The Qur'an is corrupted in translation and text is alter how can it be trusted?
-
call me X coz Malcolm X
-
A mind should be founded on reason man of faith.
I asked the question why do you trust the Qur?an because if it is now corrupted? I asked because I believe it is of value only if understood in its original form.
This being the case then the focus would be to determine, at all costs, the original message from those of the past, if you believe this message is of value, and i think it's of great value if objectively translated free of personal bias, I know you, man of faith, you're working on a translation, however I have seen your translation and it is not translated impartially, it is nonobjective. You're investing you own beliefs and prejudices into your efforts.
-
Confusing an Explanation with an Excuse Wakas, that is called the fallacy of rationalization, you seem to admit it's both corrupted in translation and differs from the original, but present excuses,
What you claim as "excuses" I call explaining the reality of the situation. Please cite one statement I made that is factually incorrect.
I never once talked about "translation", nor state it differs from the original. Your pseudo-intellectual reply fails to grasp what I even said. Strawman fallacy anyone?
anyway the reality is the original understanding is very hard to unearth and so the guide presently is lost, excusing that does not alter or help that reality,
very hard to unearth = lost ?
Fallacy https//yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Think of Quran like buried treasure, heaped upon it are piles upon piles of dirt/obfuscation (traditional hadith laden exegesis, countless scholars, traditions, sectarianism, politics etc) and those in the Quran based islam movement have picked up the shovels and started digging. Well, not all of us, for some like you, looks like you've given up digging.
until the guide translates into a guide to those systems it will remain lost.
In other words guide is lost until it conforms to AN's views/assumptions. Your illogical reasoning is plain for all to see
https//yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
-
No, the original message is not related to anything I write to make it a correct translation, my point remains translating the book free of bias is the issue, and if you take your own existing beliefs into it then you would not be translating it, you would be again corrupting it, it would need to be translated from a perspective of objective seperation.
No need to bring me into it personally Wakas, I am only explaining what would have to be the attitude of the translator, they would have to accept what it said even if it refuted what they held as a belief.
-
True objectivity is almost possible, and even if it was, I dont see how its possibly to verify. Thus, if you are saying any subjectivity in translation means it (the translation) is "corrupted", then I agree. One could say that when interpreting any writing. Every time a person reads text they are interpreting in their own head. One interprets with their mind, their reasoning, their education, their experience, their emotions, their bias etc so everyone will interpret differently to a degree, so everyone will "corrupt" a text to a degree.
Nothing ground breaking in realising that. The more interesting question is, does the Quran account for that?
-
So, you mighty one, are forbidding God to speak through a book? Why such hte for books. If He can guide us through many other means and reveal to us as He pleases, why are you forbiddng Him to speak through a book?
Forbidding?? rotfl rotfl
Who or What in any universes can forbid God?
I was highlighting a view of certain human who idolizing a book (or books) as if it was God.. And they themselves claimed to be a group of human who are 'anti idolatry'...
Actually the more interesting topic to discuss is the WHY question..
WHY human throughout the history claimed that his / her / their book was written by God and the ONLY book that was written by God (Thus rendering obsolete the other books which are also claimed to be written by God).
The answer is actually related to ............ politics and power...
http//i28.tinypic.com/nbx8pv.png
Among the earliest inscription (claimed to be) written by God(s).
Illustration on top of Hammurabi Codex, King Hammurabi (standing on the left) receiving the inscription / revelation from Marduk. The codex was (claimed to be) written by God (Marduk, depicted sitting on the right) on 1800 BC. Thus anyone who dare to disbelieve in the content shall face the wrath of the All Mighty Marduk.What a striking parallel to Moses receiving tablet of law written by YHVH, invented many centuries later..
This is the foundation that start it all.... the success of Hammurabi and thriving Babylonian civilization inspire countless others neighboring societies to invent their own "Books / Inscription written by God"..
And also explain, why "God's books and inscription" only appears around middle east and nowhere else.. -
Simple. One needs to say there is no GOD for some. Then translate Qoran
Or there is no book from GOD( In this case there is no need for a translation!).
Or there is a GOD but there are no religions.
Or there is my religion(Specific) _ No,not me good logic,any one with any religion....etc Then translate Qoran...So that those with the same ideal will buy into such translation.
Can you all see that we will stay on this divided lines guys?Where is the common factor?
Otherwise each to their own as usual!!!
GOD bless.
Peace. -
So if the Qur'an was not written by a god you believe it has no value good logic?
My view of its value has zero to do with the writer, only the content, from the small amount Badar has translated it is clear it is a book of great value if correctly translated, it is irrelevant who wrote it, and always was, it seems you are conflicted by the need to "believe" in a guide which must have invented superstitions, and fantasy added, if it is a guide that has merit on its own then why would it have no value if it did not supporting religions, gods, worship, prayer, ritual, superstitions, hierarchy, riba usury, etc., if it actually did not support these things when translated?
What people want to invest in the book is there choice, the same sentence may be interpreted by the reader in several ways if they have certain predisposed biases, but the main thing is that the sentence is translated in itself without bias, each word considered purely from a linguistic point if view.
-
So if the Qur'an was not written by a god you believe it has no value good logic?
My view of its value has zero to do with the writer, only the content, from the small amount Badar has translated it is clear it is a book of great value if correctly translated, it is irrelevant who wrote it, and always was, it seems you are conflicted by the need to "believe" in a guide which must have invented superstitions, and fantasy added, if it is a guide that has merit on its own then why would it have no value if it did not supporting religions, gods, worship, prayer, ritual, superstitions, hierarchy, riba usury, etc., if it actually did not support these things when translated?
What people want to invest in the book is there choice, the same sentence may be interpreted by the reader in several ways if they have certain predisposed biases, but the main thing is that the sentence is translated in itself without bias, each word considered purely from a linguistic point if view.
Who's Badar and what's so special about his translation?
-
Peace Makaveli,
Badar Kanwar has been working on the grammatical and lingustic nature of ancient Arabic, language before it was transformed through hadith, religions and hierarchical governments, and slowly he is revealing the real message, and as he learns he is improving the translation, as he works alone and in his spare time, and as he has to revise his work when he discovers new information, the translation is slow.
-
Peace Makaveli,
Badar Kanwar has been working on the grammatical and lingustic nature of ancient Arabic, language before it was transformed through hadith, religions and hierarchical governments, and slowly he is revealing the real message, and as he learns he is improving the translation, as he works alone and in his spare time, and as he has to revise his work when he discovers new information, the translation is slow.
Thanks.
-
Who's Badar and what's so special about his translation?
In my view his translation is garbage until proven otherwise. One of its fundamental flaws is it throws cross-referencing (i.e. intra-Quran comparison) in the bin, or if he does utilise it he doesn't mention it. In my view the reason why he does not utilise/mention it is because actually employing cross-reference would require monumental effort on his part AND would disprove his translation.
Almost certainly AN has not verified much, if anything, of Badar's translations. Love to be proven wrong if AN can produce an article/post wherein he has done so.
-
I have looked at Badar s work,and just like numerous other works it is complicated and has zero evidence behind the changes he puts to the Arabic words.
Where is the dictionaries/base work of what he claims his translation is from contained?
Some of it does not make sense either. Just look how long it is taking as well?By the way Abdun Nur,The Qoran is from GOD,written by humans under the watchful eyes of GOD s invisible soldiers (Inspired). I know some will say so is the bible,the difference is we have an intact original work here.
The content will speak for itself.So other books should also be judged by their contents as well.GOD bless.
Peace. -
If it is based on a referenced and reasoned approach ,then why the delay?
Do you agree that we need to see a big chunk translated to be able to base our comments on the translation?
But so far it is not the case.
I think ,like many ,when they come to halt,it means there are contradictions and anomalies/mistakes... in their work. My opinion.
GOD bless.
peace. -
In my view his translation is garbage until proven otherwise. One of its fundamental flaws is it throws cross-referencing (i.e. intra-Quran comparison) in the bin, or if he does utilise it he doesn't mention it. In my view the reason why he does not utilise/mention it is because actually employing cross-reference would require monumental effort on his part AND would disprove his translation.
Almost certainly AN has not verified much, if anything, of Badar's translations. Love to be proven wrong if AN can produce an article/post wherein he has done so.
Dear Waqas, instead of asking others why don't you try to prove step by step, translation of just one word, Allah as garbage. It up to you to prove, I have laid my evidence step by step. I can post the latest version of its translation steps again, which is slightly different from original. Are you or anyone, anywhere on this planet earth up to the task?
-
I have looked at Badar s work,and just like numerous other works it is complicated and has zero evidence behind the changes he puts to the Arabic words.
Where is the dictionaries/base work of what he claims his translation is from contained?
Some of it does not make sense either. Just look how long it is taking as well?By the way Abdun Nur,The Qoran is from GOD,written by humans under the watchful eyes of GOD s invisible soldiers (Inspired). I know some will say so is the bible,the difference is we have an intact original work here.
The content will speak for itself.So other books should also be judged by their contents as well.GOD bless.
Peace.Good logic, please present your evidence that Quran is from God? Don't give me the circular logic of Hadith proving your point. This is an Oxymoron. All current Quran translation/explanation is Hadith based. Hence, trying to prove one by other is just keep spinning your wheels with getting anywhere.
Regards,
-
Good logic, please present your evidence that Quran is from God? Don't give me the circular logic of Hadith proving your point. This is an Oxymoron. All current Quran translation/explanation is Hadith based. Hence, trying to prove one by other is just keep spinning your wheels with getting anywhere.
Regards,
That Quran is from "God" is evident from what it says. In the real interpretation of it, it declares things of the future before they had happened and then I am not talking about some cleaving of stone on the moon or something, which is in the Khalifa version.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Peace Man of faith,
you are talking about postdiction which involves explanation after the fact.
This is an effect of hindsight bias that explains claimed predictions of significant events such as plane crashes and natural disasters. In religious contexts, theologians frequently refer to postdiction using the Latin term vaticinium ex eventu (foretelling after the event). Through this term, skeptics postulate that many biblical prophecies (and similar prophecies in other religions) appearing to have come true may have been written after the events supposedly predicted, or that the text or interpretation may have been modified after the event to fit the facts as they occurred. Alternatively the prediction is so vague, catch-all, or otherwise non-obvious that over time somewhere on earth an event can be fitted into the vagueness of the prediction.
