Verse 9:30
-
DanishAmazingly, how people talk a lot, listen less, point fingers at others, mislead and get exposed themselves
StilllearningThere are many in this forum wo will agree with your sentiment.
A bigger concern to me is how carelessly al-quraan is treated in this forum. People simply speak as they wish about the book, as if the book doesn't already know itself. I hope people will continue to study the book and weed out these false notions being put out.
-
Peace Danish, MQ, all,
Would like to know that when 'Yahud' is translated as Jews in English, why is 'Nasara' left as is?
Although you probably know how I am very much against leaving things untranslated and taking them as meaningless proper names, in this case I left both untranslated. Jews and Yahud are just meaningless labels. I am glad that you answered why yourself here
It is not possible for yahud to mean "guided ones" and neither it is possible for nasara to mean "helpers
I agree. Unless someone can show how they are "guided ones" and "helpers" despite all the lies that they propagate then those words must be taken as meaningless labels (i.e., proper names). If one consistently substitutes X for Yahud and Y for Nasara, the meaning wouldn't change. They are just labels.
Secondly, isn't Nasara (Nestorians) a part of Christianity who also happen to believe in Jesus's trinitarian divinity?
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.There has been thousands of sects throughout the history of Christianity that divereged from the Trinitarian majority. For example, there are many Unitarians today who reject the Trinity. We can see the main three groups at the time of the prophet talked about in the great reading
- Those who believe that The God is part of a trinity. (Trinitarians)
- Those who believe that Jesus and God are the same. (Monophysites)
- Those who believe that Jesus is son of The God but don't believe in the Trinity.
Who the third group exactly is, it doesn't matter. We have all we need to know in the great reading. The archeological evidence from manuscripts confirms the great reading. For example, a pre-quranic manuscript by Epiphanius (who is a Trinitarian polemist) criticizes Nasara as heretic sect because they don't believe in the Trinity and admonishes them as Jews and not "real" Christians.
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.
One doesn't need history to know that the descriptions given to the groups labeled Yahud in the great reading cannot imply that the group is "guided". Similarly, the descriptions given to Nasara cannot imply that they are "supporters" of The God or of Jesus who was long dead by the time of the descent of the great reading.
If one considers the attitude of Jews and Nasara in the great reading, you will find that they have much in common with Sunnis and Shias.
"Neither the Jews nor the Nasara will be pleased with you until you follow their religion" can equally be applied to Sunnis and Shias.
Don't the Sunnis say "Be Sunni so that you may be guided??
Wasn't it made forbidden to the Sunnis the good things that were lawful to them because of their wickedness and for their deterring many from the path of God?
Don't the Sunnis think of themselves as The God's favorites?
Aren't there from among the Sunnis those who listened to lies and they listened to people who never came to to the prophet (such as Bukhari) and they distort the words from their context?
...etc. etc.
So you see, it doesn't matter what the label is. It is the behavior that matters. The lessons of the great reading apply to our lives today and those behaviors can be observed today and are not some old stories.
Peace,
Ayman
-
One doesn't need history to know that the descriptions given to the groups labeled Yahud in the great reading cannot imply that the group is "guided". Similarly, the descriptions given to Nasara cannot imply that they are "supporters" of The God or of Jesus who was long dead by the time of the descent of the great reading.
Supporters doesn't mean they go about carrying God's flag, does it? Allah isn't the property of any one group. Nasaara to my understanding are people who support Allah's cause but still intermediate personalities between themselves and Allah.
So you see, it doesn't matter what the label is. It is the behavior that matters. The lessons of the great reading apply to our lives today and those behaviors can be observed today and are not some old stories.
I can't agree with you there because to me, I find the language does matter. I find for the nasaara people, they are supporters of God's cause, the only difference being, they reject deeeni-khaalis proposed by the personality of Ibrahim.
-
Peace
ayman One doesn't need history to know that the descriptions given to the groups labeled Yahud in the great reading cannot imply that the group is "guided". Similarly, the descriptions given to Nasara cannot imply that they are "supporters" of The God or of Jesus who was long dead by the time of the descent of the great reading.
Unfortunately I am not good at quoting complete qur'?nic verses out of nowhere. But you may, just like me, recall that there are a lot of qur'?nic verses that speak about people who were guided but then still did not strive for the path of All?h with their full heart.
People who first were guided and then turned their backs again. Or people who pray that they will not be misguided after they already received guidance.
I see all these verses as related to the term al-yah?d.Of course a group can be labeled as having received guidance but still not following All?h' s d?n in its fullness. It is not contradictory. Rather it is very logical because the more guidance you receive the more responsibility you will have, in a certain sense, and the worse it is when All?h even showers you with guidance but still you are not willing to listen fully.
However, I do agree with you that it is better to leave the terms al-yah?d and an-naSara untranslated and that Jews and Christians would be meaningless labels here.
Bye,
Leyla
P.S. How embarassing .... I just can?t leave this issue totally even though I promised several times. Can?t we just collectively decide and include it in the forum rules that phrases like " I will leave this issue" or "I won?t respond anymore" are just colloquial smalltalk phrases with no meaning at all?? wink
-
LeylaUnfortunately I am not good at quoting complete qur'?nic verses out of nowhere. But you may, just like me, recall that there are a lot of qur'?nic verses that speak about people who were guided but then still did not strive for the path of All?h with their full heart.
People who first were guided and then turned their backs again. Or people who pray that they will not be misguided after they already received guidance.
I see all these verses as related to the term al-yah?d.I couldn't find a verse to fit your exact description but this one seems to allude to it
Such (evil ones) really hinder them from the Path, but they think that they are being guided aright (43/37)Can anyone come up with other ayaat?
-
Sorry, just found 2 other ayat
Those who turn back as apostates after Guidance was clearly shown to them,- the Evil One has instigated them and busied them up with false hopes. (47/25)
Those who reject Allah, hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and resist the Messenger, after Guidance has been clearly shown to them, will not injure Allah in the least, but He will make their deeds of no effect. (47/32)
added comment in both these ayaat, it doesn't say they were guided, but it says 'ba'di maa tabayyana lahum al-huda'/after the guidance was made clear to them.
-
Thanks for finding these ayat.
Yes, I was thinking of verses like these.
Very good that you pointed out that it is about guidance made clear to them. That adds a different view.
I would say that "after the guidance was made clear to them" even stresses the point. If you just received guidance then your responsibility would not be as high as when this guidance was even made clear to you.
When it was made clear to you you have no excuse to work against it.The sura al bayyina (9 presents this idea very well in 98/1-4, I would say. Especially 4 corresponds quite well to the verses you have just given, I think.
Note that interestingly 98/1 has according to many translators two different equally possible translations whose meanings both apply very well at the same time (talking about the complexity of qur'?nic language).
We may have ".... would not leave until clarification came to them" as much as ".... would not be left until clarification came to them".It`s similar to the phrase "man yash?'u" which according to some at the same time may mean "whomever He (All?h) wants" and "whoever wants", presenting a very complex situation.
These doffernt translations don?t have to be seen as contradictory but could be understood as complementary, presenting a whole picture of reciprocal relations between All?h and His servants. -
One more note
I also assume now that the original Arabic root for al-yah?d itself also points to a whole picture of such a reciprocal relation.
Because there definitely is a reciprocity between guidance from All?h and the approach taken by humans.
There are always two sides to a relation. -
Thanks for finding these ayat.
Yes, I was thinking of verses like these.My pleasure.
Very good that you pointed out that it is about guidance made clear to them. That adds a different view.
I would say that "after the guidance was made clear to them" even stresses the point. If you just received guidance then your responsibility would not be as high as when this guidance was even made clear to you.
When it was made clear to you you have no excuse to work against it.I've been thinking about this. I've encountered phrases like 'when comes to them al-haqq' and 'disbelieved after belief'. I'm wondering thus about what makes kufr. I need to build more pictures before I conclude though.
The sura al bayyina (9 presents this idea very well in 98/1-4, I would say. Especially 4 corresponds quite well to the verses you have just given, I think.
Note that interestingly 98/1 has according to many translators two different equally possible translations whose meanings both apply very well at the same time (talking about the complexity of qur'?nic language).
We may have ".... would not leave until clarification came to them" as much as ".... would not be left until clarification came to them".Oh? I'd go with "would not be left" at first thought, because Allah doesn't leave people without messengers or without making a distinction between those who are true and those who aren't.
It`s similar to the phrase "man yash?'u" which according to some at the same time may mean "whomever He (All?h) wants" and "whoever wants", presenting a very complex situation.
'man yashaa' if you use the quran to build parameters, is to me 'Whom He wills'. I tried with 'He who wills', but it doesn't fit.
I also assume now that the original Arabic root for al-yah?d itself also points to a whole picture of such a reciprocal relation.
Because there definitely is a reciprocity between guidance from All?h and the approach taken by humans.
There are always two sides to a relationI'm not sure what you mean here? Is al-yahood = the people who guide or the people who approach, in your view? The word can't mean both because the form is one of 'yaf'aal' or third person male present continuous.
-
I've been thinking about this. I've encountered phrases like 'when comes to them al-haqq' and 'disbelieved after belief'. I'm wondering thus about what makes kufr. I need to build more pictures before I conclude though.
I would say that no one is destined for kufr from the beginning. It is something that builds up through your own reactions.
God?s mercy is for everything, that`s the prerequisite, but then His payment will come according to His laws, to paraphrase a common ayat in my understanding (of which,again, I unfortunately don?t recall the number aarg).Oh? I'd go with "would not be left" at first thought, because Allah doesn't leave people without messengers or without making a distinction between those who are true and those who aren't.
I perfectly agree. But when you check out several translations you will also frequently see the variant and this is not because the translators were just simply dumbheads in Arabic.
But since I am a dumbhead I unfortunately can not explain this issue too well here.
By the way, now I was a little bit fluffy, unfortunately. The variant was not really "would not leave" but more "would not stop insisting on".
I just was told that there is something ambiguous with the construction "lam yakun illadh?na kafar? .... ". If you have one of those "good old Sunni tafseers" you may find a footnote about this.
I once read a good explanation of this ambiguity and it sounded very solid to me. If I had my books with me here I could tell you .... .
Can anyone else please say something about this ??? !!!Khalifa translates "Those who disbelieved among the people of the scripture, as well as the idol worshipers, insist on their ways, despite the proof given to them."
Sher Ali"Those, who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters, would not desist from disbelief until there should come to them the clear evidence "
Pickthall"Those who disbelieve among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters could not have left off (erring) till the clear proof came unto them,"Do you see what I mean?
IF indeed two translations are possible here I would see it this way. "Would not be left" because of what you wrote. But the translations above also have a certain logic.
And this logic does not necessarily have to be contradictory to yours.'man yashaa' if you use the quran to build parameters, is to me 'Whom He wills'. I tried with 'He who wills', but it doesn't fit.
Personally I think it fits very well at many places. Look at 2/272 ff. Here he who wills is very logical. The actions of the human is highlighted a lot here.
Please also look at 13/28. Here, according to my information, man yash?'u and man 'anba are syntactically constructed in the same way and correspond to each other !!
(But someone else may correct me here.)
And here again it is the human choice that is meant in both cases, I would say.Translating it as either "whom He wills" or "who wills" is not contradictory because every choice taken by the human can only function within the laws of All?h. It is always working according to His will, no matter what the free human choice is.
I'm not sure what you mean here? Is al-yahood = the people who guide or the people who approach, in your view? The word can't mean both because the form is one of 'yaf'aal' or third person male present continuous.
Sorry, I was again a little bit fluffy. What I mean is
I opine to derive al-yah?d it from "guidance" and relating it to the verses that speak about those to whom guidance was made clear but still they have clear measurements of kufr because of their own reactions to the clarified guidance.
But I considered your derivation from "to approach" as well. And I was wondering if the original root of both is identical so that there is a deep linguistic relation between guidance and approach.
I was not refering to the form but only to the root.Until then,
Leyla
-
'man yashaa' if you use the quran to build parameters, is to me 'Whom He wills'. I tried with 'He who wills', but it doesn't fit.
peace Mquran
do you mean by "Man Yashaa" as the humans who wants to be guided, ie the mashiaa in this verse is related to the humans not God?
if so, this is exactly my understanding as well
peace
-
Peace Ahmed
Thank you very much for your insights.
I will consider them.However, I would kie to ask for carefulness when eaueting modern standard Arabic with qur'?nic Arabic. Modern standard Arabic is a language that was definitely shaped through Sunni mistranslations.
Just look at the translations for zak?h and sal?h.
The same would apply for terms like yah?d and naSara, I opine. These terms are easily deducable from pure Arabic roots and do not need to be seen as terms coming from the outside (like a loanword yah?d would be).
Furthermore the variant alladh?na hud? is in no way consistent with that loanword theory, I would say. We need an Arabic root meaning for that word.I have to say, though, that contrary to me, mquran in the other thread thinks it comes from HWD, meaning approaching, not related to guidance. An interesting option as well to think about.
I know that helpers is anSar. That?s why I didn?t translate it as helpers but those who helped. Nevertheless, the Arabic root is totally identical. Coming from that root, how would you directly translate the term, I wonder? Just deducing it from the root, not by the supposed meaning of "Christians"? I am interested in your opinion here.
The notion of the prophet Uzair comes purely from teh ahadith. Quranic scholars have always pointed out to it and have supposed other meanings to the word. E.g. Parwez equated it with the Egyptian God Osiris.
Again, I would rather vote for deriving it from pure Arabic because All?h Himself says that He has revealed the qur'?n in pure consistent Arabic. We should never forget this last fact.Hmm, thanks for the interpretation of masih. Well, at least we both know that it definitely comes from a root that means too touch. I have read too many scholarly opinions that claimed that he is the touched one, not the one who touches. But of course, I will always be happy about a conquered wrong understanding. Let?s research that more!
salaam,
Leyla
Salaam,
Amazing - someone is looking outside the box, roots, Lanes and quranic dictioneries are good, plus a little of ones own intelect.
My Hats off to you.
Thanks...