Some concerns to be addressed of readers of my translations

jkhan

Yes.. You are right my friend... The creature Jinn beings will be the most successful of the two, Man is the utter loser while most of Jinn beings will be successful far better than man.. That's what the verse is about..

6:128 Yet, the moment He gathers them together, ‘O gathering of Jinn beings! Certainly, you had already surpassed above the human beings.’ Yet, said their counterparts from the human beings, ‘Our Lord! Proceeded section of us by a section, thus we have reached our term, the one you have assigned for us. He would have said, ‘The Harshness is your residing, advancing through it except what caused the Divine.’ Indeed, your Lord is a realizing adjudicator.

Note: One or two members are asking certain questions in WhatsApp, and I reply here for them so I spread the message communally..
If anyone is interested may contact my WhatsApp 0094766313017.. I know I am going through some tough times in life, but still I won't discard my fellow brothers' and sisters' concerns regarding the Quran verses..

good logic

Peace jkhan.

Some verses are self explanatory and do not require added words in the translation, for example 6:145:
Say, "I do not find in the revelations given to me any food that is prohibited for any eater/drinker except: (1)Dead animals (2) running/liquid blood, (3) the meat* of Khinzir/pig' for it is bad/ contaminated, and (4) the meat of animals dedicated to other than God." If one is forced (through other force or starvation), without being deliberate or refusing this law/advise, then your Lord is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
قُل لا أَجِدُ فى ما أوحِىَ إِلَىَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلىٰ طاعِمٍ يَطعَمُهُ إِلّا أَن يَكونَ مَيتَةً أَو دَمًا مَسفوحًا أَو لَحمَ خِنزيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجسٌ أَو فِسقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنِ اضطُرَّ غَيرَ باغٍ وَلا عادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفورٌ رَحيمٌ
God s words can make total sense with the plain Arabic words used by GOD common to all those who read Arabic without words or ambiguous words that complicate the translation.
The verse is saying eat and drink from all GOD s provided food for you but avoid/ try not to consume these four things that harm you under normal situation where you have so many choices
My take.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

jkhan

Thank you for your reply...

I am well aware that 99% of those who read the Quran, whether in Arabic or in well-founded translations, understand the prohibition in verse 6:145 as "meat of swine," regardless of their sectarian divisions. In that regard, I do not blame you, brother. However, let us explore whether we can discern the true meaning of "Khinzir" in this context.
As you may know, the word can mean "pig" in Hebrew and Aramaic, and yes, why not in Arabic as well? But that does not mean this root refers only to a pig in Arabic. "Khinzir" and "Khizir" (the latter being a common variant) differ only by a dot, which is another matter for deep reflection. However, its deep root meaning also encompasses "RAW," i.e., uncooked. This interpretation brings absolute clarity for me, as it aligns perfectly with the flow of the two other forbidden items: "carcass" and "spilled blood." Therefore, I have chosen the root meaning of "the raw meat" for ‘laham Khizeer.
Now, for the sake of argument, let us concur with the conventional view that "meat of swine" is forbidden in verse 6:145.
If you then read any translation of the following verse, 6:146, it ceases to make sense. Typically, translations state that what was forbidden to the Jews included "every animal of uncloven hooves." But in reality, the word is "ẓufurin" (hooves), and the qualifier "uncloven" is an additional word not present in the Quran. Pigs and related animals like wild boars are considered to have hooves. The verse states that all such hooved animals were forbidden to the Jews, though they were permitted cows and goats (hooved animal), whose fat etc were still prohibited as stated in 6:146.
The Divine forbade these specific animals to the Jews for a reason; not merely because they were locally taboo, but as a consequence of their transgressions. They were practicing numerous transgressions against the Divine. Later, with the advent of Jesus (Eisa), these specific food prohibitions were lifted. The Quran itself confirms that all such foods once forbidden to the Jews have been relaxed.
To make sense of the comparison between 6:145 and 6:146 in any translation, one must raise a critical question: If pork is categorically forbidden in 6:145, why would the Divine have forbidden pigs; along with all hooved animals, specifically to the transgressing Jews, only to later relax that prohibition?
The logical conclusion is that pork was not an eternal forbidden food. It was forbidden to the Jews, along with other hooved animals, as a temporary restriction due to their transgression, and that restriction was subsequently lifted.

good logic

Peace jkhan.
In other words the verse just means what you think it means. According to your opinion of the context.
Read your explanation again and ponder what you are saying!
If meat is allowed, what do you mean "raw meat" is not allowed":
How raw can it go past before it is allowed? Medium rare, cured and not ?cooked at all.. or what?
Of course your logic is clear and things you say should be taken as facts and truth.
Your translation may make sense to you , therefore it should make sense to everyone!
Well then carry on brother translating your way.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

jkhan

This is not a cogent reply at all, brother.. I prefer Steelman reply, not a strawman.. I did not learn anything from your cynical reply. Cus I am a person who loves truth and when presented I reflect a lot and then I understand my take is fallacious.. But with your reply, i don't get anything at all. Just ad hominem .. I don't want to repeat in my every reply that I am not here to foist anyone. Pls get that right in your next move.. Do you feel harrowing when you see my take on every subject I write.. whatever.. It doesn't fly with me..
I don't mind people who never eat Pork.. Let them not eat and let it be their choice.. But, when we say that something is verboten per se, then one should clearly grasped the wording of the Divine in 6:145... Otherwise, better be in a position to sate, I don't know it is pork or something else.. until then, I won't comment..

Raw means RAW.. do you copy that.. in many countries they eat just Raw meat..
In many sausages, they use spilled blood in droves.. Many tribal people they drink blood of their domesticated animals even without killing it by lancing them.. No need to mention about carcass..
These three food choices is forbidden by the Divine. But they are not forbidden in a natural way.. Same animal when not died, ALLOWED; same animal's meat mixed with blood naturally, ALLOWED; Same animal's meat when other RAW state is ALLOWED; These are compelling laws.. I know most are following these laws knowingly or unknowingly but we can't put words in the mouth of the Divine.. Be alert of it..

jkhan

Hi everyone..
I am convinced when I write down this article.. Use your intellect and don’t rely on me..
The Quran's Rational Diet: It’s Not the Pig, It’s the Raw meat..
A groundbreaking re-examination of the Quran's dietary laws challenges a 2000-year-old assumption. The conventional translation of "Lahm Al-Khinzir" in 6:145 as "flesh of swine" is a linguistic and contextual misstep. Evidence from the Quran's own text and reason, modern real science points to a more profound prohibition: the consumption of raw meat. Consumption of the raw meat is the worst and not pork.
The Linguistic and Contextual Evidence
The Arabic root "KH-Z-R" encompasses the concept of "raw." This interpretation creates perfect coherence in 6:145, where the forbidden items form a logical triad of unfit substances:

Carcass: Decaying flesh, inherently toxic.
Spilled Blood: A vector for disease.
"Khinzir": Not a species, but a state, raw, uncooked flesh.
This reading resolves a critical contradiction in the subsequent verse, 6:146. There, the Quran states that every animal with hooves (ẓufurin) was forbidden to the Jews as a temporary punishment. The qualifier "uncloven" is an interpretive gloss by translators. If pork were eternally forbidden in 6:145, its specific prohibition for the Jews in 6:146 makes no theological sense. The conclusion is inescapable: the "Khinzir" of 6:145 is distinct from the hooved animals of 6:146.
The Health Imperative: A Principle Proven by evidence based Science
This interpretation aligns divine law with empirical, health-based reasoning. The Quran forbids what is inherently harmful to the civilized human body:
Carcass: Rotted flesh / just died carcass carries toxins and bacteria that cause severe illness, paralysis, or death. Even you cook, the risk is same.
Spilled Blood: A potent carrier of bloodborne pathogens. The high prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis in regions where raw blood consumption is part of tribal culture underscores this inherent danger. While transmission modes vary, consuming blood provides a direct route for such viruses to enter the bloodstream.
Raw Meat: Harbors pathogens like Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which are neutralized only by cooking.
This framework also explains a key anomaly: why are poisonous creatures, like certain snakes and fish and frogs, not universally forbidden? The answer is knowledge and preparation. Their toxicity is not inherent to their state as food; it is a specific substance that can be removed or neutralized through skilled processing and cooking. God forbade what is inherently hazardous in its common state, not what can be rendered safe through human ingenuity. Pork is safe, just another meat if you cook well..
A Call to Conscious Consumption
God did not create forbidden animals, instead asking us to use our intellect before consuming. The divine command is to "eat of the good things" and avoid what is inherently harmful. The prohibition is not against the pig but against the primal, dangerous act of consuming raw flesh. The Quranic law is a divine endorsement of civilized practice; cooking any animal meat, which safeguards human health. The ultimate rule is rational and universal: Eat what is good for you, and ensure it is prepared safely.

6:145 State, ‘I don’t find through what was instilled unto me, imposing upon a consumer who consumes it unless that, being carcass, or spilled blood, or raw meat, as it is indeed a filthiness, or a renunciation dedicated to outside of the Divine through it. So, whoever was compelled without deserving while not transgressing, then indeed, your Lord is redeeming, compassionate.
6:146 And upon the ones who were inducted, We imposed each containing hooves—yet from the cow and the sheep, We imposed upon them their fats unless whatever their exterior carried them, or the contiguity, or whatever incorporated with the bone. Such is We recompensed them by their craving. Yet, indeed, We are in favor of truthful ones.

good logic

Peace jkhan.
You are convinced does not mean everyone should be convinced.

Where does the word "Khinzir " mean raw?
Look at this exact verse confirming for you what is said in 6:145, just so you do not translate the word "Khinzir" as adjective but a Noun i.e a thing, with Lahm /meat. in this case "meat of a pig":
The word used in 16:115 is "Al- Khinzir" a clear noun which mean the pig in Arabic. It cannot be trans lated as adjective like "raw meat or cooked meat or..." but the meat of "the khinzir" specific and clear:

He only prohibits for you dead animals, blood, the meat of pigs,* and food which is dedicated to other than God. If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then God is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
إِنَّما حَرَّمَ عَلَيكُمُ المَيتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحمَ الخِنزيرِ وَما أُهِلَّ لِغَيرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنِ اضطُرَّ غَيرَ باغٍ وَلا عادٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفورٌ رَحيمٌ

And you say I am not giving facts?
Never mind though if you insist on your way brother.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

jkhan

Don't rush brother.. You have not researched enough.. You have not noticed what I have noticed.. 6:145 is indeed an adjective, and it means 'RAW'.. You are referring verse 16:115 with 'AlKhinzeer' .. Look I have already translated an identical verse to 16:115 and they are 2:173 and 5:3 and none of these verses are about food prohibition.. The only verse that talks about food prohibition is 6:145 and it is totally different, though you think it is same.. In 6:145 'Spilled' is added i.e. spilled blood, not in any other occurrence, it appears.. For your info below are my translations of 2:173 and 5:3

**2:173 Merely, imposed upon you the diabolicality, including the savagery and the putrefied vilification, while that has emerged through it for defiance of the Divine. So, whoever was compelled without deserving while not transgressing, then no fault upon him. And the Divine, redeeming, compassionate.

5:3 Has been imposed upon you the diabolicality, including the savagery and the putrefied vilification, while that emerged, surely outside the Divine in it, and the state of stifling, and the assaulting, and the ruining, and the stoning, and that internalized the saturation unless what you concluded, and what is confined to solitary according to the setup, as a result you split by the suppleness. Such are renunciations. Frustrated by the basis, the ones who had rejected through your commitment, so do not apprehend them, but apprehend Me. I completed the basis for you, as your commitment; further, I have accomplished upon you My blessing, thus I have approved for you the assent as commitment. Yet, whoever was afflicted through a state of relinquishment, not a state of prejudice to flaw, then indeed the Divine, redeeming, compassionate.**

And 16:115 is also the same and no difference..

6:145 is the only verse that prohibits... Notice the clear difference in 6:145. Additional words are 'Spilled,' and 'khizeer' is used without the definite article 'Al.' In 6:145, 'AW' is used instead of 'WA,' unlike in all other verses (2:173, 5:3, 16:115). I understand it can be difficult for anyone to see the nuances in verse 6:145, but these are more revealing aspects of the verse. I deeply studied the core of this verse and realized its mind-bending dichotomy. I can't make you feel the same; you have to explore it yourself. Just admit you don't know—it's better than superficially claiming understanding against the Divine verses.

good logic

Peace jkhan.

This is the same context as 6:145, ponder all these verses for the context starting at 16:114 to 16:119

Therefore, you shall eat from God's provisions everything that is lawful and good, and be appreciative of God's blessings, if you do Ubud/serve... Him alone.
فَكُلوا مِمّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ حَلٰلًا طَيِّبًا وَاشكُروا نِعمَتَ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُم إِيّاهُ تَعبُدونَ
He only prohibits for you dead animals, blood, the meat of pigs,* and food which is dedicated to other than God. If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then God is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
إِنَّما حَرَّمَ عَلَيكُمُ المَيتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحمَ الخِنزيرِ وَما أُهِلَّ لِغَيرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنِ اضطُرَّ غَيرَ باغٍ وَلا عادٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفورٌ رَحيمٌ
You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: "This is lawful, and this is unlawful," to fabricate lies and attribute them to God. Surely, those who fabricate lies and attribute them to God will never succeed.
وَلا تَقولوا لِما تَصِفُ أَلسِنَتُكُمُ الكَذِبَ هٰذا حَلٰلٌ وَهٰذا حَرامٌ لِتَفتَروا عَلَى اللَّهِ الكَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذينَ يَفتَرونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الكَذِبَ لا يُفلِحونَ
They enjoy briefly, then suffer painful retribution.
مَتٰعٌ قَليلٌ وَلَهُم عَذابٌ أَليمٌ
For the Jews, we prohibited what we narrated to you previously.* It was not us who wronged them; they are the ones who wronged their own souls.
وَعَلَى الَّذينَ هادوا حَرَّمنا ما قَصَصنا عَلَيكَ مِن قَبلُ وَما ظَلَمنٰهُم وَلٰكِن كانوا أَنفُسَهُم يَظلِمونَ
Yet, as regards those who fall in sin out of ignorance then repent thereafter and reform, your Lord, after this is done, is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لِلَّذينَ عَمِلُوا السّوءَ بِجَهٰلَةٍ ثُمَّ تابوا مِن بَعدِ ذٰلِكَ وَأَصلَحوا إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعدِها لَغَفورٌ رَحيمٌ

Now see this similar context 6:114 to 6:
Say, "I do not find in the revelations given to me any food that is prohibited for any eater except: (1) dead animals/carrion, (2) running/liquid blood, (3) the meat* of pigs, for it is contaminated, and (4) the meat of animals blasphemously dedicated to other than God." If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then your Lord is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
قُل لا أَجِدُ فى ما أوحِىَ إِلَىَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلىٰ طاعِمٍ يَطعَمُهُ إِلّا أَن يَكونَ مَيتَةً أَو دَمًا مَسفوحًا أَو لَحمَ خِنزيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجسٌ أَو فِسقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنِ اضطُرَّ غَيرَ باغٍ وَلا عادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفورٌ رَحيمٌ
For those who are Jewish we prohibited animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep we prohibited the fat, except that which is carried on their backs, or in the viscera, or mixed with bones. That was a retribution for their transgressions, and we are truthful.
وَعَلَى الَّذينَ هادوا حَرَّمنا كُلَّ ذى ظُفُرٍ وَمِنَ البَقَرِ وَالغَنَمِ حَرَّمنا عَلَيهِم شُحومَهُما إِلّا ما حَمَلَت ظُهورُهُما أَوِ الحَوايا أَو مَا اختَلَطَ بِعَظمٍ ذٰلِكَ جَزَينٰهُم بِبَغيِهِم وَإِنّا لَصٰدِقونَ
If they disbelieve you, then say, "Your Lord possesses infinite mercy, but His retribution is unavoidable for the guilty people."
فَإِن كَذَّبوكَ فَقُل رَبُّكُم ذو رَحمَةٍ وٰسِعَةٍ وَلا يُرَدُّ بَأسُهُ عَنِ القَومِ المُجرِمينَ
The idol worshipers say, "Had God willed, we would not practice idolatry, nor would our parents, nor would we prohibit anything." Thus did those before them disbelieve, until they incurred our retribution. Say, "Do you have any proven knowledge that you can show us? You follow nothing but conjecture; you only guess."
سَيَقولُ الَّذينَ أَشرَكوا لَو شاءَ اللَّهُ ما أَشرَكنا وَلا ءاباؤُنا وَلا حَرَّمنا مِن شَىءٍ كَذٰلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذينَ مِن قَبلِهِم حَتّىٰ ذاقوا بَأسَنا قُل هَل عِندَكُم مِن عِلمٍ فَتُخرِجوهُ لَنا إِن تَتَّبِعونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَإِن أَنتُم إِلّا تَخرُصونَ
Say, "God possesses the most powerful argument; if He wills He can guide all of you."
قُل فَلِلَّهِ الحُجَّةُ البٰلِغَةُ فَلَو شاءَ لَهَدىٰكُم أَجمَعينَ
Both context are about the same subject brother.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

jkhan

No, brother, they are not the same. That is why I said they may look identical, but they are not. A clear difference is in 6:145 alone.
You are saying that 16:114-119 is the same as 6:145 onwards, but it is not. The context up to 16:113 is different. A new context commences from 16:114, yet it is still connected to the overarching theme, even if not a direct, literal continuation.

16:114: So, internalize from whatever the Divine contented you of proper conformities, while implementing the Divine blessings, if you were relying on Him alone.

(Note: You can refer to my translation of 5:87-88. There is no food mentioned there but same statement appears. This 'halal thaiban' is 'proper conformities.')
Then, 16:115 is the same as 2:173, and it is not about food prohibition:

16:115: Merely, imposed upon you the diabolicality, including the savagery and the putrefied vilification, while that has emerged through it for defiance of the Divine. So, whoever was compelled without deserving while not transgressing, then no fault upon him. And the Divine, redeeming, compassionate.

The connection between 16:114 and 115 is as follows: First, 114 addresses people to adapt and internalize the Divine contentment laid upon us by implementing His blessings, confirming their faith if they depend (ibadat) on the Divine alone. Then, 115 instructs on what are not conformities that content the Divine, such as diabolicality, savagery, and putrefied vilification, because they all emerge from outside the Divine.

16:116: Yet, don’t state to whatever, characterizing your eloquence of the manipulation, ‘This is conforming, yet this is imposition’, in order to fabricate against the Divine the manipulation. …..

This all connects perfectly. A few verses later, it continues to state that the same thing was imposed upon the Jews before you. The Jews transgressed as they wished. When the Divine imposed, for instance, 'diabolicality,' one should grasp what could comprise diabolicality, since the Divine is always against immodesties, evil, and immoralities. The Jews twisted the concepts of diabolicality, savagery, and putrefied vilification and transgressed. That is why the Divine gave the instruction of 'proper conformity'—to use intellect and not be biased. But the Jews were biased toward what their minds wanted.
The concept should be clear and applied. If the Divine states, "do not waste," we should not act in a way that wastes. Thus, there cannot be ambiguity or indifference.

Here is 5:87-88 for your inference. Compare your usual translations.. No connection at all to food prohibitions..

5:87 O you, the ones who concurred! Do not impose appropriateness of what the Divine permitted for you; thus, do not trespass. Indeed, the Divine does not cherish the trespassers.
5:88 Yet, internalize by what the Divine contented you with—proper conformities. Conscientize the Divine—the One you are in him concurring.

good logic

@jkhan said in Some concerns to be addressed of readers of my translations:

Here is 5:87-88 for your inference. Compare your usual translations.. No connection at all to food prohibitions..

Brother , my comparison was with 16:114 onwards-the context is about food prohibition, look again : 16:114
Therefore, you shall eat from God's provisions everything that is lawful and good, and be appreciative of God's blessings, if you do Ubud/serve... Him alone.
فَكُلوا مِمّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ حَلٰلًا طَيِّبًا وَاشكُروا نِعمَتَ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُم إِيّاهُ تَعبُدونَ

here do you see food or what do you eat? Then 16:115:

He only prohibits for you dead animals, blood, the meat of pigs,* and food which is dedicated to other than God. If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then God is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
إِنَّما حَرَّمَ عَلَيكُمُ المَيتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحمَ الخِنزيرِ وَما أُهِلَّ لِغَيرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنِ اضطُرَّ غَيرَ باغٍ وَلا عادٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفورٌ رَحيمٌ
What are you on about ?
No doubt you will come back again , but the context does not go away or change.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

jkhan

Don’t feel apprehended, brother, I won’t come at you rushing with mere curiosity without rumination to utterly decimate you with my researches. I have no intention of taking you down. There is a truth, and I have comprehended and many have not, and I can perceive their situation cus they relied on translations and did not contemplate, and took it many verses for granted as it sounded true to them. Like you, many are in that deep rabbit hole, and the centuries-old tradition of prohibition of pork and the way the Muslim world indoctrinated us is not some phlegmatic take to overcome.. You may never come out the pit you are in, or you may one day, the Divine caused.. But, I address people who are truth seekers. Let anyone who wants to keep the torch lit forever and contribute from their end, let him study. I am just another flame keeper of truth … Yes, everyone can cogitate what they understand is the truth, but let the Divine guide to the truth, and He knows who is guided aright.. So, I am pervading the message of the Divine for contemplating people to stir their thoughts from what they cling to without knowledge.. Let every researcher delve into the nucleus of the truth..

Having said that, don’t think that the Divine is so redundant to tell people ‘Eat and drink, halalan thaiban’ .. God is not telling us to EAT.. You don’t want to compare and that’s why you are in the pit that you are in.. I gave you 5:87-88 to compare.. Even 2:168 or 8:69 and these are profound verses and the Divine is not telling us to ‘EAT’.. Does He need to reveal and tell us EAT in many verses.. Not connection at all to word ‘EAT’ in those verses as well the verse in debate here.. take a look below

2:167 Further said the ones who abided by, ‘If an opportunity were possible for us then we disassociate from them just as they disassociated from us.’ Thus, the Divine makes them see the regret for their deeds. But they are not of those who can escape the Harshness.
2:168 O you the people! ‘Internalize from what is through the thriving of proper conformities. While don’t abide by the conspirator’s strategies. Verily, he is a manifest enemy to you.’
2:169 Merely, he enjoins you with wickedness and immodesty, while that you assume about the Divine, what you do not realize.

No connection at all with food/EAT… here in 2:168 Kulu is Internalize and halal thaiban ‘proper conformities’.. look at the context.. why to tell people eat while the Divine has already informed what is forbidden.. Is divine so bothered about our health to tell us to ‘EAT’ everywhere.. When people notice the phrases ‘halalan thaiban’ and ‘Kulu’, they were indoctrinated only to believe that this is about food and eat.. It’s so pathetic.. But, I know there are people who understand the fabric of these phrases.. I can’t be all alone on this earth who get this.. Cogitate if you can, and it is in your hand.. No, begrudges with you.. I am doing my job.. Okay brother.. My aim is truth seekers and they are not demented on illogical, obstinate mendacities, yet they deeply ponder, cus they are hunting the truth of the Divine and not championing falsehood.

good logic

Peace jkhan.

Your understanding of Arabic is strange brother.
You want to be different or you are going through a phase of "cogitating" yourself.
Try and reflect. Think deeply about what I posted for you.
I am just letting you know that GOD s words are never ambiguous or contradictory brother.
I will leave it here brother.
Thanks.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

jkhan

Hi brother..
Yeah, I can take in your situation. It is not you alone in this pit but almost all save very few people.. The conundrum is not in the Quran and it is not ambiguous, but what came to us with an interpretation is ambiguous, and i am solving these ambiguities for my clear guidance and it doesn't mean the one who read my translations will simply grasp it.. Implausible as it sounds.. Keep researching, if the Divine caused, He may let you know the truth .. Every ambivalence matters can be solved if one relies solely on the Divine, leaving all preconceived indoctrination..
Have a good day, thank you for your conversation..

jkhan

Hi Everyone...
Allow me to continue this topic.. I am in chapter 7 and I found the truth in that chapter that you may never have found.. You can debate, if you wish..

7:54 Indeed, your Lord is the Divine—the One who created the heavens and the earth through a state of imputation of episodes, subsequently He stabilized upon the framework. He engulfs the night, as the day prosecuting its uninterruptedness, yet the sun, and the moon, and the constellations are insulated by its fixities. Unquestionably, for Him, the proportion and the dictation. Steadied is the Divine, Lord of the identities.

There is NO 6 days of creations, there is no 2 days of creation or 4 days.. All mistranslated depending on some other people's understanding of previous revelations.. Just cus they got the cream and the essence of the words wrongly, Quran translators also depended on Bible translations, same as Crucifixion while there is NO Crucifixion ever mentioned in Quran..

Divine never would ask 'Do you disbelieve in the Divine who created the Heavens and the Earth in SIX DAYS'.. That's bizzare.. what is the point asking 'DISBELIEVE' and mention the number of DAYs.. SItta is taken as 6 since it is the easiest root meaning.. nope.. The Divine did not create in 6 days.. The root for SITTA here in the above verse is IMPUTE.. And AYYAM is Episodes not related to DAYS.. How many exact days it takes is not what the Divine mentions here.. 'the One who created the heavens and the earth through a state of imputation of episodes' ... This phrase has a deep meaning.. What difference it makes if the verse states 6 days or 60 days..