Thank you for your post.
My understanding of 2.30 is that human is a khalifah on earth. Thats a very big thing, as that makes human rule the earth.
That makes every human special and makes us understand how big responsibility and freedom God has given man.
Noon waalqalami
For those who have studied it's 100% clear without doubt every word that nisaa are females and only females...
So nesa does not mean 'women' according to you either ? ;D
If address mixed crowd saying "marry from the women" it's a no brainier who is being told.
Therefore you have no valid point! Likewise, why be a coward like Shirley and not finish it?
41 O you al-nas/the humankind fear your Lord the One who created you from soul one (f) and created from it its spouse and dispersed from them two rijalan/men much wanisan/and Homo sapiens?
43 and if you fear that not do justice in the orphans so marry what aba (lawful or agree) to you from the Homo sapiens paired/twos and three and quadruplet/group of four so if you fear that not do justice so one (feminine)?
47 lilrrijal/to the men a share from what left the parents and the close relatives and for the Homo sapiens a share from what left the parents and the close relatives from what small from it or large portion obligatory
422 and not you marry whom married fathers yours from the Homo sapiens?
423 prohibited upon you mothers yours and daughters yours and your sisters... and mothers nisakum/Homo sapiens yours? and your step daughters the ones whom in your guardianship from nisakum/Homo sapiens yours the ones whom entered in them so if not you were entered in them so not blame upon you...
4176 ... and if were siblings rijlan/men wanisan/and Homo sapiens?
falildhakari/so to the male like share al-unthayayni the two (feminine)
Peace -- the topic is nisaa, so get to the word in question and make sure it fits in verses above.
A Classical example of someone deliberately missing the point..................................
Reject it, but give alternate translation so that the visitors realize who of all is stupid, irrational and mindless. First five occurrences are pasted there in the thread. Have courage and put your translation for this singular word in the Ayah.
You cannot solve a problem if you don't recognize it................... So first recognize what a word can possibly not mean, then identify the flaws of the context and identify what sorrounding words may mean in another possible manner... in that way you would come across the true meaning of a word........... Shirley has taken the first step... he/she has recignized that Nesa cannot mean 'women' and now the next step would ber to identify the meaning of sorrounding words like abna2, rijaal, qowm and so on and then in the end when we have put it all in context we would know what Nesa means.
But dudes.. the discussion right now is what nisa cannot mean.. not what nisa means.. that would be discussed after an agreement to the first part...
Salaam Sunnah Hero and Thanks For Your Posts. It's always a pleasure.
Actually, I don't take either one of those guys seriously. How can I? It always happens in a forum such as this where some people only function as Discouragers and Moles especially when they simply Cannot refute that which challenges their position. I have asked from PAGE 1 of this thread for the defenders of the status quo to answer and refute the points I had reiterated two posts back. They Didn't. They didn't even approach them. Neither did they attempt to answer the questions I asked concerning the logic behind marrying a woman to help her.
So what do we get? We have the Mullah of Free-Minds asking moderators to assist him in burying his head in the sand and we have another person who obviously posts verses from a word-for-word translation and wishes to pass that off as Arabic knowledge. So again, how can I take them seriously? This is the reason that I am not paying either one of them any attention. If what I am saying is absurd and erroneous then why don't they just PROVE IT and get it over with?? I have repeated those same summarized points on more than one occasion in this thread and Wakas and his crew simply WILL NOT touch them. nope
In case this noon guy didn't get it, I'm going to repeat something you said Sunnah Hero
Which is Exactly why I don't bother with him or that Mazhar guy. I reject the traditional translation of the word Nisaa and they are presenting me that same traditional translation as if I'm supposed to accept it because They are presenting it.
whatever
==================================================================
Basically what Dr. QZ and the Aastana members are doing is something I realized must be done even when I was still a sunni, and that is we are Starting All Over From Scratch!! The people who altered and defaced the message did so by starting from scratch and they were very methodical about it. WE have to do the same thing IF we want to perform the correct surgery in order to repair The Quran's message and image.
"The Quran is NOT a Religious book geared towards men alone. It is a book of Social Justice geared towards women and men equally.The Quran is a document outlining the implementation of JUSTICE. It is NOT only upon males to implement justice it is upon males and females alike. Because of this, a document concerned with JUSTICE FOR ALL must also ADDRESS ALL!! That is why you find 41 - 43 being addressed to ALL PEOPLE (An-Nas). It is addressing all people and the system of justice it recommends is for the benefit of all people - 6/90, 12/104, 38/87, 43/44.
I hope I live long enough to see the day when The Quran is no longer viewed as a sexist, chauvinist, male centric religious book."
I do understand your point dude..... However, You have made your point clear to them, so going in a circle wont help anybody... they can just check up your earlier post )
well well well all the talk about satan like if he is a person with any power brickwall
Honestly guys I dont even think he exsist )
El Shaytan is probably a section of every human being which we are told not to follow....... that section is doomed to misery and going near it or/and following it also lead to misery.....
The only time you can probably personalize el-shaytaan is when you talk about sociopaths and psychopaths..... but their whole lives are also a big misery and whoever goes near them also take misery on himself.... thus El-Shaytaan is doomed to hell, will always be and there is no way out.
Depressing
You've made no points; gave no translation, and your assumption is logically flawed...
41 O you al-nas/the humankind (includes all men and women)...
43 ... so marry what aba (lawful or agree) to you from the women
Here are all possibilities, telling...
Of course only the first is correct. Therefore you have no point! Now are you going to be a coward refuse to translate?
I've made it easy for you to simply paste in above text what you think nisaa means otherwise admit you are clueless.
with all sadness my nooniiiii friend your entire argument and logic is based on false assumptions (
Here are all possibilities, telling...
All 4 are wrong ... the verse begins with 4.1 AL NAS... (humankind).........so the 5 and correct answer is
43 ... so marry what aba (lawful or agree) to you from the women
if homosexuality is not lawful then the verse says woman marry man from nisa and man marry woman from nisa (human kind marry nisa)................................... peace
do I have a valid point or not Adi?s amigos
Moderators,
Either please lock this thread and put it in trash, otherwise ask this Astana propagandist to answer the questions Noon and others put forward.
The assertions on this thread are so erroneous that had it been put on any other forum, the administration aware of Arabic would have straight away deleted it.
a continuous absurd and hatred assuming a reversal of the party's opinions do not yield fertile ground for intervention by the moderator side nonetheless is the conviction that you learn skills in terms of appreciation for people's opinions. Furthermore, your skills in Arabic are at a minimal level, further confirmed by your Pakistani background.
"say goodbye to them"?
Clearly, you haven't read Quran434.com
That would explain your view ;D
Looking forward to you refuting it WITH evidence.
Dude I have already refuted your website in my previous posts.... But you still haven't given me any evidence for why 'beat them' isn't beat them despite all translators agree upon that... It's funny how a dude from Pakistan thinks he knows Arabic better then ALL Arab translators and all Arabs ;D
sunnah-hero,
Thanks for replying to all the points this time. So to summarise your position
And once again, you claim DRB with human object without preposition means physical strike. Wrong, please read the rest of www.Quran434.com e.g. 4357, 273.
Hit them means to hit them, it doesnt mean 'kiss them' or 'hug them' or 'say goodbye to them', as you claim o
Yes kuffar dont have to be judged before being punished, as they are already doomed to punishment and hell.
Peace Wakas,
Two questions I have for you after reading through the new posts
You mentioned something about verse 1087 and the constant switching of verbs in relation to the beginning of Chapter 4. Can you explain this further? I am having difficulty understanding. Can you perhaps provide a side by side comparison?
Also, why do you think that "marry off" is a possibility? We discussed this in Fallen Angel's thread to an extent. Also, why does "nikah" ALWAYS have to pertain to marriage? From your perspective, why can't it simply be a contract of a different nature?
Nikah is a contract ............ even sunnis agree to that........... Nikah is a contract in regard to marriage it becomes a marriage contract and in regard to something else it becomes a different contract... ;D so no, i dont think nikah is always about marriage confused
I am back again
So I have read the whole quote.
Walaw tara ith yatawaffa allatheena kafaroo almala-ikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum wa thooqoo AAathaba al hareeqi
= And if you could but see when the angels/controllers* are taking (unto themselves, i.e. at death) those who reject striking their faces/fronts and backs and (say) "taste the penalty of the fire."
Fakayfa itha tawaffathumu almalaikatu yadriboona wujoohahum wa adbarahum
= So/then how (will it be) when the angels/controllers* take them (unto themselves, i.e. in death) striking their faces/fronts and their backs?
yes these are the verses we are talking about.. sun
*angels is better translated as controllers, i.e. forces in control of certain functions/laws. There are some controllers we know about, e.g. those found in nature F=ma, E=mc? etc. and some we do not know about.
This is merely a interpretation
In the above two verses, translators commonly use "beat / strike / smite", and whilst this may seem acceptable on the surface this translation does have significant problems when examined more closely
Really confused Lets see...
In 850 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen. And since it is at the time of death, then the controllers cannot be striking the physical fronts/faces and backs as this would be observable.
very illogical reasoning... just because you dont see something happen, does not mean that it is not physical. Like I do not see Wakas right now but that does not mean that he does not exsist physically.. And quran el karim does talk about physical exsistence after death
Does man think that We will not gather his bones? Indeed, We were able to make his fingertips...quran el karim surah qeyamah 4.
And if you could see when they are standing over the Fire, they say "If only we could be sent back, we would not deny the revelations of our Lord, and we would be believers!" quran el karim 6,27
Just because you dont see them does not mean that what happens to them is not physical. That would mean that hell is not physical.
It could be suggested that at death, this is a special/unique transition phase so perhaps the controllers are indeed beating/striking but in a different form somehow, and the living simply cannot see it. It causes problems with verses such as 737, 1628, 851, 693-94 in which the controllers are in communication with people being taken at death, and the ones taken are listening properly and answering, but this is highly unlikely if they are being beaten at the same time!
737 Who is more wicked than he who invents lies about God, or denies His revelations? These will receive their recompense from the record; so that when Our messengers come to terminate their lives, they will say "Where are those whom you used to call on besides God?" They said "They have abandoned us!" And they bore witness upon themselves that they were rejecters.
16,28 Those whom their lives are terminated by the angels, while they had wronged themselves "Amnesty, we have not done any evil!" "Alas, God is aware of what you have done."
Yes they will say these things and be beaten.. Whats the problem in that dude, I dont understand confused
It causes a clear problem with 693 when it describes the controllers as stretching/extending forth or opening their hands/powers when taking them at death saying "Bring out your souls...". This sounds unlike striking/beating, and there is no implication of this in the verse at all.
Still illogical..
693 And who is more wicked than he who invents lies about God, or says "It has been inspired to me," when We did not inspire anything to him; or who says "I will bring down the same as what God has sent down." And if you could only see the wicked at the moments of death when the angels have their arms opened "Bring yourselves out, today you will be given the severest punishment for what you used to say about God without truth, and you used to be arrogant towards His revelations."
One of the punishment could be.... yes... beaten )
If this is indeed a beating/striking causing pain in some way, then this would be the only example in The Quran of an explicit punishment between death and the 'day of obligation/judgement/requital/due'.
Properly. Otherwise you want to say that 'striking' in the verse is a symbolic striking ? What does symbolic beaten mean anyway confused
In contrast, the controllers take those who are good with a greeting of peace/salam in 1632 and there is no mention of taking them gently for example.
Greeting of peace implies taking them gently.
To explain away these anomalies it could be suggested 850 and 4727 refer to post Judgement not at death, which would be much more plausible if DRB is interpreted in a punishment way, i.e. beat/strike, but no trasnlator or tafsir/interpretation I have read gives this option.
No tafsir or translation says 'symbolic beating'. Striking is striking. Hell is hell. Paradise is paradise. If you want to make everything symbolic or non-physical than its your interpretation, not whats actually written.
Thus, is there possibly a more suitable translation? Whatever the controllers are doing it is to their "fronts and backs" and this creates an imagery of a complete surrounding, coming at them from all directions, i.e. there is no escape. This imagery is similar to 693 mentioned above. Further, see 661 and 2139. The only other occurrence of the exact same form "yadriboona" is in 7320 in which it means journey or go/move about. Thus, taking the evidence into account, the Classical Arabic meanings of DRB and its usage in The Quran, it could be translated as the controllers set/march on or put forth or go/move about their fronts and backs, i.e. come at them from all directions. Even the English translation of "strike" has similar imagery to this, but "beat" does not. That is not to say it cannot mean "beat", it theoretically could, but it is not a particularly sound translation when cross-referenced.
.
73,20 yadriboon fi ard means to hit the road. No human is mentioned as opposed to 8,50 and the verse in surah nisa.
As a side note, in M. Asad's notes, he says the early commentator Razi saw this phrase as an allegory "They have utter darkness behind them and utter darkness before them", suggesting he did not agree with the commonly stated understanding of beating/striking literally
Ibn Kathir and all other eraly commentator didnt saw this phrase as an allegory... And you dont have any evidence that Razi also ment a 'symbolic strike' as yourself.. you are merely guessing...
The problems you did not mention.
Interestingly, you quote the first bullet point listed at www.Quran434.com and neglect the rest. Here is the entire quote
Let me read your webpage from start to end and then I will come back to you dude
@ sunna-hero
Just wanted to express my feeling after reading you when arguing in this thread, you used several time the words habibi, dude or feminist dude and keep saying "you are not an arabic speaker" or what ever, it clearly denotes disrespect, arrogance and maybe also someone hurted.
I wanted to say that because after reading http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604760.0 you really look like a different person in this thread.
Relax relax relax dude group
and please mind your own business.. as intefering in someone others business is disrespectful and arrogant
Dude Wakas you say
I am primarily concerned with how it is used in Quran. There is no evidence for your claim in Quran.
confused evidence for what?
I know "bi" is not used, and this occurrence has been discussed at www.Quran434.com
First you said that 'bi' is to be used in order to be be physical which I just proved was wrong and you clearly doesnt know what 'bi' means either. Then you refer to your webpage .. and it says
In 850 it says if only you could see, thus clearly implying that what the controllers are doing cannot be seen. And since it is at the time of death, then the controllers cannot be striking the physical fronts/faces and backs as this would be observable. It could be suggested that at death, this is a special/unique transition phase so perhaps the controllers are indeed beating/striking but in a different form somehow, and the living simply cannot see it.
Doesnt make sense. Its like saying that prophet is not a physical being when quran mentions prophet.... 8,50 says striking without 'bi' whether its physical or not is another discussion... but the quran actually talks about humans coming into a physical exsistence after death so I dont see any reason or evidence for why striking 8,50 would not be physical.
You will note several problems with your rendition of physical beating there. Feel free to answer them here.
Which problems habibi ? confused
I am not concerned about other translators. I am only concerned with what can be proven as per Quran, and as it stands, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of non-physical hit/strike in 434, see www.Quran434.com
Once again, I actually recommend you read and study it.
Your webpage www.quran434.com is not quran therefore it cannot prove anything per quran..... And the webpage is based on excuses. I have already told you that beat them can only mean beat them ;D
You are 100% wrong. I am assuming you are an Arabic speaker, thus are not aware of its classical arabic usage, compared to its modern usage. I recommend using Quran as a guide
whats up dude I am on vacation thus my late reply
If you was an arab you would have known that we only speak modern arabic at home but classical arabic is the national language of every arab country which my friend means that all our books, newspapers, magazines and TV are in classical arabic
Firstly, if you check the actual examples in Quran, to see when "cite" is used, e.g. with "mathal" you will clearly see that "3an" is NEVER used.
You didnt got my point dude. When hit (darab) is applied to a human and isnt ment physical then 3an is to be used which unfurtunately the verse dont nope
Secondly, all examples in Quran wherein DRB means physical usage/hit, the preposition "bi" is ALWAYS used
This is an classical example of how everything goes wrong when a non-arabic speaker consider himself to be a tafseer professor of quran el karim. Do you have any idea of what ''BI'' stands for, dude ?
And if you could but see when the angels take the souls of those who disbelieved... They are striking their faces and their backs and , "Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire.
Is from verse 8,50 and the word 'bi' is not used.
And lastly, in Quran when DRB is applied to a human it NEVER means physical hit.
I fear it is the exact opposite dude................................ When Hit is applied to a human it means physical hit. And all translaters agree with that except, of course you, my feminist friend.
Abdul-Majid Daryabadi
"...And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand."
Yusuf Ali
"....As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance) For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."
Rashad Khalifah
"....If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme."
Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan
"....As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great."
Ahmed Raza Khan
"...the women from whom you fear disobedience, (at first) advise them and (then) do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek to do injustice to them; indeed Allah is Supreme, Great."
Dude I checked up the meaning of HIT in english and got up the following results from the dictionary
1.Go through
2.Click
3.Drink
4.Land
5.Reach
6.Press
7.Go
8.Fulfil
9.Demonstrate
10.Win
My feminist dude now please tell me if God told me in english to 'Hit her' Would that mean that I had to drink her, press her, win her, or ......... ? .... because every normal non-feminist person would feel that 'hit her' would mean..ehem.. to hit her
Salaamun-Alaykum.
I watched your videos. I'm amazed with the work you're doing. It's great whenever you are preaching God's message, you do it with God's teachings and in nicely way. I wish I was a brave enough and make Youtube videos like that to preach God's message. May Allah reward you with the good work you're doing, brother. Keep up the good work. One day, lots of people will wake up after watching your vidoes, God willing. yay
Peace.
Yes I have also just finished checking his video. This guy is an awesome fresh and brave guy who makes great videos. I liked that he makes videos both for the English and Arabic audience.. I could hear from his accent that he is Egyptian (because I use to watch Egyptian TV and movies) and he is a great alternative to the traditional Egyptian extreme Sunni preachers.
Well yousef I am thinking about writing a we page about our message ... I have a very strong Spanish accent when I speak English so I don't think I am suitable to make videos.. People would eventually give more attention to my Spanish accent than to what I say
There are actually are men who do that.
Blue Men of Morocco
http//moroccanbling.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tauregman.jpg
Lek la2 ya zalameh he is wearing blue and women tend to like the color blue.... El zalameh fi Soraah is actually attracting women .. He should wear everything in black ... Y3ni I would look like him just in a black edition ;D
The Qur'an does not warrant at all that covering of women is destined to keep men off temptation. Not at all. And there is no instance in it of any woman tempting any man because of her looks.
But there is a mention of a man tempting women and make tham do follies because of his looks. So, if anybody should cover because of looks, it should be men. Cute men.
Salaam
Are you inddirectly suggesting that I should wear the hijab due to my cute, dashing and handsome look, huruf
I swear the girls in my school say that i am more handsome than brad pitt.. seriously ;D ;D
Maybe I should wear Niqaab instead of Hijab o o o o
I tried to say something in simple manner regarding the cognitive process of understanding a written linguistic message.
Otherwise a simple thing, in relation to Qur'aan it starts seeming an old chemistry book, unfortunately. Here, many are scholarly disertations on concepts of Qur'aan without knowing or following the cognitive process.
an innate tendency to impress homo sapiens with intricate concepts suggest a lack of completion of its assumptions........
the depth of the standards prerequisites prior lies in competences vacuum which can raise understanding barriers to learning as well as its quality of JURISDICTION... understanding the importance constitute the norm... adjectives agree structure can not be denied or repressed