:: Who brought AlQuraan/AlKitaab? Muhammed? NO!!! ::

Mazhar

laamun A3laika Mazhar,

I was expecting someone will come up with this aayat.

1587
1587 And We have certainly given you, seven of the often repeated and the great Qur'an.

Highlighted is to show what this aayat says. Aataina is not referring to alQuraan alA3zeem, but it is only referring to 7 of the often repeated. Why aataina is missing before alQuraan alA3zeem. This same structure can be found in 33.

Salamun alaika,

The sentence in translation and the inference are contradictory. Please try reconciling it.

mmkhan

Salamun alaika,

The sentence in translation and the inference are contradictory. Please try reconciling it.

Salaamun a3laika,

I don't find it is difficult to understand what wrote. Anyways, here it is..

1587
1587 And We have certainly given you, seven of the often repeated and the great Qur'an.

I mean that orange part is referring to blue part only and not the red part.

May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan

Mazhar

Salaamun a3laika,

I don't find it is difficult to understand what wrote. Anyways, here it is..

1587
1587 And We have certainly given you, seven of the often repeated and the great Qur'an.

I mean that orange part is referring to blue part only and not the red part.

May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan

Salamun alaika,

No one can perceive anything else from your translation that the words after "and" relate to "given you".

Your sentence is combination of two sentences

We have certainly given you seven of the often repeated.
We have certainly given you the great Qur'aan.

By combining these two sentences with conjunction "and" you have done the economy of one "We have certainly given you".

One thing more; in english your first sentence is incomplete --hence meaningless for the reader.

Please read about conjunctions in the grammar of any language to know how sentences are structured using conjunctions to avoid repetition of words for succintness.

Please don't mind when I suggest you to read about grammar of the language. Sincerely, let me tell you that without knowing grammar you know nothing of the text of any language and will keep conjecturing and roaming in vacuum.

mmkhan

Salamun alaika,

No one can perceive anything else from your translation that the words after "and" relate to "given you".

Your sentence is combination of two sentences

We have certainly given you seven of the often repeated.
We have certainly given you the great Qur'aan.

By combining these two sentences with conjunction "and" you have done the economy of one "We have certainly given you".

One thing more; in english your first sentence is incomplete --hence meaningless for the reader.

Please read about conjunctions in the grammar of any language to know how sentences are structured using conjunctions to avoid repetition of words for succintness.

Please don't mind when I suggest you to read about grammar of the language. Sincerely, let me tell you that without knowing grammar you know nothing of the text of any language and will keep conjecturing and roaming in vacuum.

Salaamun a3laika,

I am not surprised to see such a response from you, yes.

But please let me clarify the tricks you used to get favor from others or whatever.

No one can? You should think about what you can, don't take burden on you of what others can.
I replied in that way just to make clear what I wanted to say which you are fully aware of. And btw, it was not my sentence but it is a translation of an aayat of alQuraan which was translated by Sahih International, not me. Click on the aayat number in my previous post to confirm.
Did I not given much evidences from alQuraan to support my point and you bring NONE?
You already knew it that whether that sentence is incomplete or not, and again don't think about readers, but say, it is difficult for you to read and understand.
Came up again with your big shield of learning grammar, thanks anyway for your advice, and please keep this tool to use it on others, I learned a lot about it, hence it is no more effecting me
No no no... I didn't mind it at all for sure... but would like to thank you for teaching me how to talk and trick people, and show ourselves clean and say everything that would like to.

Thank you Master Ji, for teaching me great lessons, but I suggest, please bring some new ones, old ones are already known

Note Please make it sure that it is my current understanding and it may change as Allah guides me.

May Allah show liars the place they deserve and guide US on His path pr
mmKhan

Mazhar

1587 And We have certainly given you, seven of the often repeated and the great Qur'an.

No one can perceive anything else from your translation that the words after "and" relate to "given you".

Your sentence is combination of two sentences

We have certainly given you seven of the often repeated.
We have certainly given you the great Qur'aan.

Salamun alaika,

I stand by this post. Let one English native on this forum come forward and deny it. Or even put your sentence in some auto parser and see what it tells you back. It is not a random process when words are arranged in sentences; the rules of grammar must be adhered to.
Let some sane person put this claim that he has the miraculous power of comprehending and writing in non-native language without knowing abc of grammar of that language. Obviously sane persons are not fools. So I don't expect anybody coming forward on this forum to make this claim.

mmkhan

Salaamun a3laika,

And here goes your translation of an aayat.

1587
1587 Moreover, the fact remains that We did give you the Messenger Seven distinctly elaborative Aa'ya'at-Verbal Unitary Passages selected-excepted from the Binary-Symmetrical-analogous Miscellany. Moreover, it also remains a certain fact that We have given the Grand Qur'aan to you the Messenger .

This is what you were expecting? Sorry, I cannot dare to add my words to the word of Allah and cannot translate a single line aayat with 4 lines translation.

And what I wrote, even if it is grammatically wrong but, still you understood it. That is what important, no need write paragraphs.

The_Chimp

Salaamun A3laika Mazhar,

I was expecting someone will come up with this aayat.

1587
1587 And We have certainly given you, seven of the often repeated and the great Qur'an.

Highlighted is to show what this aayat says. Aataina is not referring to alQuraan alA3zeem, but it is only referring to 7 of the often repeated. Why aataina is missing before alQuraan alA3zeem. This same structure can be found in 33.

33
33 He has sent down upon you, the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Tawraat and the Injeel.

Here again Injeel is not revealed, and anzala is referring only to Tawraat. Because there is no other aayat to support that alInjeel was revealed, but you will find some aayaat confirming Tawraat was revealed. As you clearly see that anzala is missing before alInjeel. Another example is in 459.

459
459 O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best and best in result.

Please note that the word atiy3oo is used before the word 'Allah' and before the word 'alRasool' but atiy3oo is missing before the words 'those in authority among you'. This means, we are not asked to atiy3oo those who are in authority among you, but they also have to obey Allah and obey alRasool.

Similarly you can clearly find difference between 332 and 592.

332
332 Say, "Obey Allah and the Messenger." But if they turn away - then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers.

592
592 And obey Allah and obey the Messenger and beware. And if you turn away ? then know that upon Our Messenger is only clear notification.

This is a clear difference, in 332 atiy3oo is missing before alRasool. Once we understand this pattern of alQuraan, you will understand that aataiyna is not referring to alQuraan alA3zeem in 1587. If not, then there must be some other aayaat which will clarify that alQuraan was given and I don't find any. Please share if you find.

May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan

Hi,

I have read many of your posts mmKhan - I get the feeling your understanding of Arabic is very weak. This is incorrect

Here again Injeel is not revealed, and anzala is referring only to Tawraat. Because there is no other aayat to support that alInjeel was revealed, but you will find some aayaat confirming Tawraat was revealed. As you clearly see that anzala is missing before alInjeel. Another example is in 459.

In Arabic if the Verb is mentioned before then it takes singular form, even if the the Subject is plural. Here the verb applies to both Toran and Injeel.

You also say

" is used for past in alQuraan.
is used for present and future in alQuraan."

But that is not correct. Iz is not just used for past tense - see verse 3124.

mmmm

To me it seems the "linguists" have taken the role of "the ulema", history repeats.

mmkhan

Hi,

I have read many of your posts mmKhan - I get the feeling your understanding of Arabic is very weak. This is incorrect

Here again Injeel is not revealed, and anzala is referring only to Tawraat. Because there is no other aayat to support that alInjeel was revealed, but you will find some aayaat confirming Tawraat was revealed. As you clearly see that anzala is missing before alInjeel. Another example is in 459.

In Arabic if the Verb is mentioned before then it takes singular form, even if the the Subject is plural. Here the verb applies to both Toran and Injeel.

You also say

" is used for past in alQuraan.
is used for present and future in alQuraan."

But that is not correct. Iz is not just used for past tense - see verse 3124.

Hello Chimp,

Unfortunately you don't see how alQuraan speaks. Those are the patterns set by Allah for guidance to all humans. Which will be very easy for everyone to understand.

And brother the aayat you quoted 3124, it needs to be rechecked. Please take a look again and see what you said.

May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan

wrkmmn

Peace

To MMKHAN
Quran was given to Moses, not Muhammad? I thought I had heard the worst. So, this guy is trying to make people believe that thousands of Muslims forgot the name of the person who was preaching the Qur?an, this is utterly nonsensical. It is like saying that the injeel was not given Jesus, because in the gospels attributed to him he doesn't mentions his own name, and we will not believe his followers accusing them of forgetting, being that one of the most important things for believing in a message is believing in the messenger (when such is walking the earth). However, we believe the injeel was given to Jesus because the Qur?n says ?.....and we sent jesuss..... We gave him the Gospel...?. As conclusion, whose heart Gabriel brought the Quran to? ?your heart?, you meaning Mohammed's heart, not Moses's heart, not MMKhAN's heart?472.......... whereas those who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds, and have come to believe in what has been bestowed from on high on/over Muhamad. Of course, you have the right to argue that in both verses it doesn't specify what is being brought down or whose heart, but inventing that the heart is of Moses and Muhammad did not existed, is entering the dangerous ground of conjecture. tomorrow you will say that you are the prophet mentioned in the Quran.

As for you the disbelievers, you can wait for another revelation, where God will tell you ?and we sent Muhammad...We gave him the Quran? .

633 this, because they have attained to faith, whereas they deny the truth - and so, a seal has been set on their hearts so that they can no longer understand .
634 Now when thou seest them, their outward appearance may please thee; and when they speak, thou art inclined to lend ear to what they say. as if they were timbers propped up, they think that every shout is against them. They are the enemies , so beware of them. "May God destroy them!" How perverted are their minds! (635) for, when they are told, "Come, the Apostle of God will pray that you be forgiven", they turn their heads away, and thou canst see how they draw back in their false pride.

To GODSUBMITER

Jesus was the most perfect Jew, same as Moses who is the greatest prophet of them all.

Saying that Jesus and Moses were perfect Jews is a very ignorant statement. Jews were and are only those who descended from the tribe of Judah, and those cursed by David and Jesus, and those who killed Jesus and have been in the category of disbelievers for a long time. On the other hand, Jesus and Moses were Levites, and they were true believers, and though some of the best, not perfect, for nobody is perfect but God. (Perfect Jews were the Pharisees and the Sadducees).

to BENDER

?Only to admonish them that they are going to be the worst of the creatures. Condemned and cursed for ever?

From where did you got this wrong understanding?
Can you please give us some verses to support your understanding?
Please don't quote 578

986Verily, those who are bent on denying the truth8 - from among
the people/family of the book or from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God

will find themselves in the fire of hell, therein to abide they are the worst of all creatures.

To MAHA

Lol David and Jesus were both from Bani Israel so it's hard to believe that They cursed themselves . Please use your brain.

Mattew 2331-32 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Guess who has to use His/her brain.

Noon_waalqalami

Here again Injeel is not revealed, and anzala is referring only to Tawraat. Because there is no other aayat to support that alInjeel was revealed, but you will find some aayaat confirming Tawraat was revealed.

Peace --

547 and let judge individuals the injeel by what anzala/descended the god in it and from not rules by what anzala/descended the god so those are the disobeying

Bender

Peace

to BENDER
986Verily, those who are bent on denying the truth8 - from among
the people/family of the book or from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God

will find themselves in the fire of hell, therein to abide they are the worst of all creatures.

Salaamun alayka,

Just for the case you missed on what I was replying

member Godsubmitter The whole Qur'an is but the reminder for the Bani Israel

member Mazhar to member Godsubmitter Only to admonish them that they are going to be the worst of the creatures. Condemned and cursed for ever. They were cursed also by Dawood alahisalam and Easa alahissalam.

member Bender to member Mazhar From where did you got this wrong understanding?
Can you please give us some verses to support your understanding?
Please don't quote 578

member wrkmmn to member Bender 986Verily, those who are bent on denying the truth8 - from among
the people/family of the book or from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God

will find themselves in the fire of hell, therein to abide they are the worst of all creatures.

a couple of things

Godsubmitter was talking about BANI ISRAEL, Mazhar was talking about BANI ISRAEL, Bender was talkig about BANI ISRAEL, wrkmmm comes back with a verse about "those who are kafaru from AHL ALKITAAB and THE MUSHRIKS". 2 different things.
Even IF you take them as equals then quoting 986 is still a blank in this case. Maybe you missed the word "MIN", I know it's a small word BUT veeeeeery important yes
In reply 69 Mazhar realizes that he missed the word "MIN" when he made his statement to Godsubmiter in reply 65, so he corrects it in a subtle way by saying "He also cursed those of his nation Bani Israel who did not believe"
Not sure if the translation you gave for 986 is yours but it's very bad. It does not say "or from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God"
There is no OR but AND, and there is no FROM AMONG THOSE WHO.

Salaam,
Bender

Mazhar

Certain information about those of the People of Book and the Polytheists idol worshippers who refused to accept and died in that state
They will be forced in the scorching heat of the Hell-Prison.
They will reside therein perpetually.
They are truly the people who exposed themselves as disturbers of equilibrium-eternal truth.

Prepositional phrase with Min relates to the elided circumstantial clause. It relates to continuation of the state of non-believing till the point in time of death. The embedded circumstantial clause is evident from other Ayah where it is said that they died while they were in the state of deniers by that point in time.

Bender

Certain information about those of the People of Book and the Polytheists idol worshippers who refused to accept and died in that state
They will be forced in the scorching heat of the Hell-Prison.
They will reside therein perpetually.
They are truly the people who exposed themselves as disturbers of equilibrium-eternal truth.

Salaamun alayka,

I really do not understand you Mazhar.
I assume that you translated " " with the red highlight.
Why did you put it there while in arabic it is before "the People of Book"?
I really do not understand this tempt

And NO it does not read "those who refused to accept and died in that state from the People of Book AND those who refused to accept and died in that state from the Polytheists"
You can probably justify it with your grammar rules, but I assume you know very well that there is not a single ayaat in The Quran where some of the muskriks are set in a positive light.
Mushriks are always bad, and not only a couple of them but all of them.

Prepositional phrase with Min relates to the elided circumstantial clause. It relates to continuation of the state of non-believing till the point in time of death. The embedded circumstantial clause is evident from other Ayah where it is said that they died while they were in the state of deniers by that point in time.

I have no idea what you are saying here. I am sure that if one is able to write down such exotic sentences he must also be able to write also normal sentences so that eveybody can understand them.
" " simply says that it ONLY refers to those who are kafaru from the People of Book, not all of them, just the ones who are kafaru. As simple as that.

GREEN I like to know which verse.

Salaam,
Bender

Mazhar

I really do not understand you Mazhar.
I assume that you translated " " with the red highlight.
Why did you put it there while in arabic it is before "the People of Book"?
I really do not understand this

You did not colour one word, I have coloured it redthose

Certain information about those of the People of Book and the Polytheists idol worshippers who refused to accept and died in that state They will be forced in the scorching heat of the Hell-Prison.
They will reside therein perpetually.
They are truly the people who exposed themselves as disturbers of equilibrium-eternal truth.

The linkage clause for the relative pronoun is one grammatical unit which is to be transferred as a unit in the target language taking care of its conventions. All of the People of Book and Mushrikeen are not mentioned but a subset of them who did the act signified by the verb which is the linkage clause of Allazeena-Those -- who.

If someone is today a Mushrik, tomorrow he can become a believer. He is not going to hell-prison subject to having met other condionalities of becoming a believer. Always remember to see the case endings of the words to determine their relationship with the preceding word. Mushrikeena is in genitive case. If they were a separate entity as another predicate of Inna then it has to be in nominative case.

Mazhar

GREEN I like to know which verse.

2161; 391; 984; 9125; 4734

The certain fact about those who had deliberately denied to accept the belief;
and they died while they were determined-staunch rejecters-Non Believers
The Condemnation-contemptuous discard by Allah the Exalted and the Angels and by men is collectively destined for such Non-Believers .

Bender

You did not colour one word, I have coloured it redthose

Salaamun alayka,

That is because of how you translated the verse, it's very difficult to connect your translation with the Arabic, but we had this discussion before.

The linkage clause for the relative pronoun is one grammatical unit which is to be transferred as a unit in the target language taking care of its conventions. All of the People of Book and Mushrikeen are not mentioned but a subset of them who did the act signified by the verb which is the linkage clause of Allazeena-Those -- who.

GREEN I am very sorry but your grammar books leads you to wrong understandings.
ONLY subset of People of Book but ALL Mushrikeen.

Here is a nice example from 55
55 "... ..."
You see it was not that hard nope

Look at the next ayaat please
A- 917
All of them not a single one is spared, no subset. So this contradicts your understanding.

if 986 was talking about a subset of AlMushrikeen then it should have been something like this
Inna allatheena kafaroo min ahli alkitabi waallatheena kafaroo mina almushrikeena...as per 55

or at least something like this
Inna allatheena kafaroo min ahli alkitabi wamina almushrikeena...
but this would be I think a weird sentence.

By the way AlMushrkeena gets MINA not MIN. This already makes it weird to understand that it's talking about a subset of almushrikeen.

If someone is today a Mushrik, tomorrow he can become a believer. He is not going to hell-prison subject to having met other condionalities of becoming a believer.

We now that.
But the ayaat is not talking about the believers of tomorrow but about the kafaru from the people of the book and the mushreeks of today.

Always remember to see the case endings of the words to determine their relationship with the preceding word. Mushrikeena is in genitive case. If they were a separate entity as another predicate of Inna then it has to be in nominative case.

what you fail to understand is that "allatheena kafaroo min ahli alkitabi" is 1 entity in itself. And "almushrikeena" is 1 entity.
you take "ahli alkitabi" as 1 entity and that is not correct.

Salaam,
Bender

Bender

2161; 391; 984; 9125; 4734

The certain fact about those who had deliberately denied to accept the belief;
and they died while they were determined-staunch rejecters-Non Believers
The Condemnation-contemptuous discard by Allah the Exalted and the Angels and by men is collectively destined for such Non-Believers .

Salaamun alayka,

Thank you I see now what you mean with "and died in that state".
But I see also that Allah is capable to say something like "and died in that state" in 2161.
So I wonder why you translated 986 with an "and died in that state" while it's not there.
We can already learn from 2161 that He is capable of doing it, but He did not do it in 986.

Salaam,
Bender

Mazhar

Salaamun alayka,

Thank you I see now what you mean with "and died in that state".
But I see also that Allah is capable to say something like "and died in that state" in 2161.
So I wonder why you translated 986 with an "and died in that state" while it's not there.
We can already learn from 2161 that He is capable of doing it, but He did not do it in 986.

Salaam,
Bender

Salamun alaikum,

Writing --- the original text is according to conventions and the style of author.

Translation is the transference of the information embedded in the original text in the target language which has its own conventions. Its conventions are also to be taken care of.

This is a compound of Prepositional Phrase and Possessive Phrase. This is about the EMBEDDED/ELIDED predicate of the Verb Like Particle "Inna". A prepositional phrase is neither a subject of sentence nor predicate. It is relating to either.

"in the fire of Hell" is obviously relevant only after death. Though the elided predicate is visible to everyone who knows grammar and mode of writing of Arabic, but I insist in translation that it should only be from Qur'aan as I quoted you the Ayahs.

Reading does not mean picking the meanings of individual words. It needs comprehension. And for comprehending a non native text, one MUST know the grammar and modes of writing in that language.

wrkmmn

Peace

4150 VERILY, those who deny God and His apostles by endeavouring to make a distinction between God and His apostles, and who say, "We believe in the one but we deny the other,"* and want to pursue a path in-between - (4151) it is they, they who are truly denying the truth and for those who deny the truth We have readied shameful suffering.

Or "We believe in some and we deny the others"- that is, they believe in God but not in
His apostles (Zamakhshari) or, alternatively, they believe in some of the apostles and
deny others (Tabari and Zamakhshari). To my mind, the first of these two interpretations
is preferable inasmuch as it covers not only a rejection of some of the apostles but also
a total rejection of the idea that God may have revealed His will through His chosen
message-bearers. In Islam, the rejection of any or all of God's apostles constitutes almost
as grave a sin as a denial of God Himself.(Mohamed Assad)