Koran confirms Jesus' crucifixion until death...

[Bowman]

When asked about Jesus’ Crucifixion, Muslims will invariably reference one ayah from the Koran, to support their conviction.

Islam bases an entire doctrine regarding Jesus’ crucifixion & death upon the cross, on a single solitary Koranic ayah.

And in this single solitary ayah, the entire doctrine teeters upon the rendering of a single solitary word (wama) – which Islam has misinterpreted as a negative.


The correct rendering of this ayah is as thus…




وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول
الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن
الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم
إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا

Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi wama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan

4.157 And their saying: "Truly we killed The Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, “allah's” messenger”, and that they killed him, and that they crucified him, and certainly they alike, and truly whom they differed in Him, certainly they (are) not in doubt from Him, on account of Him, from knowledge, except to follow the belief, and that they surely killed him.


To overcome the Muslim mindset, we need to first define the Arabic word that has been misinterpreted by Islam.

Here is the classic Arabic definition for "ma"...

ما = “ma”

“ma” definition:

Conjunctive pronoun. That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such a manner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive. It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3016
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 2, p. 300
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 523 - 524
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, pp. 135 - 136



As we can see below..."ma", when joined to "wa", is simply a filler-word in this ayah...


وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول
الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن
الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم
إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا

Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi wama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan

4.157 And their saying: "Certainly we killed The Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, “allah's” messenger”, and that they killed him, and that they crucified him, and certainly they alike, and truly whom they differed in Him, certainly they (are) not in doubt from Him, on account of Him, from knowledge, except to follow the belief, and that they surely killed him.



As witnessed by the plethora of positives in this ayah, the conditional mood is only positive.

Couple this, to the very next ayah, as thus…



بل رفعه الله إليه وكان الله عزيزا حكيما

Bal rafaAAahu Allahu ilayhi wakana Allahu AAazeezan hakeeman

4.158 But “allah”, he raised Him to him, and “allah” mighty, wise.




4.157 & 4.158 tell us of its most likely Biblical source...


This One given to you by the before-determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you having taken by lawless hands, having crucified Him, you killed Him. But God raised Him up, loosing the throes of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. (Act 2.23 - 24)


As we can see, 4.157 & 4.158 are simply parroting NT material...


Thus, context is clear that in 4.157 “wama” is simply governing the verb in the conditional mood – which is positive….NOT negative.


Further, rendering this Islamic one-hit-wonder ayah as a negative would force other Koranic ayahs into contradiction.

 

[Bowman]

(cont.)


As further evidence that 4.157 confirms Jesus’ death upon the cross, all the Koranic crucifixion instances are shown here, which confirm that the Koran always describes a crucifixion event with complete certainty of death…



• 5.33…they will be crucified till death
• 7.124…I will surely crucify you till death
• 12.41…so will be crucified till death
• 20.71…and I will surely crucify you till death
• 26.49…and I will surely crucify you till death


Death through crucifixion is always mandated in the Koran.

Thus, there is no reason at all to believe that 4.157 would break this trend…

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Oh, good grief. Get tired of spamming CF?

 

[Bowman]

Oh, good grief. Get tired of spamming CF?

Nope.

 

[Snowber]

The correct rendering of this ayah is as thus…


وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول
الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن
الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم
إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا
.....

Peace be upon you Bowman,

To minimize post space I've shortened your quote and will be scrolling down and replying by sections GOD willing.

Forgive me, but this verse is pretty clear and I think to come up with a different interpretation requires a previous bias on what you want it to mean. Most, if not all, Arabic speakers agree that "wama" simply means "and not" or, in this case, "and they did not"

Here is the definition you posted:

ما = “ma”

“ma” definition:

Conjunctive pronoun. That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such a manner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive. It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

I put in bold another part of the definition that it is "also a negative adverb, not". In this case the verb is killed, and it is saying "Wama" which completes it as saying "And they did not kill.."

It also seems to support this, additionally, at the end of the definition by saying "The particle, when joined to the perfect (perfect is a tense of verbs describing something that was completed, in this case the killing of Jesus, as they thought), it denies the past"

Therefore wama qataloo is saying "And they did not kill him..", it is literally denying the past belief that the disbelievers thought they really killed Jesus, but instead, GOD raised the REAL person "Jesus", his SOUL, to Him (GOD). While here on earth, they tortured his lifeless body.

Here is more evidence from this book Jesus: Myths and Message

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said, "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing, on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?" The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is the fleshy part." [Apocalypse of Peter, VII, 3, 81]

A careful examination of the Gospels of Mark and Luke reveals that Jesus was in fact gone prior to crucifixion. He did not respond to the surrounding chaos. This confirms the apocryphal account reported in the Nag Hammadi Library, and agrees with the mathematically authenticated account of the Quran:

The chief priests, meanwhile, brought many accusations against Jesus. Pilate interrogated him again: "Surely you have some answer? See how many accusations they are leveling against you." But greatly to Pilate's surprise, Jesus made no further response. [Mark 15:3-5]

Herod was extremely pleased to see Jesus. From the reports about him he had wanted to see him, and he was hoping to see him work some miracle. He questioned Jesus at considerable length, but Jesus made no answer. The chief priests and scribes were at hand to accuse him vehemently. Herod and his guards then treated him with contempt and insult.... [Luke 23:8-11]

And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?" The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is the fleshy part."


Bowman, you have complete changed the meaning of "wama" "and not" or "and they did not" into "that".

 

[Snowber]

(continued)

Here are sixteen translations of this verse as more evidence:

4:157

Literal And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, God's messenger, and they have not killed him, and they have not crucified him/placed him on a cross, and but (it) resembled/was vague/was doubtful to them, and that those who disagreed/disputed in (about) him (are) in (E) doubt/suspicion from him, (there is) no knowledge for them with (about) him, except following the assumption , and they have not killed him surely/certainly.

Yusuf Ali That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Pickthal And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Arberry and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed;

Shakir And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Sarwar and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus.

Khalifa And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.
Hilali/Khan And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (i.e. Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ):

H/K/Saheeh And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Malik They even say: "We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah." Whereas in fact, neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did because the matter was made dubious for them. Those who differ therein are only in doubt. They have no real knowledge, they follow nothing but merely a conjecture, certainly they did not kill him (Jesus).[157]

QXP And for claiming, "We killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's Messenger." They never killed him and never crucified him. But it appeared so to them and the matter remained dubious to them. Those who hold conflicting views on this issue are indeed confused. They have no real knowledge but they are following mere conjecture. Very certainly, they never killed him.
Maulana Ali And for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, and they killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross, but he was made to appear to them as such. And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for certain:

Free Minds And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of God!" They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they had. Those who dispute are in doubt of him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

Qaribullah and for their saying, 'We killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger (and Prophet) of Allah. ' They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but to them, he (the crucified) had been given the look (of Prophet Jesus). Those who differ concerning him (Prophet Jesus) are surely in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of supposition, and (it is) a certainty they did not kill him.

George Sale and have said, verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness; and verily they who disagreed concerning him, were in a doubt as to this matter, and had no sure knowledge thereof, but followed only an uncertain opinion. They did not really kill him;

JM Rodwell And for their saying, "Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the
son of Mary, an Apostle of God." Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure kno

Asad and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him:

And more evidence is a word by word translation/transliteration with syntax
4:157

Also, in regards to the Bible quote:

This One given to you by the before-determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you having taken by lawless hands, having crucified Him, you killed Him. But God raised Him up, loosing the throes of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. (Act 2.23 - 24)

Two things to say here.

1) This verse from the Bible could, in fact, support the Truth that Jesus (the real person, not the fleshy body) was raised to GOD and not truly killed.

2) You claimed that the Qu'ran was simply copying this verse but, as I mentioned before, to tell a Muslim the Qu'ran is copying the Bible is like saying "GOD is copying GOD". GOD gave us the Bible and the Qu'ran, so how does that falsify the Qu'ran. If I say "I flew a plane" in 1995 and in 2008 I say "I flew a plane" again, does that mean I'm a fake me?

What makes more sense? That GOD would leave a BELIEVER (Jesus was a believer, not only a Submitter) to be tortured, or that GOD would keep His promise and not let any harm come to the believers?

Lastly, a few verses were mentioned on crucifixion and, somehow, the conclusion was reached that Jesus must have been in His body when he was crucified because of these verses.

The context from these verses is completely different from the verse we are discussing, and is just an attempt to divert from the Truth. Here are the verses:

[5:33] The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.

[7:124] "I will cut your hands and feet on alternate sides, then I will crucify you all." (Pharaoh is saying this)

[12:41] "O my prison mates, one of you will be the wine butler for his lord, while the other will be crucified - the birds will eat from his head. This settles the matter about which you have inquired." (Joseph is telling his prison mates about the interpreation of their dreams)

[20:71] He said, "Did you believe in him without my permission? He must be your chief; the one who taught you magic. I will surely sever your hands and feet on alternate sides. I will crucify you on the palm trunks. You will find out which of us can inflict the worst retribution, and who outlasts whom." (Again Pharaoh is saying this.)

[26:49] He said, "Did you believe with him before I give you permission? He must be your teacher, who taught you magic. You will surely find out. I will cut your hands and feet on alternate sides. I will crucify you all." (Pharaoh, again).

So we see that these verses provide no support for your claim.

Peace be upon you all, I hope this helps.

As long as you strive to divert people from the truth, Bowman, you cannot find happiness in your life. Peace be upon you.

 

[Bowman]

Peace be upon you Bowman,

To minimize post space I've shortened your quote and will be scrolling down and replying by sections GOD willing.

Forgive me, but this verse is pretty clear and I think to come up with a different interpretation requires a previous bias on what you want it to mean. Most, if not all, Arabic speakers agree that "wama" simply means "and not" or, in this case, "and they did not"

Hi brother...thanks for your reply.

I see that you do not disagree that islam has taught you that you have only one single solitary verse upon which to make your decision regarding Jesus' crucifixion.

You have to admit, one verse is just plain poor theology.

The render wama as a negative forces other Koranic ayahs into contradiction.

Here is the definition you posted:



I put in bold another part of the definition that it is "also a negative adverb, not". In this case the verb is killed, and it is saying "Wama" which completes it as saying "And they did not kill.."

It also seems to support this, additionally, at the end of the definition by saying "The particle, when joined to the perfect (perfect is a tense of verbs describing something that was completed, in this case the killing of Jesus, as they thought), it denies the past"

Therefore wama qataloo is saying "And they did not kill him..", it is literally denying the past belief that the disbelievers thought they really killed Jesus, but instead, GOD raised the REAL person "Jesus", his SOUL, to Him (GOD). While here on earth, they tortured his lifeless body.

Here is more evidence from this book Jesus: Myths and Message

You need to observe how "wama" is used elsewhere in your book of faith, brother...

 

[Bowman]

(continued)


Here are sixteen translations of this verse as more evidence:

Since you want to use other peoples' renderings, then you should be able to defend their renderings.

Pick one of your sixteen, and defend it.

Word-for-word.

Are you up for that, brother...?

And more evidence is a word by word translation/transliteration with syntax
4:157

corpus.quran is a good website, however, do a search on where "wama" is used, and you will see how the authors of this website fall flat when they think it should be used as a negative in purely positive ayahs - of which they simply skip right on over!

Also, in regards to the Bible quote:



Two things to say here.

1) This verse from the Bible could, in fact, support the Truth that Jesus (the real person, not the fleshy body) was raised to GOD and not truly killed.

2) You claimed that the Qu'ran was simply copying this verse but, as I mentioned before, to tell a Muslim the Qu'ran is copying the Bible is like saying "GOD is copying GOD". GOD gave us the Bible and the Qu'ran, so how does that falsify the Qu'ran. If I say "I flew a plane" in 1995 and in 2008 I say "I flew a plane" again, does that mean I'm a fake me?

You assume too much, brother.

The god of the Koran is surely NOT the God of the Holy Bible.

 

[Snowber]

Hi brother...thanks for your reply.

I see that you do not disagree that islam has taught you that you have only one single solitary verse upon which to make your decision regarding Jesus' crucifixion.

You have to admit, one verse is just plain poor theology.

The render wama as a negative forces other Koranic ayahs into contradiction.








You need to observe how "wama" is used elsewhere in your book of faith, brother...

Peace be upon you Bowman,

If GOD tells me something one time, I do not need to say "GOD, can you give me a few more instances of this before I believe it?" That would be rejecting GOD's Word. If GOD tells you in the Bible once to not commit adultery, or steal, or whatever it may be then a believer's response is "we hear and we obey", rather than "But you only mentioned it once."

Please show me where else "wama" is used in contradiction to this verse.

Since you want to use other peoples' renderings, then you should be able to defend their renderings.

Pick one of your sixteen, and defend it.

Word-for-word.

Are you up for that, brother...?







corpus.quran is a good website, however, do a search on where "wama" is used, and you will see how the authors of this website fall flat when they think it should be used as a negative in purely positive ayahs - of which they simply skip right on over!






You assume too much, brother.

The god of the Koran is surely NOT the God of the Holy Bible.

Bowman,

Again the post I previously put up was a defense of the current interpretation/translation of this verse. Please show me where wama contradicts this verse in other verses.

Thank you for your response, peace be upon you.

 

[Bowman]

Please show me where else "wama" is used in contradiction to this verse.

Pay close attention to this ayah, which has not one, not two, not three, but four instances of “wama”…


Qooloo amanna biAllahi wama onzila ilayna wama onzila ila ibraheema wa-ismaAAeela wa-ishaqa wayaAAqooba waal-asbati wama ootiya moosa waAAeesa wama ootiya alnnabiyyoona min rabbihim la nufarriqu bayna ahadin minhum wanahnu lahu muslimoona

2.136 Yusuf Ali

Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."


Observe that Yusuf Ali chose NOT to render “wama” as a negative in four out of four instances.


Thus, according your flawed Islamic reasoning, then this ayah should read…


Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and NOT the revelation given to us, and NOT Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and NOT given to Moses and Jesus, and NOT given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

 

[.lava]

When asked about Jesus’ Crucifixion, Muslims will invariably reference one ayah from the Koran, to support their conviction.

Islam bases an entire doctrine regarding Jesus’ crucifixion & death upon the cross, on a single solitary Koranic ayah.

And in this single solitary ayah, the entire doctrine teeters upon the rendering of a single solitary word (wama) – which Islam has misinterpreted as a negative.

one single ayat or entire Qur'an has the same importance. after all we are commanded to follow whole of the book. we are not going to eliminate or ignore "one single ayat" or we would not look down upon a ayat just because there are no dozens of ayats that say the same thing. there are hundreds of ayats and each one of them is one single ayat. according to Qur'an Jesus PBUH was not killed. it is very clear and simple

.

 

[Bowman]

[/size][/font]

one single ayat or entire Qur'an has the same importance. after all we are commanded to follow whole of the book. we are not going to eliminate or ignore "one single ayat" or we would not look down upon a ayat just because there are no dozens of ayats that say the same thing. there are hundreds of ayats and each one of them is one single ayat. according to Qur'an Jesus PBUH was not killed. it is very clear and simple

.

Islam stands or falls upon the interpretation of one single word in one verse.

This is sheer madness.

 

[AaronG]

Another way of looking at this question is to ask whether the Qur'an affirms Jesus' resurrection from the dead after He was crucified and died.

 

[Bowman]

Another way of looking at this question is to ask whether the Qur'an affirms Jesus' resurrection from the dead after He was crucified and died.

89.1 And/by the dawn. (Announces & swears by the morning of Jesus’ singular Resurrection)

89.2 And three nights. (Swears by the three nights Jesus was in the earth)

89.3 And/by the two days after the sacrifice and the third day. (Swears by the three days Jesus was in the earth)

89.4 And/by the night when He departed. (Swears by Jesus’ empty tomb)

89.5 Is in that an oath to an understanding? (Asks if the reader understands)

89.6 Did you not see how your Lord returned from the grave? (Jesus’ singular resurrection)

 

[Snowber]

Pay close attention to this ayah, which has not one, not two, not three, but four instances of “wama”…


Qooloo amanna biAllahi wama onzila ilayna wama onzila ila ibraheema wa-ismaAAeela wa-ishaqa wayaAAqooba waal-asbati wama ootiya moosa waAAeesa wama ootiya alnnabiyyoona min rabbihim la nufarriqu bayna ahadin minhum wanahnu lahu muslimoona



Thus, according your flawed Islamic reasoning, then this ayah should read…


Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and NOT the revelation given to us, and NOT Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and NOT given to Moses and Jesus, and NOT given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

Peace Bowman,

When you read the Qu'ran, ESPECIALLY since it is in Arabic and one word can mean different things and can mean different things in different contexts, you have to use a little common sense.

Common sense tells us that GOD wouldnt say "and not" what was sent down to.. etc, etc.

Where, in 4:157, wama is a negative, in this verse, common sense tells us it is not. In fact, I just asked someone who speaks Arabic and does not study the Qu'ran and gave them only a few words from both verses and they translated it the same way as the 16 translations have it. Now should I believe an Arabic native speaker who is translating a few words only with his knowledge of Arabic (and definitely not his knowledge in the Qu'ran because he doesnt really have any), or someone who has setup Jesus as an idol even though a careful study of the Bible shows us he was not part of a Trinity, nor was he GOD, GOD be glorified, high above their lies. In fact, the Trinity is a concept that came 250-300 years AFTER Jesus' death.

Yusuf Ali is not the only one who translates "wama" in this verse that way, just about all 16 translations do (if not all of them).

See: 2:136

and

2:136 word by word

In this instance they mention that "wa" is a prefixed conjunction, and "ma" a relative pronoun.

Again, common sense tells us that the verse wouldn't be translated as "AND NOT". Why should we rely on what our religious leaders tell us to follow blindly and solely on "faith", when GOD has given us proof?

89.1 And/by the dawn. (Announces & swears by the morning of Jesus’ singular Resurrection)

89.2 And three nights. (Swears by the three nights Jesus was in the earth)

89.3 And/by the two days after the sacrifice and the third day. (Swears by the three days Jesus was in the earth)

89.4 And/by the night when He departed. (Swears by Jesus’ empty tomb)

89.5 Is in that an oath to an understanding? (Asks if the reader understands)

89.6 Did you not see how your Lord returned from the grave? (Jesus’ singular resurrection)

As for your translation of Sura 89, you have completely fabricated the translation, all 16 translations look more like:

[89:1] By the dawn.
[89:2] And the ten nights.
[89:3] By the even and the odd.
[89:4] By the night as it passes.
[89:5] A profound oath, for one who possesses intelligence.
[89:6] Have you noted what your Lord did to 'Ãd?

You had 89:1 correct but lets look at the rest:

Your verse 2 reads: and the three nights. It clearly says 10, how'd you get 3?
"Aashiran" means 10

Your verse 3 says: ".. by the two days after the sacrifice and the third day". Completely incorrect again, it is "even and odd", far different from "2 days and third day"

Your 4 says: "And by the night when He departed" when it mentions no "He" it is speaking directly about the "night departing"

Your verse 5 isnt terribly off so I'll let that one go.

Your verse 6, which is probably the most gross translation of all, my friend, says "did you not see how your Lord returned from the grave?" and, furthermore, you attribute it to Jesus according to your idol worship.

Also, you have completely omitted that "Aad" was mentioned in this verse.

So instead it should be more like "Have you seen what your Lord did to Aad?" A little different, I'd say.

Using that logic of idolizing a human being I can take the Barney song and make it about Jesus as well:

"I love you (Addressing Jesus)
You love me (Jesus loves me)
Let's get together and be a family (with Jesus)
with a great big hug, and a kiss from me to you (to Jesus),
wont you say you love me too (Jesus?)"

I'm sorry Bowman, but I haven't seen this much ignorance in a while. I am even starting to think you don't believe in the Bible, and you are just here to troll? Oh well, it's keeping me busy

Peace.

 

[Bowman]

Peace Bowman,

When you read the Qu'ran, ESPECIALLY since it is in Arabic and one word can mean different things and can mean different things in different contexts, you have to use a little common sense.

Common sense tells us that GOD wouldnt say "and not" what was sent down to.. etc, etc.

Where, in 4:157, wama is a negative, in this verse, common sense tells us it is not. In fact, I just asked someone who speaks Arabic and does not study the Qu'ran and gave them only a few words from both verses and they translated it the same way as the 16 translations have it. Now should I believe an Arabic native speaker who is translating a few words only with his knowledge of Arabic (and definitely not his knowledge in the Qu'ran because he doesnt really have any), or someone who has setup Jesus as an idol even though a careful study of the Bible shows us he was not part of a Trinity, nor was he GOD, GOD be glorified, high above their lies. In fact, the Trinity is a concept that came 250-300 years AFTER Jesus' death.

Yusuf Ali is not the only one who translates "wama" in this verse that way, just about all 16 translations do (if not all of them).

See: 2:136

and

2:136 word by word

In this instance they mention that "wa" is a prefixed conjunction, and "ma" a relative pronoun.

Again, common sense tells us that the verse wouldn't be translated as "AND NOT". Why should we rely on what our religious leaders tell us to follow blindly and solely on "faith", when GOD has given us proof?

Hi brother...

So...now you have come down to 'common sense' as the basis for your reasoning...?

If you look to the classic Arabic definition for "ma", we can see that it is dependent upon the conditional mood of the ayah in which it resides.

The mood of 4.157 is positive, brother...not negative.

Thus to render 'ma' as a negative goes firmly against classic Arabic grammar and forces other Koranic ayahs into contradiction with each other.

 

[Bowman]

knowledge in the Qu'ran because he doesnt really have any), or someone who has setup Jesus as an idol even though a careful study of the Bible shows us he was not part of a Trinity, nor was he GOD, GOD be glorified, high above their lies. In fact, the Trinity is a concept that came 250-300 years AFTER Jesus' death.

Have you even bothered to actually read the Holy Bible, brother?

Or...are you just googling islamic polemic websites for your assertions?

The concept of the Biblical Trinity begins in the OT and carries through to the NT....and then finally is copied into the Koran itself.

Yes...Jesus is God in the Holy Bible...and also in the Koran.

 

[Bowman]

You had 89:1 correct but lets look at the rest:

It's deemed correct because you actually verified it as truth yourself...or...because it matches the renderings that you googled?

Your verse 2 reads: and the three nights. It clearly says 10, how'd you get 3?
"Aashiran" means 10

Let's look...


وليال عشر

Walayalin AAashrin

89.2 And three nights.


عشر= “AAashrin”

“AAashrin” definition:

Ten. A tenth; a tenth part; one part of ten parts. The eighth young one, or offspring. A piece that is broken off from a cooking pot, or from a drinking cup, or bowl, and from anything; as though it were one of ten pieces. Three nights of the lunar month, (the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth).

It comes from the root “ashara”, which means to take away a tenth part, make ten by adding one to nine, be the tenth.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume five, pp. 2050 - 2053
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 373 - 374


Now...your turn...why do you say it must be ten?

 

[Snowber]

Common sense is very important, otherwise people start worshipping human beings.. >.> <.<

"Aasharan" could mean 10 or tenth. Ask any Arabic speaker and will he call it 8th offspring or 3 nights of the lunar month? Most likely not. The Arabic lexicon you are using is the only source for this. It makes sense that "Aasharan" refers to the ten nights that many Muslims retreat to the Masjid for the last ten nights of Ramadan.

2:187 also mentions this "retreat to the Masjid"

Let's assume, for your sake, that it means three nights of a lunar month, or tenth, or eighth young one, offspring. How does that support the rest of your gross mistranslation?

Also.. there is already a thread about whether Jesus was GOD or not, why do you think Jesus was GOD? Please show me the verses you support it with.

Thank you

 

[Bowman]

Common sense is very important, otherwise people start worshipping human beings.. >.> <.<

Common sense is subjective.

"Aasharan" could mean 10 or tenth. Ask any Arabic speaker and will he call it 8th offspring or 3 nights of the lunar month? Most likely not. The Arabic lexicon you are using is the only source for this.

Modern Colloquial Arabic has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the extinct written Arabic of the Koran, brother.

Also.. there is already a thread about whether Jesus was GOD or not, why do you think Jesus was GOD? Please show me the verses you support it with.

&#1575;&#1578;&#1582;&#1584;&#1608;&#1575; &#1571;&#1581;&#1576;&#1575;&#1585;&#1607;&#1605; &#1608;&#1585;&#1607;&#1576;&#1606;&#1607;&#1605; &#1571;&#1585;&#1576;&#1575;&#1576;&#1575; &#1605;&#1606; &#1583;&#1608;&#1606; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;​

&#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1587;&#1610;&#1581; &#1575;&#1576;&#1606; &#1605;&#1585;&#1610;&#1605; &#1608;&#1605;&#1575; &#1571;&#1605;&#1585;&#1608;&#1575; &#1573;&#1604;&#1575; &#1604;&#1610;&#1593;&#1576;&#1583;&#1608;&#1575; &#1573;&#1604;&#1607;&#1575;​

&#1608;&#1581;&#1583;&#1575; &#1604;&#1575; &#1573;&#1604;&#1607; &#1573;&#1604;&#1575; &#1607;&#1608; &#1587;&#1576;&#1581;&#1606;&#1607; &#1593;&#1605;&#1575; &#1610;&#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1608;&#1606;​

Ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi waalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu AAamma yushrikoona

9.31 They have taken their learned persons and their monks (as) lords from superior (to) “allah” and The Messiah, Mary's Son; and they commanded not except that they may worship one god, no god except He, glory be to Him from what they associate partners.


Observe that “allah” is included along with The Messiah, Jesus Christ, via the copulative conjunction “wa”, as being part and parcel of the prepositional phrase initiating with “min” (from).

Further, although "allah" and Jesus are listed separately, they are treated as ONE...via the singular "huwa" (him)...

This is the same exact method as used in the Holy Bible in many locations that proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ...and, as such, the authors of the Koran have also copied this over into their opus.

The difference being that they have attempted to raise the pagan Arab god "allah" up to the Biblical deity status of Jesus Christ.

You will see the modern English translators deceitfully butchering this text by inserting all sorts of add-on-words in parenthesis – in order to make this ayah conform to the Islamic paradigm.

Fact of the matter is that this ayah proclaims Jesus Christ as God Almighty.