No, not only are you ignorant about artificial intelligence, but you are also committing the same betrayal of surrendering your mind to others in different fields, just as they do in the realm of religion. There is not the slightest difference between you. One of you worships effort and collective acceptance in subject A, while the other does the same for subject B. It is the same bewilderment and deviation into error.
You, poor pedant with poor ideas.
No, as I mentioned in my writings, according to the tests I conducted, artificial intelligence had the intelligence of a child attending primary school. This year, it has developed a bit more and can be said to have reached the middle school level. By the end of this year, with the models that are expected to make a significant leap, they will come one step closer to human intelligence.
You are not aware of how LLM work, are you ?
So, trusting artificial intelligence is not the issue here.
Then what do you expect from AI w.r.t. Qur'an ?
In fact, in this universe, you should not trust anyone but yourself in any field. Neither doctors in the medical field, nor religious leaders in the religious field, nor other so-called experts...
Scientific knowledge (to which medical field belongs) does not work the same way as religious knowledge, so expertise does not work the same either.
In scientific knowledge, there is well-established knowledge, it is called state of the art of the field.
This state of the art is a consensus as outcome of scientifical controversies among scientists which have discarded the weakest theories and reasonings, those theories and reasonings not able to sustain facts, experiments, observations, data, etc.
Experts in a scientific area are those people who are able to explain the state of the art of the knowledge of their area.
And there is the new advances, beyond the state of the art, with new theories, and with new facts, new observations, etc, that did not really yet undergo the fire of the controversy and survive to it.
You can trust (and should) trust an expert in a scientific field when he or she explains the state of the art and be more cautious when he or she speaks of new advances in their field.
peace Anoushirvan
In case you did not see my message to Fusion, quoted below
Although you may have been referring to jkhan's translation. I personally dont bother to read his translations anymore.
If you were referring to mine then see quote above.
By the way, the reason for using chat gpt is sometimes it can be useful, as long as one appreciates its limitations/flaws. It is a tool, like many tools.
Peace Wakas,
then I probably misunderstood the conversation, sorry.
I saw a mix of LLM-based discussions as well as "strange" translations and I wondered "but where are you, guys, going ?".
ChatGPT or whatever LLM tool sounds ok in my view in order to bring out the (somewhat hidden) structure of the speech in those verses.
But as for understanding the verses themselves, I would be very cautious.
Guys, you seem to hold very funny reasonings in this thread, don't you ?
Did people in the 7th CE need to use ChatGPT in order to understand Qur'an ?
And no Arabic state did exist in the first half of the 7th CE, even less an administration of it.
There were only tribes with their local customs.
Yet, you are making Qur'an as it were to administrate something like the European Union, i.e. the archetype of abstract bureaucracy and administrative complexity.
Come on !
I probably understand why you are endlessly pushed towards more and more abstract "nonsense" you want Qur'an to be a ruling guidance for mankind till the sun becomes an extinct white dwarf in 5 billions years, or the Universe collapses. Then this would be the end of times followed soon by yawm ed-din.
The price to pay for such interpretation is to deprive the Arabic words of Qur'an from their meanings.
Then of course, you are led to blame "sectarians" without proof for having corrupted the meanings of the words of Qur'an one century or two later.
This abstract thing called masjid would have suddenly become in few decades a physical building but without any rational explanation of how this substantial shift could logically happen, except maybe that " Satan has suggested a corruption of the word".
Likewise, salat would have shifted from a kind of weed-smoking New Age connection to God to a empty ritual prayer, but without any logical explanation of how this shift could happen.
Surely words shift in meaning, but not to that extremity in so less time.
It seems that al-Hajjaj, governor of Irak under Caliph Abd al-Malik, played a major role in the canonization of Qur'an, first by making it a corpus (a book), instead of independant chapters, and then ordering the chapters in the order we have now.
verses discussed here
https//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-quran.html
https//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-sawm-fasting.html
This doesn't mean their case is settled and closed though, on the contrary.
I completely disagree that masjid is not a physical building in Qur'an as implied by your conclusion, and this shows the limitations of philology done using only Qur'an where Qur'an is not rooted in its historical context.
We have an early Syriac chronicle where as of around 640 AD, Arabs were building a "midzgitha" for 3000 persons at Jerusalem after the conquest on the place located near the destroyed temple.
So this "midzgitha" is how the writer transliterated the Arabic word masjid into Syriac and it shows that as early 640 AD, a masjid was a physical building.
And the beginning of Sura 17 reminds the two calamities that stroke the Children of Israel, where the masjid was profaned.
It is obvious for anyone knowing a minimum the history of Israel and the Scriptures that the masjid that was destroyed is the First Temple and the Second Temple.
Especially as the passage starts in verse 17.4 "And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scriptures...", so for the Jews, the meaning here is obvious.
On the other hand, that a masjid was indeed a physical building does not mean it was any random building.
It had a specific purpose.
Masjids were in fact the first colleges in Islam, before madrassa took the place, see George Makdisi, "the Rise of Colleges, Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West".
Masjids were also a rest place for wayfarers and destitutes. They could also be a lodging place for ascetics.
Among the most misunderstood verses in Qur'an, their "kings" are certainly those related to sawm or siyam.
In Qur'an, there are six occasions of "siyam".
If we except the first occasion, all the other occasions of siyam are commands to do penance for various wrongdoings, more or less serious
In view of these, there is therefore no reason that siyam ordered in verse 2.183 and followings should be considered a festive ritual, as they are considered in Islam.
It must have to do with penance as well.
Significance of siyam in verse 2.183 and followings has been lost, simply put.
And among the "king" misunderstood verses of Qur'an, verse 2.187 is the king of kings.
Here are the misconceptions to be cleared in verse 2.187
rafath (رَفَث) does not mean sexual relationship but lewed or obscene speech
uḥilla (أُحِلَّ) here does not mean it has been made lawful or halal from legal point of view.
It means you were permitted to this or that, in the sense of you allowed yourself to do this or that.
In Qur'an the verb aḥalla (أَحَلَّ) does not necessarily mean that the act to allow something is correct.
For example, in verse 9.37, the rejectors "yuḥillūna" (allow it) an-nasa while they shouldn't.
takhtānūna anfusakum does not mean to have clandestine sexual relationships but deceive yourselves. This is in relation with the word uhilla above you allowed yourselves to talk obscene speech to your women (like harassment in a modern world) but you were deceiving yourselves.
the verb bāshiru (بَٰشِرُ) has nothing to do with having sexual relationship.
It is related to the word bushra which means glad tidings.
I suspect that the meaning related to sexual relationship is because this verse was totally misunderstood by early grammarians.
It should be noted that if having sex with women (and here only with wives of course, not any woman) was forbidden by God during fasting before this verse was revealed, then there is no way God would suddenly allow it just because people were not able to stick to that rule.
And if it was not forbidden, then there is no way God would have to forgive anyone for doing something not forbidden.
So the traditional understanding of verse 2.187 to allow sex during the nights of Ramadan is theologically meaningless.
The bushra is an extremely important concept, it is the cornerstone of all the Scriptures from the Torah, to Gospels, to Qur'an.
So bāshirūhunna means "bring them (the women) glad tidings", understood instead of rafath, i.e. instead of obscene speech.
In fact, bashiru and bushra have much stronger sense than just good speech.
Their actual meaning is more like bring good news of the good promises.
In the context of verse 2.187, it means bring women good promises to alleviate their conditions. I'll come back to this later.
We come to most complicated part of verse 2.187, because it switches to metaphorical meaning without notice.
Of course, it is still possible to take them in the proper sense.
But w.r.t. what was previously explained about obscene speech vs. bring good news and good promises, their true meaning in this context is really metaphorical.
It simply means study and learn!
More in the context, it means please study and learn first before moving forward.
It is important to notice that this command "eat and drink until..." is still related to bringing glad tidings to women because after that, the verse continues with "do not bring them glad tidings while you are secluded in the mosques".
So it is not a general command describing the ritual of fasting of Ramadan as in Islam but a specific command related to the women conditions.
It should be noted that Jews since centuries now are not able to fulfill this command because this is a particular blue dye whose recipe has been lost since the Middle Age.
The command in the Talmud can indeed be taken in the proper sense, however it is recognized by the Jewish tradition that it has also figurative meanings, either related to knowledge of the divine commandments, or related to the coming of the messianic era.
This is a analogue figurative meaning at work in the verse.
Before elaborating on this, we need the following
For example, Zacharia receives the glad tidings of a son, but then is condemned to silence until the birth of Yahiya.
Another example is Maryam she receives the glad tidings of a son, but then decides the remain silent until she returns to her people, and btw, during a sawm, she eats and drinks but remains silent.
Therefore, eat and drink until becomes distinct to you the white thread from the black thread from the dawn, then fulfill the siyam until the night. This means study and learn until the divine commandments (the threads) bearers of the promise to alleviate the conditions of women become clear to you, then perform the atonement period until they actually enter into force.
Mosques were also places for retreat and to perform atonement.
Also, siyam in verse 2.187, and this is likely consistent with its other uses in Qur'an is about remaining silent and secluded until redemption happens.
It is not uncompatible with abstinence of physical food and drink during the day, but the focus is not on that.
The focus is on abstinence of speech during the day and seclusion whose goal is to amend and reform.
Now we have the complete understanding of verse 2.187
You allowed yourselves to have lewed speech against your women during the nights of atonement while you have mutual rights and obligations (garments), you and them. God knows you were deceiving yourselves, so He turned to you and forgave you. Now, be bearers of glad tidings to them, seek what God has commanded to you. Study and learn until the divine commandements to reach redemption become clear for you, then fulfill the atonement period, and do not bring them (women) glad tidings during your seclusion in the mosques. Do not cross the lines set by God. God makes clear His teachings for the people so that they become righteous.
Then we can turn to verses 2.183 until 2.185.
Verse 2.183 clarifies what is the purpose of siyam it is to make people reach righteousness.
So whatever ritual is followed by people, such as not eating nor drinking nor smoking nor having sexual relationship, during the day, etc, if it does not make them reach righteousness, this is not siyam as in Qur'an.
Righteousness according to Qur'an is somewhat defined in verse 2.177
Piety is not to turn your faces towards the east and the west, but pious is one who believes in God and the Last Day, and the angels, and the Book, and the prophets, and he gives wealth out of love to the relatives, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and those who ask, and to free the slaves; and he establishes the prayer, and contributes towards purification; and those who keep their pledges when they make a pledge, and those who are patient in the face of adversity and hardship and when in despair. These are the ones who have been truthful, and these are the righteous (muttaqi).
As we can infer from verses 2.177 and 2.183 the ultimate goal of siyam in verse 2.183 is not to establish a religious ritual per se, but to amend and reform the society.
From what I can observe in Islam, the fasting of Ramadan as it is performed makes people more religious, yes, but as to whether they become more righteous, this is another matter.
On the other hand, verse 2.183 while establishing the practice of siyam does not explicitly say how to practice it.
And verse 2.187 is not the actual explanation of how to practice siyam in verse 2.183, as verse 2.187 is specifically related to promises to women.
Nevertheless, there is a link between verse 2.183 and verse 2.187 because verse 2.187 happens in the context of an already ongoing siyam.
Verse 2.184 explains that doing siyam voluntarily (here, to reach righteousness) is a good for oneself, and people not able doing it for various reasons should consider postponing it to another moment.
And for those people able to do it but not willing to do it, they should feed a poor in compensation.
Verse 2.184 also implies that siyam to reach righteousness was a collective action performed at the same moment by the community, otherwise, there would no point postponing it later if unable to do it, as people would be able to chose the preferred moment for them.
Therefore, siyam in the context of verses 2.183 and 2.184 is a collective action undertaken by the community at a dedicated moment, analog to what was done by previous believing communities, and to which people should voluntarily participate for their own good.
Verse 2.185 explains that during "shahr ramadhana" Qur'an was revealed as a guidance to the people, and was also revealed the Furqan.
Furqan is not Criterion.
I will not dig into it, but Furqan is not an Arabic word, it is the Syriac word puqdana, which, when written in Syriac script looks like the word Furqan in Arabic script.
And puqdana means commandments, not criteria.
That said, it could also be the Syriac word purqana meaning salvation for the same scripting reason.
Both commandments or salvation could actually make sense in the context of verse 2.185, though I believe that commandments is perhaps more likely.
Anyway, verse 2.185 conveys the idea that revelations of Qur'an and Furqan were the glad tidings that the promise of redemption was going to be fulfilled.
So by the same scheme as above, after glad tidings are brought, atonement by fasting of speech must take place as an occasion to reflect and understand.
However the meaning in verse 2.185 is not so straightforward because of this
faman shahida minkumu al-shahra falyaṣum'hu
First, siyam is to be undertaken by anyone (man / minkum) as a consequence of having witnessed (shahida) al-shahra.
Witnessing a month is a completely meaningless sentence even in Arabic you possibly see the first crescent of moon announcing the beginning of a month, but seeing a month does not make sense, even less witnessing it.
Also siyam is an individual action by anyone witnessing, it is not said that someone witnesses and then all the other follow.
And shahr means something manifest. Even the original signification of shahr for moon was because it was conspicuous.
Whereas the first crescent starting a new month is hardly visible, and this is the reason why the first of Ramadan is called in Islam "Night of Doubt" laylatu ash-shakk.
W.r.t. the general lexical fields employed in Qur'an for clarity and light, the night of doubt is totally antinomic to Qur'an.
Also falyaṣum'hu literally it means let him fast the month. Again this is totally meaningless, you cannot fast a month more than you can witness it.
For those reasons, shahr cannot be taken here only in the sense of month.
This points to a double-entendre of the expression shahru ramaḍāna.
It certainly means month of Ramadan, but it also means something like manifestation of bloody or scorching situation.
This manifestation of bloody situation motivated the revelation of Qur'an and Furqan as a fulfillment of promise of salvation for the people.
So whoever witnesses this manifestation of bloody situation after having received Qur'an shall expiate it.
Again, how to expiate the bloody situation is not explicitly told in this verse.
But as verse 2.187 incidentally suggests, atonement was likely to be performed in mosques by fasting of the speech in first place.
Fasting of the speech already exists in Judaism on the Day of Atonement, i.e. Yom Kippur.
It is accompagnied by fasting of other natures like fasting of the food and drink.
In several places in those verses, Qur'an says that atonement is for a few days, three to ten days.
This is cognate to the Ten Days of Repentance in Judaism starting with the New Year (Rosh Hashanna) and culminating with Yom Kippur.
There is also an ancient Muslim tradition that the fast was initially on Ashura on the 10th day of Muharram.
Siyam in Qur'an at verses 2.183 to 2.187 therefore bears a lot of ressemblances with Yom Kippur and much less with fasting of Ramadan in Islam.
On the other hand, fasting of Ramadan in Islam bears more ressemblances with Christian customs.
Alcohol is certainly forbidden in Islam.
Whether it is forbidden to the same degree in Qur'an is unclear.
First of all, we should remember that even though the word alcohol has Arabic origins, the substance itself was discovered two centuries after Qur'an.
People at the time Qur'an was initially preached didn't know alcohol. They knew wine from grapes or dates, or beer.
They knew also the distinction between being drunk and being sober.
And of course, they knew that drinking too much wine or beer makes you intoxicated.
According to Islamic tradition, Arabs of the Jahaliya used to drink too much wine and come to salat intoxicated, which prompted God in Qur'an to progressively forbid drinking wine as well as come intoxicated to salat.
However, there is no proof that Arabs in the 7th CE before Qur'an were drunkards.
In fact, I suspect that some Arab traditions already banned wine for religious reasons well before Qur'an.
The reason is that Manichaeism was well spread in Middle East, and it forbade wine, at least for the high priests.
Manichaeism forbade wine not really because wine was an intoxicant but because of its taste, bitter or sour, which reminded how evil is this lowly world.
Coming back to Qur'an, it is "khamr" that is advised to avoid, because there is some good in it but greater evil.
Now, does khamr in Qur'an mean wine and intoxicating drinks ?
Well, if you carefully read the verses warning against khamr, they don't say this is something that is drunk or even consumed.
Khamr is also listed together with other mysterious magic practices, like mayssir or azlam.
They, also, are best avoided in the same way as khamr.
Therefore, if Qur'an warns against khamr, but not totally forbidding it, it is in relation to magic practices, not because it is intoxicating.
So I think we have two options here.
Option 1 khamr is wine, but it's use is discouraged when it's related to ritual practices.
E.g. during the mass in the Catholic church.
Therefore warning against khamr would be an attack against some Christian rituals using wine, where wine represents Jesus' blood.
Option 2 (mine) khamr didn't mean wine here.
In fact, I believe it was not the Arabic word khamr, but the Syriac word khumra.
And khumra in Syriac means amulet, or a kind of amulet.
And now we have a rational explanation why khumra is listed along other magic practices in which there is evil, and therefore should be avoided.
Peace all.
Qoran clearly states that Qoran is the dhikr-Reminder- .i.e it reminds all the generations till the end of time
"Wa Hada Dhikr Mubarakun Anzalnahu..."- This( Qoran) is a blessed Dhikrun / reminder that We have sent down-
"Saad Wa Al Qoran DhI al Dhikr"-Qoran that contains the reminder-
I don't think this is the correct interpretation.
Before Qur'an was preached for the first time in Arabia in the 7th CE, people wouldn't have known that Qur'an would be the dhikr.
But they would have known the concept of dhikr because it is a central concept in the past Scriptures, e.g. in the Gospels.
Dhikr, i.e. remembrance, in the past Scriptures meant that God would remember that the believers are under "fitna", awaiting salvation, and will redeem them.
Dhikr cannot be Qur'an as text, as evidence by this verse
21.7 And We sent not before thee other than men, whom We inspired. Ask the people of the Reminder (ahl al-dhikr) if you don't know.
Ahl al-dhikr cannot mean here people of Qur'an of course, but people of past Scriptures.
However, it is clear for the Qur'an's messenger that his message, therefore Qur'an, would signify that salvation is about to come for the believers, and in that sense, Qur'an is dhikr.
So in short, Qur'an is dhikr not by text but by purpose, and in a sense that was shared by people of the past Scriptures.
Also it is interesting to ponder over three points not commonly considered
Peace,
Verse 15.9 is indeed among the most misunderstood verses of Qur'an.
First of all, it says that the "dhikr" / reminder is preserved, not "Qur'an".
Whether the dhikr equates to Qur'an is another question.
But more important here
Their objection was
156 And they said "O you upon whom the reminder has been sent down, you are crazy."
157 "Why not bring us the angels if you are of the truthful ones?"
To which, the answer is
158 We do not send down the angels except with the truth, and then they would have no more delay.
159 It is We who have sent down the reminder, and it is for Us to preserve it.
So basically, the objection says that if the Qur'an messenger was to be sent down the dhikr, he would have been accompagnied by angels.
The reason is that, according to various verses in Qur'an, the opponents to the Qur'an's messenger believed that salvation would come through intermediate entities, notably angels.
The answer to that objection in Qur'an is basically that if angels would come, punishment for the deniers would be immediate without delay for "tawba", i.e. delay for return or repent.
And that anyway, sending down the dhikr, therefore salvation, is the sole responsibility of God , not the responsibility of His messenger.
This is the correct meaning of the Arabic expression lahu laḥāfiẓūna sending down the dhikr is sole responsibility (hafiz) of God.
There is no basis in Qur'an alone for it to be preserved by a muttawatir tradition, even if it has actually been the case.
About the origin of the word Jinn,
some say it came from Indo European Genie,
One fact often ignored is that the Romans colonised North Arabia (Jordan and Petra in particular) until the Arab conquest.
It is possible they have left there more footprint in the Arabic culture than assumed.
First of all, it seems that Issa was really how Jesus was called in North Arabia.
An inscription was recently found in North Arabia dating from the 4th CE with the name 'sy in the local dialect of Arabic, see this article "The Pre-Islamic Divine Name ʿsy and the Background of the Qurʾānic Jesus"
https//www.academia.edu/73883276/Al_Jallad_2021_The_Pre_Islamic_Divine_Name_%CA%BFsy_and_the_Background_of_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81nic_Jesus_with_Ali_al_Manaser
Then Qur'an narrates in Surah 19 about Issa / Jesus the story of his birth under a palm tree, and in Surah 5 that he could transform birds of clay into real birds.
Likewise it narrates the Mary's childhood in the temple.
Those narrations already existed before in apocryphal gospels, known by some non-canonical Christian traditions.
So clearly Issa in Qur'an, and therefore his mother, Maryam, are related to the Jesus of both canonical and apocryphal Christian traditions.
And Jesus in Christian traditions is attached to the time of Herod and the Roman rule.
In fact, the various stories of Jesus in the different gospels are deeply rooted in the historical circumstances of the 1st CE. There is no way to easily remove that from those narrations.
Qur'an, on the other hand, attaches Issa and Maryam to the time of Moses and Aaron, and Issa is made the nephew of Aaron, and therefore Moses, so Maryam would logically be identified to Miriam in the Torah, who is the sister of Moses and Aaron.
This is an issue about Qur'an because there was no known tradition similar to that of Jesus before the Christian traditions and which would attach him to the time of Moses.
There is a Joshua (more accurately, Yehoshua), known by the Torah and the book of Joshua at the time of Moses, and the names Jesus and Joshua are actually the same, but in is never said that Joshua was the son on Miriam, and the nephew of Moses and Aaron.
And it's a crazy insane theory to claim that of all those books, Torah, book of Joshua, canonical gospels, apocryphal gospels, all are fake and corrupted about Issa / Jesus.
It absolutely makes no sense, there is no proof of that, it's mere plot theory at topmost level that is only based on the fact that narrations are divergent between them and Qur'an.
Does it mean though that Qur'an forged a totally invented story about Issa / Jesus ?
Perhaps not so, either.
There is a sect in Iraq, called the Mandaeans. They are not Christians nor Jews, but their faith is deeply rooted in Judaic culture.
Their main book is the Haran Gawaitha (http//www.gnosis.org/library/haran.htm).
Their faith is essentially a Gnostic faith, where the messengers are sent from the divine realm to bring Light and knowledge from the invisible world to mankind.
Their main prophet is Yahia (called Yahia-Yuhana), that is John the Baptist.
Regular baptism and ritual baths are the major rituals of the Mandaeans.
And not only do they reject Jesus as False Messiah but in their book, it is written that Mary was the daughter of Moses
And they (the Nasoraeans) loved the Lord, that is, Adonai , until in the House of Israel there was created something which was not placed in the womb of Mary, a daughter of Moses. It was hidden in her womb for nine months and bewitched her until the nine months were fulfilled and she was in labour and brought forth a messiah.
.. and he called the people to himself and spoke of his death and took away some of mysteries of the (Sacred?) Meal and abstained from the Food. And he took to himself a people and was called by the name of the False Messiah. And he perverted them all and made them like himself who perverted words of life and changed them into darkness and even perverted those accounted Mine. And he overturned all the rites. And he and his brother dwell on Mount Sinai, and he joineth all races to him, and perverteth and joineth to himself a people, and they are called Christians
It should be noted that from this passage, Mandaeans believed that Jesus abstained from the Food.
It is not clear what this Food is (the capital F was added by the translator, there is no capital letter in Aramaic), but Qur'an dismisses the belief that Mary and Jesus abstained from food
5.75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food (...)
Was Qur'an addressing Mandaeans in the 7th CE when it spoke of Jesus and Mary ?
Likely not, at least not the group that survived until today.
But certainly to groups of people sharing some religious and cultural background with the Mandaeans.
After all, the Mandaeans call themselves "Nasoreans" in their scriptures, and Qur'an mentions the "Nassara".
So like "believers", a lot of people could have called themselves "Nassaras" or "Nasoreans" without being Mandaeans themselves but still sharing some religious and cultural background.
Now it remains to understand of the story of Jesus in the Gospels, be canonical or apocryphal, could have been backported to the time of Moses by those "Nassaras".
This is where the Judaic culture comes on stage.
Moses, Maryam, Jesus, etc. were perhaps real people, but religious scholars in the ancient times saw them first as figures symbolizing some aspects of the people of Israel.
Scriptures, Torah, Gospels, and even Qur'an, were not supposed to be the speech of God in the literal sense, but as a support to expose and teach the divine will.
Whenever they wanted to teach something of the divine will, they composed a symbolic story for the purpose of the expounding.
Those stories had mainly three components
Parables, metaphors, or allegories,that are not arbitrary but forming a code, a lexicon or a dictionary.
E.g. the west alludes to the end of times, the east to the resurrection.
Bread, vine, water, clothes are among the metaphors for the Law.
Etc.
alliterations, plays of words, sometimes gematria (mostly in Hebrew), to make an idea heard, insist on it. This is "double entendre".
And when Jesus in the Gospels says "He who has ears to hear, let him hear", this is mostly "double entendre" in fact. It means that what he just said has a double meaning based on some puns, sometimes hidden in an Aramaic or Hebrew substrate.
3.Existing base narratives in the Bible or others, e.g. other stories, apocryphs, etc.
A story made of components expounding the divine will is called a "midrash".
We can now understand why it is not mere coincidence that some key characters around Jesus in the canonical and apocryphal Gospels bear a certain resemblance to other characters in the Old Testament.
This is because the Gospels were initially midrashs themselves where the base narratives are in the Old Testament the Torah, the Book of Joshua, to Book of Zacharia, etc.
Though both narratives are different, the pattern of the life of Jesus in the Gospels still bears a certain similarity to the life of Joshua in the Book of Joshua.
For example, both characters begin their respective mission by crossing the Jordan river.
Likewise, the pattern of the life of Muhammad in the Sirah is similar to the life of Joshua in the Book of Joshua, including first a victory, and second a defeat.
The role of Joshua in the Torah and the Book of Joshua is to make the people of Israel enter in the Holy Land. But there is a symbolic meaning associated to it to make the people of Israel enter into the world to come.
So Jesus is the same his role is to make the people of Israel (whatever is meant under that name, either restrictive or extensive) into the world to come, that is the Messianic era.
So to sum up, we have a first set of narratives in the Torah and the Book of Joshua about conquering the Holy Land to enter into the world to come.
Then a second set of narratives in the Gospels based on the cognate narratives of the Torah and the Book of Joshua, narring the story of Jesus about preaching a new Law to enter into the world to come.
Then a third set of narratives based on the first ones, found Qur'an and somewhat lost traditions, where Jesus is back into the time of Moses, but with characteristics of the Gospels.
So now we can start to answer the initial question to which character is Maryam in Qur'an the closest among similar names in Torah and Gospels.
There are several Mary in the Gospels
By midrash, these Mary derive from Miriam in the Torah, and also partly from Rahab in the Book of Joshua, but I will not speak of that one.
This is a bit complicated to explain in detail, and I don't have sources in English to explain that. I have only sources in French.
Miriam in the Torah has two opposed sides.
On the positive side, she is a prophetess (in the Torah).
On the negative side, she speaks against Moses, she is punished by leprosy for that and must stay out of the camp for seven days, seven days of impurity.
In Hebrew, the name Miriam is close to another one, meri, meaning revolt.
In fact, Miriam is the symbol of the people of Israel, always in revolt, but also bearing the Messianic promise.
Even in the Old Testament, the people of Israel were supposed to carry the teaching of God to the Gentiles.
Miriam speaks against Moses when Moses expressed his wish to marry a Gentile woman.
The meaning of this story is that Moses wanted to carry to word of God to the Gentiles (this is the idea of his marriage with a Gentile woman) and the people of Israel, symbolized by Miriam, rejected that.
Jesus is born in the people of Israel to save him, so logically he is the son of Miriam, because the son is a metaphor for the savior.
Mary Magdalene is by midrash, one facet of Miriam symbolizing the people of Israel, that one inclined to revolt, worked by the seven abominations (the seven demons, like the seven days of impurity), and finally cured by Jesus.
Let's move to Qur'an.
Qur'an says that Maryam was chosen and pure, and she is a the best woman of the creation.
But there are some subtleties in the way Qur'an presents Maryam.
First of all, there is the disappointment of her mother
336 So when she had delivered she said "My Lord, I have delivered a female," and God is fully aware of what she delivered, "And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Mary, and I seek refuge for her and her progeny with You from the outcast devil."
So she expected a male but delivered a female.
A male in the Arabic version is "dhakar". This is close to "dhikr". Dhikr means reminder, and is an important concept in ancient Judaic thinking it means that God will remember his people and send them a savior.
So the wife of Imran expected a savior as fulfillment of that the promise of salvation is remembered, but she delivered a female.
But it is through this daughter that the promise of salvation will be remembered.
In Surah 19, we have
1919 He said "I am the messenger of your Lord, to grant you a "ghulam" who is pure."
1920 She said "How can I have a boy when no "bashar" has been with me, nor have I been unchaste?"
1921 He said "It is such that your Lord has said, it is easy for Me. And We shall make him a sign for the people and a mercy from Us. It is a matter already ordained."
Miriam in the Old Testament symbolized the people of Israel, both on positive side and on negative side.
Maryam in Qur'an symbolizes in a more restricted way the community of the pious, that never committed with idolatry --> "nor I have been unchaste", that is I have never committed myself with idolatry.
Qur'an uses the word "bashar" to mean a human male here, but the word bashar means also the good news.
The good news is the announciation that the "dhikr" is going to be fulfilled.
The word is cognate to Hebrew bessora, and is translated in Greek into evangilion, which indicates the Gospels.
So this is really a key concept.
In verse 19.19, there is the announciation of a "ghulam". This means a boy, or a young male slave, but this word is chosen because it sounds like 'alam, which alludes to the world to come.
So in this verse, there is the announciation to the community of the pious that a savior (i.e. a messenger) will come to them.
In verse 19.20, Maryam expresses reluctance and lack of hope
--> I have never committed myself with idolatry, so why should I need a savior ?
--> why I should be with a "bashar", the good news of salvation ?
So here we find again the expression of the revolt that was one of the facet of Miriam in the Torah.
Surely according to Qur'an Maryam was pure, but in Qur'an she still has a defect, the reluctance to bear the good news, like Miriam spoke against Moses.
It symbolizes the reluctance of the pious (likely the true Children of Israel in the spirit of Qur'an) to carry the word of God to the idolaters.
Whether you can learn or not how to pray from Qur'an alone is a different topic.
I was only responding to your OP about learning prayers from hadiths among Muslims, nobody learns prayers by reading hadiths, they learn from parents or at school.
Except maybe converts who want an official manual from the Prophet himself. But converts are usually more royal than the king himself.
And if you carefully look how people from various countries such as Maghreb, Middle West, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, etc. do the prayers, you will notice differences among them, especially in gestures.
In some countries they cross the hands on the belly, others on the chest, others do not, etc.
Good luck if you want to start a debate on who among them is holding the truth on that.
You know, even with hadiths, you can't properly know how to pray.
And people don't learn the prayers in childhood by reading hadiths.
They learn them from their relatives.
Hello,
I didn't watch the video itself because I don't like watching videos, so I'll be basing on your notes and transcripts below.
Basically, the guy has a couple of good points as well as flawed arguments.
The etymology and meaning of the name Muhammad
The name Muhammad has a Christian root, meaning "bless," but in Arabic, it has a different implication, with the name having four consonants (mimim) and originally no vowels in the 7th century
0428.
What is a "Christian root" ?
I mean, we are mixing language discussion, here Arabic, with religious discussion, here "Christian".
Does not make sense to me.
If he meant "Syriac" instead of "Christian", then the root HMD in Syriac points to "to desire", check "xmd" here https//cal.huc.edu/ (the CAL).
So MHMD in Syriac would mean something like "the one that is desired".
Nothing related to blessing.
On the other hand, oldest Syriac writings in the 7th CE testifying the raise of the Arabs mention "MHMT", not "MHMD", and the CAL does not give something meaningful for "xmT".
It can also be shown (an article of Ian David Morris that was online at a time but is not anymore, unfortunately) that the Syriac accent would likely pronounce the Arabic MHMD as MHMT, with an emphatic T.
A different mechanism, also mentionned by Ian D. Morris, would also lead Persians to pronounce MHMT instead of MHMD, and in the 7th CE Persian-Arab coins, it is written MHMT in Persian.
The earliest manuscripts of the Quran are only consonantal texts, with 16 letters and no dots, which were added later to change the meaning of words
0650.
Baseless assertion.
The name Muhammad, when written without vowels, is left with the four consonants "mhmd," which would be pronounced as "Mamed" or "Memed" in English, rather than the commonly used "Muhammad"
0712.
English pronounciation is irrelevant in this discussion.
Discussion on the historical basis of Islamic characters and Muhammad's identity
The question of Muhammad's identity and the historical basis of Islamic characters is a topic of discussion, with some arguing that these characters have no historical antecedence
0602.
There are some historical theories that Muhammad never existed, but the consensus is that a character bearing this name did exist.
However, it is fairly obvious that his life was certainly different than the narrative in the Sirat.
Note my personal theory is that Muhammad in the 7th CE, who was the first Arab ruler over Arabia, did certainly exist, but not only he wasn't the Messenger of Qur'an, but also Qur'an was written against him, or maybe agains Abu Bakr.
Only later, under Abd al-Malik, the figure of Muhammad and the anonymous one of the Qur'an messenger were merged and four verses added to Qur'an bearing the name Muhammad, at a time when Qur'an was not frozen yet.
This is my personal theory, based on my reading of Qur'an crossed with old chronicles.
The meaning and origins of "Mahmed" in different languages and its connection to the Messiah
The word "Mahmed" is mentioned 11 times in the Old Testament in Hebrew, with the same four letters used in Arabic, Syriac, and Aramaic, meaning "the praised one" or "the worthy of praise"
0751.
There is no "Mahmed" in Old Testament, see https//biblehub.com/hebrew/2530.htm and https//biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_2531.htm
Also the meaning in Hebrew and Aramaic / Syriac (Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic) is to desire, not to praise as in Arabic.
The word "Mahmed" is found in the Ugaritic language, dating back to 1400 BC, and is also mentioned in the Song of Solomon 516, referring to someone who is "altogether lovely"
0818.
Ugaritic is too old and had disappeared since long to be meaningful in this discussion.
In the 4th century, St. Ambrose referred to the "Mahmed" as the anointed one, the Messiah, who was yet to come, while Christians were waiting for the Messiah to return, and his name is Jesus Christ
0845.
Reference would be welcome.
The "Mahmed" was always associated with the Messiah, and by the 7th century, it was believed that the Mahmed would be the Messiah, who is Jesus Christ
0921.
Reference would be welcome, otherwise it's baseless.
Muawiyah's Christian affiliation and the evidence from coins and inscriptions
Muawiyah, the first Caliph, issued a coin in 663 with his image, holding a cross and with a cross above his head, indicating that he was a Trinitarian Christian
0933.
The inscription on the dam of Th, written in Greek, refers to Muawiyah as the leader of the Believers, with a cross in the upper left-hand corner, further indicating that he was a Christian
1041.
Mu'awiya certainly wasn't Muslim in the today's meaning of "Muslim" and had a faith closer to Christianity than Islam. This is evidenced from the Maronite Chronicle.
But he wasn't Trinitarian. We have administrative papyrii written under his rule, some in Arabic and Greek, and never the Trinitarian credo is mentioned.
Also he is never mentioned in the acts of the Constantinople Council in 680, while he fought the Byzantines two years before.
If he were a Trinitarian Christian, surely he would have been mentioned there.
Also, Mu'awiya wasn't "Caliph", he was "Amir al-Muminin", Commender of the Faithfuls. The title Caliph came later with Abd al-Malik.
There is no evidence of a person named Muhammad or Muhmed in the south, but there are many references to "Mmads" in coins and inscriptions, suggesting that the name "Muhammad" may not have existed at that time
1012.
Again, historical consensus is that Muhammad did exist.
A coin from around 30 years after Muhammad's death features three crosses on the front and the letter M, which is worth 40, on the back, along with the letters "mimim" and "dog," which are believed to refer to "Mahmed Y Jesus Christ"
1103.
Either incorrect or a misinterpretation of some coins. Evidence welcome.
The coin was minted during the rule of Muawiya, a Christian who was in power from 660 to 680, and the inscriptions on the coin reflect his anti-trinitarian Christian beliefs
1128.
So, according to the video, Mu'awiya was Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian ? Or maybe a typo in your notes ?
Abd al-Malik's anti-trinitarian beliefs and the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock
Abd al-Malik, who succeeded Muawiya, was also an anti-trinitarian Christian and built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which features inscriptions attacking the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity
1203.
Abd al-Malik didn't directly succeed to Mu'awiya.
The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, which date back to the 7th century, include phrases such as "Say not three, for God is one and he has no son" and "God does not beget nor is he begotten," which are similar to verses in the Quran
1228.
Yes.
The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock are believed to be an attack on Byzantine Christianity and trinitarianism, and the reference to "the praised one" is thought to refer to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad
1254.
If Muhammad did exist, as most historians believe, this inscription refers to him, not Jesus.
The pronunciation of "Muhammad" and its possible connection to Jesus Christ
In some Islamic prayers, the name "Muhammad" is pronounced in a way that is similar to the way it was pronounced in the 7th century, and some common Islamic names, such as Mahmud, are derived from the same structure as the name "Muhammad"
1336.
Arabs in the beginning of the 8th CE, and likely before, did not pronounce the name MU-HAM-MAD, as Muslims do today.
At that time, it was pronounced Maamet.
How do we know that ?
From Arab-Greek papyrii, like this one https//www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/papyri/enlp11
Here we can see that in Greek, the name was transliterated into MAAMET.
It is not because of Greek alphabet vs. Arabic alphabet, because Greeks today do not name him MAAMET but name him after something close to today's Muslim pronounciation Μωάμεθ
So really, the Arabs in the 7th CE and 8th CE said MAAMET, or maybe MA'AMET.
The idea that the name "Muhammad" may actually refer to Jesus Christ, rather than the prophet of Islam, is seen as a possible explanation for the defensive and offensive nature of some Islamic apologetics, which often focus on criticizing Christianity
1427.
I would say it's primarily because both religions compete for the souls of mankind, not because of some lost narratives.
The nature of Islamic apologetics and its focus on criticizing Christianity
Many Muslims do not understand the foundations of their own religion and instead focus on attacking Christianity, which may be due to the fact that Islam is based on a series of lies twisted from the original scriptures
1455.
There is some truth behind this.
The creation of Islam can be seen as another lie of the enemy to pervert the truth of the word of God, and it should be considered a cult of Christianity rather than a world religion
1548.
Purely apologetics.
The creation of Islam as a cult of Christianity and John of Damascus's writings on the Ishmaelites
John of Damascus wrote a book called "The Christian Heresy" in which he discussed the heresy of the Ishmaelites, who were the Arabs that controlled the Umayyad Empire
1607.
It's a misunderstanding of John of Damascus from the author of the video, but there is some truth behind this.
The Ishmaelites did not have a prophet or a revelation, unlike the Jews and Christians who had both, and they controlled a vast amount of land from Spain to India
1656.
We don't know if the Arabs at that time claimed themselves to be "Ishmaelites".
It is only the Christians chroniclers who used this word and often in contempt.
Later on, Muslims claimed to descend from Ishmael, but it might also be an apologetic claim.
The Umayyad Empire was in contention with the Byzantine Empire, which was a trinitarian Christian power, and the trinitarians were waiting for the Messiah to reappear
1721.
Not only the trinitarians, but all sects.
The Umayyad Empire's conflict with the Byzantine Empire and the introduction of the Shahada
The antitrinitarians, led by Abd al-Malik, built the Dome of the Rock in 691, which featured inscriptions without dots or vowels, and introduced the Shahada as an attack against the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity
1757.
Well, as a matter of fact, Abd al-Malik surely cared little of the Byzantine Empire.
The Byzantine Empire wasn't a threat to him at that time.
On the other hand, Abd al-Malik had to face a lot of revolts, that of Ibn Zubayr, that of the Kharijites, and so on.
So it's more likely for internal reasons that the Dome of the Rock was built.
The Shahada was also introduced on coins by Abd al-Malik, and John of Damascus wrote "The Heresy of the Ishmaelites" in response to the growing threat of Islam
1814.
The Heresy of the Ishmaelites in the book of John of Damascus is only a chapter among many ones dedicated to the heresies.
We focus on it because it's intriguing nature about early Islam but it certainly wasn't the core of the book.
Muhammad's identity and its connection to the concept of "mahmad"
Muhammad's identity is tied to the concept of the "mahmad," a prophetic figure expected by the people of Abraham, and this is why Muslims claim that Muhammad is the fulfillment of this expectation
1859.
References about this "mahmad" outside would be welcome.
Otherwise it's baseless.
The name "Muhammad" is in contradistinction to "mmed," with the latter referring to the anointed one, and the former referring to a prophet
1909.
Unclear
The concept of "jah" and its evolution
The concept of "jah" originally referred to a state of ignorance in one's own heart, but it was later reformed to refer to a people called "jahia"
1929.
Unclear.
The composition of the Quran and its borrowing from other sources
The Quran is composed of stories and writings borrowed from Jewish fables, apocryphal writings, lectionaries, homilies, and hymns to Jesus Christ, with the name "Jesus Christ" replaced by "Nabi" and "Ras"
1955.
Based on an overall misunderstanding of Qur'an and greatly helped by the fact that Islam does not understand what Qur'an actually says.
The development of Muhammad's biography and the later documentation of Islamic saints
The backstory of Muhammad's biography took 70 years to create, and it was first written down by Ibn Hisham in 833
2022.
It is likely that Ibn Hisham, who based himself on his master Ibn Ishaq, did not create all the biography out of the box.
There were likely oral narratives circulating among religious scholars.
The saints of Islam were not written down until 40 years after Muhammad's biography was established
2032.
Same as above.
The lack of early biographical sources for Muhammad and the origins of the Hadith
There is no biography of Muhammad from the 9th century, and the Hadith from Sahih Muslim, Ibn Majah, or Sahih Bukhari do not exist from that time period
2040.
Well, it is unlikely that all hadiths were composed after 9th CE.
There surely have been a core of them that were already in use in the 7th CE.
There is some consensus about this fact among historians.
The origins of these documents are now known, and they do not come from the 9th century, but this information will be discussed at a later
Without clear references, this is baseless.
Now some general remarks on my side.
There are indeed concerns regarding the name Muhammad.
First of all, there is the issue of its early pronunciation, Maamet, that doesn't fully match the written form.
And there is the issue of its meaning from litteral Arabic, "the praiseworthy" or "whom is praised", this is completely meaningless if we accept to face the reality.
Even its cognate meanings in Syriac, like "the one who is desired" are also meaningless.
I have another hypothesis that better explains the early pronunciation, the earliest coins, and also bears a more meaningful signification.
Another remark is that the Christians, every time they see something that looks like a bit like a Messiah, they cry out "Jesus !", while Jews also are waiting for a Messiah, although not like Jesus.
It's remarkable that the pitch of the video is motivated by the desire to drag Muslims to Christianity, and especially evangelical Christianity, rather than by mere historical truth.
This is not really a matter of knowing Arabic here.
It's a matter of clarifying the underlying and hidden assumptions you use for understanding or translating Qur'an.
If your assumption is that this verse is about to fix falsehood in the Bible and convince the Jews to join Islam, as the Islamic tradition or most people here claim, then go to the Jews, and see if they are convinced by this way (hint they are not, so it's sheer failure).
If you don't care what the Jews think, then whatever translation is fine. Pick one and move forward.
If your assumption is that Qur'an narrates a story of the former messengers to endorse the mission of Muhammad, then again whatever translation will be fine.
In fact, if you don't really use this verse for yourself for what it means, any reasonable translation can be fine and is only a matter of personal preference in resonance with your own ideas.
On the other hand, if you instinctively believe that this verse, like the others, tries to teach you something of the divine will that applied to the fellow citizens of the Qur'an messenger and possibly beyond, then you need to perform substantial work and knowing Arabic is a tiny fraction of it.
For the sequel of this post, let's assume this verse tried to teach something about the divine will to the fellow citizens of the Qur'an preacher.
Then you need to realize that there were no Islam or Muslim traditions yet at that time.
Teaching something drawn from the Jewish tradition, like the story of Moses, would have made utter nonsense if those fellow citizens knew nothing of the Jewish teachings.
Most of us, and even the Jews today, are unfamiliar with the ancient Jewish teachings and we are struggling to make something meaningful out of Qur'an statements about Biblical stories.
So it would have been the same in the 7th CE and maybe even worse.
Therefore, logically, the hard work is to understand how ancient Jews used to teach the divine will in order to grasp the true meaning of the verse.
The way they used to teach the divine will is called "midrash", and this is what you need to learn in order to fully understand the meaning of this verse.
A midrash was an expounding of the divine will based on three components
Btw, the third bullet above is responsible for the seemingly divergences between the Bible and the Qur'an that a lot of people mistakenly believe to be "fixing of false Bible" by Qur'an while it was never the intent.
So what does this verse 7.141 mean by this analysis ?
It first says that Pharaoh killed the sons.
The son in the Scriptures means the Saviour, the Messiah, the Redeemer.
In Qur'an, it means a messenger.
Whenever you read stories where people desperately await for a son, e.g. Abraham, Zakaria, etc, it means it is a teaching about the coming of the Saviour.
With the Saviour comes also the entrance into the World to Come, the inheritance of the land, and a new divine Law that alleviates the (harsh) conditions of this worldly life.
The coming of the Saviour means also that the other nations will benefit from the newly alleviated divine Law.
Therefore barring the coming of the Saviour is an extremely serious misdeed in the sense that it will deprive the nations from receiving the divine Law.
This is a transversal teaching throughout all the Scriptures including Qur'an.
Next, regarding women, the translation of the Monotheist group is not absurd.
They were left ashamed, so it could be from rape or something else shameful.
What was actually done to them is not the point though.
The important point is that they were left ashamed.
The shame or the nudity is in the ancient Jewish teachings is the absence of clothes made of the divine Law.
Also the women usually means the pagan nations, i.e. those that were not given the divine Law.
So Pharaoh in this verse has killed the hope in the coming of a Saviour, i.e. a messenger from God, and the World to Come, and has barred the nations from receiving the divine Law.
That is what this verse means.
Now, of course, this verse wasn't addressed to Pharaoh but to the fellow citizens of the Qur'an messenger.
They were those targeted by this verse.
Now, the question remains of what they did so they were compared to Pharaoh.
Unfortunately there is no way to answer that question based on the history narrated by the Muslim tradition.
Salaam,
None of the verses in your article actually ban slavery. Most of the verses are calling on people not to worship any other deities besides God. The word used in these verses is 'Abd. This is not the same word used by the Quran (raqabah) when talking about freeing slaves.
Salam,
I agree with you that Qur'an doesn't clearly ban slavery, and claims that it does, in my opinion, are inspired by a great heart, but are mere wishful thinking.
It looks like more the conditions on which people could be made into slavery that are criticized than the principle of slavery itself.
I see several reasons why Qur'an doesn't clearly ban slavery
At that time, 7th CE, especially in Arabia, slavery was not perceived as crime against humanity as it is today.
Surah 2 testifies that the early muslim community was on the process to define legal rulings in the mosques, but this task might have been not achieved when Qur'an itself was frozen. By that time, it became a sacred book and could not be updated anymore.
Also they had to face troubles and war, which surely didn't help.
With more quiet conditions, it could have been possible to see clearer rulings about slavery into Qur'an.
Also the Nessana papers discovered some years ago, and dated back from the end of the 7th CE show that in fact, when you had a work contract to work for someone, you had a status very close from slavery.
So people at that time didn't fully distinguish a work contract from slavery, let's say, because you were captured in war.
When you worked for someone, you were his / her slave.
Hello,
Coming back to the topic.
I want to list these miraculous events and ask everyone for their opinions as short. Do you believe in the literal translation, or do you have another interpretation? and if yes why do you believe these are Allegorical in understanding?
Those are obviously allegorical, but their understanding must not be done by guessing or at random.
The first point is to understand to whom the message was delivered in first place (i.e. not us in 21st CE) and what was their religious background.
We know today that Arabia at the beginning of the 7th CE was not polytheistic.
Qur'an message was therefore not addressed to polytheists.
We can even understand that from internal understanding of Qur'an in numerous places, Qur'an talks to "children of Israel". Most of the narrations are about biblical characters.
I will not show it here because it would be too long, but those "children of Israel" were actually Gnostics, so they practised a kind of Judaism that disappeared (or more accurately, became Islam as we know today), that Judaism was different from Rabbinic Judaism we know today.
We can think of this prior religion that saw emergence of Qur'an like a kind of Marabout Jewish Sufism with witchcraft and / or kabbalistic practices (like Islamic Sufism does in some countries).
With that background in mind, we have to learn how ancient Jewish scholars understood the Scriptures they didn't explain them through Greek or Latin philosophical pitch as we are used to, but mostly through new stories.
The process of explaining the Scriptures, the Divine Law, the Divine will at ancient Jewish scholars is called "midrash" (this word is cognate to Arabic madrasa).
So we need to learn and understand the Jewish midrash in order to grasp how the ancient Jewish scholars understood the Scriptures, hence to understand Qur'an.
This is why the interpretations of G.A. Perwez are mostly wrong.
Reference Quran 2663 (Arabic "فَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَىٰ مُوسَىٰ أَنِ ٱضْرِب بِعَصَاكَ ٱلْبَحْرَ فَٱنفَلَقَ فَكَانَ كُلُّ فِرْقٍ كَٱلطَّوْدِ ٱلْعَظِيمِ", English "So We inspired to Moses, 'Strike with your staff the sea,' and it split, and each part became like a great mountain."
Traditional Interpretation A miraculous intervention by God, displaying His power to save Moses and the Israelites by parting the sea.
The staff is in principle the symbol of the lawgiver or ruler (I got that in a book in French, Germain Bienaimé Moïse et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne, which itself refers to the Document of Damas).
The sea in ancient Jewish thinking usually symbolizes idolatry (because water is salty and cannot be drunk, unlike sweet water which symbolizes the divine Law and can be drunk at will).
The mountain usually symbolizes the Law (because the Law was given to Moses on a mountain, the mountain is also the connection between Earth and Heavens).
In addition to these Jewish symbols, it's likely that Qur'an wants us to hear "furqan" in "firqin" / part, because furqan means salvation (and not criterion like I often sees in translations).
Also Tawd / mountain is the only place where this word is used, I suspect that audience in the 7th CE knew also Syriac where tawd means religion or belief.
Basically this is allegory of Moses as lawgiver to the Children of Israel turned idolatry into Law and salvation.
GA Perwez's interpretation misses the whole point of this passage that Mary is reluctant to welcome the good news of the birth of Jesus.
Mary is not physical person, or does not need to be.
She symbolizes the community of the pious (the "muttaqi" that is free from idolatry, i.e. virgin) that is reluctant to accept the leading role of guiding people to world to come.
Qur'an uses the world "ghulam" for boy instead of usual "bin", which seems a curious choice.
But the reason is that ghulam is graphically close in Arabic to 'alam which means world.
In the Jewish thinking, the olam haba is the world to come, i.e. the fulfillment of the promise of salvation.
GA Pervez
GA Perwez's interpretation is mostly correct here.
I don't know what this one refers to, I'm not even sure it speaks of Qur'an messenger, seems rather Moses.
This verse is not about the creation of human species per se.
First of all, human being is the translation of "bashar", which is cognate to "bushra" which means good news.
Bushra, i.e. bessora in Hebrew, that has given evangelion in Greek, is a very important concept of the ancient Jewish thinking.
It is the annonciation of the salvation, end of exile, redemption, coming of the Messiah, etc.
The clay is a raw material, i.e. without knowledge of the divine Law, so again, it symbolizes idolatry.
It needs the Holy Spirit (the breath of God) to turn it into annonciation of salvation.
The story of Solomon and the ants exists also a Jewish midrash, though it is not clear who influenced who.
In fact, naml in Arabic means ant but also lie.
So the story is an allegory about Solomon destroying lies with truth without even caring.
Traditional Interpretation Noah is one of the longest-lived prophets in Islamic tradition. According to the Quran, he preached to his people for 950 years before the great flood occurred. This extended lifespan is seen as a testament to his perseverance in delivering God's message despite the continued disbelief of his people.
Reference Quran 2914 (Arabic "وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ فَلَبِثَ فِيهِمْ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ إِلَّا خَمْسِينَ عَامًا فَأَخَذَهُمُ الطُّوفَانُ وَهُمْ ظَالِمُونَ", English "And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers."
I don't know about this one.
I have given an example translation from GA Pervez which is sort of complete extreme version of not taking things literally and my understanding differs from his but I quoted him as an example
For example His interpretation of the chapter 105 The elephand which atleast I grew up understanding from my elders is quite different I was told to believe the literal translation that أَبَابِيلَ i do not know carrying stones protected the sacred site by pelting the army, leading to their destruction.
See below
SURAH 105 Al-Fîl
This one is complicated.
For those who read French, here is a theory about it, that I don't share though https//www.lechampdumidrash.net/hadith-et-tradition-musulmane/les-elephants/
5116
And behold! Allah will say "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden
It's just someone's translation.. But no one accepts as Christians or catholic that they consider Mary as god.. They claim it was neither in the past too.. Why God say Mary as god... Yes we all know some group highly sanctify Mary but not claim as god like they claim Jesus as god..
Any comments pls...
Salam,
This verse doesn't target Christians, who never took Mary as a god, but Gnostics.
Some Gnostic sects (though not all) had a concept of Trinity made of the Father (so God to speak), the Mother (symbolizing wisdom, sometimes called Sophia, not Mary), and the Son (so Jesus to speak).
Gnosticism doesn't exist anymore because, well, it has significantly evolved to make Islam as we know today under the pressure of Qur'an.
Khamr in verse 2219 (and verse 590 by the same way) has nothing to do with wine, alcohol and other kind of intoxicants.
In fact, there are two distinct uses of the word khamr in Qur'an.
One use of khamr, corresponding to its usual Arabic meaning, means wine as in verse 4715.
The other use in verses 2219 and 590 is not an Arabic word (or does not come from Arabic) and means something else that I will come to.
Despite alleged Qur'anic claim that Qur'an is in pure Arabic language, Qur'an actually contains a lot of words from other origins.
Such is khamr in verses 2219 and 590 which does not come from Arabic but from Syriac.
In Syriac, the word khumra has different meanings, but the most interesting one is "amulet', see the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.
https//i.postimg.cc/brMF5WzP/Capture-d-cran-2021-05-13-182922.png
Amulet is exactly what Qur'an means in verses 2219 and 590, this meaning perfectly fits into the textual context where Qur'an despises magical practices.
What is at stake here ?
Despite what Islamic tradition alleges, the milieu of the Qur'an preacher was not a polytheist one (like e.g. Hindus or Ancient Greeks) but a Gnostic one.
Gnostics belonged to Jewish and Christian traditions, though with some twists compared to Judaism and Christianity as we know them today.
There are numerous hints to Gnostics beliefs in Qur'an, but the most important ones are that Gnostics believed that salvation happens through knowledge of the unseen (a belief that Qur'an rejects), Gnostics despised the (divine) Law (whereas Qur'an insists that the divine Law is fundamental to salvation), and Gnostics practiced Magic a lot, which Qur'an vehemently rejects.
In fact, if you want to know what Islam before Qur'an looked like, it would probably have looked like marabout practices in Maghreb today, which is a mix of Sufism (which itself is a survival of the ancient Gnostic beliefs into Islam) and Magic.
Also, contrary to what Islamic tradition alleges, Qur'an was written after Arabs started to found a kingdom in Near and Middle East, not before.
The problem those Arabs were confronted to is how to rule those new lands.
They didn't have a good basis and thinking to establish the Law (since, as Gnostics, they didn't devise so much on that topic).
It is therefore likely that they sometimes resorted to Magic for legal matters.
This is where Qur'an entered into the game by preaching and saying that they had to take the question of the Law, i.e. the Deen, very seriously.