There are no mistakes in Quran

[firedragon]

Already answered this.



For the very same word you have cited in Lane's Lexicon. However since you didn't actually read it you are obvious to this fact. You didn't read the source, the lexicon itself, you read an image of it, nothing more.



Considering I had already linked Lane's Lexicon there is no reason to link pictures nor take the time to take pictures. Considering you repeated my own citation days after the fact shows that you didn't even look at my sources. This does more than suggest you just googled a site for the answers you wanted from an apologist website. Sites that crop images like your Farid image is as the reference to the verse in question was removed as it would damage the claim.

• Which word? Luriba, Yalrib, ilribuhunna? Now since you read the lexicon and claim that the lexicon only cites violence when it comes to a person prove it.
  
• I have shown you from the both a dictionary and edlanes lexicon. I took screen shots and and transliterated the Arabic for your ease of understanding.
  
• I tell you again that when you accuse someone of copy paste from a site you must prove it. I am confident that you cannot. So I ask you again, try and prove it or stop accusing people.

Thats Ed Lanes Lexicon. Again. Can you deny that we cant render it to say a barrier or separation? Can you see with your eyes?

Why dont you copy paste that image on google or something and try find if I copied from a site.

This is absurd.

 

[Shad]

• Which word? Luriba, Yalrib, ilribuhunna? Now since you read the lexicon and claim that the lexicon only cites violence when it comes to a person prove it.

Read my references again

• I have shown you from the both a dictionary and edlanes lexicon. I took screen shots and and transliterated the Arabic for your ease of understanding.

No you showed a cropped image which removes the direct reference to beat in the verse in question. Which I linked to show your images are distortions. You also ignore the disconnect between the author of the dictionaries own English translations do not say anything about separate at all. You also ignored that Lane's Lexicon is the source for the Quran Corpus which again does not support your view. You have not doing anything to resolve these issues beside claiming your own sources are wrong and you are right.

• I tell you again that when you accuse someone of copy paste from a site you must prove it. I am confident that you cannot. So I ask you again, try and prove it or stop accusing people.

The cropped image suggests a website copy and the lack of proper citations.

Thats Ed Lanes Lexicon. Again. Can you deny that we cant render it to say a barrier or separation? Can you see with your eyes?

Another cropped image. Go here:http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Fine pages 1777-78. Do note that your tiny image is only a portion of the definition. A cropped image is again a distortion which omits conflicting definitions. Yet the most common is still beat/striking a person, an object, etc. The definition is context specific which is not the context of the verse in question at all. Those are within the context of striking people which litters the definition. You are equating a barrier is a reference to people, it isn't.

You can render it however you want. However this does not make your interpretation a fact. Again I will go with those qualified experts over an anonymous person on the internet.

Why dont you copy paste that image on google or something and try find if I copied from a site.

Cropped images are the hallmark of apologists websites. Just like this one: http://quransmessage.com/articles/a deeper look at the word dharaba FM3.htm

This is absurd.

It is absurd to deny the contradiction between your dictionary source and the two books made by the very author. It is absurd to deny experts have translated it is beat/strike for over a century and continue to do so. It is absurd to post cropped images which remove the majority of the definition from the same source I used days ago. It is absurd to use a definition no expert has endorsed in an authorized translation. It is absurd to maintain you know more than the experts.

Do we have anymore absurdities to hash out?

 

[firedragon]

Read my references again

I did. But again whats the word you are talking about? Luriba, Yalrib or Ilribuhunna?

No you showed a cropped image which removes the direct reference to beat in the verse in question. Which I linked to show your images are distortions. You also ignore the disconnect between the author of the dictionaries own English translations do not say anything about separate at all. You also ignored that Lane's Lexicon is the source for the Quran Corpus which again does not support your view. You have not doing anything to resolve these issues beside claiming your own sources are wrong and you are right.

No. Thats a screenshot. IF you wanna see the larger image with no cropping here you go. Lol. This is a kiddies party.

Another cropped image. Go here:http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Fine pages 1777-78. Do note that your tiny image is only a portion of the definition. A cropped image is again a distortion which omits conflicting definitions. Yet the most common is still beat/striking a person, an object, etc. The definition is context specific which is not the context of the verse in question at all. Those are within the context of striking people which litters the definition. You are equating a barrier is a reference to people, it isn't.

You can render it however you want. However this does not make your interpretation a fact. Again I will go with those qualified experts over an anonymous person on the internet.

Cropped so that its bigger and clearer. Most common as what? Can you read the full sentences? Larabuaunakahum. What are you reading? Good God. I cant believe I am having this conversation. If you say this to any Arabic scholar it will be a joke to say it is impossible to mean separation. This verse has not been rendered based on hte Quranic context in most translations, they come from a hadith background. The context of a hadith that speaks about beating a wife with a Misfaq.

It is foolish to say that based on the context it cannot mean separation because it simply can. The only argument is the hadith, not the language.

Edward lane has explained in detail of almost all usages of the word spanning so many pages in his lexicon. Cant scan printed books so I took a screenshot off the online version. Depending on the usage of the word the meaning changes. Like Nakaha, fankihu and hum. Marry, and get them married. ANyway I know that you will not only not understand it, you will also not even consider it.

Cropped images are the hallmark of apologists websites. Just like this one: http://quransmessage.com/articles/a deeper look at the word dharaba FM3.htm

Oh yes. Without cropping you must post the full page. Well, since you insist I have done that. I think its absurd.

• You said that EdLane says that when it comes to a person it could only mean a violent beating. Show me in a cropped image or a full image where it says that.
• And show me where I copied the image from other than my own computer.

It is absurd to deny the contradiction between your dictionary source and the two books made by the very author. It is absurd to deny experts have translated it is beat/strike for over a century and continue to do so. It is absurd to post cropped images which remove the majority of the definition from the same source I used days ago. It is absurd to use a definition no expert has endorsed in an authorized translation. It is absurd to maintain you know more than the experts.

Do we have anymore absurdities to hash out?

Well. Can you see their own hypocrisy in that case? Farids dictionary has the meaning of separation or a barrier in between them, but his translation is bias. You yourself are pinpointing at a hypocrisy.

You speak of majority definition. THere is nothing like that. I understand that its because you are only reading the English parts of it. But you dont even look at a transliteration and an explanation of what EdLane is saying. I dont know what to call that.

Again, if you can prove that I copied images from some apologist site, I told you what I would do. When you accuse someone prove it pls.

 

[Shad]

I did. But again whats the word you are talking about? Luriba, Yalrib or Ilribuhunna?



No. Thats a screenshot. IF you wanna see the larger image with no cropping here you go. Lol. This is a kiddies party.

This was pointless as I reference the lexicon a number of times already. All you have done is take a screenshot, nothing more. Your image is off center with the screenshot isn't

Cropped so that its bigger and clearer.

Also cropped to remove the other definitions which are far more numerous in reference to acts of violence against people.

Most common as what?

Can you not read the other definations applied to people which is about violence?

Can you read the full sentences?

Yes but apparently you can't read after taking a screenshot

Larabuaunakahum. What are you reading? Good God. I cant believe I am having this conversation. If you say this to any Arabic scholar it will be a joke to say it is impossible to mean separation.

You mean like scholars like Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Muhammad Sarwar, Farids. So far the scholars cited by me and you agree with my views not your claim.

This verse has not been rendered based on hte Quranic context in most translations, they come from a hadith background. The context of a hadith that speaks about beating a wife with a Misfaq.

Gee I wonder why hadtih would support beating a wife if people do not take the verse to mean that....... Of course you will now reject any ahadith which contradicts your views which is no more than claiming experts for centuries are all wrong but you are right. Your hubris is amazing.

It is foolish to say that based on the context it cannot mean separation because it simply can. The only argument is the hadith, not the language.

Again your argument is that people in a time-frame that is far closer to the origins of Islam are wrong, they do not understand their own language but you do. That authentic hadith are nonsense. I expert cherry picking to follow.

Edward lane has explained in detail of almost all usages of the word spanning so many pages in his lexicon.

Yes it did but your view does not establish a barrier between people nor separation while the majority reference violence to people and other objects.

Cant scan printed books so I took a screenshot off the online version.

Which I have linked repeatedly. Ad hoc

Depending on the usage of the word the meaning changes. Like Nakaha, fankihu and hum. Marry, and get them married. ANyway I know that you will not only not understand it, you will also not even consider it.

Again injection an out of context definition, nothing more. The same equivocation fallacy you used before. Expert render it as per my claim.

Oh yes. Without cropping you must post the full page. Well, since you insist I have done that. I think its absurd.

Or you could of just linked it as I have with the page number. Excuses to avoid cropping definitions that not do support your interpretation

• You said that EdLane says that when it comes to a person it could only mean a violent beating. Show me in a cropped image or a full image where it says that.

No need. I have referenced the page and linked the book. Nothing more is required. You could have done the same but you seem to not understand how to do any citation until I explained it to you.

• And show me where I copied the image from other than my own computer.

Why crop an image instead of using a reference? It is not only a waste of time but also uninformative since it does not provide some basic information so I can actually it up. It is very suspicious given I have shown it is a tactic used by apologists.

Well. Can you see their own hypocrisy in that case? Farids dictionary has the meaning of separation or a barrier in between them, but his translation is bias. You yourself are pinpointing at a hypocrisy.

No I am pointing out a contradiction in which the very author of the dictionary does not use your interpretation for the verse. The barrier does not mention people at all. You claims are false. You only call them hypocrites since they do not agree with your claims, nothing more. It is nothing but an ad hominem fallacy. Remember my point about logic? You are doing it wrong....

You speak of majority definition. THere is nothing like that.

Yes there is as there are far more definition for violence to people than your claims, that by definition is a majority. More authorized and credible translations unanimously agree with my view, again a majority.

I understand that its because you are only reading the English parts of it. But you dont even look at a transliteration and an explanation of what EdLane is saying. I dont know what to call that.

Again claiming all the experts are wrong and have been for over a century. You were convinced by fallacious arguments now expect me to do the same. That isn't happening.

The word you looking for is skeptical. More specifically skeptical of a claim by an anonymous person on the internet that's own reference backfire.

Again, if you can prove that I copied images from some apologist site, I told you what I would do. When you accuse someone prove it pls.

Again the cropping of the image has been demonstrated by me as a tactic of apologists. The wasted effort of cropping rather than making proper citation. The wasted effort in having to ask for a proper citation only to be supplied with a definition already dismissed by experts for the verse in question. The wasted effort in seeing my own reference used again as if I never cited it at all. The equivocation of a barrier, which prevents contract with separation of individuals with no barriers. The omission of every definition except the one you want.

 

[firedragon]

You mean like scholars like Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Muhammad Sarwar, Farids. So far the scholars cited by me and you agree with my views not your claim.

Tell any scholar that ilribuhunna cannot mean separation they will tell you it can. Any scholar. Thats a challenge.
And any lexicon will also say that it can. Any lexicon. Thats also a challenge.

 

[Shad]

Tell any scholar that ilribuhunna cannot mean separation they will tell you it can. Any scholar. Thats a challenge.

I was talking about the verse.

And any lexicon will also say that it can. Any lexicon. Thats also a challenge.

I was talking about the verse.

 

[firedragon]

I was talking about the verse.



I was talking about the verse.

Me too.

 

[Shad]

Me too.

Then your point is moot as scholars, educated ones as I have mentioned, already do not agree with your interpretation of the verse. Again your only solution is to claim you know more than they do

 

[firedragon]

Then your point is moot as scholars, educated ones as I have mentioned, already do not agree with your interpretation of the verse. Again your only solution is to claim you know more than they do

Nope, they understood it from the hadith point of view.

Ask them if the verse can or cannot be rendered as separation as a stand alone book. Ask any scholar. And when I say scholar I mean educated ones, I dont know what other kind of scholars exist in this world or dreams.

 

[Shad]

Nope, they understood it from the hadith point of view.

No they didn't as separate requires a parable

Ask them if the verse can or cannot be rendered as separation as a stand alone book.

Irrelevant

Ask any scholar. And when I say scholar I mean educated ones, I dont know what other kind of scholars exist in this world or dreams.

You means like the ones that translated the Quran? No need then as they agreed with me. Besides none of the scholars at SFU have disagreed with me when I took the Islamic Studies course years ago. Also the verse is missing
ل (to/for) and a qualifying word like "disputation" جدلا.

 

[firedragon]

No they didn't as separate requires a parable



Irrelevant



You means like the ones that translated the Quran? No need then as they agreed with me. Besides none of the scholars at SFU have disagreed with me when I took the Islamic Studies course years ago. Also the verse is missing
ل (to/for) and a qualifying word like "disputation" جدلا.

Any scholar. No one will disagree.

As long as they look at it as a stand alone verse, not look at it through the keyhole of Hadith.

 

[firedragon]

ل (to/for) and a qualifying word like "disputation" جدلا.

Can you tell me the pronunciation of جدلا and where it should be in the verse.

Also you spoke of a Lam. Where should that be?

 

[Augustus]

As long as they look at it as a stand alone verse, not look at it through the keyhole of Hadith.

I understand that tafsir is not Quran, and identifying meaning of ambiguous phrases is tafsir. Also that people can choose to interpret an ambiguous phrases in different ways based on their own reasoning.

Don't you think that, at least initially, hadith grew out of a need to explain/interpret the Quran? So the hadith would reflect what early scholars had identified as being the meaning, rather than deriving the meaning from the hadith? Hadith reflect the interpretation, rather than the interpretation reflecting hadith?

Of course interpretation is still interpretation and later scholars would use hadith to interpret the Quran.

 

[firedragon]

I understand that tafsir is not Quran, and identifying meaning of ambiguous phrases is tafsir. Also that people can choose to interpret an ambiguous phrases in different ways based on their own reasoning.

Don't you think that, at least initially, hadith grew out of a need to explain/interpret the Quran? So the hadith would reflect what early scholars had identified as being the meaning, rather than deriving the meaning from the hadith? Hadith reflect the interpretation, rather than the interpretation reflecting hadith?

Of course interpretation is still interpretation and later scholars would use hadith to interpret the Quran.

It has been both ways, but thats just a theory.

Some hadith have been created to represent running views. e.g. Hijab.

What does Hijab mean in Islam?

 

[Augustus]

What does Hijab mean in Islam?

Depends on how you interpret it

Generally clothing worn to protect modesty, particularly the headscarf (interestingly in Indo-Malay languages they use jilbab to refer to the headscarf), although the nature of this and who it applies to are contentious.

I think there are some more esoteric interpretations which you are no doubt more knowledgable than me about.

iirc it literally means something like partition.

 

[firedragon]

Depends on how you interpret it

Generally clothing worn to protect modesty, particularly the headscarf (interestingly in Indo-Malay languages they use jilbab to refer to the headscarf), although the nature of this and who it applies to are contentious.

I think there are some more esoteric interpretations which you are no doubt more knowledgable than me about.

iirc it literally means something like partition.

You are right. The meaning of the word has evolved to mean a clothing. Literally it can mean clothing also, but the word in itself means a barrier.

In the Quran the word Hijab is never used to mean any type of clothing. It is cited several times but as a barrier, veil of darkness as in the evening spread of darkness, etc.

But the Hijab concept lives on. In order to propound it, there was a hadith invented that would interpret a completely separate verse as the Quranic verse for HIjab. The irony is that this verse never mentions the verse HIjab. If they had the ability, they would have inserted the word HIjab into that verse to support their strategy to make the woman cover her hair, body and what ever men liked their women to be like.

This is what they did.

You know about Rajm, stoning for adultery. This is not in the Quran. Nowhere, thus there was another hadith invented that says the verse about Rajm was given to the prophet who had it written down and kept it with him while he lay sleeping. A goat ate it.

 

[Augustus]

You know about Rajm, stoning for adultery. This is not in the Quran. Nowhere, thus there was another hadith invented that says the verse about Rajm was given to the prophet who had it written down and kept it with him while he lay sleeping. A goat ate it.

That's one of my favourite stories. The eternal and uncreated word of God eaten by a goat and even though people knew about it happening they couldn't simply write it down again or commit it to memory.

One thing that confuses me on this issue is that when deciding if a hadith a sahih, one of the major factors is that is doesn't contradict the Quran, but with this some people say that the hadith on rajm actually abrogates the Quran.

To me also, abrogation seems to refer to previous scripture, not the Quran itself. "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?", why would the Quran abrogate its own verses with others that are 'similar' or claim any of it would be 'forgotten'?

What are your views on this?

 

[firedragon]

That's one of my favourite stories. The eternal and uncreated word of God eaten by a goat and even though people knew about it happening they couldn't simply write it down again or commit it to memory.

One thing that confuses me on this issue is that when deciding if a hadith a sahih, one of the major factors is that is doesn't contradict the Quran, but with this some people say that the hadith on rajm actually abrogates the Quran.

To me also, abrogation seems to refer to previous scripture, not the Quran itself. "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?", why would the Quran abrogate its own verses with others that are 'similar' or claim any of it would be 'forgotten'?

What are your views on this?

Even the most mass narrated ahadith contradict the Quran.

Abrogation is a later developed theory to support hadith and various interpretation of Fiqh and Shariah.

Quran in itself says that That is the best Hadith. It tells you not to follow false hadith.

If the Goat story is your favourite, you would also love the story of this dude who spoke to monkeys and stoned one along with them. And those who claim to commit the whole Quran to their memory could not remember one verse. Oh, the prophet wrote it down by himself. Then again, isnt he unable to read and write? Well even if he could write, why would he only write one verse out of 6346 others? Is it because stoning is the most important and most divine teaching God ever revealed?

This is so absurd that it can make you admit yourself to an asylum. Yound dont have to believe in the Quran to see this hypocrisy.

When you fall in love with a life of ego, you will die or blaspheme to protect it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Even the most mass narrated ahadith contradict the Quran.

Abrogation is a later developed theory to support hadith and various interpretation of Fiqh and Shariah.

Quran in itself says that That is the best Hadith. It tells you not to follow false hadith.

If the Goat story is your favourite, you would also love the story of this dude who spoke to monkeys and stoned one along with them. And those who claim to commit the whole Quran to their memory could not remember one verse. Oh, the prophet wrote it down by himself. Then again, isnt he unable to read and write? Well even if he could write, why would he only write one verse out of 6346 others? Is it because stoning is the most important and most divine teaching God ever revealed?

This is so absurd that it can make you admit yourself to an asylum. Yound dont have to believe in the Quran to see this hypocrisy.

When you fall in love with a life of ego, you will die or blaspheme to protect it.

I agree with what I have coloured in magenta.
Regards

 

[Shad]

Tell any scholar that ilribuhunna cannot mean separation they will tell you it can. Any scholar. Thats a challenge.
And any lexicon will also say that it can. Any lexicon. Thats also a challenge.

No need, there are qualified scholars I have mentioned already that show otherwise. The scholars from my Islamic studies have said the same.

Can you tell me the pronunciation of جدلا and where it should be in the verse.

Also you spoke of a Lam. Where should that be?

The verse would be different. The example I was given was واضربوا لهن مثلا