There are no mistakes in Quran

[YmirGF]

Hilarious to see people accepting a claim from someone that's own sources contradict his views.

That's why whenever something crops up in the hadith that goes against the Qur'anic version, the hadith is immediately deemed in error. Talk about papering over the cracks in Islamic theology.

 

[Shad]

That's why whenever something crops up in the hadith that goes against the Qur'anic version, the hadith is immediately deemed in error. Talk about papering over the cracks in Islamic theology.

Its not even hadith. Firedragon said to go read a lexicon by a certain scholar implying that this scholar will say something different than my sources have. Yet when I read it and even found his own English version of the Quran with his commentary it does not say separate, it shows a violence interpretation. It was not rejecting something, it was making a bluff and being caught bluffing. FD should avoid playing poker.

See my link in the post a page back to read the source for yourself.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thanks brother.
Actually, the context of classical Arabic and the whole of the Quran.
One word will have several meanings, but this word laraba is the height of it in classical Arabic. I dont think there is anything more diverse in the vocabulary. But when you take the context of the Quranic language, its painstaking, but its pretty plain. This kind of thing crops up when you go through 6,346 verses holistically. But, you must start with the criterion, not with ahadith written centuries later and attributed to the prophet. Attributed.
Peace bro.

Thanks and regards.

 

[firedragon]

Hilarious to see people accepting a claim from someone that's own sources contradict his views.

Hilarious to hear that from a person who pretends he knows Arabic, looks at a lexicon and reads something with out understanding how the language works, how the lexicon has explained the usage of the language, how the Quranic context matters in translation, the difference between classical arabic, lexicons and Quran etc etc. Your arguments are strawman, post hoc, my source, your source with no regard to an explanation.

Simply hilarious and demeaning to discuss with someone who is as rude like you naturally while being pretentious.

 

[firedragon]

Its not even hadith. Firedragon said to go read a lexicon by a certain scholar implying that this scholar will say something different than my sources have. Yet when I read it and even found his own English version of the Quran with his commentary it does not say separate, it shows a violence interpretation. It was not rejecting something, it was making a bluff and being caught bluffing. FD should avoid playing poker.

See my link in the post a page back to read the source for yourself.

Thats not what I said. I did not direct you to an Ahmadhiya source to support my claim. I just told you about a Quranic dictionary that was easy to read. Thats it.

I play poker in my country with my friends. Not online. And there is sarcasm and there is bias egoistic slander, while being ignorant and foolish.

Have a blast.

 

[firedragon]

That's why whenever something crops up in the hadith that goes against the Qur'anic version, the hadith is immediately deemed in error. Talk about papering over the cracks in Islamic theology.

Dont call me a hypocrite my friend. The Quran has been interpreted when needed based on hadith. I say again based on hadith. Quran should be interpreted on its own merit. The Quran is at least 230 years older than most shahi hadith/mutawatir hadith. Only on that point you must understand that you cannot use spurious documents as a yardstick to measure the Quran. At least if you cannot understand that point I believe there is no need for further discussion because you could be simply denying everything I or anyone says.

I did not deem a hadith in error when convenient. I never used hadith. If I sometimes used them and rejected them when convenient, then you could say what just said. It is you who used hadith when convenient bro. And if you aim not to look at a logical explanation at all then so be it. But there is no point calling other hypocrites. There simply is no point.

This is simple logic.

But I can agree to just let it be.

Peace.

 

[psychoslice]

Anything that humans do is always in some way going to be wrong, and this includes the Koran, to think otherwise is to not think at all.

 

[YmirGF]

Dont call me a hypocrite my friend. The Quran has been interpreted when needed based on hadith. I say again based on hadith. Quran should be interpreted on its own merit. The Quran is at least 230 years older than most shahi hadith/mutawatir hadith. Only on that point you must understand that you cannot use spurious documents as a yardstick to measure the Quran. At least if you cannot understand that point I believe there is no need for further discussion because you could be simply denying everything I or anyone says.

I did not deem a hadith in error when convenient. I never used hadith. If I sometimes used them and rejected them when convenient, then you could say what just said. It is you who used hadith when convenient bro. And if you aim not to look at a logical explanation at all then so be it. But there is no point calling other hypocrites. There simply is no point.

This is simple logic.

But I can agree to just let it be.

Peace.

To be fair, for me, it was a general observation and was not specifically aimed at you. I should have made that clear.

 

[Aquitaine]

Dont call me a hypocrite my friend. The Quran has been interpreted when needed based on hadith. I say again based on hadith. Quran should be interpreted on its own merit. The Quran is at least 230 years older than most shahi hadith/mutawatir hadith. Only on that point you must understand that you cannot use spurious documents as a yardstick to measure the Quran. At least if you cannot understand that point I believe there is no need for further discussion because you could be simply denying everything I or anyone says.

I did not deem a hadith in error when convenient. I never used hadith. If I sometimes used them and rejected them when convenient, then you could say what just said. It is you who used hadith when convenient bro. And if you aim not to look at a logical explanation at all then so be it. But there is no point calling other hypocrites. There simply is no point.

This is simple logic.

But I can agree to just let it be.

Peace.

Wait, so sometimes it is necessary for Muslims to interpret the Quran using the aid of Hadiths?

 

[firedragon]

Wait, so sometimes it is necessary for Muslims to interpret the Quran using the aid of Hadiths?

Not at all.

Its like measuring the yardstick with a cloth.

 

[firedragon]

To be fair, for me, it was a general observation and was not specifically aimed at you. I should have made that clear.

Haha. Sorry I just saw this message. Alright alright, if I jumped the gun I apologise. Its really humid here and I cant have a pet dog in my apartment.

 

[Aquitaine]

Not at all.

Its like measuring the yardstick with a cloth.

Could you please elaborate on what you meant earlier when you wrote:

The Quran has been interpreted when needed based on hadith.

?

 

[Shad]

Hilarious to hear that from a person who pretends he knows Arabic

Never claimed that. However unlike yourself I only claimed what has been true for centuries regarding the verse while you can not even find a source to support you.

looks at a lexicon and reads something with out understanding how the language works, how the lexicon has explained the usage of the language, how the Quranic context matters in translation, the difference between classical arabic, lexicons and Quran etc etc. Your arguments are strawman, post hoc, my source, your source with no regard to an explanation.

Again you deny sources, lexicons, translations which disagree with you yet you can not find one that aligns with your translation. I will go with the experts over some anonymous person with zero sources declaring what it means

Simply hilarious and demeaning to discuss with someone who is as rude like you naturally while being pretentious.

Your loss of face is solely due to your own lack of sources to support your claim. I have provided source after source while you have provided nothing. You shot yourself in the foot then attempt to blame others for your inability to support your claims. That is, again, hilarious.

If you translation is right and so common why can you not support it at all.... I smell something....

 

[Shad]

Thats not what I said. I did not direct you to an Ahmadhiya source to support my claim. I just told you about a Quranic dictionary that was easy to read. Thats it.

You said to look at a dictionary from an Ahmadhiya Muslim who not only has a dictionary that disagrees with your view but his own translation of the Quran which, again, does not verify your claims. You mentioned the man not I. Maybe you should of read more about him and his work before bluffing.

I play poker in my country with my friends. Not online. And there is sarcasm and there is bias egoistic slander, while being ignorant and foolish.

My point was you are horrible at bluffing.

Have a blast.

Get a source....

 

[leibowde84]

The hurf-e-jar (preposition) 'min' can be translated both ways,and it is not wrong. Does one mean that religion should not support science or science should not support religion? What is wrong if either of them supports the other? I don't get one exactly.
In any case science does not support Agnosticism. Right?
Science is not a function of Agnosticism.Right?
Regards

I would contend that science supports agnosticism as a position, as it is the most prudent conclusion ... that being the acceptance of current ignorance.

 

[firedragon]

You said to look at a dictionary from an Ahmadhiya Muslim who not only has a dictionary that disagrees with your view but his own translation of the Quran which, again, does not verify your claims. You mentioned the man not I. Maybe you should of read more about him and his work before bluffing.

Nope. I asked you to look at an Ahmadhiya dictionary because that is an easy dictionary. Thats for your own self because you were talking about a "Non existent" Quranic lexicon. I dont need it. To me that has grave errors and is not competent at all. But their English references are easier to read than Edward lanes which is comprehensive but with out understanding arabic it is hard to learn Arabic meanings from that. But since you dont aim to learn a language, I made mistake of making such assumption. Your aim is otherwise.

My point was you are horrible at bluffing.

My point is you cant even bluff horribly.

Again you deny sources, lexicons, translations which disagree with you yet you can not find one that aligns with your translation. I will go with the experts over some anonymous person with zero sources declaring what it means

Okay. From your source, derive what Yalrib means. If you read your source fully, I mean Edward Lanes Lexicon, tell me how many meanings it has.

 

[firedragon]

Could you please elaborate on what you meant earlier when you wrote:



?

The Quran has been interpreted based on Hadith.

Whats so difficult in understanding that?

 

[Shad]

Nope. I asked you to look at an Ahmadhiya dictionary because that is an easy dictionary. Thats for your own self because you were talking about a "Non existent" Quranic lexicon.

Yet not only does the dictionary disagree with you the same author made his own translation of the Quran with commentary that disagrees. The Corpus exists. Lane's Lexicon exists. You are babbling.

I dont need it. To me that has grave errors and is not competent at all. But their English references are easier to read than Edward lanes which is comprehensive but with out understanding arabic it is hard to learn Arabic meanings from that. But since you dont aim to learn a language, I made mistake of making such assumption. Your aim is otherwise.

Yet the point in question has your source supporting my views. You made assumptions that your sources would valid your position but didn't since you didn't bother reading what you cite nor corresponding work.

[quote[My point is you cant even bluff horribly. [/quote]

I do not need to bluff as I provided sources. I had a Flush.

Okay. From your source, derive what Yalrib means. If you read your source fully, I mean Edward Lanes Lexicon, tell me how many meanings it has.

No just my source but your own. Your question is largely irrelevant as you refuse to understand basic grammar in regards to verbs and nouns. Pointing out other definition that have different nouns is a wasted effort as I pointed out the error of doing so before. Beside it is your argument that relies on these other definitions involving different objects, not mine. Do your own work.

 

[firedragon]

No just my source but your own. Your question is largely irrelevant as you refuse to understand basic grammar in regards to verbs and nouns. Point out other definition that have different nouns is a wasted effort. Beside it is your case so do your own leg work. You tell me since your argument hinges on that point, not mine.

You said that Edward Lane says that when it comes to a person Laraba means to physically beat them. He does not say that. That is completely wrong. This is again probably the one word that has most usages.

Read the Ed lanes lexicon. When its Larabna it is sealing. When it refers to two people it says "A barrier was setup between them two". Thats verbatim from Edward Lanes Lexicon Luriba Baynahuma. Laraba Alaihi Hijaban it means that a you put a cover over a person. Anyway there are many examples.

Look at the usage of the word in the Quran

43:5 Shall We turn away the Reminder from you, because you are a transgressing people?

When it comes to people it is turning away, not hit them.

The Quran has many usages of this word. To condemn people as well.

 

[firedragon]

Yet not only does the dictionary disagree with you the same author made his own translation of the Quran with commentary that disagrees. The Corpus exists. Lane's Lexicon exists. You are babbling.

Laraba is a word similar to "Get" in English. Think of all the usages of it. Depends on the context of the verse, not the context of a story written two centuries later.

The word strike will have many meanings. It struck me. It struck her. I got a stroke. We put up a strike. etc. The arabic word has more usages than that. It could be a combination of several english words.

Anyway I do not generally like to quote lexicons because understanding the Quran goes much further and its not simple to make someone understand. Nevertheless, you accused me of quoting you sources I have not read. I quoted you Ghulams dictionary not to suit my agenda but since you mentioned Quranic lexicon which does not exist. And it is easier to read this kind of dictionary if you really wish to read something.

Nevertheless, look at Malik Ghulam Farids dictionary that spoke of so vehemently.

The word is used to say seal the letter, seal the ears. And when comes to refer to us, it means separated larabaddahru baynana.

Your idea that when it comes to a person the meaning only be beat physically is wrong. You even went on to claim that edward lanes lexicon says that when a person is concerned its a violent beating thats referred to.

Read above. It will mean turn away, him or it. See the reference of the Quran, it could be ignore you or turn from you, as a person.

Larabna Alaazaanihim means prevented. All referring to a person.

Below is edward Lane, above was Ghulam Farid.

Can you see, a barrier was set between them two. Thats Luriba, Ilribuhunna is to setup a barrier or separate from one. Thats what the Quran says in 4:34.

Peace.