Verse 9:30

unknownuser

Peace

Why is it not true now?

To forbid anything God has not is wrong. This is true, then, now, and in the future. Sorry but I disagree with you. I suppose you do not see the eternal message with your historical/literal approach.

Joe

Ok let me stop scarcasim which was trggered by your comment "My Adam" and "My Stories"

what I mean that whatever the Allah says stands forever regardless, also any scientific fact mentioned was suiting even the wrong understanding at their time and now suiting the right science in our time,

now let's talk about 882 the subject in hand

the verse said at the time of the prophet he will find the jews hate the belivers the most and the ones who says "Ina Nasara", i.e. "We are Christians" will be friendly, the statement did not stop there, it actually specifically flagged the cause for the chistians freindly attitude at the time of the prophet that because there was mocks and presists from them who are not arrogant.

I see the verse talking to the prophet at his time explaining an important fact to him

now, for others who want to take 582 as a verse that should stands for eternity, be my guest, i won't and I think there is no sin in my action as far as i believe but if there is, I will only have one option to ask Allah for forgivness and possibly try to explain my action to Him by saying, that in year 2005 I could not see most mocks and priests are not arrogant rather I saw them child molesters and homosexuals

cheers

mquran

Ok, but the verse didn't say all the christians will love us, only the "men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. "

did you get it?

Oh I don't think you got it right here, Ahmed. Let me break it down for you
Wa Latajidanna = and verily you find
'Aqrabahum Mawaddatan Lilladhna 'man close in love to the believers
Al-Ladhna Ql 'Inn Nar? those who say WE ARE NASARA

So before anything, the statement is you will find those who are close in love to believers to be those who say WE ARE NASARA.
Now read on

Dhlika Bi'anna Minhum THAT is because FROM THEM (who is them?, see above please)

So you want to read this again please, Ahmed. Its clear. Those who are close in love to believers are those who say 'we are nasara'.

Also, I believe the verse was talking to Mohammad about incidents in the past and during the time of Mohamad that relates to the Jews and the Christians, hence I don't think this verse should apply today

I see. So this means that when I read 41/53, which tells me that ayaat fil afaaq and fil anfus is to make clear that al-quraan is al-haqq, this ayat is an exception to that process (which btw Allah forgot to mention). Are there any other exceptions, Ahmed?

Also, doesn't this contradict your
AhmedAll I can say that in 25 years with all the reading and researches I did I found the Quran stands true at any time since revelation, hence and based on that trend I believe it will stand true till the Judgment Day

at least I can talk to you in your language and you CAN"T do the same with me, haha

Well, if we were on a gameshow, this might help but in trying to figure out the Book of Allah, it's very much equal ground. Joe may not have had the advantage of knowing Arabic, but he's also not suffered the disadvantage of knowing Arabic. Sounds paradoxical? Ask any dictionary what as-salaat means.

Even if you learn Arabic you will never master it as a native arabic speaker, hence many of your Quran understandings will be vunlerbale to be flawed

This smells of Arab supremacism and worse, flawed logic. None of many Arab speakers i've asked about the Quranic meanings of deen and ibada got it right. This is because it wasn't Arabic that Allah protects , but al-quraan and its only through al-quraan that we can sharpen our perception to get the right picture.

nowdays for the same verse, if we see the opposite, that does not mean the verse failed, no it still stands true because it was talking about something in the past that stood true

Stood true? 41/53 speaks of ayat being shown, not ayaat of the past. Al-quraan is a living book, not a book of history.

the verse said at the time of the prophet he will find the jews hate the belivers the most and the ones who says "Ina Nasara", i.e. "We are Christians" will be friendly, the statement did not stop there, it actually specifically flagged the cause for the chistians freindly attitude at the time of the prophet that because there was mocks and presists from them who are not arrogant

Hmm, so this verse was addressed only to the prophet? Where does it say 'yaa ayuhan nabi' ?

now, for others who want to take 582 as a verse that should stands for eternity, be my guest, i won't and I think there is no sin in my action as far as i believe but if there is, I will only have one option to ask Allah for forgivness and possibly try to explain my action to Him by saying, that in year 2005 I could not see most mocks and priests are not arrogant rather I saw them child molesters and homosexuals

Of course it stands and will continue to stand. The reason why you find it awkward is due to the fact that the criteria you pivot on is the unprotected Arabic language. Al-quraan clearly tells you why al-hawariyoon are called nasaraa. Isa asks them 'man ANSARI ilaa Allah' and they answer 'NAHNU ansaar Allah'. You will find many other contradictions if you interpret al-quraan as a historical text. I think its best if you reconsider your tafseer strategy.

unknownuser

Ok, but the verse didn't say all the christians will love us, only the "men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. "

did you get it?

Oh I don't think you got it right here, Ahmed. Let me break it down for you

ok bro let's have a look

Wa Latajidanna = and verily you find

I agree

'Aqrabahum Mawaddatan Lilladhna 'man close in love to the believers
Al-Ladhna Ql 'Inn Nar? those who say WE ARE NASARA

Agree on all EXCEPT Nasara, AT IT MEANS CHRISTIANS 100%

So before anything, the statement is you will find those who are close in love to believers to be those who say WE ARE NASARA.
Now read on

Yep I agree with what came before "Ina Nasara" as those are the ones close to the believers, but "Qaloo Ina Nasara", means "Said We are Christians", what will come next will 100% confirm it

Dhlika Bi'anna Minhum THAT is because FROM THEM (who is them?, see above please)

Them is the "Nasara" ie, "The Christians", that is why "Qisiseen wa Ruhbana" who are not arrogant, in the Arab world, Any Chrsiitian priest is called "Qisis" or "Ruhban" see how explicit it is to the Christians

So you want to read this again please, Ahmed. Its clear. Those who are close in love to believers are those who say 'we are nasara'.

Yes I know that verse 20 years ago bro, so "Ina Nasara" means "We Are Christians" and because There are "Qisiseena wa Ruhbana" who are not arrogant and as I said "Qisis" and "Ruhban" are explicit to a christian priest in the Arab world, so the verse means by "Nasara" -> "Christians"

Also, I believe the verse was talking to Mohammad about incidents in the past and during the time of Mohamad that relates to the Jews and the Christians, hence I don't think this verse should apply today

I see. So this means that when I read 41/53, which tells me that ayaat fil afaaq and fil anfus is to make clear that al-quraan is al-haqq, this ayat is an exception to that process (which btw Allah forgot to mention). Are there any other exceptions, Ahmed?

excuse me Mquran, the word "Ayaatona" in 4153 is in no way explicit to the Quran verses however I agree that "Inahu" is refering to the Quran, but what that has to do regarding 582?, as I said 582 was an information to the prophet about important things that he shouold be aware of, the hostility of the jews was evident at his time and the kindess of the christians was also evident in his time, now days we can not really measur how accurate verse 582 is because you do not know who are the true non arrigant christians yet to know if the are really close to the muslims or not, I see it NOT as a genral statament for year 2005

Also, doesn't this contradict your
AhmedAll I can say that in 25 years with all the reading and researches I did I found the Quran stands true at any time since revelation, hence and based on that trend I believe it will stand true till the Judgment Day

NO IT IS NOT, because 582 was a specific information to the prophet regarding who is his true enemy during his time

at least I can talk to you in your language and you CAN"T do the same with me, haha

Well, if we were on a gameshow, this might help but in trying to figure out the Book of Allah, it's very much equal ground. Joe may not have had the advantage of knowing Arabic, but he's also not suffered the disadvantage of knowing Arabic. Sounds paradoxical? Ask any dictionary what as-salaat means.

My comment was to joe, not to you Mquran, so I have nothing to tell you here, but thanks for your 2c

Even if you learn Arabic you will never master it as a native arabic speaker, hence many of your Quran understandings will be vunlerbale to be flawed

This smells of Arab supremacism and worse, flawed logic. None of many Arab speakers i've asked about the Quranic meanings of deen and ibada got it right. This is because it wasn't Arabic that Allah protects , but al-quraan and its only through al-quraan that we can sharpen our perception to get the right picture.

then let me re-phrase my statement then, "I MEAN KNWOLEDGABLE ARABS"

nowdays for the same verse, if we see the opposite, that does not mean the verse failed, no it still stands true because it was talking about something in the past that stood true

Stood true? 41/53 speaks of ayat being shown, not ayaat of the past. Al-quraan is a living book, not a book of history.

Verse 4153 has nothing to do with 582, I see it as a desperate attempt by you to support your wrong claim that "Nasara" means anything but "Chrsitians"

the verse said at the time of the prophet he will find the jews hate the belivers the most and the ones who says "Ina Nasara", i.e. "We are Christians" will be friendly, the statement did not stop there, it actually specifically flagged the cause for the chistians freindly attitude at the time of the prophet that because there was mocks and presists from them who are not arrogant

Hmm, so this verse was addressed only to the prophet? Where does it say 'yaa ayuhan nabi' ?

the Ta in "Wa Le Tagedana" makes it most likely directed to the prophet, Allah does not need to say this statement to every believer, it was only during establishing the religion time, exactly like killing the ex muslims as it was only specific to that incident,

now, for others who want to take 582 as a verse that should stands for eternity, be my guest, i won't and I think there is no sin in my action as far as i believe but if there is, I will only have one option to ask Allah for forgivness and possibly try to explain my action to Him by saying, that in year 2005 I could not see most mocks and priests are not arrogant rather I saw them child molesters and homosexuals

Of course it stands and will continue to stand. The reason why you find it awkward is due to the fact that the criteria you pivot on is the unprotected Arabic language. Al-quraan clearly tells you why al-hawariyoon are called nasaraa. Isa asks them 'man ANSARI ilaa Allah' and they answer 'NAHNU ansaar Allah'. You will find many other contradictions if you interpret al-quraan as a historical text. I think its best if you reconsider your tafseer strategy.

Mquran, this is that last time I will say.

The Howariyoon responded to jesus exactly as the following dialogue in 6114,

(14)

Jesus " ""Who is Ansarai to the way of Allah", "Who is my Helpers to the way of Allah"

The Hawariyoon " ""We are Ansar Allah", "We are The Helpers to the way of Allah"

The same exact message was said again in 352

?But when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said Who will be my helpers in Allah's way? The disciples said We are myhelpers (in the way) of Allah We believe in Allah and bear witness that we are submitting ones.?

(52)

Jesus " ""Who is Ansarai to the way of Allah", "Who is my Helpers to the way of Allah"

The Hawariyoon " ""We are Ansar Allah", "We are The Helpers to the way of Allah", they even decalred that they are the Muslimoon

Salam

mquran

Agree on all EXCEPT Nasara, AT IT MEANS CHRISTIANS 100%

I'm using 'nasara' to be neutral. Nasara is nasara in Arabic.

Yep I agree with what came before "Ina Nasara" as those are the ones close to the believers, but "Qaloo Ina Nasara", means "Said We are Christians", what will come next will 100% confirm it

Ok good, so this makes the verse FALSE in the modern world. Lets acknowledge this first.

Them is the "Nasara" ie, "The Christians", that is why "Qisiseen wa Ruhbana" who are not arrogant, in the Arab world, Any Chrsiitian priest is called "Qisis" or "Ruhban" see how explicit it is to the Christians

I don't know if them being called qisis and ruhbaan is the result of the false interpretation, if you get my point. The imams of sunnism could have said, 'ah this refers to christian priests and monks' and then the language could have changed accordingly. I don't know. I wasn't there and all I have is my exprience.

The point however is that 5/82, if applied in your way, is no longer applicable in the real world.

excuse me Mquran, the word "Ayaatona" in 4153 is in no way explicit to the Quran verses however I agree that "Inahu" is refering to the Quran, but what that has to do regarding 582?, as I said 582 was an information to the prophet about important things that he shouold be aware of, the hostility of the jews was evident at his time and the kindess of the christians was also evident in his time, now days we can not really measur how accurate verse 582 is because you do not know who are the true non arrigant christians yet to know if the are really close to the muslims or not, I see it NOT as a genral statament for year 2005

Lets break down 41/53, ok
Sanuurihim ayaatina SOON we will show THEM our ayaat
fil afaaq wa fil anfushim in the horizon and THEIR SELVES/SOULS
hatta yabayyana lahum until its made clear TO THEM
annahul haqq that this is AL-HAQQ....

but what that has to do regarding 582, you ask ? Well, 5/82 is an ayat in al-quraan. 41/53 is showing how it's made clear to you that al-quraan is al-haqq. 5/82 therefore will be made clear as al-haqq to you. Its a process happening NOW itself but sadly you have sentenced al-quraan to a book of history (ashtaral awwaleen, very very dangerous, bro).

NO IT IS NOT, because 582 was a specific information to the prophet regarding who is his true enemy during his time

Ok, well you should correct yourself there. I was quoting you

The only you can say its about the prophet if you believe in hadith/seerah/maghazi. I dont believe in any of those.

Verse 4153 has nothing to do with 582, I see it as a desperate attempt by you to support your wrong claim that "Nasara" means anything but "Chrsitians"

So 41/53 speaks of al-quraan and 5/82 - which is an ayaat IN al-quraan - has nothing to do with it? Rather flawed logic there, old son. As for 'nasara' meaning 'christians', God must have run out of words because 'christians' literally translate into 'masihiyoon' (christ meaning 'annointed', closest word is 'masaha').

the Ta in "Wa Le Tagedana" makes it most likely directed to the prophet, Allah does not need to say this statement to every believer, it was only during establishing the religion time, exactly like killing the ex muslims as it was only specific to that incident
,

So really, when Allah says al-quraan is hudan linaas, he should have said 'part of al-quraan is guidance for part of mankind for a specific time only'. Sorry dude, that's not the book i have with me. The book I have with me sees through the entire human condition for all times.

Mquran, this is that last time I will say.

The Howariyoon responded to jesus exactly as the following dialogue in 6114,

Thanks for quoting the verses which prove why 'nasara' are called so. Don't fall into the trap of historicising al-quraan. You avoided hadith but got trapped in a hadith inspired tafseer methodology? It's a bit of a shame, Ahmed.

unknownuser

Agree on all EXCEPT Nasara, AT IT MEANS CHRISTIANS 100%

I'm using 'nasara' to be neutral. Nasara is nasara in Arabic.

I?m glad you only said ?You? are using it, because it has to be and a few others but not many of course because
?Nasara? the verb means ?to make someone victories? or ?to help? and looks like this ? ?, here is a verse

?Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude.?

(123)

The other Arabic word ?Nasara? ? ? should actually be pronounced as ?Nasaara?, can you see the double ?aa?? this will make it sound totally different to the verb ?Nasara?

In addition to the above the verb ? ? should not be pronounced ?Nasara?, because you assumed that it will always have a ?Fatiha? at the end, while this is never the case for sure hence it should be pronounced ?Nasar? and the last letter should be according to the ?Tashkil?. ie, it can be any of the followings

a) ?Nasara?, with a ?Fatiha at the end

b) ?Nasaro?, with a ?Dumma at the end

c) ?Nasari?, with a ?Kasrah at the end

d) ?Nasar?, with a ?Sikoon at the end

On the other hand, ? ?, ?Nasaara? must have the last letter ?a? at the end because it is representing a REAL letter in the word ? ?, exactly as the required ?aa? in the middle of the word representing the ?Alif? in the ? ?.

They are two different words with totally differently meanings, this is evident from 2135 as if it was any other meaning the verse will make no sense.

?And they say Be Jew or Christian, you will be on the right course. Say Nay! (we follow) the religion of Ibrahim, the Hanif, and he was not one of the polytheists.?

(135)

-> Can you seel ?Qul Bal Milatu Ibrahim?? ie, IT IS A RELIGION.
Hence The Arabic word ? ?is FOUNDLY known as Christians since Jesus message started till this moment within the whole Arabic world including the Arab Christians

Yep I agree with what came before "Ina Nasara" as those are the ones close to the believers, but "Qaloo Ina Nasara", means "Said We are Christians", what will come next will 100% confirm it

Ok good, so this makes the verse FALSE in the modern world. Lets acknowledge this first.

now you refrence has changed from ?I? to ?US?, well I would assume that you mean the Muslims here which include me and you? Right?

Well I have to say Mquran you must exclude me from those Muslims as I never said or suggested that, what I said that the verse stands true at the time of the prophet that the Jews were the most hostile while the Christians were the most close,
So the verse stands true then and stands true now because iit was true then, did you get it?

Nowadays, I don?t see the Jews are that hostile to the Muslims, neither I see the Christians close to them, neither I see their ?Qissiseena and Ruhbana? are not arrogant, hence the verse must be talking about another period in time ands that makes great sense to me and is also obvious from the Arabic words

Please bro, don?t say that I said something while I didn?t

Them is the "Nasara" ie, "The Christians", that is why "Qisiseen wa Ruhbana" who are not arrogant, in the Arab world, Any Chrsiitian priest is called "Qisis" or "Ruhban" see how explicit it is to the Christians

I don't know if them being called qisis and ruhbaan is the result of the false interpretation, if you get my point. The imams of sunnism could have said, 'ah this refers to christian priests and monks' and then the language could have changed accordingly. I don't know. I wasn't there and all I have is my exprience.

Well I?m talking about reality here, I know they are called exactly as the Quran called them, they are called as such by themselves not by the Muslims, LOL

I do not read the imam of the sunnis crap, only the moderate well founded ones that I read, however my understanding has nothing to do with reading an explanation by anyone IT IS 100% MY OWN UNDERSTANDING AS UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CLEAR ARABIC WORDS

STOP BLAMING THE CONFUSED SUNNI ON EVERTHING Mquran

The point however is that 5/82, if applied in your way, is no longer applicable in the real world.

WRONG, because

it was true then when it happened during the prophet time
it is true now because when it happened during the prophet time it was a true event that happned, but that does not mean it happens now, I will look for many examples to you from the Quran
it will be true in the future regardless the Christians will be close or not because it was true when it happened during the prophet life and not necessarily means it has to last till the judgment day

excuse me Mquran, the word "Ayaatona" in 4153 is in no way explicit to the Quran verses however I agree that "Inahu" is refering to the Quran, but what that has to do regarding 582?, as I said 582 was an information to the prophet about important things that he shouold be aware of, the hostility of the jews was evident at his time and the kindess of the christians was also evident in his time, now days we can not really measur how accurate verse 582 is because you do not know who are the true non arrigant christians yet to know if the are really close to the muslims or not, I see it NOT as a genral statament for year 2005

Lets break down 41/53, ok
Sanuurihim ayaatina SOON we will show THEM our ayaat
fil afaaq wa fil anfushim in the horizon and THEIR SELVES/SOULS
hatta yabayyana lahum until its made clear TO THEM
annahul haqq that this is AL-HAQQ....

but what that has to do regarding 582, you ask ? Well, 5/82 is an ayat in al-quraan. 41/53 is showing how it's made clear to you that al-quraan is al-haqq. 5/82 therefore will be made clear as al-haqq to you. Its a process happening NOW itself but sadly you have sentenced al-quraan to a book of history (ashtaral awwaleen, very very dangerous, bro).

haha mquran, thanks for that great comment, so the Quran means every thing in it should happen to us?

This is bizarre bro

NO IT IS NOT, because 582 was a specific information to the prophet regarding who is his true enemy during his time

Ok, well you should correct yourself there. I was quoting you

correct myself? Well if I?m wrong I have no problem with that, I just don?t know what on earth you are talking about by correcting myself?

The only you can say its about the prophet if you believe in hadith/seerah/maghazi. I dont believe in any of those.

back again blaming the sunna, LOL

well I never read any hadith that talks about this verse, that was a funny accusation mquran

Verse 4153 has nothing to do with 582, I see it as a desperate attempt by you to support your wrong claim that "Nasara" means anything but "Chrsitians"

So 41/53 speaks of al-quraan and 5/82 - which is an ayaat IN al-quraan - has nothing to do with it? Rather flawed logic there, old son. As for 'nasara' meaning 'christians', God must have run out of words because 'christians' literally translate into 'masihiyoon' (christ meaning 'annointed', closest word is 'masaha').

500% the two verses has nothing to do with each other,

regarding your comments about God, will you can inquire with Him about that, I believe He doesn?t run out of words

regarding your comment ?Anointed? is the closed to ?masaha?, well this is 100% wrong

? Masaha? is a verb and means ?to wipe? or ?To touch?, ?Masih? means ?the person who wipes or touches?, ?Mamsoh? means ?the touched?, possibly you are the one who needs to correct himself? Well at least you know you lack Arabic, would that be a good reason for you for getting it that wrong?

the Ta in "Wa Le Tagedana" makes it most likely directed to the prophet, Allah does not need to say this statement to every believer, it was only during establishing the religion time, exactly like killing the ex muslims as it was only specific to that incident
,

So really, when Allah says al-quraan is hudan linaas, he should have said 'part of al-quraan is guidance for part of mankind for a specific time only'. Sorry dude, that's not the book i have with me. The book I have with me sees through the entire human condition for all times.

Of course a lot of content in the Quran is guidance, But sure not all the verses are guidance, are you kiddin me or something?, many verse are nothing but statement of facts by Allah. CLEAR AS LIGHT

Mquran, this is that last time I will say.

Thanks for quoting the verses which prove why 'nasara' are called so. Don't fall into the trap of historicising al-quraan. You avoided hadith but got trapped in a hadith inspired tafseer methodology? It's a bit of a shame, Ahmed.

? Don't fall into the trap of historicising al-quraan?,this is so funny bro, thanks for the laugh

Haha, let me tell you bro I understood over 80% the whole Arabic Quran without reading any other book that talks about it

But it seems when the Quran alone sect followers get cornered they start blaming the hadith as well accusing the other party of resorting to it while they don?t resort to it

DID I EVER MENTIONED ANY REF TO ANY HADITH?
Well, I will consider your accusation a big lie, and it seems you read the hadith more than me because I don?t know what hell of a hadith you are talking about

I challenge you Mquran to show me what hadith that suggests what I said

I know you will fail because simply I never resorted to any.hadith regarding those verses

Salam

unknownuser

Thank you Ahmed for the interpretation. That is all what was requested for on this thread. Plain and simple.

No worries bro, most the Quran understandings are meant to be plain and simple, that does not suggest the book itself is simple btw, it has to be not simple for any non arabic speaker, am i making any sense here?

In my understanding as well, the Quran came AFTER Judaism and Christianity and because of them, the verse 930 was revealed,

not really because of them rather because some actions they did

as we witness it even today. Hence, the believing in Ezra (by the Jews) and Jesus (by the Christians) as Sons of God respectively was the cause influxed in nature thenceforth the revelation of 930 being professed.

100% right bro

If such beliefs weren't there, 930 would be meaningless, given the specifics of what nature had called for. I arrest my case.

of course mate, I hope I added more info to confirm our case especially 2135, please read it and you will see clearly that Judaism and Chrsitainity are "Millah" ie "Religion"

Finally, Arabic words do get translated/interpreted in proper English terminology in the context in which it speaks and by its very existence/reality/nature.

I have to agree with you bro, sure this translation can only be produced by someone who is fluent in both english and arabic

Peace

ayman

Peace Danish,

Since mquran and Leyla failed to provide complete translation and explanation of 930, can anyone here be sincere and courteous enough to execute my request? It will greatly enhance my understanding of who those people were that said "Ezra/Uzair is Son of God" and "Messiah/Jesus is Son of God", if that's what is mentioned. In reality as we currently witness, I can only think of Jews and Christians.

And the Jews said Ezra is the son of The God and the Nasara said the Messiah is the son of The God. This is their saying with their mouths, they imitate the saying of those who were unappreciative/rejecters from before, The God fought them wherever they perverse.

Although it is popular even amongst Arabic speakers to think of the term "Nasara" as "Christians", the fact is that Christians means Massi7iyin NOT Nasara. In 572-73 where Christian beliefs are criticized, we see that the term Nasara doesn't occur. The passage condemns as unappreciative/rejecters/"kuffar" Monophysites (572) and Trinitarians (573). On the other hand, 930-33 describes the Nasara as "mushrikeen" (setting up partners) for claiming that Jesus is son of The God. The Nestorians fit this description because they rejected the Trinity and emphasized the humanity of Jesus. The Nasara are not Christians and were even regarded by Roman Christians as a Jewish sect and this is clear from Roman Christian manuscripts dating from the pre-quranic era.

I hope this helps.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Peace Ayman,

Good to hear from you. Its been a while since I heard from you.

Since mquran and Leyla failed to provide complete translation and explanation of 930, can anyone here be sincere and courteous enough to execute my request? It will greatly enhance my understanding of who those people were that said "Ezra/Uzair is Son of God" and "Messiah/Jesus is Son of God", if that's what is mentioned. In reality as we currently witness, I can only think of Jews and Christians.

And the Jews said Ezra is the son of The God and the Nasara said the Messiah is the son of The God. This is their saying with their mouths, they imitate the saying of those who were unappreciative/rejecters from before, The God fought them wherever they perverse.

Would like to know that when 'Yahud' is translated as Jews in English, why is 'Nasara' left as is? Secondly, isn't Nasara (Nestorians) a part of Christianity who also happen to believe in Jesus's trinitarian divinity?

Although it is popular even amongst Arabic speakers to think of the term "Nasara" as "Christians", the fact is that Christians means Massi7iyin NOT Nasara. In 572-73 where Christian beliefs are criticized, we see that the term Nasara doesn't occur. The passage condemns as unappreciative/rejecters/"kuffar" Monophysites (572) and Trinitarians (573). On the other hand, 930-33 describes the Nasara as "mushrikeen" (setting up partners) for claiming that Jesus is son of The God. The Nestorians fit this description because they rejected the Trinity and emphasized the humanity of Jesus. The Nasara are not Christians and were even regarded by Roman Christians as a Jewish sect and this is clear from Roman Christian manuscripts dating from the pre-quranic era.

I believe that Nestorians, as part/sect of Christianity, believed in both the divinity and humanity sides of Jesus. Where they really differed in from other Christians, was in admonishing Mary as 'Mother of Christ' rather than in 'Mother of God' concept, don't you think?

Added Besides, as far as I know, the Jehova's Witnesses are the only Christians that denounce the Trinitarianism.

mquran

Im glad you only said You are using it, because it has to be and a few others but not many of course because ....

Many thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it. Nasaara it is )

They are two different words with totally differently meanings, this is evident from 2135 as if it was any other meaning the verse will make no sense.

I think you need to correct that to 'makes no sense to me' . This verse makes sense to me because millatu Ibrahim haneefa is a direct connectivity with Allah, different from the millats of al-yahood and an-nasaAra which require the personality of uzair and al-maasih to intermediate between them and Allah. My understanding is from the acknowledgement that 41/53 applies to me, here and now.

Hence The Arabic word is FOUNDLY known as Christians since Jesus message started till this moment within the whole Arabic world including the Arab Christians

Ah, very interesting. Tell me where you found out about this 'within the whole arabic world' please?

Well I have to say Mquran you must exclude me from those Muslims as I never said or suggested that, what I said that the verse stands true at the time of the prophet that the Jews were the most hostile while the Christians were the most close,
So the verse stands true then and stands true now because iit was true then, did you get it?

How do you know it was true then?

Nowadays, I dont see the Jews are that hostile to the Muslims, neither I see the Christians close to them, neither I see their Qissiseena and Ruhbana are not arrogant, hence the verse must be talking about another period in time ands that makes great sense to me and is also obvious from the Arabic words

It would, except that would require you to
a) go through hadith and seera
b) say al-quraan is a book of history, no living application

Well Im talking about reality here, I know they are called exactly as the Quran called them, they are called as such by themselves not by the Muslims, LOL

Doesn't mean much to me. Sunnis call themselves 'sunni' too, despite it being an aberration from Allah as Allah gave the name 'al-muslimeen'. Both victims of a linguistic manipulation.

I do not read the imam of the sunnis crap, only the moderate well founded ones that I read, however my understanding has nothing to do with reading an explanation by anyone IT IS 100% MY OWN UNDERSTANDING AS UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CLEAR ARABIC WORDS
STOP BLAMING THE CONFUSED SUNNI ON EVERTHING Mquran

It's not about blame, Ahmed. It's about bringing al-quraan to centre stage. Al-quraan has been shackled so badly that even those who dropped hadith and sunna still use them to engage with its ayaat. I really don't care who conspired but I'm certainly not going to let false interpretations paralyse Quranic application.

As for reading works of sunni tafseer, I've read various tafaseer but to me, al-quraan, not al-qamoos is al-furqaan.

WRONG, because

it was true then when it happened during the prophet time
it is true now because when it happened during the prophet time it was a true event that happned, but that does not mean it happens now, I will look for many examples to you from the Quran
it will be true in the future regardless the Christians will be close or not because it was true when it happened during the prophet life and not necessarily means it has to last till the judgment day

So 41/53 DOES NOT apply to it. 41/53 has a 'sa' before 'noorihim' which shows Allah will show us signs in the horizon and in ourselves and they will show us that al-quraan is al-haqq. 5/82 is part of al-quraan and so it will be shown to be true. How is this going to happen with a historical event? Please tell me.

haha mquran, thanks for that great comment, so the Quran means every thing in it should happen to us?

This is bizarre bro

Well, its bizarre to you, but to Allah, its how He clarifies His Book to be al-haqq. And while I can't be convinced for you, I can certainly tell you, it works. Nothing escapes the penetrating eyes of al-quraan. It sees the world for what it is.

correct myself? Well if Im wrong I have no problem with that, I just dont know what on earth you are talking about by correcting myself?

You said that all statements of al-quraan are true. But 5/82 isnt true now unless you verify it with hadith/sunna/seera/maghazi.

regarding your comment Anointed is the closed to masaha, well this is 100% wrong
Masaha is a verb and means to wipe or To touch, Masih means the person who wipes or touches, Mamsoh means the touched, possibly you are the one who needs to correct himself? Well at least you know you lack Arabic, would that be a good reason for you for getting it that wrong?

It could be, certainly. I'm always looking to correct myself. That's why I don't use words like 'im sure 100%' and 'ive known this for 20 years' and laugh at people who were not born Arab. Al-maasih henceforth shall be 'the annointer'. Fits in better with the verse anyway.

Of course a lot of content in the Quran is guidance, But sure not all the verses are guidance, are you kiddin me or something?, many verse are nothing but statement of facts by Allah. CLEAR AS LIGHT

A lot of it, so shouldn't Allah say 'katheera minhu hudan linaas'. Why did Allah forget to give an exception clause here?

Don't fall into the trap of historicising al-quraan,this is so funny bro, thanks for the laugh

This is a laughing matter to you? Wow.

Haha, let me tell you bro I understood over 80% the whole Arabic Quran without reading any other book that talks about it

But it seems when the Quran alone sect followers get cornered they start blaming the hadith as well accusing the other party of resorting to it while they dont resort to it

Ahmed, in my opinion, your understanding of al-quraan is nothing more sunni explanations with a few improvements on hadith. You've failed to escape the trap of consigning the book to history. That's why 41/53 cannot work for you unless you had a second text. In other words, you verify 5/82 with another text, instead of ayaat fil afaq wa fil anfus. You wouldn't know it to be true by itself. Try to understand how this verification works before laughing so confidently simply because you're a native speaker of Arabic. Arab supremacism does nothing for the understanding of al-quraan. If it did, the Arab world would lead the world right now.

Well, I will consider your accusation a big lie, and it seems you read the hadith more than me because I dont know what hell of a hadith you are talking about

I challenge you Mquran to show me what hadith that suggests what I said

I know you will fail because simply I never resorted to any.hadith regarding those verses

Not just hadith but books of seera too. Any source outside al-quraan.

Question to you how do you know 5/82 gave you correct information? Is it 'because al-quraan says so' ?

unknownuser

Although it is popular even amongst Arabic speakers to think of the term "Nasara" as "Christians", the fact is that Christians means Massi7iyin NOT Nasara. In 572-73 where Christian beliefs are criticized, we see that the term Nasara doesn't occur. The passage condemns as unappreciative/rejecters/"kuffar" Monophysites (572) and Trinitarians (573). On the other hand, 930-33 describes the Nasara as "mushrikeen" (setting up partners) for claiming that Jesus is son of The God. The Nestorians fit this description because they rejected the Trinity and emphasized the humanity of Jesus. The Nasara are not Christians and were even regarded by Roman Christians as a Jewish sect and this is clear from Roman Christian manuscripts dating from the pre-quranic era.

The gospel accounts use reference only to the natsraya and do not use the term masheekha in reference to the followers of Christ in the Peshitto. Jesus is himself described as a 'nastraya' in Matti so yes it is wasn't used in the sense that we understand Christian as 'follower of Christ'. This appears later in the writings of Shaul and so forth .

Just thought I would add that in.

unknownuser

I?m glad you only said ?You? are using it, because it has to be and a few others but not many of course because ....

Many thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it. Nasaara it is

No worries bro

They are two different words with totally differently meanings, this is evident from 2135 as if it was any other meaning the verse will make no sense.

I think you need to correct that to 'makes no sense to me' . This verse makes sense to me because millatu Ibrahim haneefa is a direct connectivity with Allah, different from the millats of al-yahood and an-nasaAra which require the personality of uzair and al-maasih to intermediate between them and Allah. My understanding is from the acknowledgement that 41/53 applies to me, here and now.

Well of course the religions are different due to the humam corruption, but this is not the issue, the issue is they all are CATEGORISED religions, and 2135 confirms this 100%

Hence The Arabic word ? ?is FOUNDLY known as Christians since Jesus message started till this moment within the whole Arabic world including the Arab Christians

Ah, very interesting. Tell me where you found out about this 'within the whole arabic world' please?

possibly the whole Arabic world was an over statement by me , however, I know from the following at least

The Christian Lebanese in Australia
The Arab Muslims in Australia
My mother is married to a Jordanian and all my three sisters and her husband who don?t have the Egyptian accent also know it as such
One of my unties is married to an Iraqi and also know it as such
My wife younger brother who was born in Australia but learnt Arabic in there when I asked him he surely didn?t know but told me IT SOUND LIKE IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY, Allah is my witness bro, this actually happened today hence he reminded me with the following important FACT

When they Baptist young Christian in Egypt the Christians call the action ?Yenasaaro? the child, how about that bro?, and that is how it sounded Chrsitian to my brother in law who was raised in Australia

It is important to note that ?Yemassiho? is never used and will sound like a joke similar to wipping the floors

Also the terrorist group ?Ansar Al Sunnah? who beheads the innocent victims nowadays can NOT call themselves ?Nasaara Al Sunnah? neither be called by any Arab as such because it will mean exactly ?The Christians of the Sunnah?, a funny joke it will be indeed

Well I have to say Mquran you must exclude me from those Muslims as I never said or suggested that, what I said that the verse stands true at the time of the prophet that the Jews were the most hostile while the Christians were the most close,
So the verse stands true then and stands true now because iit was true then, did you get it?

How do you know it was true then?

I trust Allah that it was true, but I care less about that verse because IT IS NOT A GUIDANCE RATHER a statement of a fact.

What I know for certain that The Jews now days are not the most hostile to the Muslims , IN FACT I SEE THE MULSLIM SECTS THEMSELVES AS THE MOST HOSTILE TO THIS RELIGION, also the majority of the Christians are arrogant from the belief point of view because they insist on following an unfounded, baseless, out of date concept of a human god and arrogantly refusing the numerous warnings to them in the Quran, hence they can not be called NOT ARROGANT, but I guess at the start of Islam, many Christians listened to Mohammad

Nowadays, I don?t see the Jews are that hostile to the Muslims, neither I see the Christians close to them, neither I see their ?Qissiseena and Ruhbana? are not arrogant, hence the verse must be talking about another period in time ands that makes great sense to me and is also obvious from the Arabic words

It would, except that would require you to
a) go through hadith and seera
b) say al-quraan is a book of history, no living application

NO as I explained to you that taking the verse now days as an ongoing fact is not right to do and many verses will fall under this category

Well I?m talking about reality here, I know they are called exactly as the Quran called them, they are called as such by themselves not by the Muslims, LOL

Doesn't mean much to me. Sunnis call themselves 'sunni' too, despite it being an aberration from Allah as Allah gave the name 'al-muslimeen'. Both victims of a linguistic manipulation.

ok, but I don?t care about the sunni as I have never been one myself, in fact many of the people on this web site has been at least as such for a period of their life but I have never been neither I followed any mazhab I even don?t know what that non sense of mazahib is all about, I tried to understand it for years and never made any sense to me so I throw it in the rubbish bin, I?m one of the least to be accused of being influenced by the sunni sect because I attack them face to face.

I do not read the imam of the sunnis crap, only the moderate well founded ones that I read, however my understanding has nothing to do with reading an explanation by anyone IT IS 100% MY OWN UNDERSTANDING AS UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CLEAR ARABIC WORDS
STOP BLAMING THE CONFUSED SUNNI ON EVERTHING Mquran

It's not about blame, Ahmed. It's about bringing al-quraan to centre stage. Al-quraan has been shackled so badly that even those who dropped hadith and sunna still use them to engage with its ayaat. I really don't care who conspired but I'm certainly not going to let false interpretations paralyse Quranic application.

The Quran has been and will always be the center of my life hence I only talk by the Quran and I love reading this book over and over again and again, I?m lucky that I hardly spend any time in finding out the meanings of the words, I read the Quran as I read any other Arabic book without stopping unless a verse took my attention, I have no problem bro in understanding the Quran and I agree with you 100% that IT MUST BE BROUGHT BY ALL BELIEVERS TO THE CENTRE OF THE STAGE

Regarding not going to let false interpretations paralyse Quranic application, that is exactly what I have to do and any believer in the Quran should do

As for reading works of sunni tafseer, I've read various tafaseer but to me, al-quraan, not al-qamoos is al-furqaan.

The hadith didn?t explain the whole Quran any way, in fact it hardly explained 50% of the Quran, it may be even less than that

WRONG, because

it was true then when it happened during the prophet time
it is true now because when it happened during the prophet time it was a true event that happned, but that does not mean it happens now, I will look for many examples to you from the Quran
it will be true in the future regardless the Christians will be close or not because it was true when it happened during the prophet life and not necessarily means it has to last till the judgment day

So 41/53 DOES NOT apply to it. 41/53 has a 'sa' before 'noorihim' which shows Allah will show us signs in the horizon and in ourselves and they will show us that al-quraan is al-haqq. 5/82 is part of al-quraan and so it will be shown to be true. How is this going to happen with a historical event? Please tell me.

As I said bro the word ?Ayaat? in the verse is not in any way explicit to the Quran, in fact it is more likely about the new science discoveries that the Quran talked about 1400 years ago

I agree though that ?Ayaat? also mean the verses of the Quran, but to use the word in?Sa Norihum Ayatoona fi Al Afaq? that it means the Quran verses will be shown , it will create a bit of non sense

firstly it is an excuse for many that the proper understanding was not due to be shown to them by Allah on the time line scale
The verses was already shown, so what does it mean that Allah will show it to us again in the future ?Al Afaaq?

haha mquran, thanks for that great comment, so the Quran means every thing in it should happen to us?

This is bizarre bro

Well, its bizarre to you, but to Allah, its how He clarifies His Book to be al-haqq. And while I can't be convinced for you, I can certainly tell you, it works. Nothing escapes the penetrating eyes of al-quraan. It sees the world for what it is.

can you show me a verse that means THIS IS HOW ALLAH CLARIFIES HIS BOOK TO BE AL HAQQ?

My Question is about ?THIS IS HOW? as I guess you mean that what in it should happen to us and that is how we will know it is the Haqq?

correct myself? Well if I?m wrong I have no problem with that, I just don?t know what on earth you are talking about by correcting myself?

You said that all statements of al-quraan are true. But 5/82 isnt true now unless you verify it with hadith/sunna/seera/maghazi.

No

I said IT IS TRUE NOW BECAUUSE IT WAS TRUE THEN, ie, it is not a lie and surely happened that is what I meant by it is true now.

regarding your comment ?Anointed? is the closed to ?masaha?, well this is 100% wrong
? Masaha? is a verb and means ?to wipe? or ?To touch?, ?Masih? means ?the person who wipes or touches?, ?Mamsoh? means ?the touched?, possibly you are the one who needs to correct himself? Well at least you know you lack Arabic, would that be a good reason for you for getting it that wrong?

It could be, certainly. I'm always looking to correct myself. That's why I don't use words like 'im sure 100%' and 'ive known this for 20 years' and laugh at people who were not born Arab. Al-maasih henceforth shall be 'the annointer'. Fits in better with the verse anyway.

I?m not sure what you were trying to say here Mquran?,

Masih means ?the person who wipes?

If it means ?Annointer? then All the prophets were also Masihs, or what do you think?, however remember that only one of those prophets was called as such, that one was the one who used to heal the sick by wiping them with his hands

Of course a lot of content in the Quran is guidance, But sure not all the verses are guidance, are you kiddin me or something?, many verse are nothing but statement of facts by Allah. CLEAR AS LIGHT

A lot of it, so shouldn't Allah say 'katheera minhu hudan linaas'. Why did Allah forget to give an exception clause here?

well because the majority of the book is Huda and the rest are nothing but statement of facts hence it can also be considered Huda under the category of Knowledge

you have no argument here bro

? Don't fall into the trap of historicising al-quraan?,this is so funny bro, thanks for the laugh

This is a laughing matter to you? Wow.

LOL, I do laugh ?no disrespect intended? I was just honest to tell you the truth that I laugh

Haha, let me tell you bro I understood over 80% the whole Arabic Quran without reading any other book that talks about it

But it seems when the Quran alone sect followers get cornered they start blaming the hadith as well accusing the other party of resorting to it while they don?t resort to it

Ahmed, in my opinion, your understanding of al-quraan is nothing more sunni explanations with a few improvements on hadith. You've failed to escape the trap of consigning the book to history. That's why 41/53 cannot work for you unless you had a second text. In other words, you verify 5/82 with another text, instead of ayaat fil afaq wa fil anfus. You wouldn't know it to be true by itself. Try to understand how this verification works before laughing so confidently simply because you're a native speaker of Arabic. Arab supremacism does nothing for the understanding of al-quraan. If it did, the Arab world would lead the world right now.

LOL, here we go bro, thanks for making my point by resorting to the hadith false accusation while I never mentioned any of it, I call this running like zebras, LOL

Well, I will consider your accusation a big lie, and it seems you read the hadith more than me because I don?t know what hell of a hadith you are talking about

I challenge you Mquran to show me what hadith that suggests what I said

I know you will fail because simply I never resorted to any.hadith regarding those verses

Not just hadith but books of seera too. Any source outside al-quraan.

ok, do you know what book is it or you just had a guess on what books I read?

Question to you how do you know 5/82 gave you correct information? Is it 'because al-quraan says so' ?

Because Allah said so, and because ?Nasaara? means 100% ?Christians? as well I don?t see the Christians in year 2005 as were described in the verse and I know the verse must be right then I concluded that it must be talking about another period in life

salam

fixed a few typos and other errors

unknownuser

Peace Mquran

Here is another verse we didn't discuss bro

?And the Jews say The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ.?

(113)

Bro, can you suggest any meaning to the "Nasaara" other than the "Christians" in 2113 ?

Peace

unknownuser

Peace

Here is another one bro

?O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.?

(51)

So if you are one of the supporters and promoters that ?Nasaara? means ?Helpers?, how come Allah is telling us NOT to take them as friends while he told us in 582 that they are the most ones close to us?

here it is, replacing "The Christians" with "The Helpers"

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Helpers for friends"

in a way it means we are encouraged to betray the helpers who want to help us.

would that make any sense to your child my friend?

A very good question that is man.

Peace

unknownuser

Peace

And finally Mquran

?And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.?

(120)

Can you see how the ?Millah? ?Religion? was referred to the ?Yahud and Nasaara??

After all these Quranic evidences, I have to ask you bluntly my friend so we can put this matter to bed

Do you agree (at least) that the Arabic word "Nasaara" is used in the Quran for one thing only that referes to the followers of Isa?

I rest my case for good

Peace to all

mquran

Well of course the religions are different due to the humam corruption, but this is not the issue, the issue is they all are CATEGORISED religions, and 2135 confirms this 100%

So because you've translated 'millat' to 'religion' , you're saying 'nasaara' is something religious? Millat is something al-quraan uses and 'religion' is something books like 'major religions of the world' uses. Thier uses of the words needn't be the same.

possibly the whole Arabic world was an over statement by me

Overstatement, YOU ? Never !

however, I know from the following at least

The Christian Lebanese in Australia
The Arab Muslims in Australia
My mother is married to a Jordanian and all my three sisters and her husband who dont have the Egyptian accent also know it as such
One of my unties is married to an Iraqi and also know it as such
My wife younger brother who was born in Australia but learnt Arabic in there when I asked him he surely didnt know but told me IT SOUND LIKE IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY, Allah is my witness bro, this actually happened today hence he reminded me with the following important FACT

When they Baptist young Christian in Egypt the Christians call the action Yenasaaro the child, how about that bro?, and that is how it sounded Chrsitian to my brother in law who was raised in Australia

It is important to note that Yemassiho is never used and will sound like a joke similar to wipping the floors

Right, so it's not from al-quraan. My point exactly. Your definitions aren't rooted in the book at all. I have a serious problem with this.

I trust Allah that it was true, but I care less about that verse because IT IS NOT A GUIDANCE RATHER a statement of a fact.

So unlike al-quraan's proposal of its proof in 41/53, you just trust the statement without evidence. I do admire your honesty but my god man, al-quraan is a book which covers all angles and you reject its method of proof because 'the arab world' uses a word differently?

And even though Allah calls al-quraan hudan linaas, you call the verse 'not a guidance'. Oh boy, I'd be afraid to say something like that.

NO as I explained to you that taking the verse now days as an ongoing fact is not right to do and many verses will fall under this category

Yes, UNVERIFIABLE. Just to be taken as 'facts' without evidence. Not to me, Ahmed. To me, all verses are verifiable in my horizon and in my soul. Inescapable from al-quraan.

ok, but I dont care about the sunni as I have never been one myself, in fact many of the people on this web site has been at least as such for a period of their life but I have never been neither I followed any mazhab I even dont know what that non sense of mazahib is all about, I tried to understand it for years and never made any sense to me so I throw it in the rubbish bin, Im one of the least to be accused of being influenced by the sunni sect because I attack them face to face

Good for you but subconsciously , you've adopted their historicisation method and sentenced parts of al-quraan into the 'non-applicational' bin of history. Some parts of al-quraan will never be of use to you.

As I said bro the word Ayaat in the verse is not in any way explicit to the Quran, in fact it is more likely about the new science discoveries that the Quran talked about 1400 years ago

I agree though that Ayaat also mean the verses of the Quran, but to use the word inSa Norihum Ayatoona fi Al Afaq that it means the Quran verses will be shown , it will create a bit of non sense

Lets break it down again, step by step

Allah will show you ayat fil afaaq wa fil anfus. Correct ?
This will go on until its clear to you that al-quraan is AL-HAQQ. Correct?

Why do you think its becomes clear that al-quraan is AL-HAQQ when ayats outside it are shown ? Do you think if one is talking about medicine and the other about lawn-mowers, the verification can take place? How do you think something is shown to be truthful to you? When whatever it says, comes true, obviously. Nowhere in al-quraan will you find this statement of verification except 41/53 . Nowhere at all.

firstly it is an excuse for many that the proper understanding was not due to be shown to them by Allah on the time line scale
The verses was already shown, so what does it mean that Allah will show it to us again in the future Al Afaaq

You're asking these questions because you have a linnear perception of revelation. To you revelation happened once to an-nabi and that's it. He's dead and nothing more happens. Inzaal happens continously. It happens 'alaa' and 'ilaa' to human beings (see 3/84 for 'unzila alaina' and 6/114 for 'anzala ilaikum')

can you show me a verse that means THIS IS HOW ALLAH CLARIFIES HIS BOOK TO BE AL HAQQ?

My Question is about THIS IS HOW as I guess you mean that what in it should happen to us and that is how we will know it is the Haqq?

41/53 is the verse I'm talking about. This verse shows me how al-quraan is clarified to be al-haqq.

I said IT IS TRUE NOW BECAUUSE IT WAS TRUE THEN, ie, it is not a lie and surely happened that is what I meant by it is true now.

How do you know it was true then? Because you trust Allah without evidence, right?

If it means Annointer then All the prophets were also Masihs, or what do you think?, however remember that only one of those prophets was called as such, that one was the one who used to heal the sick by wiping them with his hands

Well, if all nabiyeen followed al-kitaab (2/213) then they must have all followed the personality of al-maasih.

well because the majority of the book is Huda and the rest are nothing but statement of facts hence it can also be considered Huda under the category of Knowledge

So when Allah said it's hudan linaas, he meant 'majority of the book'. He needs Arabic lessons, I guess or lessons in communicative skills.

you have no argument here bro

Obviously the argument based on the fact that I expect al-quraan to speak accurately is no argument to you. Strange considering you like to say how much you love the book yet percieve it in a less than perfect manner.

LOL, here we go bro, thanks for making my point by resorting to the hadith false accusation while I never mentioned any of it, I call this running like zebras, LOL

So far, you've admitted that

not all of the book is guidance
you believe in the non-guidance part blindlybecause there's no evidence
your source of meanings do not involve al-quraan at all, i.e. your furqaan isn't al-furqaan but how 'the arab world uses it' (despite how they understand words like 'salaat' and 'zakaat')
if i was a christian in one of your more fiery forums, i'd be most grateful for your admission because you've really put al-quraan it in it. But seriously, I'm not here to compete with you, just to show that your method of interpretation isn't quranic and will lead to paralysing the book

That's the only way you can interpret 5/82 is by painting an artificial picture around it which incidentally coincidesd with the seerah. 5/82 doesnt say it was the prophet who's the 'you' in 'tajidanna' but you're assuming so.

ok, do you know what book is it or you just had a guess on what books I read?

If I had to guess, I'd say it's the seerah of ibn ishaq. But it really doesn't matter. What matters is al-quraan never said it.

Because Allah said so, and because Nasaara means 100% Christians as well I dont see the Christians in year 2005 as were described in the verse and I know the verse must be right then I concluded that it must be talking about another period in life

Ah. Thanks for your honest answer. Sorry but my reading of al-quraan is different. It may not agree with the Arabs (which i personally couldn't care less) but it does agree with the overall picture of al-quraan. That's what counts to me.

mquran

My understandings of the 3 verses you quoted above

2/113 the personalities of al-yahood and an-nasaara even though they follow and study al-kitaab say the other is based on nothing. This is due to the fact that they lack ilm (laa ya'lamoona) about what they say. An-nasaara here are people who help/aid the cause of Allah but have intermediaries like al-maasih.

2)5/51

Ahmed So if you are one of the supporters and promoters that Nasaara means Helpers, how come Allah is telling us NOT to take them as friends while he told us in 582 that they are the most ones close to us?

Because, even though thier hearts are in the right place, they still consider consider al-maasih to be between them and Allah. Therefore, they're not to be taken as 'awliya' (not friends but allies or guardians)

3)2/120
Do you agree (at least) that the Arabic word "Nasaara" is used in the Quran for one thing only that referes to the followers of Isa?

No i don't. 9/30 doesn't say 'isaa al-maasih' but simply 'al-maasih'. Since I dont consider al-quraan to be a book of history, i consider the personality of al-maasih to be a personality we can encounter even today.

I rest my case for good

Oh I think you'll be responding to my statements. Call it a hunch

Don't get me wrong though, we may disagree but your honesty is refreshing. Cheers for that.

TheNabi

Peace

but I care less about that verse because IT IS NOT A GUIDANCE RATHER a statement of a fact.

Well there it is. Ahmed, thank you for proving yourself. You do not apply ayatin 41/53 & 51/20-21.

Joe

unknownuser

It is not possible for yahud to mean "guided ones" and neither it is possible for nasara to mean "helpers", else the entire verse 930 and others become shambles.

Is it possible for such guided and helping people to utter lies about GOD? What's the point of them being guided and helped in the first place? Why would GOD condemn such helpers and guided ones in 930 and elsewhere? What flawed and misleading notions Mquran and Leyla bring about to falsely interpret the verse to paralyze Quranic understandings which they themselves so dearly and seriously talk about. Amazingly, how people talk a lot, listen less, point fingers at others, mislead and get exposed themselves. Perhaps mquran does need to study the Quran seriously and diligently afterall and stop accusing others for not doing so.

al-yah?d - is difficult to directly translate from quranic Arabic into English for me because I am not perfect in any of these languages. However, a qur'?nic variant of the same word (and also translated as jews in traditional translations) is alladh?na hud?, which I can directly translate as those who were guided

an-naSara - doe directly translate as "Those who stood by, those who helped"

uzair - derives from the word wazara, meaning to carry (a ministry, a responsibility)

al-mas?h - directly translated into the annointed one, the touched one

With this information that I already gave to Danish he could have done the following on his own. I don?t understand his fuzz and his editing.

"Al-yah?d (those who were guided?) said that one who carries ministry is the son of All?h. And those who helped said the annointed one is the son of All?h. That is their sayings with their mouth. They copy the speach of those who rejected before them. All?h will fight them. Truly, they are without understanding."

Ther?s no need to read Jews and Christiasn into this when following qur'?nic language.

I really don't care who conspired but I'm certainly not going to let false interpretations paralyse Quranic application.

Mqurans's approach is, as you see, in no way antagonistic and deceptive.
It is very logical because it uses the language that the qur'?n itself uses.
He tried to tell you that your approach is not very convincing because you use an approach that has no base whatsoever within the qur'?n.
Your concept of nature does not mirror itself within the qur'?n and its concepts.
That is just simply the observable truth, sorry.
So you are just projecting personal prejudices onto a text that you did not even study sufficiently.
That?s very easy to do but it is not an acceptable methodology.
If you claim that this is not the case, then bring your proof. This is all what mquran has asked you for.
But instead of doing so you started to do silly rhetorics ..... your rhetorics are not too bad, I have to say. But rhetorics have only few to do with truth.

You should try acquiring a more sure and consistent knowledge of the qur'?n and its language before you make claims about it.

There're some things said about language in al-quraan and what happens when you displace language (mutaharrif) from their correct places. Do read about it if you can.

I'd be afraid to speak so carelessly about al-quraan if i believed it came from Allah.

If you claim that this is not the case, then bring your proof.

The proof is in the pudding.

?O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.?

(51)

So if you are one of the supporters and promoters that ?Nasaara? means ?Helpers?, how come Allah is telling us NOT to take them as friends while he told us in 582 that they are the most ones close to us?

here it is, replacing "The Christians" with "The Helpers"

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Helpers for friends"

in a way it means we are encouraged to betray the helpers who want to help us.

would that make any sense to your child my friend?

SLAM DUNK.

stillearning

salamm danish

Amazingly, how people talk a lot, listen less, point fingers at others, mislead and get exposed themselves

There are many in this forum wo will agree with your sentiment.
regards

mquran

Danish It is not possible for yahud to mean "guided ones" and neither it is possible for nasara to mean "helpers", else the entire verse 930 and others become shambles.

How does it become shambolic please? Can you please explain what makes it 'shambolic' ?

Is it possible for such guided and helping people to utter lies about GOD? What's the point of them being guided and helped in the first place? Why would GOD condemn such helpers and guided ones in 930 and elsewhere? What flawed and misleading notions Mquran and Leyla bring about to falsely interpret the verse to paralyze Quranic understandings which they themselves so dearly and seriously talk about. Amazingly, how people talk a lot, listen less, point fingers at others, mislead and get exposed themselves. Perhaps mquran does need to study the Quran seriously and diligently afterall and stop accusing others for not doing so.

If you translate 'guided' and 'helping' without consulting the book, then yes, it would be very confusing indeed. Al-quraan doesn't work in that way. What is needed here to actually open al-quraan and see for yourself how the words are used. Al-yahood is clearly are illustrated as people kindle the fires of war and oppose the revelation (5/64). So in the interpretation which you're cheering for (a strange thing to do in a quranic discussion in any case), al-yahood would be either

all jews - a racist view which claims all jews are war-mongers
historical jews - a view which necessitates the use of history, a betrayal to quranic epistemology.

Ahmed was very honest to say that his interpretations consigns a significant part of al-quraan to history. This is the interpretation you follow, if you're aware of it.t

SLAM DUNK

A sad vulgarisation of a serious subject. Is a discussion about al-quraan like a basketball game to you?