Was The Messenger Of The Qur'aan An Orphan?
-
Godbless,
You tried to fight me in the above post. But I can see that you see my point pretty clearly.consider what I say towards the end of my post about Modern Arabic and Old Classical Arabic. Yes God knows what languages people will use at all times but if it were that simple he would have made it in a language that all humans no matter what our separate languages would understand without having to analyze, study, search or critique meanings. That would be easy for him too, wouldn't it?
Godbless,
AnwarI will ask about the balagha matter.
-
Godbless,
You tried to fight me in the above post.
Salam bro
bro no fight intended, I only fight the enemy and you are not one of my enemies, in fact I consider you a brother in faith, I'm just a person with very strong beliefs and all logical
But I can see that you see my point pretty clearly.consider what I say towards the end of my post about Modern Arabic and Old Classical Arabic. Yes God knows what languages people will use at all times but if it were that simple he would have made it in a language that all humans no matter what our separate languages would understand without having to analyze, study, search or critique meanings. That would be easy for him too, wouldn't it?
Godbless,
AnwarI will ask about the balagha matter.
ok what I meant that for any langugae native speakers, most common words will be known, common and popular, and a few will not be known, therefore to translate the clearly founded words into totally differnt meanings that will contradict the Quran and the common sense can not be accpeted, very simple equation bro
if I'm not a native arabic speaker I would have been slamming my head in walls right now trying to figure every word in the Quran, but because I'm a native arabic speaker, I don;t need to do that with every word especially the common, well known, well established, clear words
Salam mate
-
But with that said, again the Arabic you speak is not the Arabic of 1000 years ago. And what you consider a common meaning is a common meaning in the era, not a common mean 100 years ago.
One of my main points is that as with all languages, common uses and commonly used meanings come and go. I'm sure that you can even admit that Arabic colloquials and their meanings have impacts on the ways that modern educated Arabs use their words.
So just like in English I can read an old text and think I understand it (generally) if I don't understand that fact that some of those words have more than one meaning and the common meaning now was not the common meaning then then I will not be able to understand the word fully.
Yateem has always had the meaning of orphan but it has also always had the meaning of lonely. Just because no-one uses it in the sense of lonely anymore (or it is not common) doens't mean that that meaning wasn't used commonly back 1000 years ago.
There are plenty of obscure vocabulary in the Quran that is not used commonly today in Modern Arabic but they were used commonly during the age of the Quran.
Look in a dictionary and look at all of those not so understood or obscure meanings and understand that the language is bigger than the 20 and 21st century. That is the Arabic that you are experiencing. You are not experiencing the Arabic of 1000 years ago.
When I proposed the grammar rules to you like 'laa ariftu' and 'maa a'rif' you said they they are commonly used. You said that they are grammatically correct just to answer me and because they don't sound foreign, but as I said to you before, alot of old fushaa survives in the colloquials(and an Arabic colloquial which is acutally an Arabic creole is your native language) where it was lost in modern fushaa and vice-versa. The fact is that maa a'rif and laa ariftu are not grammatically correct according to modern fushaa. Ask any teacher or try this, write it down. Write a composition of some sort using the negative in this form and give it to an Arabic high school or college teacher and see if they say that you are speaking colloquial or fus-haa (of course they will be evaluating you based on modern fus-haa.) Equally, phrase a sentence like 'The boys went to the park' using the verb first. But instead of saying 'dhahaba al-awlaad ilaa al-muntazah' say 'dhahaboo al-awlaadu ilaa al-muntazah' and see whether they tell you that that is wrong, colloquial or fus-haa.
I'm kind of repeating myself here but I think you understood all this the first time i said it which is why you responded with
yes but Allah is the author of the Quran and He is aware what the people 1400 years use of Arabic words as well He also know all the Arabic vocabularies that the arabs will use in 2006, therefore I don?t think Allah will confuse us rather He selected the most suited and common Arabic words to talk to humanity in all generations, I guess that is easy for Him especially He is the One who created all languages
It seems like what you're saying here is that despite the simple and obvious differences that I pointed out you want to believe that if God didn't keep Arabic the same or put the Koran in a form of Arabic that would defy the changes that humans have been making to the spoken, native Arabic language and its meanings for over 1400 years then its God's fault for wanting to cause confusion.
Notice that I said "spoken, native Arabic language." Because the Arabic of the Quran which was at one time a spoken native language is no-one's native langauge any more and it is learned in school and preserved through books called dictionaries, lexicons and grammatical lexicons.
It is not God that has cause this point of confusion for you but your teachers and mentors who have given you the wrong concept about what exactly is the Arabic language.
ok what I meant that for any langugae native speakers, most common words will be known, common and popular, and a few will not be known, therefore to translate the clearly founded words into totally differnt meanings that will contradict the Quran and the common sense can not be accpeted, very simple equation bro
But what you seem to refuse to understand is that even though it may seem like it, the Quran is not written in your language. There is not such thing as 'one Arabic langauge.' Your native language is an aamiyah or a lah-jah, the Quran is definitely not written in that language. Secondly you were train from a very early age in a langauge that is highly similar to and that pulls from the Quranic style Arabic (which is only preserved really in old scripts, very high level language compositions and the Classical Arabic lexicons and dictionaries.).
To understand classical Arabic you have to go beyond what you were trained in and understand that Classica Arabic even though it uses the same words and shares the same grammatical patterns as Modern Arabic has meanings to those words which are not commonly used or understood by even in a lot of cases very well-educated individuals.
I don't know if you have ever heard creole English, like the English from Jamaica or Creole portugues or spanish. But your natiive language is like these creoles. They are based off of English, or Portugues or Spanish (and in your case old Classical Arabic) but they have grammar and vocabulary from other langauges, usually West African languages in the case of the Spanish and Portugues creoles and in the Levant (Aramaic, some French and other now extinct local non-Arabic languages) and in north Africa, Berber, French, Spanish etc.
People in Jamaica call their creole English, People in Spanish speaking countries call their creole Spanish and peole in Portuguese speaking countries call their creoles Portuguese. So they automatically have a mistaken idea about the languages that they speak.
Then if they go to school they will learn modern English, Spanish or Portuguese.
In school they will most likely read some old text from about 500 to 600 years ago in what was conisdered back then Spanish, English or Portuguese. They will understand most of it but they will not understand alot, and they won't get the full understanding of everything that it can be saying unless they look up the meanings of just about all of the words and consider even the most obscure or weirdest meanings that even they are not familiar with.
If they have the same concept that alot of the Arab world has, that their language hasn't changed a bit since those times then they are screwed. Because alot of the books and old language will go right over their heads.
You speak a creole. You were trained in modern Arabic, and you are attempting to analyze and understand an old Classical Arabic text. Do not be mistaken and think that you speak exactly the same languag that it speaks. Do not be mistaken and think that your language is to hard to be learned by foreigners. I have had these conversations and arguments since I started studying Arabic in college and I am just as much familiar with the misconceptions that Arabs have about the languages that they speak just as much as the misconceptions that non-Arabs have about the Arabic languages. (Not the plural use of languages)
To get back to the original theme, the use of yateem is in the dictionaries and it does not make the Quran contradict itself, it makes the stories about Muhammad that are based on the Hadeeths and rumors contradict the Quran. Which means that you have to make a choice, the Quran or the rumors. Will you continue to try to force the Quran on the side of the rumors when it never said that Muhammad was an orphan? Or will you side with what the Quran can be saying over what the rumors say?
Godbless,
Anwar -
Firstly anwar
beofre you step on your high horse, YOU MUST PROVIDE A COMPELLING PROVE THAT YATIM DID NOT MEAN ORPHAN 1400 YEARS AGO
IF NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED THEN IT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS WHAT IT MEANS LITERALY
YOU CAN PROVIDE A DICTIONARY AS AN EVIDENCE BUT THE DICTIONARY MUST BE ONE THAT WAS PRINTED 1400 YEARS AGO
THEREFOR YOU CAN NOT PROVE IT
NOW IT IS YOUR CHOCE
TO FOLLOW THE CLEAR ARABIC QURAN OR TO FOLLOW CONJECTURE
YOUR CALL
Salam
-
Peace Ahmed
I'm not sure how well you comprehend english but it seems you are missing clear dialogue here. You asked
YOU MUST PROVIDE A COMPELLING PROVE THAT YATIM DID NOT MEAN ORPHAN 1400 YEARS AGO
In his post Anwar stated
Yateem has always had the meaning of orphan but it has also always had the meaning of lonely.
I hope you can understand things now. You stated
IF NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED THEN IT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS WHAT IT MEANS LITERALY
I would like to see your compelling evidence that proves yatim did not mean lonely.
Joe
-
I'm going to give Ahmed an example that may finally make this register.
Ahmed I'm going to talk about the language that I speak best - English and not discuss 'professional Arabic' at all.
Take the word "SCREW" and the sentence...
"Do you want a screw?"
Now if you read that in a text from the 1900's you would understand that the person meant whether you want a small metallic piece of hardware used to fix things together.
But if you heard it today then you would understand it differently depending on what the context was. It can still mean what it did back then but it has developed a newer meaning.
Say that the the use of the word was 80% the metallic object and 20% the other meaning.
In 1000 years say the materials industry had long abandoned the metallic devices many hundreds of years ago - and the word was now used 99% as the other meaning and 1% the metallic object to refer to these older antique devices.
The nature of words changes.
Even today it can mean more than one thing when you say...
"Kathy got screwed..."
it can mean someone swindled her out of money or something else.
Words and their meanings change and evolve. You are like the person 1000 years from now who might read some ancient materials science books and think the people back then were quite a sick bunch of people using screws for all sorts of things because the meaning of "screw" had changed almost entirely to mean the other thing.
Despite all that's been written to you however your understanding is still probably screwed up.
Regards.
Notice the OLD English meaning of screw came from... "Old French escroue ?female screw, nut,? from Latin scrofa, literally ?sow,? later ?screw.? The early sense of the verb was (late 16th cent.)."
Same thing happens in EVERY other language, none is immune, because these things are dependent on the human mind, society, and our active use of language.
-
Forgive the spelling mistakes.
I also meant 'note the use of plural' where I said 'not the use of plural' and I mean that there is 'no one Arabic language', not 'there is not one Arabic language.'
Godbless,
Anwarok man
cheers
-
Peace Ahmed
peace joe
I'm not sure how well you comprehend english
about 80 to 90%, depening on the vocabulary used, but this is irrlevent when I read the Quran because i read it in English
but it seems you are missing clear dialogue here. You asked
sure let's see what 1'm missing
YOU MUST PROVIDE A COMPELLING PROVE THAT YATIM DID NOT MEAN ORPHAN 1400 YEARS AGO
In his post Anwar stated
Yateem has always had the meaning of orphan but it has also always had the meaning of lonely.
I hope you can understand things now.
sorry, i could not find that I misunderstood brother anwar, the point is regardless how many meanings the word yatim means it was always and consistantly used in the Quran to refer to the Orphan(s)
therefore in brother anwar thinks it means in the verse as Alone then I would like to see another verse that support the idea and if confirmed, I will accept the idea, very simple
You stated
IF NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED THEN IT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS WHAT IT MEANS LITERALY
I would like to see your compelling evidence that proves yatim did not mean lonely.
Joe
well I never said it does not mean Lonely, it seems here that you are the one that is missing the point indeed, here we go I concede that it can mean alone, but in the Quran, it was cosistantly used as Orphan(s)
that is why I don't need to provide evidences that it means alone, because in the context of the Quran Yatim or Yatama always meant Orphans, I guess being alone does not warrant to care for that person, as well Mohammad was never alone
good night Joe
for truth, I saw your comment addressed to me and I will respond tomorrow ti it inshallah
-
Joe
are you a private invistigator? lol
well, I accepted it means that BUT NOT IN THE VERSE OF THE QURAN IT WAS MENTIONED
got it mister PI?
cheers
-
I'm going to give Ahmed an example that may finally make this register.
Let?s keep the faith bro
Ahmed I'm going to talk about the language that I speak best - English and not discuss 'professional Arabic' at all.
like a case study you mean, fine, let?s look at your case study
Take the word "SCREW" and the sentence...
"Do you want a screw?"
Now if you read that in a text from the 1900's you would understand that the person meant whether you want a small metallic piece of hardware used to fix things together.
But if you heard it today then you would understand it differently depending on what the context was. It can still mean what it did back then but it has developed a newer meaning.
Say that the the use of the word was 80% the metallic object and 20% the other meaning.
You are missing the following really
-
it is not humans who are talking in the Quran, it is the words of a non human, therefore, whatever logic you bring, must be a divine logic, I don?t accept humans flaws in the languages as an evidences
-
secondly, forget what the arab used to say 1400 years ago and now, let?s look at the Quran alone context, if you can get me another verse where the word ?Yatim? that is "beyond doubt" meant alone, you will give your case an integrity, other than that, you really bro wasting your time and mine
-
The English example you brought in was a bit misleading because you brought in two indentical letters words, but the case we have in hand is different
Alone in Arabic means ?Wahid? and was used in the Quran ONLY ONCE
Yatama as used in the Quran in all ?Plural? locations, meant Orphans, therefore when it was used singular it has to mean an orphan, but what makes me raise an eyebrow that Wahid does not sound like Yatim as Screw sounded liked Screw, see your example is flawed and not accurate
In 1000 years say the materials industry had long abandoned the metallic devices many hundreds of years ago - and the word was now used 99% as the other meaning and 1% the metallic object to refer to these older antique devices.
mate, I careless about all that human stuff, the quran is not human if you don?t mind, therefore you can only explain the quran using the quran, i.e. your only shot is to bring another verse in the Quran where Yatim was used and clealy meant Alone
The nature of words changes.
yeh with humans yes, but not with Allah words, I?m sorry
Even today it can mean more than one thing when you say...
"Kathy got screwed..."
LOL, sure and also Punk and Queer, were not used 1900 years ago
it can mean someone swindled her out of money or something else.
I guess most will think something else, LOL
Words and their meanings change and evolve. You are like the person 1000 years from now who might read some ancient materials science books and think the people back then were quite a sick bunch of people using screws for all sorts of things because the meaning of "screw" had changed almost entirely to mean the other thing.
Despite all that's been written to you however your understanding is still probably screwed up.
Regards.
Alright bro
cheers
-
-
Peace,
First let me say, let's everybody calm down now. ( I thought sunglasses would be a good way to say, chill).
Ahmed, I dont' know whether you like Nabi or Truth or not bu please try not to take their opinions as automatically offensive. As of now they are just trying to clear up what I'm saying.
With that said I only have two comments really;
well I never said it does not mean Lonely, it seems here that you are the one that is missing the point indeed, here we go I concede that it can mean alone, but in the Quran, it was cosistantly used as Orphan(s)
Ahmed, this is a dangerous comment, especially what I put in bold. This has led too many people here down the wrong road.
When you make a comment like
well, I accepted it means that BUT NOT IN THE VERSE OF THE QURAN IT WAS MENTIONED
I dont' really mind that you called Nabi a private investigator. lol We need a little safe humor here and there anyway. But when you admit that Classical Arabic, the language of the Quran, can use the word yateem to mean lonely and then you say that the Quran only uses that word in a certain way you have to understand that you are now forcing your opinion on the Quran.
The Quran never said that it only uses the word yateem in the sense of orphan, and taking the word only in its sense of orphan is what makes the Quran seem to contradict itself. Taking the later occurence as orphan automatically erases the seeming contrdiction.
You said that 'waheed' means lonely and that is right. But just because 'waheed' means lonely does not mean that it is the only word in Arabic that can mean 'lonely.' It is the popular word used for lonely now, has always meant lonely and has been used just like that, but that doesn't mean that yateem (in the past more, but just basically) in Classical Arabic doesn't have this meaning also.
Godbless,
AnwarThat wasn't exactly just two points but I tried to keep it short and make it concise. Again God bless you. Thanks for being here and sharing what you know and feel with everyone here. wink )
-
Oh, my bad
I can't get this typo thing together. ?
When I said ;
Taking the later occurence as orphan automatically erases the seeming contrdiction.i meant 'Taking the later occurence as lonely automatically erases the seeming contradiction.'
And earlier in my post where I said 'bu' I meant 'but'
Godbless,
AnwarCool. I hope that fixes things wink
-
Peace,
First let me say, let's everybody calm down now. ( I thought sunglasses would be a good way to say, chill).
Peace Anwar
I?m very calm mate, but I appreciate your effort trying to calm things down
Ahmed, I dont' know whether you like Nabi or Truth or not bu please try not to take their opinions as automatically offensive. As of now they are just trying to clear up what I'm saying.
Bro, I have nothing against the two brothers other than the interpretation of the Quran, I respect them and I consider them brothers, but for anyone to support another, they must bring in compelling evidences, I hardly provide my opinion as a compelling evidence,
With that said I only have two comments really;
well I never said it does not mean Lonely, it seems here that you are the one that is missing the point indeed, here we go I concede that it can mean alone, but in the Quran, it was cosistantly used as Orphan(s)
Ahmed, this is a dangerous comment, especially what I put in bold. This has led too many people here down the wrong road.
When you make a comment like
well, I accepted it means that BUT NOT IN THE VERSE OF THE QURAN IT WAS MENTIONED
mate, I need to clear an important point here, when I accepted that Yatim may indicate lonlyness that was based on the logical point that a yatim may be alone, but we also have many Yatama that are never alone, like Mohammad he was an orphan (Yatim) but was never alone, in fact and logically speaking Allah was with him all the time,
therefore and please understand this carefully, an orphan may be lonely and may not be lonely
now what is the benefit of disputing this matter that Yatim means Alone?, what it will add to pour faith?
How can we prove it if nothing else in the Quran indicates as such?
Some brought in some explanation to the word from a dictionary, now how they know that this dictionary is right? According to their understanding to 1736, how they confirmed that every word in the dictionary is right?
If they managed to trust a translator that much?, why it is wrong for the traditionists to trust the salaf al saleh as they trust their translators?
See that is what I?m talking about, if anyone including myself will raise an important matter that will conflict with 1400 years of history records then we better provide compelling evidences ?FROM THE QURAN ALONE? otherwise we will be like confused Muslims and indirectly spreading conjectures around that can easily mislead and confuse many young muslims
I dont' really mind that you called Nabi a private investigator. lol We need a little safe humor here and there anyway.
bro I was kiddin with him, I like him but I disagree with many of his interpretation that?s all and as I said earlier that is what is between all of us here, believe it or not bro the prophet predicted that Muslims will fight bad on the interpretation of the Quran in one of the history records, so what we actually doing was prophesised by Mohammad hundreds of years ago, it seems that it must happen, LOL
But when you admit that Classical Arabic, the language of the Quran, can use the word yateem to mean lonely and then you say that the Quran only uses that word in a certain way you have to understand that you are now forcing your opinion on the Quran.
bro there is no forcing here, the issue we are discussing anyway is useless, because it will add or deduct nothing to the faith, regardless he was an orphan or an orphan as well alone, will make no difference to me, in either cases HE MUST BE AN ORPHAN TO BE ALONE, but for a man that has almost 2 billions followers after he died makes me positive that this man always had someone with him, at least Allah was all the time with him, his grandpa, his uncle, his cousins, his companions, his wives, and the Arch Angel and Allah, how come he was alone, in fact there is a verse in the Quran that Allah clearly stated that He will protect him from the harm of his enemy who were blood thirsty to kill him, in fact Mohammad is the only human in history that have more than anyone assassination trials and he survived them all, I actually have a book that is dedicated to the assassination attempts on him, too many bro, He must have Allah with him all the time to escape all that danger, yet he died natural death
The Quran never said that it only uses the word yateem in the sense of orphan,
how the quran will say that bro?, it can only be understood by the native Arabic speakers, I will bring all the verses where the word single or plural mentioned and we will walk though it all and we will see for ourselves, why not it is all about learning the Quran, I need sometime to do this though
and taking the word only in its sense of orphan is what makes the Quran seem to contradict itself. Taking the later occurence as orphan automatically erases the seeming contrdiction.
You said that 'waheed' means lonely and that is right. But just because 'waheed' means lonely does not mean that it is the only word in Arabic that can mean 'lonely.' It is the popular word used for lonely now, has always meant lonely and has been used just like that, but that doesn't mean that yateem (in the past more, but just basically) in Classical Arabic doesn't have this meaning also.
Godbless,
AnwarOk brother, but the evidences we have in hand is this
Wahid was used in the Quran 1400 years ago to mean alone
The arab use this word very commonly even in public and even in many love songs, the word Waheed is even a common human name, that does not mean he is alone though, LOL
Would that be a coincidence that the word is so used 1400 years ago and is very popular now?
Now if you want to prove your point which I agree that many words can mena more than one meaning as the case with every language, then the onus is on you to prove to us, but first you have to tell us what is the objective of knowing that Mohammad was not an orphan but was alone, and how come he was alone and he had all these people with him including his parents now ?your assumption?? not to mention that he also had angels with him and the most important one was Allah was always with him
That wasn't exactly just two points but I tried to keep it short and make it concise. Again God bless you. Thanks for being here and sharing what you know and feel with everyone here. wink
thanks anwar, I appreciate your effort, but you have to understand that I?m not angry or something, I only get angry with the enemy of islam or anyone who insults me or my family and this does not happen here but on other boards, I may sound angry but THIS IS NEVER THE CASE IF I SAY I?m NOT ANGRY, this is just me and I treat all the same including the closest family members
peace be with you and sorry for any typos, I had to go to bed (very tired)
-
I never said anyone was angry but I definitely think the tone of the conversation, not just on your part was getting a little agressive. It seems like you took my suggestion as if I was picking on you, but I addressed you because you seemed more defensive then the others. I'll make some comments on a few of your points
in fact and logically speaking Allah was with him all the time
But we are not discussing that. And I think that is a bit of a low blow, because logically speaking no-one is alone but we still use this word to mean that we are not supported by anyone. Is it unfathomable to percieve that because of his message he might have been rejected and not support by all of his people at one time?
I accepted that Yatim may indicate lonlyness that was based on the logical point that a yatim may be alone, but we also have many Yatama that are never alone, like Mohammad he was an orphan (Yatim) but was never alone
That's fine. Reject the dictionaries (composed by people who on the most part know better than you because they studied what you studied and more). Also You insist that Muhammad was never alone, but you rely on popularly accepted books and stories based on the hadeeth. So you really are not proving this, are you?
therefore and please understand this carefully, an orphan may be lonely and may not be lonely
Okay, so what is your point. An orphan aslo can be not alone but lonely. Why are you playing with petty word semantics? I agree with what you say above, but no-one is arguing about this.
now what is the benefit of disputing this matter that Yatim means Alone?, what it will add to pour faith?
Firstly it clears up what seems to be a contradiction in the Quran. Because if at one point the book is saying that both of Muhammad's parents were alive in chpt. 17 using the singular form of you (anta and ka) and then it says 'Didn't we find you as a yateem and then housed you' it would seem that that is a contradiction. It also shows that those popular Muslims stories only took into account the later verse and not the earlier one. If you believe in God in the first place, no maybe it has no bearin on your faith in God. But it does have bearing on our faith in the Quran since understanding the second passage as lonely makes us choose between popular stories and books and what the Quran is really saying. So I think especially in your case this issue will add to your faith and the very least. And it will have an affect on many others who think just like you do.
How can we prove it if nothing else in the Quran indicates as such?
Some brought in some explanation to the word from a dictionary, now how they know that this dictionary is right? According to their understanding to 1736, how they confirmed that every word in the dictionary is right?
This is what it usually comes down to, questioning the dictionaries understanding over questioning your own undestanding. I looked up the words in 1736 using the dictionary and it holds. Secondly dictionaries are resources to help us undestand the langauges we speak or our studying. They are there for native speakers and non-native speakers to refer to. They are books made, after studying a langauge in its entirety(as best as the authors can). So they can even supersede your native undersanding which is limited because you have not done an extensive study on the Classical Arabic language and all of the occurences of all of the meanings that all of its words have.
If they managed to trust a translator that much?, why it is wrong for the traditionists to trust the salaf al saleh as they trust their translators?
Other people with worse intentions than you have used the same line of thought. The difference betwen salaf al saleh and translators have to do with their aims and goals. The Hadeeth were made to put in writing the rumor (i&aashah) if Muhammad and then somone decided that if they could verify the reputations of the people who spread these rumors they could verify the rumors. The hadeeth is rumor, the stories based on them are based on rumors. Whereas the Dictionaries are based off of the the usages of words in as many sources as a lexicion writer can find. The goals of translators and compilers of dictionaries is not to record rumor or to interpret rumor. Their goal is to make available in a book all of the meanings of arabic words that occur amongs the arabs, past and present. Depending on of the books wants to make available only modern use, ancient use or both.
See that is what I?m talking about, if anyone including myself will raise an important matter that will conflict with 1400 years of history records then we better provide compelling evidences ?FROM THE QURAN ALONE? otherwise we will be like confused Muslims and indirectly spreading conjectures around that can easily mislead and confuse many young muslims
It's actually quite simple if you look at it. The issue of trying to prove it to people is another issue. Mosts people don't believe facts they believe what feels right and that depends on the opinions of their family and friends, leaders and peers. Quran aloners are already generally looked at my most oof the muslim world as confused Muslims, although that attitude might be changing by the grace of God.
The evidences if you look at the Quran alone, like you say are there. I don't mean to be agressive here but you are the one who keeps pointing to non-quranic sources (not counting dictionaries because they do not claim to interepret the Quran but only make clear the words that the Quran might use based on that words usage by people who speak the Qurans langauge). You continuously point the the biographies and stories based on the hadeeth about Muhammad and to 1400 years of Muslim belief but never to the verse that are being pointed out to you. The only real defense that you have for rejecting this is rejecting the dictionaries. But again they are not there to interpret the Quran they only expose the meanings of the words that Arabs have meant by the words that they use in the Classical Arabic frame, going back to the time of the Quran.
I would only get offended by being called a confused Muslims because I don't consider myself Muslim at all, as a matter of fact.progod wrote
I dont' really mind that you called Nabi a private investigator. We need a little safe humor here and there anyway.bro I was kiddin with him, I like him but I disagree with many of his interpretation that?s all and as I said earlier that is what is between all of us here, believe it or not bro the prophet predicted that Muslims will fight bad on the interpretation of the Quran in one of the history records, so what we actually doing was prophesised by Mohammad hundreds of years ago, it seems that it must happen, LOL
And I know you are only kidding. That is why I put the smiley face there and called it safe humor.
But there you go again quoting sources outside of the Quran based on rumor. You call them history records and maybe that makes you feel better, but they and rumor records. I hope you see what you are doing. You are relying on these non-quranic sources and you are letting them dictate to your heart what you feel is right and wrong. You question the dictionaries only because they show that the Quran does not mean or promote what those "history records" as you call them, promote.
for a man that has almost 2 billions followers after he died makes me positive that this man always had someone with him, at least Allah was all the time with him, his grandpa, his uncle, his cousins, his companions, his wives, and the Arch Angel and Allah, how come he was alone, in fact there is a verse in the Quran that Allah clearly stated that He will protect him from the harm of his enemy who were blood thirsty to kill him, in fact Mohammad is the only human in history that have more than anyone assassination trials and he survived them all, I actually have a book that is dedicated to the assassination attempts on him, too many bro, He must have Allah with him all the time to escape all that danger, yet he died natural death
Does having 2 billion followers validate a religion and its beliefs. Is that why you believe in Muhammad as Gods' messenger, because he has 2 billion followers? If that is your reason why even have this conversation? This shouldn't concern you because you don't need to know anymore than that you believe in him and that he has 2 billion followers.
So God protecting Muhammad from bloodthirsty enemies and assination means that he was never alone? When i say alone I don't mean it in the sense that God abandoned him becuase God never abondons anyone while we live. If God lets someone assasinate us is that a sign that God is not with us? If we fall viction to our enemy in some way, is that a sign that God is not with us? So when is it that the trials that God puts us through and the method in which we die in a life where we are supposed to be tested and where we are supposed to die indicate that God is not with us? So if God would have allowed someone to assinate Muhammad and ifhe didn't have 2 billion followers you wouldn't believe in him or his message? I don't know if that is what you mean but that is what I'm getting from what your saying.
On top of that you keep mentioned books on the autobiography of Muhammad that are based on the rumors of the hadeeth. Why do you automatically think that these books are based on and comply with the Quran in everyway. If you simply want to reject his because it is shaking up your world, just say so and I'll respect that and there wouldln't be any need to discuss this with you.
how the quran will say that bro?, it can only be understood by the native Arabic speakers, I will bring all the verses where the word single or plural mentioned and we will walk though it all and we will see for ourselves, why not it is all about learning the Quran, I need sometime to do this though
Dead wrong. The Quran can be understood by people who understand Arabic. And native speakers of Arabic dialects who were trained an in incomplete modernized version of Arabic does not count as native speakers of Old Classical Arabic, the Arabic of the Quran. Nor does it imply that only these people will understand the Quran. Even the native speakers of old Clalssical Arabic that existed during th Quran, up to a couple hundred years after the Quran weren't the only ones who could understand the Quran. Anyone who learned how to understand and read their language could also understand it. Showing me the verse were yateem is mentioned will not prove that yateem doesn't mean orphan it will only show me that your narrow understanding of the word seems to make sense in most occurences of the word in the Quran.
and taking the word only in its sense of orphan is what makes the Quran seem to contradict itself. Taking the later occurence as orphan automatically erases the seeming contrdiction
taking the words as lonely clears up the fact that the Quran is stating that he was not an orphan in Chapt. 17.
I have answered everything esle you had to say in the above. As for waheed, it is just another way to say alone. Just because it is more popular now doesn't mean that it was more popular then. And even if it was the popular word then that does not take away that fact, like you said, that yateem can also mean waheed.
thanks anwar, I appreciate your effort, but you have to understand that I?m not angry or something, I only get angry with the enemy of islam or anyone who insults me or my family and this does not happen here but on other boards, I may sound angry but THIS IS NEVER THE CASE IF I SAY I?m NOT ANGRY, this is just me and I treat all the same including the closest family members
Like I said, the tone just seemed to me like it changed and got a little more intense and annoyed. Don't get mad at me because I addressed it. Especially when I addressed it calmly and in passing.
Godbless
Anwar -
I didn't mean to post twice and I have alot of spelling errors in some key places. I'm going to post again just because I don't want to cause confusion with what I said. If you don't want to read it that is fine and if the regulator on this forum wants to erase the two previous posts, I give him permissin to do that. Whenever I write alot and I have a time-line I always make a bunch of errors.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I never said anyone was angry but I definitely think the tone of the conversation, not just on your part was getting a little agressive. It seems like you took my suggestion as if I was picking on you, but I addressed you because you seemed more defensive than the others. I'll make some comments on a few of your points
Quote
in fact and logically speaking Allah was with him all the timeBut we are not discussing that. And I think that is a bit of a low blow, because logically speaking no-one is alone but we still use this word to mean that we are not supported by anyone. Is it unfathomable to percieve that because of his message he might have been rejected and not supported by all of his people, at one time?
Quote
I accepted that Yatim may indicate lonlyness that was based on the logical point that a yatim may be alone, but we also have many Yatama that are never alone, like Mohammad he was an orphan (Yatim) but was never aloneThat's fine. Reject the dictionaries (composed by people who on the most part know better than you because they studied what you studied and more). Also you insist that Muhammad was never alone, but you rely on popularly accepted books and stories based on the hadeeth. So you really are not proving this, are you?
Quote
therefore and please understand this carefully, an orphan may be lonely and may not be lonelyOkay, so what is your point. An orphan aslo can be not alone but lonely. Why are you playing with petty word semantics? I agree with what you say above, but no-one is arguing about this.
Quote
now what is the benefit of disputing this matter that Yatim means Alone?, what it will add to pour faith?I know you meant 'your' instead of 'pour' here.
Firstly it clears up what seems to be a contradiction in the Quran. Because if at one point the book is saying that both of Muhammad's parents were alive in chpt. 17 using the singular form of you (anta and ka) and then it says 'Didn't we find you as a yateem and then housed you' it would seem that that is a contradiction.It also shows that those popular Muslims stories only took into account the later verse and not the earlier one. If you believe in God in the first place, then no maybe it has no bearing on your faith in God. But it does have bearing on your faith in the Quran since understanding the second passage as lonely makes us choose between popular stories and books and what the Quran is really saying. So I think especially in your case this issue will add to your faith at the very least. And it will have an affect on many others who think just like you do.
How can we prove it if nothing else in the Quran indicates as such?
Some brought in some explanation to the word from a dictionary, now how they know that this dictionary is right? According to their understanding to 1736, how they confirmed that every word in the dictionary is right?
This is what it usually comes down to, questioning the dictionaries understanding over questioning your own undestanding. I looked up the words in 1736 using the dictionary and it holds. Secondly dictionaries are resources to help us understand the langauges we speak or are studying. They are there for native speakers and non-native speakers to refer to. They are books made, after studying a langauge in its entirety(as best as the authors can). So they can even supersede your native undersanding which is limited because you have not done an extensive study on the Classical Arabic language and all of the occurences of all of the meanings that all of its words have.
Quote
If they managed to trust a translator that much?, why it is wrong for the traditionists to trust the salaf al saleh as they trust their translators?Other people with worse intentions (and I think that yours is good here) than you have used the same line of thought. It is a wrong line of thought. The difference betwen salaf al saleh and translators have to do with their aims and goals. The Hadeeth were made to put in writing the rumor (i&aashah) of Muhammad and then somone decided that if they could verify the reputations of the people who spread these rumors they could verify the rumors. The hadeeth is rumor, the stories based on them are based on rumors. Whereas the Dictionaries are based on the usages of words in as many sources as a lexicion writer can find. The goals of translators and compilers of dictionaries is not to record rumor or to interpret rumor or the Quran for that matter. Their goal is to make available in a book all of the meanings of arabic words that occur among the arabs, past and present. Depending on what the author wants to make available be it only modern use, ancient use or both.
Quote
See that is what I?m talking about, if anyone including myself will raise an important matter that will conflict with 1400 years of history records then we better provide compelling evidences ?FROM THE QURAN ALONE? otherwise we will be like confused Muslims and indirectly spreading conjectures around that can easily mislead and confuse many young muslimsIt's actually quite simple if you look at it. The issue of trying to prove it to people is another issue. Most people don't believe facts, they believe what feels right and that depends on the opinions of their family and friends, leaders and peers. Quran aloners are already generally looked at by most of the muslim world as confused Muslims, although that attitude might be changing by the grace of God.
The evidences if you look at the Quran alone, like you say, are there. I don't mean to be agressive here but you are the one who keeps pointing to non-quranic sources (not counting dictionaries because they do not claim to interepret the Quran but only make clear the words that the Quran might use based on that word's usage by people who speak the Quran's langauge). You continuously point to the the biographies and stories based on the hadeeth about Muhammad and to 1400 years of Muslim belief but never to the verses that are being pointed out to you. The only real defense that you have for rejecting this is rejecting the dictionaries. But again they are not there to interpret the Quran they only expose the meanings of the words that Arabs have meant by the words that they use in the Classical Arabic frame, going back to the time of the Quran.
I would only get offended by being called a confused Muslim because I don't even consider myself a Muslim at all, as a matter of fact. That is not what the Quran promotes either. But I'm sure the other brothers arguing the orphan issue will disagree with me on this point.Quote
progod wrote
I dont' really mind that you called Nabi a private investigator. We need a little safe humor here and there anyway.bro I was kiddin with him, I like him but I disagree with many of his interpretation that?s all and as I said earlier that is what is between all of us here, believe it or not bro the prophet predicted that Muslims will fight bad on the interpretation of the Quran in one of the history records, so what we actually doing was prophesised by Mohammad hundreds of years ago, it seems that it must happen, LOL
And I know you were only kidding. That is why I put the smiley face there and called it safe humor. I still think it was funny and safe humor
But there you go again quoting sources outside of the Quran based on rumor. You call them history records and maybe that makes you feel better, but they are rumor records. I hope you see what you are doing. You are relying on these non-quranic sources and you are letting them dictate to your heart what you feel is right and wrong. You question the dictionaries only because they expose that the Quran (by the language it uses) does not mean or promote what those "history records" as you call them, promote.
Quote
for a man that has almost 2 billions followers after he died makes me positive that this man always had someone with him, at least Allah was all the time with him, his grandpa, his uncle, his cousins, his companions, his wives, and the Arch Angel and Allah, how come he was alone, in fact there is a verse in the Quran that Allah clearly stated that He will protect him from the harm of his enemy who were blood thirsty to kill him, in fact Mohammad is the only human in history that have more than anyone assassination trials and he survived them all, I actually have a book that is dedicated to the assassination attempts on him, too many bro, He must have Allah with him all the time to escape all that danger, yet he died natural deathDoes having 2 billion followers and dying a natural death validate a religion and its beliefs. Is that why you believe in Muhammad as God's messenger, because he has 2 billion followers and died a natural death? If that is your reason why even have this conversation? This shouldn't concern you because you don't need to know anymore than that you believe in him and that he has 2 billion followers.
So God protecting Muhammad from bloodthirsty enemies and assination means that he was never alone? When i say alone I don't mean it in the sense that God abandoned him because God never abondons anyone while we live. If God lets someone assasinate us is that a sign that God is not with us? If we fall victim to our enemy in some way, is that a sign that God is not with us? So when is it that the trials that God puts us through and the method in which we die in a life where we are supposed to be tested and where we are supposed to die one way or another indicate that God is not with us? So if God would have allowed someone to assinate Muhammad and if he didn't have 2 billion followers you mean to say that wouldn't believe in him or his message? I don't know if that is what you mean but that is what I'm getting from what your saying.
On top of that you keep mentioning books on the autobiography of Muhammad that are based on the rumors of the hadeeth. Why do you automatically think that these books are based on and comply with the Quran in every way. If you simply want to reject the fact that the Quran says that Muhammad wasn't an orphan and doesnt say that he is (and that the word yatim can mean waheed) because it is shaking up your world, just say so and I'll respect that and there won't be any need to discuss this with you.
Quote
how the quran will say that bro?, it can only be understood by the native Arabic speakers, I will bring all the verses where the word single or plural mentioned and we will walk though it all and we will see for ourselves, why not it is all about learning the Quran, I need sometime to do this thoughDead wrong. The Quran can be understood by people who understand Old Classical Arabic. And native speakers of Arabic dialects who were trained an in incomplete modernized version of Arabic does not count as native speakers of Old Classical Arabic, the Arabic of the Quran. Nor does it imply that only these people will understand the Quran. Even the native speakers of old Clalssical Arabic that existed during the Quran, up to a couple hundred years after the Quran weren't the only ones who could understand the Quran. Anyone who learned how to understand and read their language could also understand it. I know Arabs who are well trained in Modern Standard Arabic or the modern Fus-haa and who admit that they dont understand the Quran. So I know from experience that your line of thinking is wrong.
Showing me the verses were yateem is mentioned will not prove that yateem doesn't mean orphan it will only show me that your one-sided understanding of the word seems to make sense in most occurences of the word in the Quran.
Quote
and taking the word only in its sense of orphan is what makes the Quran seem to contradict itself. Taking the later occurence as orphan automatically erases the seeming contrdictionTaking the word as lonely were it appears in that later passage clears up the fact that the Quran is stating that he was not an orphan in Chapt. 17.
It clears up the confusion it doesn't cause the confusion.I have answered everything esle you had to say in the above. As for waheed, it is just another way to say alone. Just because it is more popular now doesn't mean that it was more popular then. And even if it was the popular word then that does not take away the fact that, like you admitted, yateem can also mean waheed.
Quote
thanks anwar, I appreciate your effort, but you have to understand that I?m not angry or something, I only get angry with the enemy of islam or anyone who insults me or my family and this does not happen here but on other boards, I may sound angry but THIS IS NEVER THE CASE IF I SAY I?m NOT ANGRY, this is just me and I treat all the same including the closest family membersLike I said, the tone just seemed to me like it changed and got a little more intense and annoyed. It seems like your tone has got even more annoyed with those caps that you put. Are you one of those people that get mad when people say that they are getting mad? If that is the case don't take your issue out on me. Don't get mad at me because I addressed what seemed like a shared annoyed tone by you and the other two brothers and an especially defensive tone on your part. Especially since I addressed it calmly and in passing. I tried not to make a big deal about it and get on with the subject at hand.
Godbless
Anwar -
Salaams and peace ..
Islamic history is a very rich subject containing many well researched and authentic data. It's not at all full of conjectures like Hadeeth. No doubt the beloved Prophet (pbuh) was isolated and banished by his people when he started bringing Allah's message. But the Prophet was also an orphan according to all reliable historical data. His father died before he was born and mother died when he was 5 or 6. This information is very consistent in all books of history.Being far too analytical about any issue invariably makes one's perception erroneous. So, it would be wiser to avoid it.
Allah Bless.
-
It seems you as well don't know that that "well researched data" comes from the hadeeth. Check again. Get some of those books and get their sources. They are well-researched withing the hadeeth. Now I am not a hadeeth-hater like many people here are. i just think that they should be put in their proper place. But you should be clear that those books of history on Muhammad (God bless him) and his life are based on the scores and scores of hadeeth out there. There is no doubt about that. If you don't believe me go do your research and you'll see.
Godbless,
Anwar