AlFathia
-
Salam/Peace dear brother Makaveli. Maybe this could answer your question There is a video about 37 by Quran Centric and he says that mutashabihatun (ت means similtude, see the video to see my point https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pGVnehfAaI
If it doesn't answer your question then i am sorry for failing to answer your question. I tried what i can.
I am sorry but 37 has nothing to do with the issue of violence that we discussed early. Besides, the allegory or methaphor needs to contain an observable reality that you can employ to critically analyze the subjec, do you agree? Do you agree that allegory without an observable reality is useless, i.e. something symbolic you can transfer in your mind to open a bigger picture, it needs to contain something that you can apply, symbolically, in order to understand the subject or the morale behind the subject? Do you see an obvious allegory in the verses about Muhammad and his companions enforcing the 'disbelievers'?
Man of Faith? That is surprising. I didn't expect him. In my mind i thought you were referring a doctor named Kashif Khan.
I have never heard about Kashif Khan, the doctor. But if I caught him being openly two faced and spreading his intrigues I would probably want to hint others as well, so that to help people avoid possible harm from such hideous tactics.
But don't you see the obvious correlation between the posts by the so called Manny_E and Man of Faith? What do you think about Man of Faith by the way? Is he consistent in his studies?
-
I am sorry but 37 has nothing to do with the issue of violence that we discussed early. Besides, the allegory or methaphor needs to contain an observable reality that you can employ to critically analyze the subjec, do you agree? Do you agree that allegory without an observable reality, i.e. something symbolic you can transfer in your mind to open a bigger picture, needs to contain something that you can use, symbolically, in order to understand it? Do you see an obvious allegory in the verses about Muhammad and his companions enforcing the 'disbelievers'?
Bold 1 I noticed i haven't seen a hint of violence in 4829. (Unless i missed it) Bold 2 Problem, i never mentioned about metaphor or allegory. I was actually referring to similitude. You have watched the video? But if i couldn't answer your question then i tried.
-
But don't you see the obvious correlation between the posts by the so called Manny_E and Man of Faith? What do you think about Man of Faith by the way? Is he consistent in his studies?
I think i noticed some sort of similarity between Manny & Man of Faith. As for Man of Faith, he is cool nice guy and as for his studies , i wasn't sadly very observant of his research unfortunate but i did seen his posts and comments. Was a bit strange because his understanding is very different. Although it's been awhile since i talked to him. A year i think.
-
Bold 1 I noticed i haven't seen a hint of violence in 4829. (Unless i missed it) Bold 2 Problem, i never mentioned about metaphor or allegory. I was actually referring to similitude. You have watched the video? But if i couldn't answer your question then i tried.
What do you can a policy which is enforced or harsh (ُ upon you i.e. your will or freedom is not taken into account? Do you call it violence? If not, what is the right way to understand it? The pictures for , well, speak for themselves https//www.google.ee/search?q=%D8%A3%D9%8E%D8%B4%D9%90%D8%AF%D9%91%D9%8E%D8%A7%D9%93%D8%A1%D9%8F&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi32PatvbXaAhWPL1AKHYUoAp4Q_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=949 (warning some graphic content)
Sometimes it is positive to look for cultural cues, or signs, and not just linguistics. I pay a lot of attention to etymology, but also do not exclude cultural influence and google pictures is a good way to start.
I think i noticed some sort of similarity between Manny & Man of Faith.
But what if you interchange Manny and E, don't you see E_mann[uel)? What if I told you, you can actually look for a bigger picture yourself and solve the puzzle, without having me hold your hand on the way to the truth?
-
What do you can a policy which is enforced or harsh (ُ upon you i.e. your will or freedom is not taken into account? Do you call it violence? If not, what is the right way to understand it? The pictures for , well, speak for themselves https//www.google.ee/search?q=%D8%A3%D9%8E%D8%B4%D9%90%D8%AF%D9%91%D9%8E%D8%A7%D9%93%D8%A1%D9%8F&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi32PatvbXaAhWPL1AKHYUoAp4Q_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=949 (warning some graphic content)
Sometimes it is positive to look for cultural cues, or signs, and not just linguistics. I pay a lot of attention to etymology, but also do not exclude cultural influence and google pictures is a good way to start.
I am not sure how cultural are involved but i noticed there is something off about enforce or harsh, they are not part of the meanings. Now i checked the root word and i found strict, stern or strong. Now i don't want to play gymnastics and i know you are criticizing the traditional translation of 4829.
-
But what if you interchange Manny and E, don't you see E_mann[uel)? What if I told you, you can actually look for a bigger picture yourself and solve the puzzle, without having me hold your hand on the way to the truth?
I am not sure about that. When i saw Man of Faith criticize, he does it in very calm way. Now Manny_E he does somewhat less calmer on his criticism. (Sorry Manny_E if you see this but i had to be honest.)
-
Right now it's getting late because it's night so no replies for a while unless you wan't to end the discussion which i am fine either way.
-
I am not sure how cultural are involved but i noticed there is something off about enforce or harsh, they are not part of the meanings. Now i checked the root word and i found strict, stern or strong. Now i don't want to play gymnastics and i know you are criticizing the traditional translation of 4829.
But did you yourself show the meanings behind Shiin-Dal-Dal before? Among which you yourself outlined the strong, violent, severe, mighty, terrible etc.? I am just trying to show you comparatively some of the issues of the Qur'an, which are not fatal, by the way, and can be hopefully solved. Unless some people here I do not have second thoughts.
I am not sure about that. When i saw Man of Faith criticize, he does it in very calm way. Now Manny_E he does somewhat less calmer on his criticism. (Sorry Manny_E if you see this but i had to be honest.)
Thank you for being honest. But if you saw a person lie to you and come out as someone entirely different, what would be your reaction?
-
But did you yourself show the meanings behind Shiin-Dal-Dal before? Among which you yourself outlined the strong, violent, severe, mighty, terrible etc.? I am just trying to show you comparatively some of the issues of the Qur'an, which are not fatal, by the way, and can be hopefully solved. Unless some people here I do not have second thoughts.
Thank you for being honest. But if you saw a person lie to you and come out as someone entirely different, what would be your reaction?
Well i try my best on the root word, yes i do not deny of the other meaning you are referring but i can not deny the other meanings i have showed. You said yourself, some of the issues of the Qur'an are not fatal and we can solve it. My linguistic skills are poor by the way.
Now the other question, i would be shocked & disappointed for their dishonesty if that would happen to me. My reaction would the same for you if that scenario happen.
Now i must sleep.
-
Well i try my best on the root word, yes i do not deny of the other meaning you are referring but i can not deny the other meanings i have showed. You said yourself, some of the issues of the Qur'an are not fatal and we can solve it. My linguistic skills are poor by the way.
Now the other question, i would be shocked & disappointed for their dishonesty if that would happen to me. My reaction would the same for you if that scenario happen.
Now i must sleep.
The question is, are you ready to be dissapointed in Manny_E or would you rather keep good relations with him? I ask because the choice is yours. I am not who would confine (root Kaf-Fa-Ra*) people under enforcement, I choose the methods of Jesus the son of Miryem. SO the question is, are YOU ready to be disapointed and stop supportin this person publically during his 'debates' in scholasticism with bkwar2? I would rather him debate me on his ground, but he ignores. He only debates those weaker in knowledge or those who are unto plain scholasticism, i.e. absurd claims with logical explanation.
The only purpose I started all this is because you are a good guy, so it seems. I would not want you to be deceived by Man of Faith. It is my personal sense of justice, so to speak. Was it Wakas, or Sam Gerrans or some other individuals that I do not find worthy, I would not bother helping them out. But you seem to have been decieved by him at some point during this discussion, and I could not resist.
- also means to cover, but cover what? Cover under protection or influence. Say you are paying Sam Gerrans protection Money like in the 1920's. Gerrans is extorting the tax from you so you can live under his authority in the Quran alone community that he runs. So he pretty much 'covers' you, and thus makes you Kafiirun)
Another example. Sam Gerrans is a junkie and an alcoholic.He likes to drink and beat his wife, as the book tells him to do. So an alcohol is a subject which confines him, i.e. makes him dependent. So Gerrans is kafiirun in this case, because he is 'confined' i.e. not free, as opposite to MUSLEMEEN, which means being free, sound, in sound condition, free of evil etc.
Another example. I call Sam Gerrans out and beat his ass in front of his wife, just like any patriarchal pig would normally do during the war. Take his wife as a captive, just like his translation tells me to and force her into marriage. She is kafiirun under my harem, because she will be then dependent on my authority upon her
This is by the way the best possible etymological information on root K-F-R, based on my observation among the abundance of Quranic translations. If you want to know further let me know. But, unlike Man of Faith, I do not ask you to call myself 'the most enlightened one'. I merely share my observation.
-
The question is, are you ready to be dissapointed in Manny_E or would you rather keep good relations with him? I ask because the choice is yours. I am not who would confine (root Kaf-Fa-Ra*) people under enforcement, I choose the methods of Jesus the son of Miryem. SO the question is, are YOU ready to be disapointed and stop supportin this person publically during his 'debates' in scholasticism with bkwar2? I would rather him debate me on his ground, but he ignores. He only debates those weaker in knowledge or those who are unto plain scholasticism, i.e. absurd claims with logical explanation.
The only purpose I started all this is because you are a good guy, so it seems. I would not want you to be deceived by Man of Faith. It is my personal sense of justice, so to speak. Was it Wakas, or Sam Gerrans or some other individuals that I do not find worthy, I would not bother helping them out. But you seem to have been decieved by him at some point during this discussion, and I could not resist.
There is a question in my mind is how & why does he deceive me? In fact what's the point of Manny lying to me?
-
There is a question in my mind is how & why does he deceive me? In fact what's the point of Manny lying to me?
Since I do not supervise him I cannot tell you why. But you obviously can see deception in how the person comes seemingly as a differet persona, and deludes you into thinking he is something else.
-
Since I do not supervise him I cannot tell you why. But you obviously can see deception in how the person comes seemingly as a differet persona, and deludes you into thinking he is something else.
I am gonna be honest, i am not good at detecting deception although i noticed few deceptions in the past.
-
Bring me evidence of your illogical "not an object of worship".
is very common in Arabic, I don't require to cite evidence for something which is common Arabic knowledge.
I can't cite any source for because it's lost knowledge, but it stems from Muse (Moses) and "I am who I am" and it's basically a third person version "is who is", you can see it in the linguistic structure of . This doesn't make it implausible.
I've offered every kind of relationship to Arabic grammar but from a more logical perspective than the usual with an elided Alef.
What's problematic with ? Nothing at all, it makes sense.
Response to in red I have spent several days trying to find if in Classic Arabic there can be any expression like this. Found, none. I have checked with several modern native Arab speakers of different regions, if this is a valid expression of a word or combination of words in modern Arabic language. They just laughed at it.
Response to green only explains these part of Word Allah in red in first and red in last, but nothing that is in the middle (can't high light properly, but it the middle part of the text with Shadda). This is what is wrong with this explanation. Just for the record, if anyone is interested and wants to further explore two arguments presented here. One is linguistic explanation, I have for years posted on this website and various other websites. Other one is by Manny-E above.
Regards,
-
Rahman is not merciful, hence cannot at all be attributed to derives pleasure from showing the extreme and lasting concern for sufferings or misfortune of others, nor is Ayn-Lam-Miim a root for having knowledge or learned.
From what I found, the root Ayn-Lam-Miim means ancient, unknown, hidden, distant, old.
They fabricated the meaning behind Ayn-Lam-Meem to make it look like it talks about the knowledge/known, in truth it seems that it is a hint to look in the ancient past of Semitic linguistic.
In Lane's there is a somewhat straightforward hint to the root on page 2139
- &1& the fgred, or ,.rie!iated, or emibroiderd, work or decoration, (MIb, g, TA,) in tihe borders, (TA,) thereof (M 9b, ]4, TA) pl.).j. (Mqb.) - And a thing et up, or erected, in the way, (!g, TA,) or, as in the M, in the deserts, or r-aterleja deserts, (TA,) for guidane, (], TA,) in the M, for the guidana of those going astray; (TA as also t i;j. (4) the former is also applied to a building raised in the beaten track of the road, of snch as are placea of alighting for traelUer, lh~by on is guided to the land pl.;'tl and,i also signifies a ;;G lapp. a mistranscription forjtG, without see these two words]. (TA. ) - And A eparation betwe two land
TA.)-Also A thing, (g,) or a mark, trace, or track, (, TA,) by ol/ic, one guidesa hiself, or is uided, (g, ~, TA,)
Word may also imply a mark, trace, footstep or track, which may signify a mark or a track to somewhere, or as a sign for guidance, which is plausible with the distant/ancient thesis.
Not to mention, the overall translation from what I see and from other threads by bkanwar2 is a load of random phrases, which are of no practical or enlightening use to anyone i.e. an atheist, believer, sunni fanatic, orientalist. And this is pretty much the best possible argument against him. It has no use, simply as that. It is not something I believe anyone would consider extraordinary and serves no purpose.
Traditional Quranic messege albeit contextually flawed and full of contradiction serves a clear purpose to help the monotheistic believers strengthen their faith in One God. What is a practical purpose of your Fatihah or other short chapters, bkanwar2? To address the problem of the absence of people using reason, sound jugement or rationality, or refusal to seek truth or the combination of both? Does this triviality, which should be already evident to anyone, require a book with over 6000 verses, many of which are repeated over and over again?
Bkanwar2 is very skilled at scholasticism and pointless debates, but if you use a critical mind you can find weak spots in his thesis, and that is
a) using but a modern Arabic etymology and not looking deep down the Semitic roots, i.e. word meanings actually older than 9th AD or later;
b) pretty much making a pointless translation, which is boring and not that exciting;
c) having no hypothesis for the Initials, thus excluding a possible hidden methodology Quran may hint to use.
So unlike Manny_E here and others who cared to debate him I actually find something better to present against him.
Also, Manny_E lost a debate unless he wants to reply regarding the second Lam in root L-L-H or A-L-H. Not that bkanwar2 knows the right answer, which I highly doubt, it is one of the most ancient roots, probably, but neither could Manny_E respond.
It is funny how Manny_E attacked him because he thought it would be easy and that bkanwar2 makes stupid claims, but when bkanwar2 actually presented a strong counter argument, Manny_E is gone. D
In conclusion for my brief critical acquaintance to bkanwar2, bkanwar2 is a strong debate opponent, judging from my brief debate with him in another topic and seeing how he can defend his thesis against many who disagrees, and he seems to have a grain of rationality in his study, but nonetheless I believe he makes a worthless work and does not use correct methodology.
-
From what I found, the root Ayn-Lam-Miim means ancient, unknown, hidden, distant, old.
They fabricated the meaning behind Ayn-Lam-Meem to make it look like it talks about the knowledge/known, in truth it seems that it is a hint to look in the ancient past of Semitic linguistic.
Please provide evidence for in red.
Not to mention, the overall translation from what I see and from other threads by bkanwar2 is a load of random phrases, which are of no practical or enlightening use to anyone i.e. an atheist, believer, sunni fanatic, orientalist. And this is pretty much the best possible argument against him. It has no use, simply as that. It is not something I believe anyone would consider extraordinary and serves no purpose.
Traditional Quranic messege albeit contextually flawed and full of contradiction serves a clear purpose to help the monotheistic believers strengthen their faith in One God. What is a practical purpose of your Fatihah or other short chapters, bkanwar2?
For you its meaning of praying to an unseen god provides more practical help and solution to ailing humanity? Then a suggestion to be concerned about others suffering. Also out of such concerns and to alleviate such suffering be Masters of all disciplines of knowledge and making it an eternal mode of conduct. So you feel has no practical value?
Bkanwar2 is very skilled at scholasticism and pointless debates, but if you use a critical mind you can find weak spots in his thesis, and that is
a) using but a modern Arabic etymology and not looking deep down the Semitic roots, i.e. word meanings actually older than 9th AD or later;
b) pretty much making a pointless translation, which is boring and not that exciting;
c) having no hypothesis for the Initials, thus excluding a possible hidden methodology Quran may hint to use.
Explaining Allah's etymology is not looking deep into the words and root in your opinion?
I am not writing a novel. I am translating an ancient lost book. I am presenting as it is. If you are finding it boring, I feel bad for you.
Which initials? Are you referring to Huruf-e-Muqatat?
-
Traditional Quranic messege albeit contextually flawed and full of contradiction serves a clear purpose to help the monotheistic believers strengthen their faith in One God. What is a practical purpose of your Fatihah or other short chapters, bkanwar2? To address the problem of the absence of people using reason, sound jugement or rationality, or refusal to seek truth or the combination of both? Does this triviality, which should be already evident to anyone, require a book with over 6000 verses, many of which are repeated over and over again?
Actually it's about keeping the ancient cultural tradition to be honest.
-
I am not writing a novel. I am translating an ancient lost book. I am presenting as it is. If you are finding it boring, I feel bad for you.
I don't think he said that.
-
You're so lost Makaveli. You're about to make another Quran interpretation which is based on whims and desires. For example, fits linguistically where the language says "to learn", but you're insisting on something else.
First what do you mean by 'fits lingustically? Do you imply it fits contextually or you imply some sort of specical grammatical technique you use? To me, it fits contextually, in the first verses of Bakarah, as well to say to find something hidden from the common sight, so? What exactly makes me lost?
Bkanwar2 isn't a strong debater, not even intelligent, just repeating the same as if he's winning and when I'm seeing the pointlessness in participating, you're saying I've no counter-arguments, but this is false. His translation isn't based on any sound logic.
I'm intelligent enough not to argue in futility and hence waste my time, particularly to deaf ears and people who are only interested in giving in to instincts, and talk about opponent, winning and battle-like situations. That's very primitive of you and I'm absolutely not here to win anything and it's about helping if I can. If I can't I just let the deluded person be, it's not harder than that.
Then refute his arguments, as you tried to do for pages long debate before you actually met a strong counterargument from him. What exactly is instinctive in this situation, where you can't refute a coherent argument? It did not stop you to argue for pages long when his arguments seemed like calling bs before, but now he tells he is "intelligent enough not to give in to "instincts". What a joke rotfl
And you make it look so easy but deciphering an ancient, archaic and forgotten language isn't particularly easy and you can't rush forward jumping to conclusions while your work lacks sufficient analysis. You can't use definitions safely without careful analysis and it doesn't help seeking in many Aramaic or Hebrew lexicons because the falsehood began very long ago before the advent of Quran. It's not going to help you and I see your effort is already leading to a contextually detached translation.
I never said it is easy, but first make sure you actually use available ANCIENT definitions before you call it an ANCIENT language, which you failed to do on a number occasions, and continue to insist to. It helps to look everywhere besides Edward W. Lane's, which is your only limited option. Show me an example of my 'contextually detached translation'? Perhaps it is your bias which does not fit contextually since other words of your choice are also wrong?
I had greater hopes, but you show of very lowly behavior openly now and your stolen project is used to make another imagined interpretation of Quran.
Another dirty lie, I have never stolen anything and give credit any time I use something of the old translation, but since applied definitions there are nowhere found in ANY lexicons I change them, but also give credit that it is not inherently mine.
Liar. It is you who comes out with a different name deceiving people and lies, and then debates for pages long until met with a better argument than yours and then backs off.
-
Come now everyone, let us not get out of proportion. I really this turns into a fight.
