-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Koran:...Jesus is the Son...
- Thread starter Apple Pie
- Start date
This would be up to you to demonstrate for us...
Where...?
Arberry is one (of three) mainstream renderings quoted as supporting the classic Arabic which states that Jesus is his Son in 4.171....and, as such, was exegetically demonstrated to be correct.
No other portion of Arberry (or the other two renderings) was even part of the discussion.
If you want to ride the Arberry wagon, then feel free...just be prepared to exegetically demonstrate why you want to use the renderings that you do...
Where's Arberrys exegesis...?
Perhaps...instead of looking for more excuses...you could run our exegeis by your Arabic friends...yes..?
According to you, its Arberry....
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
No it isn't. You originally quoted him. In order for you to do this you either wanted to grab an ayah that seemed to agree with your position or you know the scholar's work and trust his translation. Can you tell us which one it is?
Yes he does....no he doesn't...yes he does...no he doesn't
Actually....HE DOESN'T....The surrounding ayah's don't support your assertion. Other Arberry quotes I have listed in other parts of the Quran he translated don't support your position. I don't have a problem using Arberry since he was a scholar you quoted. You should have been prepared for me to use him to refute your assertion. Because now this whole posting here has you coming off as being defensive. I guess "light" was talking about a book because you replied here....trying to be witty....but never confronted the proof that your mainstream scholar showed.
Don't run from it now. At some point "light" was attributed to Jesus. That's not a problem with me. The only problem I had was the ayah's you were using that had nothing to do with Jesus being the light and everything to do with a book or books. You argued your position...great....but you were wrong... and there's nothing wrong with admitting that.
Now why should I? You were the one who originally quoted him. If you didn't think that he was correct in his translations then you wouldn't have used him...CORRECT?
Now you're just being silly. YOU originally quoted him without showing Arberry's exegesis now you want me to do it....WOW...!!!
You have trouble reading people. You asked an honest question and I answered. It's not my fault you didn't like my answer. You've shown NO credentials to show that YOU are qualified to make a translation like you have. You've criticized most the world of muslims for not understanding the language they speak....but we are to trust your rendering.....
Again, you put forth an english translation of that ayah. You said it wasn't yours. I asked whoes it was and you never gave the information. You're still dodging the question which leads me to believe it was your translation....which also means you lied and said the quote wasn't yours. Is this the case???.....If you're not lieing than can you please give me the scholar that made the translation you've been using? I would like to research that scholar to see his or her credintials. An no...it wasn't Arberry. I have researched him and it's not his......so please share.....
:beach:
Please bring forth your exegetical reasoning...
Let's see your exegetical reasoning....something more than googling ayahs would be a nice touch...:yes:
Let's have some feedback from your Arabic speaking friends...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I see...You want me to show why the scholar you originally quoted translates the quran the way he did when YOU NEVER did it when you quoted not 1 but 3 different scholars.
You can't have it both ways. You can't quote a scholar as you did and appear to agree with his rendering and then when I quote the same scholar you want me to show why the scholar translated it that way.
It's not going to happen. The fact is....I put fourth a couple of mainstream scholars (Ali, Pickthall...etc) and you wanted me to show their exegetical reasoning....but then you turned around and quote a scholar that you seem to trust without doing what you want us all to do.
What tops it all off is I began to quote your scholar and show that even if he did translate the quran from the classic his rendering is FAR different from anything you've put forth.
Here's a test for you.... Gather ALL the qurans you want and show me, of the ones who have translated it from the "CLASSICAL ARABIC", where in ALL the ayahs It says Jesus is the son of Allah. This has to be in conjunction with 4:171.
Your rendering, and the jury is still out on who's the translation of that, will not do. Throughout all the history of the quran NONE of the scholars have rendered it the way you have.
Let's see if your main stream scholars can translate 18:4 to show that Allah has a son when it clearly shows Allah doesn't.
So far all I've done is quote the SAME scholar you cited to show that Jesus was the "light" spoken of in those ayahs...AND HE WASN'T....It was talking about books. Still, at the very end you never refuted that because you couldn't. The surrounding ayahs proved my point.
So far I have given you quote after quote that Arberry, the same scholar you cited, does not translate the quran anywhere close to the way you have. You used him as a referrence in the beginning, NOT ME.......Now that the tables are turned your tucking tale and avoiding my questions.....Who originally translated that quote of 4:171 you've been using.....you said it wasn't yours.... so show me who translated it....
It's becoming clear that you are not as cognizant of confident as you portray yourself to be. Don't quote a scholar if you haven't done the research to see all of his work. It's really easy to pull out one or two ayahs that seem to support your assertion but on a whole.....looking through Arberry's translations ....HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU.......
At this point you may want to move your caravan along to a different forum where you can reinvent yourself......to those who aren't aware of the long history you have moving from forum to forum with the same dribble....
And NO.....I not angry...or upset.....I'm still amused.....
:beach:
Perhaps you need to go back to the first page of this thread...where the very first words are in Arabic.
Perhaps you could then show us the scholar you are referring to...
After you have comprehended this, then perhaps you could actually advance to the next step...and that would be to refute the Arabic that was first penned...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Done...
Done...
You never brought forth their exegetical reasoning...But when I quote one of them you want me to....:sarcastic
This has been done by ALL the scholars who have translated the quran. NONE of the accredited scholars agree with you. GIVE ME ONE THAT DOES......The quote you keep using seems to be unverifiable. You claim it's not your quote but offer no autor of said quote. I have asked and you have dodged. If it is your translations that you have done using your lexicon then just be honest with us and share your credentials. We would like to verify what makes your translation any better than the scholar you cited.
Go back and start from 2:116.
(Arberry Translation)
2:116
And THEY say, 'God has taken to Him a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth; all obey His will --
4:171
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.
Free-Minds translates *That he should have a son!*...the same as Arberry does into the english that you cited and it contains the english esclamation mark at the end. I'm quite sure this was done due to the fact that the christians say Allah has a son, the son is God and the spirit is God, THEY were told to not say that all three. Only Allah is ONE. NONE of the muslims ever associated Allah with having a son. Muhammad never tought this (43:81). This was said in a surprising way becuause the people of the book (christians) were associating all three as one. As you read the progression of the ayahs as I have laid then out you get the understanding that Allah didn't have a son.
(Arberry Translation)
3:59
In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only
Allah, the One upon whom depend
He does not beget and he was not begotten
And there are none comparable to Him
(He, Allah, creates NOT in this manner nor was He created.) - (My unverifiable interpretation)
(Arberry Translation)
9:30
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
(Arberry Translation)
10:68
THEY say, 'God has taken to Him a son. Glory be to Him! He is All-sufficient; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; you have no authority for this. What, do you say concerning God that you know not?
(This was speaking about the jews and the christians), The muslims never said it. Only the christians and the the jews uttered this)
(Arberry Translation)
17:111
And say: 'Praise belongs to GOD HAS NOT TAKEN A SON, and who has not any associate in the Kingdom, nor any protector out of humbleness.' And magnify Him with repeated magnificats.
(Arberry Translation)
18:4
and to warn those who say, 'God has taken to Himself a son';
(Arberry Translation)
19:35
It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He but says to it 'Be,' and it is.
(Arberry Translation)
19:88, 89, 91,92
And THEY say, 'The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.
You have indeed advanced something hideous!
that THEY have attributed to the All-merciful a son;
and it behoves not the All-merciful to take a son.
(Arberry Translation)
23:91
God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him; for then each god would have taken off that he created and some of them would have risen up over others; glory to be God, beyond that they describe,
(Arberry Translation)
43:81
Say: 'IF the All-merciful has a son, then I am the first to serve him.
(It doesn't appear that Muhammad was under the impression or belief that Allah had a son)
(Arberry Translation)
72:3
He -- exalted be our Lord's majesty! has not taken to Himself either consort or a son.
As I have said before and it needs to be said again. The Quran is clear on Jesus not being the son of Allah.
Google us a link...
What quote...?
Where was this...?
Have you gone back and read from the beggining of this thread...perhaps you need to...
Hence...the proclamation that Jesuus is his Son.
This ayaha does not contain any negatives at all to do with Jesus...only the affirmative...
Perhaps this is why it has you doing the jitterbug...
Hmmmm...you're "quite sure"....but offer no exegetical evidence for your position......nice....
The authors who penned the Koran understood Jesus to be the Son.
The word "Muhammad" is not even in the Arabic of this ayah...nor the entire sura, for that matter...
Try again.
Nice that you can admit that you are unable to verify your interpretation.
Thanks for admitting this to us...
Plus, we have already provided a fully verifiable exegesis for 3.59.
You...have not.
Context.
9.31 confirms Jesus as deity.
Be honest with yourself...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Round and round we go...where she stops..nobody knows...
I love how you conveiently cut out ALL the quotes that Arberry translated that say Allah has no son.
Mind if I give them to you again.????....It doesn't matter I'm going to anyway...
Arberry Translation)
2:116
And THEY say, 'God has taken to Him a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth; all obey His will --
4:171
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.
(Arberry Translation)
3:59
In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only
Allah, the One upon whom depend
He does not beget and he was not begotten
And there are none comparable to Him
(Arberry Translation)
9:30
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
(Arberry Translation)
10:68
THEY say, 'God has taken to Him a son. Glory be to Him! He is All-sufficient; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; you have no authority for this. What, do you say concerning God that you know not?
(Arberry Translation)
17:111
And say: 'Praise belongs to GOD HAS NOT TAKEN A SON, and who has not any associate in the Kingdom, nor any protector out of humbleness.' And magnify Him with repeated magnificats.
(Arberry Translation)
18:4
and to warn those who say, 'God has taken to Himself a son';
(Arberry Translation)
19:35
It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He but says to it 'Be,' and it is.
(Arberry Translation)
19:88, 89, 91,92
And THEY say, 'The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.
You have indeed advanced something hideous!
that THEY have attributed to the All-merciful a son;
and it behoves not the All-merciful to take a son.
(Arberry Translation)
23:91
God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him; for then each god would have taken off that he created and some of them would have risen up over others; glory to be God, beyond that they describe,
(Arberry Translation)
43:81
Say: 'IF the All-merciful has a son, then I am the first to serve him.
(Arberry Translation)
72:3
He -- exalted be our Lord's majesty! has not taken to Himself either consort or a son.
Look.....I've already told you to grab your best Arabic to English version of the Quran...YES.....even a scholar that has translated it from classical arabic....and I will show all the verses above..to be in the version you pick.....as Allah HAS NO SON
Now remember this has to be a noted scholar. Not your translation and not your WIKI....
I am anxiouxly wating....tapping my toes......
Truth be told...your going to be hard pressed to find any noted scholar that will translate the Quran...(especially the verses above)...to say Allah HAS a son....Not just 4:171....but all the ayahs that clearly show that Allah has no son.
(www.free-minds.org)
4:171
O people of the Scripture, do not overstep in your system, nor say about God except the truth. Jesus the son of Mary was no more than God's messenger and the fulfillment of His word to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say: "Trinity." Cease, for it is better for you. God is only One god, be He glorified that He should have a son! To Him is all that is in the heavens and what is in the Earth. God is enough as a caretaker.
(Can we still accept their rendering? They translate three as trinity). As you said - there is no arabic word for trinity.
I have no problem excepting it. Trinity/Three there's no difference.
Trinity
Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Trinity
A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.
Trinity Theology In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God. Also called Trine.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
(Let's continue with the rendering of www.free-minds.org)
17:111 (in part)
And say: "Praise be to God who has not taken a son, nor does He have a partner in sovereignty,
18:4,5
And to warn those who said: "God has taken a son."
They have no knowledge of this, nor do their fathers. Tremendous indeed is the word coming out of their mouths. They are but saying a lie!
(watch out for that esclamation mark. It's emphasizing a point here)
19:88,89,91,92
And they said the Almighty has taken a son!
You have come with a gross blasphemy.
That they claimed that the Almighty had a son!
And what need does the Almighty have to take a son?
23:91 (in part)
God has not taken a son
72:3,4
And exalted is the majesty of our Lord, He has not taken a wife nor a son.
And it was the foolish one amongst us who used to say lies about God
Here are your two mainstream scholars agreeing with each others' renderings but not with your assertion.
WRONG......
Can you grab ANY of the ayahs outside of 4:171 listed above in their classical arabic form to show that the "authors" showed that Allah has a son?
I'm quite sure you can't. All you have is 4:171. Even that in itself isn't evidence to support your position taking in consideration the surrounding surahs,
Be honest. You don't really believe the world of Islam is going to change becuase you posses a little bit of arabic knowledge with the aide of your lexicon do you?
Or do you just hope to show that Islam is a false way of life? Or is it both?
Be honest now.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Here we go again.....
You cited Arberry and Free-minds as if their rendering agreed with your position. YOU DID NOT bring forth their exegesis.
Now when I quote the VERY SAME SCHOLARS you want me to "show the arabic".....as if it will change anything.
I'm going to keep giving you the translation of the accredited scholars, even those YOU cite, until you are tired of me.
Out of all the qurans I have been looking through they all remain to be in accord with each other.... Allah has no son...Allah has not taken a son.
YOU want to show that Allah has a son then it is your responsibility to go through the quran and pull out ALL the ayahs that say Allah has a son......not just one that you have interpreted to say Allah does.....Like you did with "light" referring to Jesus. And you see where that got you...
Still waiting...tapping my feet....:sarcastic
It was your original assertion that Jesus is the son of Allah....You must show this with all the ayahs in the quran. So far the chapters before 4:171 and after say that Allah has no son. This leads me to believe you have taken the whole of the quran out of context.
4:171 (Arberry)
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.
4:171 (DreGod07)
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- should he have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.
4:171 (DreGod07)
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- If He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.
:beach:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Nope.....
Arberry (whom you cited)....(giving no exegesis).....Went further by translating the rest of the Quran to say that Allah has NO SON.
I did a little more research on Arberry. He used Lane's Lexicon. He does give Kudos.
http://www.studyquran.co.uk/Projects_page.htm
"It (Lane's Lexicon) is a work of such fundamental importance and of such matchless excellence that praise for it is quite superfluous. Every Arabist since Lane has had good cause to bless him for his superhuman labours ... It is certainly true to say that every work produces in this century relating in any way to Arabic studies has drawn heavily on the Lexicon."
He is quoted as using Lane's Lexicon. So let's us stick with him for a moment.
Arberry Translation)
2:116
And THEY say, 'God has taken to Him a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth; all obey His will --
(Arberry Translation)
3:59
In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only
Allah, the One upon whom depend
He does not beget and he was not begotten
And there are none comparable to Him
4:171
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.
(Arberry Translation)
10:68
THEY say, 'God has taken to Him a son. Glory be to Him! He is All-sufficient; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; you have no authority for this. What, do you say concerning God that you know not?
(Arberry Translation)
17:111
And say: 'Praise belongs to GOD HAS NOT TAKEN A SON, and who has not any associate in the Kingdom, nor any protector out of humbleness.' And magnify Him with repeated magnificats.
(Arberry Translation)
18:4
and to warn those who say, 'God has taken to Himself a son';
(Arberry Translation)
19:35
It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He but says to it 'Be,' and it is.
(Arberry Translation)
19:88, 89, 91,92
And THEY say, 'The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.
You have indeed advanced something hideous!
that THEY have attributed to the All-merciful a son;
and it behoves not the All-merciful to take a son.
(Arberry Translation)
23:91
God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him; for then each god would have taken off that he created and some of them would have risen up over others; glory to be God, beyond that they describe,
(Arberry Translation)
43:81
Say: 'IF the All-merciful has a son, then I am the first to serve him.
(Arberry Translation)
72:3
He -- exalted be our Lord's majesty! has not taken to Himself either consort or a son.
If we are to trust Arberry (As YOU DID) when you cited his work then it becomes clear, from him using the same Lexicon you're using, that He rendered his translation from the Classical Arabic where he shows the ayahs surrounding 4:171 that ALLAH DOES NOT HAVE A SON...As you have interpreted.
Done.
See above.
I come forth reading the Quran translated by a scholar that translated it from the Classical Arabic using E.W. Lane's Lexicon, The same scholar you cited.
Arberry did not use the Classical Arabic in any ayah that says Allah has a son. On the contrary, his translations say Allah does not have a son.
Arberry has done an excellent job. Why reinvent the wheel? He showed the true intent...(ALLAH DOES NOT HAVE A SON)....Remember...he did this using E.W. Lane's Lexicon. Mind you, his credentials are verifiable.
All hail the mighty Google..!
(dang exclamations.....!!!!!!!!!)
All we have here are mere interpretations. Yours (no credentials) over Arberry (Verifiable Credentials).
Your Rendering vs. Arberry's history or published and noted works. It's clear to see who the winner is here.
10.........4
Roger........Roger.......!!!!!!!
Please show us the Arabic word (truly or certainly)...in that ayah...
Good luck....
:beach:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
So far it's just me and you buddy....
I was waiting to see if you could gather the rest of the ayahs to show that Allah has a son. I figured you wouldn't be able to. It's not a problem. It's just....The quran says otherwise.
I am looking at that ayah and i'm weighing it against the others that state Allah has no son. I still believe you are taking it out of its context. The surahs before and after it are consistantly stating Allah has no son.
Arberry and the rest of the gang is translaing it with an exclamation at the end. I believe it could be;
God is only One God. Glory be to Him. He has a son? To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.
Remember, the classic has no markings so we're not necessisarily trying to prove or disprove translation. We're getting into the intent of the statement. Again, the intent, can be shown by the other verses around 4:171 in whole and not in part.
This is why I've said context or inflection. Just because you can translate it doesn't necessarily mean it is meant the way you translate it, especially when it is read in connection with other chapters and verses around it.
(example)....
John has a dog.
John has a dog!
John has a dog? (rhetorical)
Rhetorical
1.) "a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply"
WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
Even if the above ayah shows an (!) or a (?) it is preceeded by the statement/answer.
"To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian."
Again, we're talking about mere translations. One vs. the other. Which, in my opinion, doesen't change the fact that the other chapters, before and after, state Allah does not have a son.
If you believe this, then you should be able to demonstrate exactly where it was supossedly "taken out of context"...
Go ahead and show us...
Since you acknowledge that the original Arabic contains no (!) or (?) markings...where exactly would be your evidence for your your position that it should contain them...?
Where is the Arabic word "if"....or "should" in 4.171....?
Further, "allah" is not listed as a "guardian" in 4.171...this applies to the subject (i.e. Jesus), and the definition places him as a witness...
Then provide your evidence...
We already examined the subsequent ayahs which pertain to Jesus' deity.
Thus...
You are hard pressed to deny that 4.171 states that Jesus is his Son.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
(Arberry Translation)
2:116
And THEY say, 'God has taken to Him a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth; all obey His will --
This is basically repeated in 4:171
warn those who say, 'God has taken to Himself a son
GOD HAS NOT TAKEN A SON, and who has not any associate in the Kingdom, nor any protector out of humbleness
It is not for God to take a son unto Him
And THEY say, 'The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.
You have indeed advanced something hideous!
that THEY have attributed to the All-merciful a son;
and it behoves not the All-merciful to take a son.
God has not taken to Himself any son
He -- exalted be our Lord's majesty! has not taken to Himself either consort or a son.
All I'm saying is it could be...not that it is......
But at the same time, in the english translation, it wouldn't matter what exclamation mark you use.
Since free-minds and Arberry translate it with exclamation then YOU have to ask yourself why do they include that when they translate it. Especially since we know Arberry translated the quran from the Classic Arabic using Lane's Lexicon.
Remember now...you cited Free-minds and Arberry.....and you've read their rendering and you agreed with it....
If you have a question as to why they used an exclamation then why did you cite their work? You showed no exegesis for their rendering but had no problem quoting them.
huuunnnn.....what??????
Pickthall
And Allah is sufficient as Defender
Sher Ali
And sufficient is ALLAH as a guardian.
Rodwell
And God is a sufficient Guardian.
Hilali-Khan
And Allah is All Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.
Shakir
and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
Sale
and God is a sufficient protector.
Done...
Then you need better teachers because the subsequent ayahs pertain to Allah who has no son, no consort and no associate in the kingdom.......
Thus...
You are hard pressed to prove that Allah has a son by using the quran. You say you have examined the subsequent ayahs but they ALL say Allah has NO SON......
Again, go back and show me ALL the subsequent ayahs that say ALLAH HAS A SON. You can't do it because they don't say it. None of the ones below agree with your assertion. They trump 4:171 due to the fact that they are stating over and over and over that Allah has no son. I have proven you have taken 4:171 out of context by the subsequent ayahs below.
17:111
19:35
19:88, 89, 91,92
23:91
72:3
Since you are unable to bring forth the Arabic words "if"...or "should"....in 4.171...I think that it is safe to say that you have no case.
let's look...
وقالوا اتخذ الله ولدا سبحنه بل له ما في السموت
والأرض كل لهقنتون
Waqaloo itakhatha Allahu waladan subhanahu bal lahu ma fee alssamawati waal-ardi kullun lahu qanitoona
2.116 And they said: " allah he has taken a Son, glory be to Him, much more certainly His, that which (is) in the heavens and the earth, all are certainly obedient unto Him.
and...
بديع السموت والأرض وإذا قضى أمرا فإنما
يقول له كنفيكون
BadeeAAu alssamawati waal-ardi wa-itha qada amran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu
2.117 Originator (of) the heavens and the earth and when commanded entirely by (the) Word, so only certainly Him, He says: "Be thou." so (it) is.
Jesus...
The Son.
The Word.
The creator of the Universe.
As stated in the Koran.
Looks like your case just took another nose dive...
Since Lane was a devout Christian....how is this going to help-out the "Arberry" train that you are riding...?
Show us the Arabic word in 4.171...
let's look...
وقالوا اتخذ الله ولدا سبحنه بل له ما في السموت
والأرض كل لهقنتون
Waqaloo itakhatha Allahu waladan subhanahu bal lahu ma fee alssamawati waal-ardi kullun lahu qanitoona
2.116 And they said: " allah he has taken a Son, glory be to Him, much more certainly His, that which (is) in the heavens and the earth, all are certainly obedient unto Him.
and...
بديع السموت والأرض وإذا قضى أمرا فإنما
يقول له كنفيكون
BadeeAAu alssamawati waal-ardi wa-itha qada amran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu
2.117 Originator (of) the heavens and the earth and when commanded entirely by (the) Word, so only certainly Him, He says: "Be thou." so (it) is.
Jesus...
The Son.
The Word.
The creator of the Universe.
As stated in the Koran.
Looks like your case just took another nose dive...
Since Lane was a devout Christian....how is this going to help-out the "Arberry" train that you are riding...?
Show us the Arabic word in 4.171...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
This ayah proves nothing for your position. It certainly doesn't prove that Allah has a son.
AND "THEY" SAID: Allah has taken a son.
Now get this....All the rest is stating that ALL in the heavens and the earth submitt to his will.
Eaxctly my point. You have to stop proving it for me. 2.116 in conjunction with 2.117 is in reference to Allah. ALL that is in the heavens and the earth submitts to will of Allah. Even the bible confirms that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth. The Bible and the Quran are in agreement when they state God as simply saying "be" and so it is.
Gen. 1:1, 1:3, 1:6, 1:9, 1:14
You have to stop mis-quoting the Quran. It's really not doing you any good. When it states "Be so it is"....This is speaking of Allah.
(Arberry Translation)
3:47
'Lord,' said Mary, 'how shall I have a son seeing no mortal has touched me?' 'Even so,' God said, God creates what He will. When He decrees a thing He does but say to it "Be," and it is.
3:59
Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, 'Be,' and he was.
6:73
It is He who created the heavens and the earth in truth; and the day He says 'Be', and it is; His saying is true, and His is the Kingdom the day the Trumpet is blown; He is Knower of the Unseen and the visible; He is the All-wise, the All-aware.
19:35
It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He but says to it 'Be,' and it is
36:82
His command, when He desires a thing, is to say to it 'Be,' and it is.
40:68
It is He who gives life, and makes to die; and when He decrees a thing, He but says to it 'Be,' and it is.
:sarcastic If that is what you believe then that is fine for YOU.
17:111
19:35
19:88, 89, 91,92
23:91
72:3
hmmmmmm......I think I'll be ok...How bout you?:yes:
Since Lane was a devout Christian....how is this going to help-out the "Arberry" train that you are riding...?
Come on now. You've been using the Lane Lexicon. Arberry used the Lane Lexicon. Arberry will be fine.
You make it sound like christians are conspiring to deceive muslims or is Lane actually biased?
As I recall you had know problem quoting Arberry. So what are you actually saying?