Was Jesus killed on the cross?

[Bowman]

[/size][/font]

It isn't broken. 4.157 says he wasn't crucified.

Nope.

This would force other ayat into contradiction, if this were the case, brother…

Additionally, 4.156 makes no sense without a negative in 4.157.

Explain…

Except ma is also used, in governing the verb, as a relative. And so it is with this passage. Only, as you point out, context is important, and the relative use makes no sense in 4.157.

Explain…

It's only "clear" when you disregard the grammar.

Please detail the ‘grammar’ used here, complete with examples, brother….if you are able...

Not even according to your source"



It can easily mean "honor, show regard, raise in dignity,etc." There is nothing in the definition which "confirms" that Jesus was literally raised from the dead according to the line.

That your Arabic is weak is indeed the only truth that you have told, brother….and thanks for confirming our references…

 

[Oberon]

Nope.

This would force other ayat into contradiction, if this were the case, brother…

What contradiction?

Explain…

4.156 states "And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny." This is then followed by what is said about Jesus, that he was killed. This is then contradicted, via ma, by saying no, he was not crucified. In other words, 4.156 creates a situation in which people are saying untrue things which are wrong and problematic. This is followed by a statement that people say Jesus was killed. To follow this statement by confirming it makes no sense. Rather, in the context of 4.156 it makes perfect sense that what people say ought to be negated.

Explain…

I shouldn't have to. It is in the reference grammar which you cite. Haven't you read your own source?

Please detail the ‘grammar’ used here, complete with examples, brother….if you are able...

I did. The only reference grammar you cite (and a book on grammar is far more important for determining the meaning of a sentence or clause than a lexicon) refers to ma as a negative particle all the time, particularly at they clausal level. You translated it as a demonstrative, but provided no grammatical reference licensing this use.

That your Arabic is weak is indeed the only truth that you have told, brother….and thanks for confirming our references…

I have no problem telling that truth, but you apparently do. And I have studied linguistics as well as several languages, while you reference century old reference texts and ignore the bulk of what they say. You have done nothing to prove your point. You cited a possible meaning of ma, and then ignored the other meanings, and claimed, without any reference to any grammar, that "context" supplied the meaning you used. It didn't.

 

[Bowman]

What contradiction?

Sura 86…

4.156 states "And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny." This is then followed by what is said about Jesus, that he was killed. This is then contradicted, via ma, by saying no, he was not crucified. In other words, 4.156 creates a situation in which people are saying untrue things which are wrong and problematic. This is followed by a statement that people say Jesus was killed. To follow this statement by confirming it makes no sense. Rather, in the context of 4.156 it makes perfect sense that what people say ought to be negated.

Nope.

Observe the formula set forth in the context of 4.157, as thus…



4.155

Fabima naqdihim meethaqahum wakufrihim bi-ayati Allahi waqatlihimu al-anbiyaa bighayri haqqin waqawlihim quloobuna ghulfun bal tabaAAa Allahu AAalayha bikufrihim fala yu/minoona illa qaleelan




4.157 - 8

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 bal rafaAAahu Allahu ilayhi wakana Allahu AAazeezan hakeeman



The formula has already been established in the ayahs leading up to 4.157, by the usage of the terms “waqawlihim” (that they said)…and “bal” (nay).



Everything that “they said” is in direct quotes.

The term “bal” only comes after what they said.

“Bal” is a particle of digression, and denotes emendation wherever it occurs.

This can be either a negation or an affirmation.

As we can see in the example just preceding 4.157, the formula set forth is merely one of affirmation of what “they said”.

We can see this same exact positive affirmation formula present in 4.157 – 8, to the fact that “they said” that Jesus Christ was killed.

4.158 even plainly states that Jesus Christ was singularly resurrected, perfect tense (completed action) “rafaAAahu” after he was killed.

Jesus’ singular resurrection already occurred.

I did. The only reference grammar you cite (and a book on grammar is far more important for determining the meaning of a sentence or clause than a lexicon) refers to ma as a negative particle all the time, particularly at they clausal level. You translated it as a demonstrative, but provided no grammatical reference licensing this use.

Nope.

Let’s start with the condition.

What is the condition set forth 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​

The condition emanates from the quoted statement that Jesus Christ was killed (“qatalna”). This is a positive assertion.

The conditional mood is positive.

The opening clause (in red) covers the entirety of the quoted statement of what they said.

The object of this conditional clause is Jesus Christ.

The predicate of this conditional clause is the completed action verb “qatalna” i.e. “we killed.”

I have no problem telling that truth, but you apparently do. And I have studied linguistics as well as several languages, while you reference century old reference texts and ignore the bulk of what they say. You have done nothing to prove your point. You cited a possible meaning of ma, and then ignored the other meanings, and claimed, without any reference to any grammar, that "context" supplied the meaning you used. It didn't.

The references which we have cited are world-class, and have no detractors. Lane’s Lexicon has been the reference gold standard for the past 150+ years, for scholars, of which, even you are using in lieu of providing any of your own.

You have nothing.

 

[Oberon]

Sura 86…

How is that a contradiction?

Nope.

Observe the formula set forth in the context of 4.157, as thus…

And you conveniently skip over 4.156.

As we can see in the example just preceding 4.157, the formula set forth is merely one of affirmation of what “they said”.

Only it isn't. Because the use in 4.158 is not about affirming that Jesus died on the cross, but that he was exalted or taken up by Allah. This does not mean that Jesus was crucified, which is explicitly contradictid by 4.157.

We can see this same exact positive affirmation formula present in 4.157 – 8, to the fact that “they said” that Jesus Christ was killed.

Again, the "nay/bal" of 4.158 does not relate to Jesus' crucifixion.

4.158 even plainly states that Jesus Christ was singularly resurrected, perfect tense (completed action) “rafaAAahu” after he was killed.

It doesn't. The verb doesn't mean resurrected.

Nope.

Let’s start with the condition.

What is the condition set forth in this ayah…?

None. It's negated indirect speech. The mood itself can be used in constructions apart from a conditional, as is typical of moods cross-linguistically which are used in conditionals (e.g. the subjunctive in latin or the optative and subjunctive in Greek). And by the way, the only grammar you cite does not mention any conditional mood, but rather uses outdated grammatical analyses based on Latin and Greek grammatical tradition. Surely you have a more updated arabic grammar?

The condition emanates from the quoted statement that Jesus Christ was killed (“qatalna&#8221. This is a positive assertion.

No, it isn't. It is negated by ma.

The conditional mood is positive.

The opening clause (in red) covers the entirety of the quoted statement of what they said.

The object of this conditional clause is Jesus Christ.

The predicate of this conditional clause is the completed action verb “qatalna” i.e. “we killed.”

Again, negated.

The references which we have cited are world-class, and have no detractors. Lane’s Lexicon has been the reference gold standard for the past 150+ years, for scholars, of which, even you are using in lieu of providing any of your own.

You have nothing.

First, no lexicon or grammar has been a gold standard without being updated for more than a century, yet you cite a century old versions. Second, a lexicon is worth next to nothing in determining which meaning (particularly where particles or similar lexemes are concerned) is appropriate given context. You provide no references to the grammar you cite which indicate that the lexical definition you chose over the possible ones given is correct here.

 

[Bowman]

How is that a contradiction?

Among numerous other things, sura 86 undeniably confirms to us these key points:

• That Jesus was crucified until death upon the Cross
• That Jesus was singularly resurrected
• That Jesus will return on a cloud to judge the dead at His Second Coming & gather His Elect

Summary:

86.1 And/by the clouds, and/by the Morning Star. (Announces Jesus’ Second Coming, on a cloud)

86.2 And who told you what the Morning Star is? (Asks the question: Who Told John of Jesus Second Coming?)

86.3 The star, the brightly shining. (Answers the question: Jesus, the Bright Morning Star, tells John)

86.4 Indeed every soul gathers on its Guardian. (Jesus, the Guardian, gathers His souls)

86.5 So, the human looks upon that which was created the inner man. (The reason for the gathering of the souls: Jesus is viewed upon the Cross)

86.6 The inner man was created out of water pouring forth at once. (Jesus’ Crucifixion & death upon the Cross)

86.7 He emerges from amidst the Cross and the grave. Or…86.7 He emerges from between the backbone and the ribs. (Jesus’ Crucifixion & Resurrection)

86.8 Certainly Him above, He returned Him to the present state of existence after death, truly possessing power. (Jesus’ Singular Resurrection)

86.9 A day The Marriage will turn to its reality. (The First Resurrection)

86.10 So truly not His from strength and nor Savior. (The Second Death)

86.11 And/by the cloud, Lord of the return. (Jesus’ Second Coming on a cloud)

86.12 And/by the earth, Lord of the separation. (Jesus gathers His elect)

86.13 Truly His Word is Judgment. (Jesus is the Word which judges mankind)

86.14 And He is not with the vain. (The fall of Babylon the Great)

86.15 Truly them, they devise an artful device. (Satan’s war)

86.16 And I devise an artful device. (Jesus’ war)

86.17 So respite the disbelievers, respite them gently for a little while. (Repent to Jesus)

 

[Bowman]

And you conveniently skip over 4.156.

4.156 has no bearing upon Jesus' crucifixion, as it is directed towards Mary.

Only it isn't. Because the use in 4.158 is not about affirming that Jesus died on the cross, but that he was exalted or taken up by Allah. This does not mean that Jesus was crucified, which is explicitly contradictid by 4.157.

The formula has already been established in the ayahs leading up to 4.158, of which, you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

As was already shown to you, and of which you completely ignored, when speaking of a crucifixion event, the Koran always mandates death.

You should already be cognizant that proper exegesis includes looking at other usages and variants of the word in question, within scripture. Some how you want to ignore proper protocol...

Again, the "nay/bal" of 4.158 does not relate to Jesus' crucifixion.

Of course it relates to Jesus' crucifixion brother, as per the classic definition....but, then again, when have you even so much as bothered to define the very terms which you are using?

Yet another instance of you failing (more like flailing) to follow elementary exegesis rules.

It doesn't. The verb doesn't mean resurrected.

Yes, it does...as already defined.

You cannot bring any verifiable alternative.

 

[Bowman]

None. It's negated indirect speech. The mood itself can be used in constructions apart from a conditional, as is typical of moods cross-linguistically which are used in conditionals (e.g. the subjunctive in latin or the optative and subjunctive in Greek). And by the way, the only grammar you cite does not mention any conditional mood, but rather uses outdated grammatical analyses based on Latin and Greek grammatical tradition. Surely you have a more updated arabic grammar?

Nope.

You have absolutely no idea what you are even rambling on about, brother.

So...now your only assertion is that I am using 'outdated' grammars?

lol, brother...Classic Arabic is extinct, and the best classic Arabic grammars are the ones written long ago and have withstood the test of time - as we are discussing classic Arabic, not modern Arabic.

Again...you display your ignorance of Arabic..and offer no alternatives.

You have nothing.

No, it isn't. It is negated by ma.

Nope.

We have already been through this brother....you can be better....

First, no lexicon or grammar has been a gold standard without being updated for more than a century, yet you cite a century old versions. Second, a lexicon is worth next to nothing in determining which meaning (particularly where particles or similar lexemes are concerned) is appropriate given context. You provide no references to the grammar you cite which indicate that the lexical definition you chose over the possible ones given is correct here.

As previously stated, is this the best rebuttal that you can muster?

Had you even bothered to verify our definition (which you have not), then you would have seen that the bulk of the definition comes from the ancient Lexicons.

You had no issue with this ignorance when you plucked out a definition to fit your paradigm.

Put some effort into your replies...

 

[jml03]

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِِ الرَّحِيمِ
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

​

Verily, all praise belongs to Allah, and may His peace and blessings be showered upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, his companions, and his true followers until the Day of Judgment:

As a Muslim, I believe that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) is the promised Messiah and a true prophet of God. However, I reject the belief that he was killed on the cross, which Christians believe. This is because, if indeed he was killed on the cross and died an agonizing, disgraceful death, than the Jews are justified in rejecting him as the Messiah. That is because, the idea of the Messiah is that he will be a glorious ruler who will bring about a reign of total peace and tranquility. This is why actually many of the Jews reject Jesus (peace be upon him) as the Messiah, because they say he died a disgraceful death on the cross, therefore, how can he be the Messiah which we are eagerly awaiting?

Of course, as a Muslim, I believe firmly that Jesus (peace be upon him) was saved from the evil conspiracy of his enemies to crucify him, and that God raised him up to Himself, and that presently he is alive in the heavens. Before the Day of Judgment, he will return to the Earth to slay the Antichrist and establish a reign of peace and harmony in the world.

Christians often quote from their Bible prophecies that predict the Messiah will suffer and die. One such prophecy they quote is Psalm 22, which they claim is a clear prediction of the suffering Jesus (peace be upon him) would endure in his life. The famous quote of "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me", the prophecy that his hands and feet will be pierced, and his garments will be parted, etc., are all apparently found in Psalm 22.

However, this is also true that if indeed Psalm 22 is referring to the suffering which the Messiah must endure, it is also a prediction that God will save him from being killed by his enemies:

"But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns." (Psalm 22:19-21)

Now it becomes clear that if Psalm 22 is a prophecy about the Messiah, indeed he will be suffering at the hands of his enemies, but in the end, God will save him from the sword and from the lion's mouth, that is, from being killed.

According to the Bible, the Jews challenged Jesus (peace be upon him) to have God display a heavenly Sign in his favor, so that they might believe in him. In response, Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying:

"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:39-40)

Anyone who knows the story of the Prophet Jonas (peace be upon him) knows that he was thrown overboard from a ship and cast into a stormy sea. Logic dictates that he should have died by way of drowning. But, as a Sign of God, he was miraculous saved, and a whale swallowed him up. There too, naturally he should have died, but he miraculously remained alive for three days and nights, until the whale vomited him out onto the shore, all the while he had been alive.

Jesus (peace be upon him) prophecised that God would display a similar Sign for him as well, but that, instead of being in the belly of the whale, he would be in the heart of the Earth, for three days and nights. Jonas (peace be upon him), was alive throughout his entire ordeal, as a miraculous sign of God. Therefore, in order for the ordeal of Jesus (peace be upon him) to also be a miraculous sign, he too must have been alive. When he was put on the cross and taken down, he must have been alive, despite natural expectation to the contrary, and when he was buried in the cave, he must have been alive, as he mentioned he would be, for three days and nights. And when he finally emerged from the heart of the Earth after these three days and nights, he would be alive, in fact, he would have to have been alive the whole time, just like Jonas was.

It is for this reason that Allah (God) says in the Holy Quran:

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا
And they said (in boast): "Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah." - But they killed him not, nor did they crucify him, but rather, it was made to appear to them as such. And those who are in doubt about it have no knowledge thereof, they follow nothing but conjecture. Of a certainty they killed him not. (4:157)

​

So despite the boast of the Jews that they had killed Jesus on the cross, and therefore they are right to reject him as the Messiah and as God's messenger, in reality, he was saved by God, and this is the firm faith of every Muslim.

Fantastic! You have enlightened me so. I knew some of our religions were similar, but had no idea how much. Do you believe in what the 4 apostles wrote? Just curious. I can understand from your writing why you believe the way you do. I see nothing wrong in it. Your message makes perfect sense. But really, what of the apostles? Do you believe in some of their writings. Thanks.

 

[fallingblood]

Among numerous other things, sura 86 undeniably confirms to us these key points:

• That Jesus was crucified until death upon the Cross
• That Jesus was singularly resurrected
• That Jesus will return on a cloud to judge the dead at His Second Coming & gather His Elect

Just had to point this out. You just contradicted yourself. You stated earlier that there was only one verse speaking of Jesus dying on the cross. However, if you are correct, you have just listed a second verse as well. So we are, by your own admission, up to two verses that can be used to determine the death of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Oberon]

4.156 has no bearing upon Jesus' crucifixion, as it is directed towards Mary.

It has everything to do with context, which as you have often pointed out, is vital to determine meaning. It sets the negation following. "They" are wronging Mary by their speech, in which they assert to have slain Jesus. 4.157 goes on then to negate this claim, as they didn't and he wasn't crucified.

The formula has already been established in the ayahs leading up to 4.158, of which, you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

No, it hasn't. You demonstrated a particular use. I'm not contradicting that use. I'm arguing against what you state that use governs:

4.155

Fabima naqdihim meethaqahum wakufrihim bi-ayati Allahi waqatlihimu al-anbiyaa bighayri haqqin waqawlihim quloobuna ghulfun bal tabaAAa Allahu AAalayha bikufrihim fala yu/minoona illa qaleelan




4.157 - 8

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 bal rafaAAahu Allahu ilayhi wakana Allahu AAazeezan hakeeman

In the first use, bal complements Allah setting a seal upon their hearts. In the second, it complements Allah taking up/exalting Jesus. There is nothing in either construction which makes it clear that bal in 4.158 must be specifically to assert that the lines about Jesus' death and crucifixion are positive.

As was already shown to you, and of which you completely ignored, when speaking of a crucifixion event, the Koran always mandates death.

It doesn't matter, because 4.157 states he wasn't killed and he wasn't crucified.

You should already be cognizant that proper exegesis includes looking at other usages and variants of the word in question, within scripture. Some how you want to ignore proper protocol...

I'm not engaging in exegesis. I'm simply refuting yours. It isn't that hard. So far, all you do is quote out of context, pick particular meanings from a lexicon and ignore others, ignore context when it suits you, fail to even grasp what you are asserting (like knowing what a conditional actually is) and so forth.

Yes, it does...as already defined.

You cannot bring any verifiable alternative.

I don't have to. I only need to use YOUR sources, which already gave other alternatives.

Nope.

You have absolutely no idea what you are even rambling on about, brother.

So...now your only assertion is that I am using 'outdated' grammars?

lol, brother...Classic Arabic is extinct, and the best classic Arabic grammars are the ones written long ago and have withstood the test of time - as we are discussing classic Arabic, not modern Arabic.

Again...you display your ignorance of Arabic..and offer no alternatives.

You have nothing.

"Classical arabic is extinct." You really think that means that the study of the language hasn't progressed in over a century? Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit are some of the most studied languages in history. There is a grammatical tradition in the west going back to ancient greece, and the modern study of grammar began with these languages. Yet there is still incredibly relevent scholarship being produced, and the grammars and lexicons are constantly being updated as new light is shed on the languages by scholarship. Now, Wright's grammar, assuming you are actually using the most updated version, is the most complete. This doesn't mean that it is the most updated or that there is nothing in it that is wrong or that scholarship on the language hasn't progressed outside of it.


Now, all this makes little difference at this moment. Because so far, your entire argument revolves around picking and choosing your definition from your lexicon. You haven't cited anything from your reference grammar which either explains the use of the verbal mood or the use of ma.

Nope.

We have already been through this brother....you can be better....

Yes, we have been through it. You quoted a lexicon. You then ignored half of the meaning given by the lexicon, and went on to claim things about the usage without citing any relevent lines from your grammar which supported you.

As previously stated, is this the best rebuttal that you can muster?

Had you even bothered to verify our definition (which you have not), then you would have seen that the bulk of the definition comes from the ancient Lexicons.

I don't need to "verify" your definition. The lexicon you quoted specifically said that ma is used in negation. Your reference grammar calls it a particle of negation, and demonstrates its use in negating with reference to conditionals and hypotheticals. All you did was cite a definition, ignore most of it, claim it means what you say it does, and fail to cite how your own reference grammar supports you.

 

[Bowman]

Just had to point this out. You just contradicted yourself. You stated earlier that there was only one verse speaking of Jesus dying on the cross. However, if you are correct, you have just listed a second verse as well. So we are, by your own admission, up to two verses that can be used to determine the death of Jesus on the cross.

You are not paying very close attention, brother…as this is what caused you to drop-out of the conversation to begin with…it is, however, refreshing to know that you are still half-ways reading the thread…

The very premise of this thread is that there is only one, single, solitary verse which followers of islam are told, speaks directly to Jesus’ crucifixion.

Muslims know of only one verse which directly mentions Jesus’ crucifixion.

Period.

This one verse that they have been told denies Jesus’ crucifixion until death upon the cross, has been demonstrated to actually be an affirmation to the Biblical event.

Thus…the one verse that they thought they had is gone.

This one verse is actually mirrored by others in their book of faith which Islam forgot to tell them about…

 

[Bowman]

It has everything to do with context, which as you have often pointed out, is vital to determine meaning. It sets the negation following. "They" are wronging Mary by their speech, in which they assert to have slain Jesus. 4.157 goes on then to negate this claim, as they didn't and he wasn't crucified.

What Arabic word states a ‘wronging’…?
وبكفرهم وقولهم على مريم بهتنا عظيما

No, it hasn't. You demonstrated a particular use. I'm not contradicting that use. I'm arguing against what you state that use governs:

4.155

Fabima naqdihim meethaqahum wakufrihim bi-ayati Allahi waqatlihimu al-anbiyaa bighayri haqqin waqawlihim quloobuna ghulfun bal tabaAAa Allahu AAalayha bikufrihim fala yu/minoona illa qaleelan




4.157 - 8

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 bal rafaAAahu Allahu ilayhi wakana Allahu AAazeezan hakeeman

In the first use, bal complements Allah setting a seal upon their hearts. In the second, it complements Allah taking up/exalting Jesus. There is nothing in either construction which makes it clear that bal in 4.158 must be specifically to assert that the lines about Jesus' death and crucifixion are positive.

Look to the classic definition that you cannot posit...
بل= “bal”

“bal” definition:

A particle of digression; it denotes emendation, wherever it occurs, in the case of negation or an affirmation; or it is a word of emendation, and denoting digression from that which precedes. When it is followed by a proposition, the meaning of the digression is either the canceling of what precedes, as in:

Waqaloo ittakhatha alrrahmanu waladan subhanahu bal AAibadun mukramoona

21.26 And they said: "The Compassionate hath gotten offspring:” extolled be his freedom from that which is derogatory from his glory, nay/nay rather/nay but they are honored servants."

or

It is also used as confirmation, then it must be followed by a clause in the affirmative, no matter if the question which it follows is the negative or affirmative. It can be rendered as: but, on the contrary, besides; much more; no; nay; rather.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 242 - 245
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 62


As we can see, ‘bal is merely a positive affirmation to Jesus crucifixion until death.

It doesn't matter, because 4.157 states he wasn't killed and he wasn't crucified.

It matters greatly brother, as this should be your first clue that crucifixion events in the Koran always end in death.
You are failing to apply proper exegesis principles by ignoring scripture.
Out of context, one-hit wonders are what we would expect out of Islam.

I'm not engaging in exegesis. I'm simply refuting yours. It isn't that hard. So far, all you do is quote out of context, pick particular meanings from a lexicon and ignore others, ignore context when it suits you, fail to even grasp what you are asserting (like knowing what a conditional actually is) and so forth.


I don't have to. I only need to use YOUR sources, which already gave other alternatives.

You have no choice but to use our references, brother, as you are completely and utterly unable to provide any of your own – simply backing up your initial assertion of knowing pathetically little Arabic.

As such, you have no choice but to pick and choose alternates from what has been presented…and when you do make a selection to your liking, you are merely affirming our references as truth all over again.

"Classical arabic is extinct." You really think that means that the study of the language hasn't progressed in over a century? Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit are some of the most studied languages in history. There is a grammatical tradition in the west going back to ancient greece, and the modern study of grammar began with these languages. Yet there is still incredibly relevent scholarship being produced, and the grammars and lexicons are constantly being updated as new light is shed on the languages by scholarship. Now, Wright's grammar, assuming you are actually using the most updated version, is the most complete. This doesn't mean that it is the most updated or that there is nothing in it that is wrong or that scholarship on the language hasn't progressed outside of it.

And…your line of excuses continues to flow regarding references which you failed to even verify yourself, or provide any better.

You have nothing.

Now, all this makes little difference at this moment. Because so far, your entire argument revolves around picking and choosing your definition from your lexicon. You haven't cited anything from your reference grammar which either explains the use of the verbal mood or the use of ma.


Yes, we have been through it. You quoted a lexicon. You then ignored half of the meaning given by the lexicon, and went on to claim things about the usage without citing any relevent lines from your grammar which supported you.

Since you are unable to neither confirm nor deny our references, how exactly would you even know, brother…?

I don't need to "verify" your definition. The lexicon you quoted specifically said that ma is used in negation.

Where?

Your reference grammar calls it a particle of negation, and demonstrates its use in negating with reference to conditionals and hypotheticals.

Where?

 

[Oberon]

What Arabic word states a ‘wronging’…?

Yes.

Look to the classic definition that you cannot posit...

I'm not arguing against a translation of nay. What I'm arguing against is your understading of what this relates to. "A particle of digression; it denotes emendation, wherever it occurs"

Exactly. First, we hear a report of speech stating that "Jesus was killed." This is negated by ma and then further emended by bal, i.e. The say Jesus was killed but he wasn't killed or crucified, rather, in actuality allah, took him up. You keep quoting definitions I'm not disputing.

It matters greatly brother, as this should be your first clue that crucifixion events in the Koran always end in death.

Only if someone was crucified. And the koran says jesus wasn't.

And…your line of excuses continues to flow regarding references which you failed to even verify yourself, or provide any better.

What do you mean verify? I'm using Wright's reference grammar. Same one you are. And it doesn't agree with what you are saying. You are claiming that ma is affirming, whereas Wright frequently refers to it as a negative particle even in conditional and hypothetical constructions.

Since you are unable to neither confirm nor deny our references, how exactly would you even know, brother…?

I'm looking right now at Wright's grammar. Here's what you cite:

A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 2, p. 300

This is the only grammar you cite, and the only part of the grammar. What does it say? "The particle ma when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present." In other words, it NEGATES. You cite one grammar, only one, in one place, and it specifically constradicts the point you try to make. Wright even calls ma a "negative particle" on page 346, section D.

 

[DoctorAnswerMan]

"A man cannot prove a negative; but he has a right to claim, that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says. I certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be “conscientious” on the subject."

A. Lincoln - 1858

 

[Bowman]

What Arabic word states a ‘wronging’…?


Yes.

Yes..what?

Yes...you cannot show the Arabic word that you stated means a 'wronging'....?

 

[Bowman]

I'm not arguing against a translation of nay. What I'm arguing against is your understading of what this relates to. "A particle of digression; it denotes emendation, wherever it occurs"

Exactly. First, we hear a report of speech stating that "Jesus was killed." This is negated by ma and then further emended by bal, i.e. The say Jesus was killed but he wasn't killed or crucified, rather, in actuality allah, took him up. You keep quoting definitions I'm not disputing.

You keep overlooking that Jesus was taken up in resurrection fashion which means that He had died as the confirmation in 4.158 confirms.

Only if someone was crucified. And the koran says jesus wasn't.

On the contrary, it states plainly that He was....not only in this verse but in sura 86 as well...

What do you mean verify? I'm using Wright's reference grammar. Same one you are. And it doesn't agree with what you are saying. You are claiming that ma is affirming, whereas Wright frequently refers to it as a negative particle even in conditional and hypothetical constructions.

I'm looking right now at Wright's grammar. Here's what you cite:

This is the only grammar you cite, and the only part of the grammar. What does it say? "The particle ma when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present." In other words, it NEGATES. You cite one grammar, only one, in one place, and it specifically constradicts the point you try to make. Wright even calls ma a "negative particle" on page 346, section D.

Thanks for affirming our references as truth, brother....which means that you never located a later revision to use - proving that later versions are not superior to the older versions like you posited....thanks!

 

[Oberon]

You keep overlooking that Jesus was taken up in resurrection fashion which means that He had died as the confirmation in 4.158 confirms.

There's nothing to suggest this.

On the contrary, it states plainly that He was....

Except, as the reference grammar you cite shows, ma is used to negate here.

Thanks for affirming our references as truth, brother....

No problem. No how about explaining why the only grammar you cite disagrees with your grammatical analysis?

 

[Bowman]

There's nothing to suggest this.

Even the classic Arabic definition suggests this, brother.

But, then again, when have you actually bothered to define anything...?

You cannot even pluck out a simple Arabic word to represent any of your assertions...lol...

Except, as the reference grammar you cite shows, ma is used to negate here.



No problem. No how about explaining why the only grammar you cite disagrees with your grammatical analysis?

Let's see...

You were able to google Wright's Grammar....and now, you need instruction on how to use it?

Why don't you go to the Index page of volume 2 and see just how many examples for "ma" are given....?

You have given up on all of your other 'arguments'...all you have left is the definition of 'ma'......lol....!

 

[Oberon]

Even the classic Arabic definition suggests this, brother.

No, it doesn't.

Let's see...


You were able to google Wright's Grammar....and now, you need instruction on how to use it?

Why don't you go to the Index page of volume 2 and see just how many examples for "ma" are given....?

I have. The point is you provided a reference grammar and a page seemlingly in support of your point. The page you cite is about negation. You are claiming that ma here is not negating, and your cited page refutes your argument. How about citing something in the grammar that supports it?

You have given up on all of your other 'arguments'...all you have left is the definition of 'ma'......lol....!

Definition is importanant, certainly, but what concerns me is use within grammatical context. Your entire case on the koran and crucifixion is built on the use of ma. So you cite a refence grammar and page number about negation, and then go on to say the line is about assertion. Only it isn't. The only grammar you cite, and indeed the very page you cite, is against you reading, which is the basis for your argument.

Try again.

 

[Bowman]

No, it doesn't.

Reference a definition which supports your position.

Good luck...

I have. The point is you provided a reference grammar and a page seemlingly in support of your point. The page you cite is about negation. You are claiming that ma here is not negating, and your cited page refutes your argument. How about citing something in the grammar that supports it?


Definition is importanant, certainly, but what concerns me is use within grammatical context. Your entire case on the koran and crucifixion is built on the use of ma. So you cite a refence grammar and page number about negation, and then go on to say the line is about assertion. Only it isn't. The only grammar you cite, and indeed the very page you cite, is against you reading, which is the basis for your argument.

Try again.

So...

You don't know how to use an Arabic index, do you brother....rotflol...

All the possibilities which we posited are contained not only in Wright's Grammar, but in Omar's and Lane's....so take your pick...don't get stuck on one page and ignore the rest...

You simply have no more excuses...