Koran & Hadith in plain english?

[firedragon]

"Koran & Hadith in plain english?".....The Koran and Hadith are not in English....and that's the point. They were written long ago in a different language, and any attempt to translate them correctly will fail (somewhat).

This is why the associate pastor of my local Greek Orthodox church was having so much difficulty understanding the bible. He thought that there was just one heaven, not several levels of heaven as written in the Old Testament. He thought that God had split himself into three parts (trinity). When we go back to the old translations, we understand the truth.

Modern pastors will tell you lies about "all versions of the bible are perfect and agree with one another." That's simply not true. For example, in the old testament, Genesis 1:25 says that man was created before animals, and Genesis 2:18 says that man was created after animals.

Since the Muslim faith (and Christian faith) are spin-offs of the Jewish faith (essentially meaning that all Muslims and Christians are religiously (not ethnically) Jews), they must all rely on the old testament being true and correct.

Since when do we rely on lies to be sure of our religions? I thought that lies are the domain of Satan? Doesn't Satan rule by lies and deception?

We must tell the truth about the invalidity of modern translations of God's words. We must only believe the oldest versions, and, even then, we must question whether the words are true.

We must recognize lies in order to defeat them. We can't be misled by lies.

Have you ever read the Qur'an? Speaking honestly.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I had the same problem untill I found out that the Muslim scholars, Imaams, who translated their Quran into English, did it with bias and changed the meaning of a lot of problematic words

You dont know the kindergarten basics of Islam. What you are capable of doing is spread some falsehood, and upload a pornographic cartoon image of the prophet Muhammed. What else do you know?

Which imam intentionally mistranslated the Quran, what is the word, what is the root word, and whats your source?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Augustus]

Give an example of a debate with direct reference on recitals. Not a cut and paste

Such an inane attitude to take on an internet forum

"Here is a scholarly study showing the effectiveness of the covid vaccine"

FD: OMG you know nothing!!!! Cut and paste, CUT AND PASTE!!!!! Go and conduct your own study on vaccine effectiveness!!!!

I gave you a comprehensive answer. You are incapable of understanding it. try and read some scholarly books. If you want I can recommend some.

No, you largely ignored what I said and replied to something you imagined I said as you've been doing throughout. You get too obsessed with your dancing and hoops to jump through to actually read properly and reply directly to what people say.

You also just dismissed quoting from scholarly books as 'copy/paste'.

Very good. Thank you

Cheers

 

[firedragon]

Such an inane attitude to take on an internet forum

Yep. Put hand signals. Great attitude.

"Here is a scholarly study showing the effectiveness of the covid vaccine"

FD: OMG you know nothing!!!! Cut and paste, CUT AND PASTE!!!!! Go and conduct your own study on vaccine effectiveness!!!!

Yeah. I dont pretend I am an expert on the COVID vaccine and cut and paste things.

No, you largely ignored what I said and replied to something you imagined I said

You didnt understand it. Its easy. Ask.

 

[Augustus]

Yeah. I dont pretend I am an expert on the COVID vaccine and cut and paste things.

Are you seriously suggesting that unless one is an expert on a topic then they cannot read and refer to scholarly sources?

Very good. Thank you.

Cheers

 

[sun rise]

Nowadays, that word can be a hypertext link to that definition, right? Just how often would that be needed?

It would be good if someone took an English version and offered a pop-up or link to a discussion about translation differences and difficulties every time there was a meaning difference. That would not be easy but I think it would help.

 

[icehorse]

Not a cut and paste.

This is a long standing hot button of yours. Across all debates, one common error is to equate the message with the messenger. In other words, if a good point is made, why should we care who the source is? A good point is a good point, correct?

 

[MyM]

Yet, factually, there exist numerous early manuscripts that deviate from the standard text beyond simply being accepted variations. It is also true that these variations are generally pretty minor, but they do impact meaning to some extent.

The question is are these the result of scribal and transmission errors or are they indicative of a degree of flexibility in the early text. Of course this question is debatable, and can't really be conclusively proved either way.

One perspective on this:

First, although it seems to have been reasonably demonstrated by now that (with the exception of the lower layer of the San'a) palimpsest) most surviving Quran manuscripts bear the signs of having been produced following a campaign of standardization basically consistent with that reported to have been directed by the third caliph, it is also clear that there existed some differences of perception about the correct words of the Quran an text at the times most of these manuscripts were produced, which were later revisited when these perceptions changed or standardization became more thorough. It is not impossible that some of these varying perceptions would have been tied to certain geographic regions or locales. This perceived flexibility exceeds the bounds of what is reported in the qira'at literature.

Second, these differences of perception were not confined to the earliest decades after Muhammad's death, but there was some flexibility extending for several centuries after. The flexibility does not appear to have been great...

This degree of apparent flexibility that has limits seems to fit very well with what is seen elsewhere, such as the inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock which suggest to Chase Robinson and Stephen Shoemaker a certain instability in the text of the Qur'an through the time of its completion in 691/2 AD, during the reign of the caliph 'Abd al-Malik, 1 3 and, to the larger point, the variations requiring later correction in the manuscripts would be consistent with what Nicolai Sinai has termed the 'emergent canon model,' the hypothesis that "the Qur'anic text, in spite of having achieved a recognizable form by 660, continued to be reworked and revised until c. 700." 1 4 Of course, such a model, i.e. complete closure of the quranic "canon" around 700, would still fail to account for manuscripts being produced after this time that still required later correction, unless of course every one of these were to be attributed only to orthographic developments, standard qira'at variations, or scribal error at first production, a scenario that does not appear to be the case.

Corrections in Early Quran Manuscripts: Twenty Examples - Daniel Alan Brubaker


Some corrections (the Arabic transliterations haven't copied well, but it shows the general idea):

• wa-lii "nor" of Q6:91 is written instead as wiiw,

• "and;" the lam- )alif has been omitted. The meaning here is thus "you and your fathers" rather than the 1924 Cairo edition's "you nor your fathers"

• What reads mubarakun mu$addiqu, "[it is] blessed and confirms," in the 1924 Cairo edition ofQ6:92 is written in this manuscript without the long medial
  
  )alif in the first word and also with a long )alif at the end of both words, to render mubarakan mu$addiqan, apparently "a blessed and confirming one."
  
  
• The waw "and" that precedes li-tundhir, "that you may warn," in the 1924 Cairo edition is absent on this page.
  
  
• What reads $alatihim (archigraphemically CLA BHM), "prayers," in the 1924 Cairo standard is written in this manuscript with a waw instead of the medial long )alif, that is, $alawatihim, 1 2 or, archigraphemically, CLW BHM. The latter is plural; a slight change of meaning.
  
  
• The aw, "or," of Q6:93 is written in this manuscript as wa, "and," to render "he who imputes falsehood to Allah and says," instead of the 1924 Cairo edition's "he who imputes falsehood to Allah or says."
  
  
• The 1924 Cairo standard's idh, "while," ofQ6:93 is written in this page as idha, "when."
  
  
• The long )alifthat is in second position of the bastu, "outstretched," ofQ6:93 in the 1924 Cairo edition is missing on this page.
  
  
• The word �.J rabbikum, "your Lord," is written between allah andfa- )inna of Q6:95. This does not exist in the 1924 Cairo edition �ut does make grammatical sense here, reading, "That is Allah your Lord, how then," rather than "That is Allah, how then" as it exists in today's standard. It is interesting that the correctors ofthis page did not erase this word. Did they feel it belonged here?

I Just know that the ones taught to Mohammad pbuh were NOT in error. You cannot say that a messenger of Allah pbuh, was sent incorrect usages.

Again, we do NOT use the Al Azhar as the key place for authentification. The different recitations are just that different recitations. The words are THE SAME and the meanings ARE THE SAME

The Quran has not been altered, changed, added or deleted. It is the exact as when Angel Jibreel was down with it given to Mohammad pbuh.

There are NO errors.

And Allah knows best.

This is a long standing hot button of yours. Across all debates, one common error is to equate the message with the messenger. In other words, if a good point is made, why should we care who the source is? A good point is a good point, correct?

In Islam, if you cannot define your sources, it cannot be accepted. Everything in Islam, is dealt with authenticity. Example, pertaining to the ahadith (sayings and practices of Mohammad pbuh) they can be traced back to Mohammad pbuh. No other religion has this authenticity. So when people start bringing out sources that are not authenticated by the "majority" we cannot accept it without putting correct claim to where, when, how, ...basically given the sources of such presentations.


And every Muslim knows that Allah does NOT make mistakes and neither did Mohammad pbuh. So to say there are errors in transcripts, one must show exact proof by many scholars and give their sources. If one is recited with a fatha or a med, it is done pertaining to the different recitations. The words are the same, the meanings of the words are the same. It's the recitations. If you have heard one read the quran, you can read it differently with reciting the different ways. The sounds but the words and meanings are exactly how it was brought down through Angel Jibreel alayhi salam.

 

[icehorse]

In Islam, if you cannot define your sources, it cannot be accepted. Everything in Islam, is dealt with authenticity. Example, pertaining to the ahadith (sayings and practices of Mohammad pbuh) they can be traced back to Mohammad pbuh. No other religion has this authenticity. So when people start bringing out sources that are not authenticated by the "majority" we cannot accept it without putting correct claim to where, when, how, ...basically given the sources of such presentations.

Yes, I've heard this idea before. But to someone outside the faith who uses critical thinking, this approach is not actually rigorous. It seems mostly to provide job security for Islamic scholars and Imams.

 

[Augustus]

I Just know that the ones taught to Mohammad pbuh were NOT in error. You cannot say that a messenger of Allah pbuh, was sent incorrect usages.

Again, we do NOT use the Al Azhar as the key place for authentification. The different recitations are just that different recitations. The words are THE SAME and the meanings ARE THE SAME

The Quran has not been altered, changed, added or deleted. It is the exact as when Angel Jibreel was down with it given to Mohammad pbuh.

There are NO errors.

And Allah knows best.



In Islam, if you cannot define your sources, it cannot be accepted. Everything in Islam, is dealt with authenticity. Example, pertaining to the ahadith (sayings and practices of Mohammad pbuh) they can be traced back to Mohammad pbuh. No other religion has this authenticity. So when people start bringing out sources that are not authenticated by the "majority" we cannot accept it without putting correct claim to where, when, how, ...basically given the sources of such presentations.


And every Muslim knows that Allah does NOT make mistakes and neither did Mohammad pbuh. So to say there are errors in transcripts, one must show exact proof by many scholars and give their sources. If one is recited with a fatha or a med, it is done pertaining to the different recitations. The words are the same, the meanings of the words are the same. It's the recitations. If you have heard one read the quran, you can read it differently with reciting the different ways. The sounds but the words and meanings are exactly how it was brought down through Angel Jibreel alayhi salam.

What is your opinion on why early mufassir don't understand numerous parts of the Quran, for example, who the Saneans were?

Why do you find it persuasive that early Muslims both recorded the most trivial details of Muhammad's life, and also couldn't preserve memory of basic details like the identity of one of the 4 people of the book?

 

[MyM]

What is your opinion on why early mufassir don't understand numerous parts of the Quran, for example, who the Saneans were?

Why do you find it persuasive that early Muslims both recorded the most trivial details of Muhammad's life, and also couldn't preserve memory of basic details like the identity of one of the 4 people of the book?

It isn't upon me to give my opinion on such matters. I am not a scholar of Islam. I can tell you what I think but that it's just me talkin, so I do not claim to know all when it comes to these matters.
First, are you talking about the Sabians?
I do know that in Islam, the ahadith are sayings, actions of the Mohammad pbuh. What is recorded in ahadith must be authenticated. In Islam, we know that Allah says he will preserve his last message to mankind and that also means what Mohammad pbuh taught.
As for the Sabians if that is who you are referring to. I do know they are mentioned in the Quran in three different places. The word saabi’ (Sabian) is derived from the verb saba’a which refers to the action of leaving one religion and entering another. The Arabs call these people saabi'. There are some scholars who do not know in detail as you said, but that isn't a fault. It is said that these are people both doomed and blessed.

Allah says in the Quran,
“It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) the Book (this Quran). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkaam (commandments), Al-Faraa’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudood (laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allaah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding”
Aal ‘Imraan 3:7

We are also told that in the Quran,
“O you who believe! Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if you ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they will be made plain to you. Allah has forgiven that, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing”
al-Maa’idah 5:101
This verse forbade the believers to ask the Prophet pbuh about matters concerning which Allah had not said anything in His Book and had not said anything concerning them. This is enough for a Muslim to be content with. We know as much as revealed and those who know what the verses mean. If there isn't so much found, (which concerning this matter), I cannot tell you otherwise. But know, in Islam, when it is decreed, Allah keeps his word
and Allah knows best.

 

[firedragon]

Are you seriously suggesting that unless one is an expert on a topic then they cannot read and refer to scholarly sources?

Nope. But when one is not an expert, dont pose as one. And learn to listen. Go to scholarly sources. Read it fully, and when there is criticism, try to understand it.

 

[firedragon]

This is a long standing hot button of yours.

Irrrelevant. And I dont know who you are mate.

 

[firedragon]

What is your opinion on why early mufassir don't understand numerous parts of the Quran, for example, who the Saneans were?

Why do you find it persuasive that early Muslims both recorded the most trivial details of Muhammad's life, and also couldn't preserve memory of basic details like the identity of one of the 4 people of the book?

Who are these early mufassireens you are speaking about?

Anyway, its true that the meaning of Sabians has been one of discussion as far as anyone knows. This is a theological question, and it was always deemed that the Qur'an has some verses which is Muthasaabih which means dual or the primary true meaning is unknown yet to the reader. But it also says that there will be some who use these words to delve on and drag everything down. So I dont know of any mufassireens who took one of these words and went haywire with it. How we understand it is that if there are words that we are not knowing which is called Thaweel its not going to matter theologically, and we will know the meaning one day. Thaweel al masaari.

 

[Sedim Haba]

but you are missing the point, your Hebrew is not authenticated by God. ...
You are incorrect. Anyone can read the Quran. But giving opinions must be authenticated.
... Islam is not something that one must just read and throw aside like they don't understand. Allah says, it is FOR the understanding...

I'm not going to argue with you about languages. Point was I understand how you read.

Anyone can read Quran? Obviously not, just like not anyone can read a Torah scroll.

Giving opinions? That's not my goal. I created this thread with a simple goal in mind.
To better understand my brother Ishmael. How better than to read and understand
your scripture? Will there be things I don't understand? Of course, then I will ask
questions. Are there things that you reserve as advanced teachings? Of course,
Jews do the same thing with the Talmud. This is understandable.

What's not understandable is I've not seen ANY recommendations at all.

Someone said here 'kindergarten basics of Islam'. That's what I expected someone
to recommend. A student's version. I'd welcome that, no complaints at all.
Something I could read and not get immediately lost in unknown terminology.

Look, if you all want to keep the Prophet's words all for yourselves, that's on you.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Maryam is a more eloquently told in the Quran than how it is represented in the Bible!

Realy, if the Quran say Mary protected her Vig**a, and Allah blew into IT! how is this eloquent?
Where does the Bible have such a poor representation about Mary?

 

[SA Huguenot]

If you and many like you are like this, I am so very happy Allah HAS PRESERVED THE ORIGINAL for it's people like you who cause hatred between others.

Well, this is not true!
The original Quran that was in the posession of Muhammad's wife, Hafsa bint Umar, was eventually burned bty Hakim.
The original Quran does not exist, and Uthman and Hakim made changes to it!

 

[Augustus]

Nope. But when one is not an expert, dont pose as one. And learn to listen. Go to scholarly sources. Read it fully, and when there is criticism, try to understand it.

Why does quoting scholarly sources while explicitly acknowledging that theirs' is simply one view and that it is also possible variants just reflect scribal or other areas "posing as an expert"?

The only person who presents themselves as an expert is you, and your interactions are primarily about signaling your purported expertise rather than good faith engagement with other posters and what they said.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Ya know, the translations of the Bible has serious defects from Greek to English. Why don't you work on how to preserve that.

1. Christians never claimed that the Bible had no mistakes during 2000 years of copying it by hand, as the Muslims falsely claim about the Quran!
2. The Christians never went and burned the Bible manuscripts like the Muslims did to the Qurans when they burned Muhammad's and Ali's etc.
3. The Christians have what we call, Manuscript critisizm, where we took all the manuscripts of the world, and newer discovered ancient maniscripts, then we compare to see where scribes made errors when they coppied it by hand etc. We then check and publish these differences, and allow anyone to see the differences. The Muslims dont want anyone to know what differences there are between your 1928 Egyptian version, and the older ones such as the Sanaa, topkapi and tuskent quran
4. I am not affraid to know about errors in the Bible, because it it did not have errors due to copying it by hand for 3500 years, I would suspect the Bible to be a concoction bt men, such as Uthman and Hakim did to the Quran.

Just keep in mind, Christians never said about the Bible, that which Muslims claim.
The Quran was protected by Allah for 1600 years, and not a single difference is to be found in it.
Well, how can you check if Muslims burned Muhammad's coppy?
The above is mere propaganda, and not fact.
Greetings

 

[Augustus]

Anyway, its true that the meaning of Sabians has been one of discussion as far as anyone knows. This is a theological question, and it was always deemed that the Qur'an has some verses which is Muthasaabih which means dual or the primary true meaning is unknown yet to the reader. But it also says that there will be some who use these words to delve on and drag everything down. So I dont know of any mufassireens who took one of these words and went haywire with it. How we understand it is that if there are words that we are not knowing which is called Thaweel its not going to matter theologically, and we will know the meaning one day. Thaweel al masaari.

Can't say I find that explanation more plausible than people having lost a degree of knowledge between early generations, and later generations having to guess what they meant with insufficient information to go on (leading to the rapid expansion of hadith and sirah literature to fill the gaps).

Hence someone like Tabari frequently notes multiple contradictory explanations of verses, no one understands the mysterious letters, etc.

Less of a problem for you as you don't accept hadiths, but certainly problematic for those who think the life of Muhammad was recorded in great and highly accurate detail, yet other far more basic information has been lost.