meaning as 'jews' and it came ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS after Muhammad.
Hmm, this is coming from the person who thinks its beneath her to study Arabic! You refuse to get into the subject because of your malignant opinion of the Muslims but you don't mind choosing a side when it comes to this. Where's your personal integrity, 'Fawzia'?
LOL, if the book was confusing, it wouldn't tell us HOW to read it!
Quran We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that you may logically think (la3allakum ta'qiloon).
The arabic language of the Quran, with its systematic roots and derivatives uses words in such a way that, if you translate a word wrongly, it would appear awkward in other contexts. That's why, after 1400 years of Sunni accretions, we can see past the hadith-racist influenced translations and see Quran ITSELF uses the words. Of course, that requires studying the language, something beneath you.
I await my other two answers. Don't forget them, ok ? Your decency obliges you.
Super abdulquran! bravo
So even in so much as a single verse there's way so much linguistic & grammatical confusion. Even after abandoning all sorts of hadiths, Quran can't stand by itself as every small bit has been mis interpreted & mis translated.
Its a confusing book, but still gives instructions on "how to read," even with those elaborate instructions, there's so much confusion over every little bit & piece! ;D
Yes, I refuse to go into lengthy periods of study of Arabic, if Islam can only be interpreted like that, it should stop making its grand claims of being a universal faith!
Classical & modern Arabic differ substantially too, so extremely few people on earth are able to read the book.
Tell me, do you ask every convert to Quranist Islam to read Arabic as well, or are these accusations only levelled at the rejectors?
While all converts are welcomed with open arms, without the slightest comprehension of Arabic? ???
The Quran by your admission can be easily mistranslated.
So all the 1 billion plus Muslims on earth, to be able to follow a fulfilling & satisfying, not to mention non anti semitic & non misogynistic etc faith-will have to spend years, whatever their birthplace, boning up on classical Arabic?
Don't they have other qualifications to gather? Jobs to find? Extra curricular activities? Later marriage & children?
People need to study loads of things in life. AND, they need to live their lives. As it happens, there's so much problem of literacy & skilled workers in multiple Islamic nations, why should people devote years to bone up on a classical language which is incapable of translation? That would lead to further diverting precious time & resources from the urgent needs of the time,learning science & technology, essential job skills etc.
If Islam is a faith incapable of translation, then it should've abandoned its pretences of being a global faith right at its inception, stuck to Arabia & prevented even classical Arabic from accumulating new words & expressions! peace
-
-
I'm not interested in your presidential inauguration speech, Fawzia. You can save it for the other inmates at your institution.
I await your answer to my explanation and my 2 counter questions.
Are you going to address them or , characteristically, do a 'Fawzia'?
-
I'm not interested in your presidential inauguration speech, Fawzia. You can save it for the other inmates at your institution.
I await your answer to my explanation and my 2 counter questions.
Are you going to address them or , characteristically, do a 'Fawzia'?
Whats' the point?
What to answer about a holy book which claims to be for the world but is incapable of being understood & explained apart from its native & ancient language?
So the book isn't all that it claims to be.
If its incapable of being understood apart from years of laborious study in a difficult, archaic language-& anybody & everybody can twist its meanings into something intolerant or misogynistic, it doesn't amount to much really.
-
Lol, I thought as much. I hope your hate swallows you whole, 'Fawzia.
-
My word you can't teach someone logic...
AND if the Quran is either grammatically flawed or incapable of being translated or even understood correctly by 4 different writers, then it isn't a very good book in the first place!
Using your logic, If Fawzia is not capable of being 'understood' by 4 different people = Fawzia isn't a very good person.
-
My word you can't teach someone logic...
Using your logic, If Fawzia is not capable of being 'understood' by 4 different people = Fawzia isn't a very good person.
If I'm incapable of being understood by 4 different people of reasonable intelligence & training when I say the very simplest stuff, I'm not a particularly eloquent person.
All the translators have years of knowledge of classical Arabic, the Quran isn't supposed to be rocket science, yet the poor book can't even make itself clear!
Sigh!* (
-
Seriously, are you folks nuts? Incapable of reading?
Yes, my boyfriend has a sister, so? He also has a girlfriend that is me.
I know his siter, I have met her many times, again whats' wrong with that?
She told me that her boyfriend is a Japanese Buddhist, I have met the boyfriend too, when a bunch of our friends went out for lunch one day. My boyfriend's sister told me that she's attended Buddhist meditation sessions.
What, WTF are you imagining Mazhar? Did I write that my boyfriend, his sister, her boyfriend & me have orgies? lol!lol! lol! ;D
Nope, we are extremely decent people, we don' do such stuff, the maximum we've done is have bacon, a taboo in my ex religion & my boyfriend & his sister's religion.
I know many Muslims who've been turned stupid due to Islamic doctrines & repeated inbreeding, but I didn't realise that the situation was as bad as all that! ;D
I did not say any such thing "orgies" etc. I merely said this
Brother enjoys the company of sister with her boyfriend while having his own girlfriend by his side. Is this Reconstructionist "a movement in the United States, begun in the 1920s, emphasizing the idea that Judaism is a worldwide religious civilization and advocating continuous adaptation to contemporary conditions"
I imagine how accurately Allah knows the eventualities.
This too is a taboo in all religions; whether ex-religion or the religion owned by boyfriend & his sister and her boyfriend.
-
I did not say any such thing "orgies" etc. I merely said this
I imagine how accurately Allah knows the eventualities.
This too is a taboo in all religions; whether ex-religion or the religion owned by boyfriend & his sister and her boyfriend.So this is 1732
1732 And do not come near adultery, for it is a sin and an evil path.Have we come near adultery Mazhar?
When have we done anything of that sort?
How do you assume that we'd be prone to committing adultery anymore than any devout Muslim or Haredi Jew would, or that we are fond of adultery & condone adultery?
Eating bacon & adultery are two very different things.
Atheists, agnostics & other non religious people have morals as well.
-
So this is 1732
1732 And do not come near adultery, for it is a sin and an evil path.Have we come near adultery Mazhar?
When have we done anything of that sort?
How do you assume that we'd be prone to committing adultery anymore than any devout Muslim or Haredi Jew would, or that we are fond of adultery & condone adultery?
Eating bacon & adultery are two very different things.
Atheists, agnostics & other non religious people have morals as well.
I said nothing and presumed nothing about "we" of you. "Eating bacon & adultery are two very different things". Certainly they are different; from the point of "taboos" as you referred with regard to ex religion and religion of rest of the three, I quoted Qur'aan that the other thing is as good a taboo as eating bacon and can be avoided by not taking a first step towards approaching it. A taboo is a taboo so long one is willing to accept it as taboo otherwise it is a legal consideration/fear of the society one lives in.
-
If I'm incapable of being understood by 4 different people of reasonable intelligence & training when I say the very simplest stuff, I'm not a particularly eloquent person.
All the translators have years of knowledge of classical Arabic, the Quran isn't supposed to be rocket science, yet the poor book can't even make itself clear!
Sigh!* (
Nice appeal to authority. So, it's the book's fault that translators have their own bias, and thus liable to make mistakes? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Certainly you are not claiming they are free from bias/making mistakes?
Let's employ blind faith. It's clearly what the quran recommends. )
1736 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for.
Just admit that have an agenda to 'disprove' the quran. A book that's not even NEEDED for salvation. They call folks like you trolls, in the modern world.