8:41 the day of the Criterion,the day the two armies clashed
-
Peace
The day of Furqan is the day of Badr Battle as far as I know and on that Day "the Muslims established their power" and it is called Furqan because the fine line between the Haqq and Batil has been established by showing that the minority of the believers will fight for the Haqq against the Batil and can win easy regardless numbers
Al Jamaan, are the two fighting parties, the believers and the enemies of Haqq
so I say the translation is satisfactory
peace
-
peace .
but this understanding is based entirely on traditions .Peace bro
so?
i mean can you elaborate?, unless you consider all the traditions "Asatir Al Awalin" as lies and made up stories?
well I guess for someone like you, if it is tradition, then reject, reject and reject even if it was right then make up a new understanidng to yourself and reject the possibly right one, the Quran actually mentioned these type of believers
peace
-
Peace Brother Saladin
You reminded me with this vers,e but I hope first that you don?t take my comment as an offence or a comment about you specifically, see, when I explain some of the Quran verses that is based on hard core history facts, they accuse me of following traditions, as if these traditions that happened during the early people time and during the time of the prophet are absolute lies and nothing story tales that never happened, the story tales of these early people is actually called " " pronounced ?Asatir Al Awalin?, i.e. the tales of the ancient people, i.e. the traditions, now let?s look at this verse from the Quran
?Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers say These are nothing but tales of the ancients."
(25)
-> See bro how it may be closely matching our conversation?, but honestly man, i hope it does not match at all, because you can see clearly how the verse ended
Peace be with you
-
Ahmed,
How do you know for certain that 625 talks about tradition? Doesn't it seem more logical that it refers to the Quran itself, i.e. that the unbelievers would say that the Quran are but tales of the ancients. I see no reference to this verse talking about anything but the Quran, and therefore lets not use it to prove the tradition. Please elaborate...
-
peace bro Ahmed.
Peace Brother Saladin
You reminded me with this vers,e but I hope first that you don?t take my comment as an offence or a comment about you specifically,
no offence taken )
?Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers say These are nothing but tales of the ancients."
(25)
-> See bro how it may be closely matching our conversation?, but honestly man, i hope it does not match at all, because you can see clearly how the verse ended
but bro , i m saying the very opposite of what the unbelievers in the aya are saying about the ayat . i m saying 'maybe this ayah should not be a tale of the ancient ' .
EDITED
-
Peace
The word asatir does means tales . It comes from the root sin-ta-ra (wrote/ruled).
The word awalin does mean ancients. It's root is alif-waw-lam (to restore to). The two words are paired a few times in the reading.
Joe
peace Joe .
i m not saying that ?Asatir Al Awalin? doesnt mean "tales of the ancient" . i m saying that maybe the verse is not about the battle of badr . -
Ahmed,
How do you know for certain that 625 talks about tradition? Doesn't it seem more logical that it refers to the Quran itself, i.e. that the unbelievers would say that the Quran are but tales of the ancients. I see no reference to this verse talking about anything but the Quran, and therefore lets not use it to prove the tradition. Please elaborate...
Peace bro
I don't understand what you mean by could it be the Quran utself?
for the traditions part, it really m akes no difference knowing what parties the war was between or even what war it is, it won't add anything to the belief in Allah really, therefore I don't use the Quran to prove the tradition, this is an unreasonable statement by you, I only listen to what the majority say and if it makes sense then I accept it, but if the traditions does not make sense, I don't accept it, I don't need to prove any traditions bro
thanks
-
peace bro Ahmed.
no offence takenlol cheers
but bro , i m saying the very opposite of what the unbelievers in the aya are saying about the ayat . i m saying 'maybe this ayah should not be a tale of the ancient ' .
EDITED
well bro it it said that it happened about 1400 years ago, how it can't be a tale of the ancient for us in year 2006?
peace mate
-
but bro , i m saying the very opposite of what the unbelievers in the aya are saying about the ayat . i m saying 'maybe this ayah should not be a tale of the ancient ' .
EDITED
well bro it it said that it happened about 1400 years ago, how it can't be a tale of the ancient for us in year 2006?
salam bro .
by 'tales of ancient' , i meant the tale of badr .has anyone here watched Muhammad Shiekh's lecture on 'zakat/sadaqah' ? actually he gave a different explanation of this verse and i have forgotten it . i will have to wait to get the lecture DVD back from my friend so i can look it up . that is why i asked this question here .