A Challenge to All Believers of Quran
-
I don't think Allah can ask for such nasty sacrifice.
It can only be done by satan. The hint of it was already given.Zayed posted this
Note 39
Lit., "kill yourselves" or, according to some commentators, "kill one another". This literal interpretation (probably based on the Biblical account in Exodus xxxii, 26-2 is not, however, convincing in view of the immediately preceding call to repentance and the subsequent statement that this repentance was accepted by God. I incline, therefore, to the interpretation given by `Abd al-Jabbar (quoted by Razi in his commentary on this verse) to the effect that the expression "kill yourselves" is used here in a metaphorical sense (majazan), i.e., "mortify yourselves".Here is another one
Note 69
Moses's speech may be construed literally, as translated, in which case it reproduces Exod. xxxii 27-28 but in a much softened form, for the Old Testament says "Go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor... and there fell of the people that day 3,000 men." A more spiritualized version would be that the order for slaying was given by way of trial, but was withdrawn, for God turned to them in forgiveness. A still more spiritualized way of construing it would be to take "anfusakum" as meaning "souls" not "selves". Then the sense of Moses's speech (abbreviated) would be "By the worship of the calf you have wronged your own souls; repent mortify (=slay) your souls now it will be better in the sight of God."Then, how does an israelite (guilty of breaking the 1st command.) "mortify his soul" ?!
More importantly, is this sense/meaning supported elsewhere in the Quran ?
If not, what makes you think it's the intended meaning?!Slm
-
Hi Huruf,
The mainstream scholarly works say Qatal = kill, so I guess these are the kind of people they are listening to. These sources also ignore every historical literary use to only add kill within their lexical etymological "evidence".
Yet virtually every interpreter of Quran does interpret some instances of the word as "fight" which does indeed not imply whether the person dies or not. I would say that in present tense the word would mean "to subdue" (i.e. a kind of fighting) and in the past tenses, "(have) subdued" and depending on grammar use you can have "someone (has) become subdued". But people do not think this far for some reason.
David's defeating of Goliath is mentioned as that he Qatal'ed him and it means that "David defeated Goliath", not slayed him by definition in the text, even if he perchance died. David, being the person he was, would not slay a person who is defeated, so if Goliath had breath (ruh) left in him after having been subdued he would let him live.
Any person worthy association with God would always strive to subdue opponents but not kill them and that the word Qatal refers to in all righteous cases. Firaun (Pharaoh) is a person who would be fine with slaying people which murder/kill/slay word you find in the root (Dhal-Ba-Ha) because there you have the word in Arabic for murder. It does appear far less frequently than qatal in Quran, for a reason. Quran is not focused on unrighteous murder and violence, even though sometimes we have to subdue people (qatal them), and that we do because we care for them.
Be safe
Amenuel -
qtl meaning to kill (put to death) is linguistically supported by etymology, attested in the shemitic tree (in general), and the quranic lexis (in specific)! Though, I'm open to a new understanding of the vb. in question if ye can present (quranic) evidence, ie. instead of wishful thinking, &c.
Slm
-
Hi Huruf,
The mainstream scholarly works say Qatal = kill, so I guess these are the kind of people they are listening to. These sources also ignore every historical literary use to only add kill within their lexical etymological "evidence".
Yet virtually every interpreter of Quran does interpret some instances of the word as "fight" which does indeed not imply whether the person dies or not. I would say that in present tense the word would mean "to subdue" (i.e. a kind of fighting) and in the past tenses, "(have) subdued" and depending on grammar use you can have "someone (has) become subdued". But people do not think this far for some reason.
David's defeating of Goliath is mentioned as that he Qatal'ed him and it means that "David defeated Goliath", not slayed him by definition in the text, even if he perchance died. David, being the person he was, would not slay a person who is defeated, so if Goliath had breath (ruh) left in him after having been subdued he would let him live.
Any person worthy association with God would always strive to subdue opponents but not kill them and that the word Qatal refers to in all righteous cases. Firaun (Pharaoh) is a person who would be fine with slaying people which murder/kill/slay word you find in the root (Dhal-Ba-Ha) because there you have the word in Arabic for murder. It does appear far less frequently than qatal in Quran, for a reason. Quran is not focused on unrighteous murder and violence, even though sometimes we have to subdue people (qatal them), and that we do because we care for them.
Be safe
AmenuelBack in 2014 I started a thread on this
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606918.msg357707;topicseen#msg357707
My first message was
"There is an egyptian writer who lives and teaches in Spain, educated in Al Azhar in islamic knowledge, who is really great, Houssain Labrass. He has pubished in his facebook a short not one synonims, which are not 100% synonims. That is, they are synonims by use but no by root. Two such are
qatala and 'amaata
'amaata is really to kill, that is the proper word for that meaning, whereas
qatala, by root means to
"parar o someter la energ?a o fuerza de algo o alguien, en su intensidad m?xima puede llevar a la muerte y de ah? la relaci?n en el uso"
stop or subdue somebody's or something's energy or strength. At its highest intensity it can cause death and from that comes its use as a synonim of 'amaata.
"Salaam
-
Actually, vb. amata means to disanimate, deprive of life, hence ~ cause to die. Its direct antonym in the Quran is vb. ahya, which means to animate, give life to ~ cause to live.
To my knowledge, the primary meaning of vb. qtl is to kill (put to death). In 3316, the author intentionally puts mot (death/disanimation) and qtl (killing/execution) together in sentence, to guide the reader's mind towards knowing the difference. Also, cf. 3157.
In the Quran, vb. amata is used only of G-D.
And thus can never mean kill.Slm
-
But as per its use in the Qur'an q-t-l cannot mean kill in every case. How do you kill souls, that is "nufus", how? There are others like repenting in this world after being killed, and so on...
Repeating tht it means only kill and that is it, won't make it any truer. An asking for proof other than the discourse of the Qur'an only makes sure that the perso will get his killing no matter wht.Salaam
-
-
Back in 2014 I started a thread on this
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606918.msg357707;topicseen#msg357707
My first message was
"There is an egyptian writer who lives and teaches in Spain, educated in Al Azhar in islamic knowledge, who is really great, Houssain Labrass. He has pubished in his facebook a short not one synonims, which are not 100% synonims. That is, they are synonims by use but no by root. Two such are
qatala and 'amaata
'amaata is really to kill, that is the proper word for that meaning, whereas
qatala, by root means to
"parar o someter la energ?a o fuerza de algo o alguien, en su intensidad m?xima puede llevar a la muerte y de ah? la relaci?n en el uso"
stop or subdue somebody's or something's energy or strength. At its highest intensity it can cause death and from that comes its use as a synonim of 'amaata.
"Salaam
Hi Huruf,
I agree with you, I just like to add something. , the root, means literally "lifeless" but depending on the grammatical setup of the sentence you can write that someone is killed (put/turned to death), obviously. If you read an ancient lexicon, one possible linguistic use is 'die'.
However, mowt does not necessarily have to imply physical death but it can be metaphorical and Quran's Arabic often uses it to refer to an "empty-minded human" by referring to them as "Al-Mowt" "like dead" using the AL prefix.
If you like to see its use in other sources you can see from what Jesus (disregard if it is a true source or not since I know you do not trust them and focus on the language use) when he says "Let the dead bury their dead" which was a parable, i.e. "let the empty-minded people bury their deceased people". This is since Jesus knows that the death of the Body means but little since the Spirit keeps living and these people are anyway lifeless in Spirit. Likewise I would not care what people would do to my Body when I give up the breath (ruh) and I prefer that they burn me to ashes that my corpse does not contaminate anyone or the ground. They can also sing and dance and celebrate that I died.
You are probably right about the morphological descriptive use of qatal and it means that you "affect someone's energy" fairly literally.
Be safe
Amenuel -
And qatal does never mean kill in Quran. It does not come forth by the subduing implied by qatal and you need additional words in a linguistic structure to say that you have killed someone.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Then, how does an israelite (guilty of breaking the 1st command.) "mortify his soul" ?!
More importantly, is this sense/meaning supported elsewhere in the Quran ?
If not, what makes you think it's the intended meaning?!Slm
I do not believe that the word means mortify here, but being educated/logical just as Emanuel said earlier. The reason why kill is the incorrect word here is because of the verse that comes after it.
And when you said, "O Moses, we will never believe you until we see Allah outright"; so the thunderbolt took you while you were looking on.255Notice the reply here. Would any human say this after being instructed to kill themselves? It doesn't matter if it is the ancient or modern time. Any instruction to kill themselves would always surprise humans (unless they are kamikazes). In a situation like this, the proper reply would be "what a hypocrite your God is! the last time we heard such thing was in Pharaoh's land"
This is what Pharaoh told them
I shall assuredly cut off your hands and feet, then I shall crucify you all together. 2649 3rd lineHere is another verse where qtl doesn't seem to mean kill or fight
And fight them until there is no oppression and is the religion all of it for Allah. But if they cease, then indeed, Allah of what they do (is) All-Seer.839If you read 833-39 http//quran.com/8 you will notice that the first thing told to Muhammad is how the pagans are ignorant and doing it all wrong. And then he was being instructed to tell them about it so they may stop. Suddently, the traditionalists turn it into a war by using qtl in verse 839.
-
Elementary. Makesno sense the q-t-l = kill there. I agree that it probably does not mean q-t-l in any of the times used in the Qur'an,but that it was a meaning like some other meanings, contrived afterwards. It also reminds of the Sacrifice of Ibrahim, where father and child ho happily along as if they were on a picnic and the idea is that the father has imind killing his son...! The scene iscompletely antithetical to that. Same here in those instances mentionned.
Salaam
-
I do not believe that the word means mortify here, but being educated/logical just as Emanuel said earlier. The reason why kill is the incorrect word here is because of the verse that comes after it.
And when you said, "O Moses, we will never believe you until we see Allah outright"; so the thunderbolt took you while you were looking on.255Notice the reply here. Would any human say this after being instructed to kill themselves? It doesn't matter if it is the ancient or modern time. Any instruction to kill themselves would always surprise humans (unless they are kamikazes). In a situation like this, the proper reply would be "what a hypocrite your God is! the last time we heard such thing was in Pharaoh's land"
This is what Pharaoh told them
I shall assuredly cut off your hands and feet, then I shall crucify you all together. 2649 3rd lineHere is another verse where qtl doesn't seem to mean kill or fight
And fight them until there is no oppression and is the religion all of it for Allah. But if they cease, then indeed, Allah of what they do (is) All-Seer.839If you read 833-39 http//quran.com/8 you will notice that the first thing told to Muhammad is how the pagans are ignorant and doing it all wrong. And then he was being instructed to tell them about it so they may stop. Suddently, the traditionalists turn it into a war by using qtl in verse 839.
Nonsense!
-
Ps. "Nonsense" in the sense that your argument is invalid @reel.
I meant no disrespect!qtl meaning to kill (put to death) is linguistically supported by etymology, attested in the shemitic tree (in general), and the quranic lexis (in specific)! Though, I'm open to a new understanding of the vb. in question if ye can present (quranic) evidence, ie. instead of wishful thinking, &c.
Slm
-
Asking for Qura'noc evidence andrejecting all qura'nic evidence means only one thing. You do ot want evidence or logic or anything you strictly want confirmation of your own point of view.
Honesty demands that when you are confronted with evidence you acknowledge that itstill doest not convince you but not behave as a sppoilt brattnd say that nobody has borught any evidence from the Qur'an. It hsbeen brought,but you do not accep it.
So, asking again for proof from the Qr'an is taking people for a ride, so why should anyone bother in giving YOU proof of anything? If anybody does that it cannot be because you ask but because of any potential readers of the thread.
You have countered the Musa aya with any argument of the logical development of it that hsould proove that it can only mean commit suicide. So why do you sk for anything else as if other posters were somekind of puppets to enttertain you.
Wht is needed for a debate in the first plce is honesty and decency. Without that calling it debate is alie.
Salaam
-
In order for me to acknowledge that vb. qtl doesn't mean kill in 254 ~ but mortify (or whatnot), you'll have to provide another passage where vb. qtl clearly means mortify (or whatnot)!
If you have already done so, then plz show me where?
If not, i recommend you do so to support your claim!Ps. me tomar? tus insultos por lo que son; una clara demostraci?n de tu nivel.