Differences in translation of verse 39:18

WayFinder

All the books that i have in my house are , "Readings" but they are different from each other, How do i identify each?

How do we identify this reading from other readings that came previously, containing Alkitab?

siki

Very easy... none of them would have all the description of Al-Kitaab and functions altogether... all these without contradiction or crookedness.

Mazhar

Look at the verses 7517/7518 please... we have the word quraan but with the pronoun attached to it... therefore it implies that this word is noun... and not a proper noun. For example you would not be able to attach a pronoun to Muhammad/Musa/Isa since they are proper nouns.Look at the verses 7517/7518 please... we have the word quraan but with the pronoun attached to it... therefore it implies that this word is noun... and not a proper noun. For example you would not be able to attach a pronoun to Muhammad/Musa/Isa since they are proper nouns.

Please give it a second thought and please elaborate the point further. "Hu" suffixed pronoun is always definite. One of the words in quoted Aayat is a verb with suffixed "hu" which is the object of verb.

WayFinder

Please give it a second thought and please elaborate the point further. "Hu" suffixed pronoun is always definite. One of the words in quoted Aayat is a verb with suffixed "hu" which is the object of verb.

You are right.. However, with an AL prefixed with the word, it would become a noun.

WayFinder

All the books that i have in my house are , "Readings" but they are different from each other, How do i identify each?

How do we identify this reading which was descended to Mohammad pbuh , from other readings which were sent earlier, containing Alkitab?

And from God's standards , if he does not give a name to this reading, He should not have given names to previous readings containing Alkitab? But he does, Injeel , torah etc?

By this standard, Injeel and Torah , in their respective languages, must translate as "Readings" Do They ?

If yes, then the below statement of God is ambigious

2-185 The month of scorching heat, in which the Quran was sent down as a guide and clarification of the guidance and the criterion

Because then, how would we differentiate which "reading" is Allah referring to in above particular ayah? He is just saying that i sent down a reading in shahr ramadhan? it could be some reading sent down to Moses or Jesus or maybe some other reading to its respective reciever?

let us continue

siki

Never forget to look at the complete message as a whole bro... Reading/The Reading is always referring to the current reading being revealed to Muhammad to him people.

siki

Never forget to look at the complete message as a whole bro... Reading/The Reading is always referring to the current reading being revealed to Muhammad to him people.

Do not agree bro.

This particular ayah does not give us any such clue that GOD is talking about "The Reading" which He has sent down to Mohammad .

Moreover in such a case, this reading should not contain any reference regarding previous readings.

But it has , and plenty of them.

peace

siki

siki

Way finder.

Bro, we are discussing this issue to reach a certain conclusion, which is

Can we identify A reading of God, sent down to Mankind via prophet Mohammad, containing Alkitab, with some proper Noun, which could be "Quran" ?

You must consider that sometimes a word can work both as a proper noun and a common noun.

siki

siki

wayfinder,

salam brother,

I worked on your assumption that "Quran is a common noun" and i find it to be wrong because "Alquranu" is a masculine proper noun. The ayah down below may further support my view on the subject,

7-204 When the Qur'an is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace that ye may receive Mercy or
And if the Quran is being read, then listen to it and pay attention, that you may receive mercy.

If we translate the word quran as reading, then this ayah is saying " when reading is being read " ? and in this particular case the reading ( "Al Quranau &quot is proper noun with absolutely no ambiguity.

So, Now i am very sure that Alquran is a proper noun, which can be identified as a reading which contains part of Alkitab and also AL qaul of creator, in Arabic language compiled in a certain sequence, sent down via the lips of prophet Mohammad.

siki

WayFinder

I agree with you brother... Indeed 'The Quran' is a proper noun which refer to Al-Kitab. Same as all the other attributes like Az-Zekr. Even if we are translating them... 'The Reading' will still be a proper noun but conveying a clear message that it is something which should be read.

siki

I agree with you brother... Indeed 'The Quran' is a proper noun which refer to Al-Kitab. Same as all the other attributes like Az-Zekr. Even if we are translating them... 'The Reading' will still be a proper noun but conveying a clear message that it is something which should be read.

Thanks Brother, so, after this conclusion, let me re explain the problem with Mazhar's translation, so that you can re evaluate your stance.

Mazhar translates/refers/understands the arabic word ALQaul,"" as Grand Quran, and also the word Al haque as Grand Quran. I strongly objected to this translation/referral, due following reasons.

Al quran is a name given to a reading by God which contains his words in Arabic in a certain sequence sent through prophet Mohammad.
contains God's word and Al haque, True.
Does Only contain God's words and Al haque? In my opinion this is a false statement ,
and that is why I objected to his translation , because it makes a reader believe so.
I declared statement No 3. wrong because, "Allah's word existed before Quran was sent". "Allah's haq existed before quran was sent".

I have been insisting on him, that when God uses the word "Al quale" , or "Al haque", it is by design, and when he uses the "pronoun" it is again by design,

He can't translate "Al quale or Al haque" as "Grand Quran"

siki

WayFinder

I agree with you as it comes to the literal translation... We should stick to the true meaning of each word and not substitute the translation. However, as a sidenote, we can indicate the x here is referring to y because of so and so... This will make sense... I do not think we should be separating kalaamullah/shifah/hikmah/alqawl/alhaq etc etc... Because all of them, in our quranic context are referring back to the revelation.

siki

I agree with you as it comes to the literal translation... We should stick to the true meaning of each word and not substitute the translation. However, as a sidenote, we can indicate the x here is referring to y because of so and so... This will make sense... I do not think we should be separating kalaamullah/shifah/hikmah/alqawl/alhaq etc etc... Because all of them, in our quranic context are referring back to the revelation.

I get your point, but brother had his referral be like this,

scriptures or
Quran, Injeel, Taurat, etc,

It would have been OK, but if it makes a believer believe that , It means "Quran only" That is the problem , and a big one.

Our understanding of God's word is plagued with translator's personal"baggage" which misguides honest learners. We have to be very careful with GOd's words.

And who knows this better than Mazhar ? But when Mazhar himself commits the same error and somebody points it out, Mazhar, instead of contemplating turns to intimidation and ridicule using foul language/abuses and person's lack of knowledge regarding Arabic.

peace

siki

Mazhar

Our understanding of God's word is plagued with translator's personal"baggage" which misguides honest learners. We have to be very careful with GOd's words.

And who knows this better than Mazhar ? But when Mazhar himself commits the same error and somebody points it out, Mazhar, instead of contemplating turns to intimidation and ridicule using foul language/abuses and person's lack of knowledge regarding Arabic.

I keep trying to give explanaton from various angles to make one understand the point. Nowhere ever one will find that I was the first to use any offensive term. Once a moderator softly warned through PM, about this idiot or stupid word; and I told to go back to the thread and see what has been responded, and compare which of two is more serious. The point was well taken and was agreed.

The purpose is to share knowledge. It is stated that I do not put in parentheses anything except either it is written in Qur'aan at another placed or to indicate the connotations attached to Arabic word which cannot be indicated in word by word translation or with one single word.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02.gif
and they acknowledged/accepted which has gradually been sent/communicated to Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam,

and how that Grand Qur'aan is described by Allah?

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02c.gif
and that-Grand Qur'aan which was sent to him is "Alhaqqu"-"The statement of proven fact" from their Sustainer Lord;

"Huwa" is a detached PERSONAL PRONOUN for third person; masculine; singular referring to , and we know it is Grand Qur'aan as told at many places in Qur'aan. And this "Huwa" is Subject of the nominal sentence and "" in nominative case is the predicate of Huwa.

siki

I keep trying to give explanaton from various angles to make one understand the point. Nowhere ever one will find that I was the first to use any offensive term. Once a moderator softly warned through PM, about this idiot or stupid word;

Mazhar

You resorted to abusive language when i pointed out your intellectual dishonesty while debating a point. Taking advantage of my patience , you even repeated your abuses second time.

Good that the Mods were active and took notice of your abuses at their own, I never reported.

When you had no logical explanation to my objections , you got irritated and repeatedly abused me, leaving me no option but to highlight "your work" in the mirror of your own translations.

The point was well taken and was agreed.

Which point? point of the mods , or mine? ;D

siki

siki

It is stated that I do not put in parentheses anything except either it is written in Qur'aan at another placed or to indicate the connotations attached to Arabic word which cannot be indicated in word by word translation or with one single word.

No , I did not mean my objection to be understood the way you are understanding above,

When the wordings, or the context is clearly pointing towards certain meanings there is no harm in doing so. I understand, that you are not doing a literal translation, but locking a meaning when the Arabic or the author is not intending to do so, is a mistake, and a big one.

siki

siki

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02.gif
and they acknowledged/accepted which has gradually been sent/communicated to Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam,

and how that Grand Qur'aan is described by Allah?

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02c.gif
and that-Grand Qur'aan which was sent to him is "Alhaqqu"-"The statement of proven fact" from their Sustainer Lord;

"Huwa" is a detached PERSONAL PRONOUN for third person; masculine; singular referring to , and we know it is Grand Qur'aan as told at many places in Qur'aan. And this "Huwa" is Subject of the nominal sentence and "" in nominative case is the predicate of Huwa.

Mazhar

Was above reference quoted by you earlier , or not? you did not. Is alhaque quoted above, similar in context to your previously quoted example ? which is,

10-108 Say "O ye men! Now Truth hath reached you from your Lord! those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss and I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs

You are proving apple , by giving me example of an orange, let me show you how,

In 47-02, Al Hague is referenced as sent down to Messenger which is by name being mentioned as Mohammad, clearly and unambiguously locking the meanings as ALquran.

Whereas in 10-118 it does not. And that is my objection, not for Alhaque in 47-2.

siki

siki

Mazhar salam Brother

Your insistence on a mistake by giving misleading examples is indeed alarming. You think you can wrap it up in fancy grammar, or sophisticated words and hence deceive readers to digest it innocently?

Flagrant use of such tactics by you, made me say in the past that " you are intellectually dishonest" .

And if you are not doing this by design, then chances are "you are intellectually bankrupt" and hence are incapable of comprehending these finer issues. And with this honesty or wisdom, you have taken upon yourself to translate God's words and/or to correct previous translators mistakes?
GOD help us please!

siki

Mazhar

Dear Siki, I make another attempt from another angle and with different word, to bring home to you that how Qur'aan is referred without the use of word Qur'aan.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/010.%20Yunus%20alahissalam/Temp%2001%2010.108.gif

You, the Messenger pronounce, "Indeed the Statement of Established Fact/Grand Qur'aan has since come to you people from your Sustainer Lord.

Here is the subject/doer of the verb before it. Who has come to people? the Grand Qur'aan.

And it is the solitary source of guidance to success in hereafter

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/010.%20Yunus%20alahissalam/Temp%2001%2010.108a.gif

Therefore/in response whoever is guided then undoubtedly he guides/leads on the way only for his own self.

Yunis 10108

Your insistence on a mistake by giving misleading examples is indeed alarming. You think you can wrap it up in fancy grammar, or sophisticated words and hence deceive readers to digest it innocently?

Flagrant use of such tactics by you, made me say in the past that " you are intellectually dishonest" .

And if you are not doing this by design, then chances are "you are intellectually bankrupt" and hence are incapable of comprehending these finer issues. And with this honesty or wisdom, you have taken upon yourself to translate God's words and/or to correct previous translators mistakes?
GOD help us please! Siki

I keep trying to give explanaton from various angles to make one understand the point. Nowhere ever one will find that I was the first to use any offensive term. Once a moderator softly warned through PM, about this idiot or stupid word; and I told to go back to the thread and see what has been responded, and compare which of two is more serious. The point was well taken and was agreed.

The purpose is to share knowledge. It is stated that I do not put in parentheses anything except either it is written in Qur'aan at another placed or to indicate the connotations attached to Arabic word which cannot be indicated in word by word translation or with one single word.

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02.gif
and they acknowledged/accepted which has gradually been sent/communicated to Muhammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam,

and how that Grand Qur'aan is described by Allah?

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/047.%20Muhammad%20Salla%20Allah%20alaih%20wassalm/Temo%2001%2047.02c.gif
and that-Grand Qur'aan which was sent to him is "Alhaqqu"-"The statement of proven fact" from their Sustainer Lord;

"Huwa" is a detached PERSONAL PRONOUN for third person; masculine; singular referring to , and we know it is Grand Qur'aan as told at many places in Qur'aan. And this "Huwa" is Subject of the nominal sentence and "" in nominative case is the predicate of Huwa.

Mazhar

Was above reference quoted by you earlier , or not? you did not. Is alhaque quoted above, similar in context to your previously quoted example ? which is,

10-108 Say "O ye men! Now Truth hath reached you from your Lord! those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss and I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs

You are proving apple , by giving me example of an orange, let me show you how,

In 47-02, Al Hague is referenced as sent down to Messenger which is by name being mentioned as Mohammad, clearly and unambiguously locking the meanings as ALquran.

Whereas in 10-118 it does not. And that is my objection, not for Alhaque in 47-2 .SIKI

Now Mr Wayfinder what stops you to call and declare him an idiot of the year in view of exposition of his retarded brain by above remarks and finding them as an apple and orange.

He says yes this is Qur'aan. This is the one in which people believed.

What was sent to Muhammad the same has reached/come to people.

Ayisha

Now Mr Wayfinder what stops you to call and declare him an idiot of the year in view of exposition of his retarded brain by above remarks and finding them as an apple and orange.

He says yes this is Qur'aan. This is the one in which people believed.

What was sent to Muhammad the same has reached/come to people.

Such a delightful teaching method. you should apply to somewhere like Al azhar, or even the prophets mosque in Saudi, you will go far peace

peace I pray Allah guide me to the straight path and protect me from falling into idolatry

Mazhar

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/009.%20At%20Tauba/9.67.gif
The men and women who are deceptive and false claimants of belief through oral declarations in the believer's society are for each other.

They support each other and deliberately overlook the dirty language of their partners whom they keep encouraging with claps even in patently stupid assertions.

Ayisha

http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/009.%20At%20Tauba/9.67.gif
The men and women who are deceptive and false claimants of belief through oral declarations in the believer's society are for each other.

They support each other and deliberately overlook the dirty language of their partners whom they keep encouraging with claps even in patently stupid assertions.

yes you're right, that's both you and Raj in the same category

peace I pray Allah guide me to the straight path and protect me from falling into idolatry