Washing and wudu in the quran?
-
i see it that 56 clearly refers to washing with water (ideally) before prayer (which can involve bowing, prostrating, and dhikr).
2277 and other ayat refer, as i see it, to physical motions to be done in prayer. this is, after all, a deen. a religion for (and of) life, a system, a path that is to be walked, not simply looked at.
i respect others' inclinations towards more abstract interpretations of these verses, but i incline towards the literal on this point.
-
Yeah, it really needs raw cross-reference. Any other translation/attempt WILL run into problems or will mislead. Let's trust the rather clear concept in the quran, that it is self-consistent.
-
Yeah, it really needs raw cross-reference. Any other translation/attempt WILL run into problems or will mislead. Let's trust the rather clear concept in the quran, that it is self-consistent.
Salaams Br's,
Cross referencing is good but can't end in itself as we are looking at someones translation, ain't we?
God didn't send this translation Br.
But Br. Ayani to you it looks as though this translation is God sent- not to me absolutely not.
On the other hand cross referencing by referring to the Arabic meanings is more credible but takes a lot more time- but is the best method and i do use that when i have spare time.
check who did the first ever translations.
it'll surprise us all.
Thanks All.
-
In other words, you did not use cross-referencing nor work within rules of Arabic grammar for your proposed translation?
simple, you often post translations, nearly all of which ignore cross referencing and rules of Arabic grammar. Please note, that does not make then incorrect, simply poorly researched and presented.
On the other hand cross referencing by referring to the Arabic meanings is more credible but takes a lot more time- but is the best method and i do use that when i have spare time.
If I may re-word a famous quote...
"It is the path of least resistance that makes rivers and translations crooked." - re-worded B.J Palmer quote
-
In other words, you did not use cross-referencing nor work within rules of Arabic grammar for your proposed translation?
simple, you often post translations, nearly all of which ignore cross referencing and rules of Arabic grammar. Please note, that does not make then incorrect, simply poorly researched and presented.
Why do you think that? I believe everybody does this within their capacity of understanding - it is the most basic ingredient for this type of work- apart from the meaning being in line with reality - which i can say with my hand on my heart most of the currant translations ain't.
You may i think accept cuckoo birds talking, people changing into monkeys and swine or sticks changing to snakes - unfortunately i think that is a very very poor capacity of understanding of life itself and quite simply poorly researched and presented- don't you?
God Bless.
-
Rather than conjecturing upon what I may or may not think, how about actually backing up your translations with cross-referencing and working within Arabic grammar?
If that is too much to ask of you, then just say so.
That is a good point- i will try to do more in future if i can.
God Bless Waqas.
-
Peace "simple",
You may i think accept cuckoo birds talking, people changing into monkeys and swine or sticks changing to snakes - unfortunately i think that is a very very poor capacity of understanding of life itself and quite simply poorly researched and presented- don't you?
JK- Well as for cuckoo birds talking obviously all or most life forms communicate with each other in one way or another and obviously the Arabic word "kalaam" does not apply exclusively to human speech. As for solomon communicating with other life forms this is very inline with reality considering learned pattern recognition. The zebras are a marvellous example who can detect whether a lion is hungry and out to get them whilst he is still lying calm in the field merely by studying his facial patterns. Regarding the changing into monkeys and pigs this is a well known idion in Arabic, as also pointed out by bro Edp, and it does not men a physical change, though it should be noted that BOTH pig and ape DNA are very similar to ours. As for the stick turining into snakes here ill agree that the translation of "asak" is probably wrong as bro Arnold has pointed out. Overall i tend to agree with you and that supernatural interpreations of certain Quranic verses are wrong as well as salat, hajj etc being ritutals which i do NOT agree with anymore. regarding the washing we'll just have to wait and see to which conclusions further indepedent research leads. GOD Bless!
-
my main concern is an overemphasis on codified grammar that was codified with an obvious axe to grind - and while overemphasising this grammar people tend to ignore an interpretation which doesn't fit their worldview but makes perfect sense all the same.
like do people seriously need god to tell them to take a bath?
is anyone even considering what simple wrote here as a possible interpretation? like read it and think about it... that's my concern
-
peace Aaron, all,
Didn't know if the question was to me, but I don't know who codified the grammar or for what purpose. I've read some names and some reasons, but they are irrelevant to me.
Perhaps I should have said, a translation that works within Quranic grammar/possibilities/boundaries.
With a poorly researched and presented translation, this is very difficult to judge, hence my line of questioning.
-
what makes simple's research poor in comparison to research conducted by any of the rest of us?
you said why? when? in this thread?
By being poorly researched (ignoring grammar and cross-referencing) and poorly presented (not broken down, making it difficult to verify).
Ideologically speaking, I have no objection to an alternative. My understanding is dynamic, not static.
what does "better researched" mean?
Googled definition of "research" systematic investigation to establish facts.
If you or simple feel there was a systematic approach, feel free to enlighten us.
-
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14407.msg144113#msg144113
Some quotes from a grammer expert.
Salaam Elke, Anwar...All
I do not think grammar was derived from the qur'aan nor confirmed by it. Arabic grammar as we were taught is more complicted than that of the qur'aan. Example is the dual rule, which is hardly recognized in the qur'aan, or the definition of plurals as human and non human. And most important the existance in the qur'aan of the specific feminine, contrary to linguistics rules of all languages, including Arabic.
Salaam warner
What would be my "reference" to check those errors? Maybe the error is in Seibawaih's understanding of the grammar of the Quran, or maybe the Quran was revealed in the spoken language (no strict grammar) and hence it was arabic (clear, undrstandable). Read this
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/language.htmThe meaning will not change. These are the kind of "errors" we use in the spoken Arabic no case ending; no dual verbs or adjectives (and sometimes no dual nouns); sound plural is commonly in the accusative/genetive , moving from the 1st person to the 3rd person...
I never thought of this before I read Ayman's article, but I am more inclined to believe that the Quran was revealed in the spoken language, and was understood; until Sibawaih complicated everything
Seems Br. Ayman has already been there
I never thought of this before I read Ayman's article
All the best Br's.
-
thanks for the info simple.
So for sake of argument, let's say Quran has no solid grammar rules, that's fine with me, but if one is translating with no reference to grammar, why not state so?
Why are you seemingly so reluctant to mention "the following translation does not work within conventional Arabic grammar rules and does not use cross referencing" (or something similar) when you post a "translation"? I dont understand your determination to find a more correct translation on the one hand, yet neglect or fail to mention a rigorous methodology on the other hand.
