• 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 & Hadith in plain english?

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I forget there is two with tathabatu I believe. I will look it up later.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The issue to me, Quran is still protected, because we have access if we don't blind ourselves to the truth about this, to all the variant readings.

We can analyze and come to terms to which readings are correct and also with help of tutuwatur hadiths and Du'as in some cases.

Just like non-Muslims have to research various translations, same with the readings, we have to research them.

There is usually an easy solution for where there is discrepancy to know the truth.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The issue to me, Quran is still protected, because we have access if we don't blind ourselves to the truth about this, to all the variant readings.

We can analyze and come to terms to which readings are correct and also with help of tutuwatur hadiths and Du'as in some cases, can help.

Definitely.
 
There are two types of variants that people speak of. One is if it should be explained in English, a rendition variant and a textual variant. You have given a scholarly work by Sadeghi. Sadeghi addresses textual variants. A Qir'aath is a tradition, but if you take a text like Arabe 328 and compare that with another text like the current print of the Qur'an, you will not be able to make that distinction. Because it is not a textual variant that you are speaking about.

In the first chapter, the difference would be some like Maalik and Malik. Now Sadeghi draws from the makaam and the Hadith tradition that reports certain variants. Great work.

Peace.

Yes.

1. Recitals/reading
2. Non-canonical variations :handpointdown:

The canonicity of many of the recitals has certainly been debated over time by Muslims, so that point is debatable.

As is the question of non-canonical variations

The referenced text was in the context of the latter.

Do you disagree with either of these points?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The canonicity of many of the recitals has certainly been debated over time by Muslims, so that point is debatable.

Muslims don't call it canonicity. So you have to precisely give examples and define what you are speaking of specifically.

As is the question of non-canonical variations

If they are as you say non canonical, they are non canonical. So with the greatest difficulty, with you never answering a question I understood what you are trying to say.

If they are non-canonical, whats the problem? Please explain.
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
The canonicity of many of the recitals has certainly been debated over time by Muslims, so that point is debatable.

As is the question of non-canonical variations

All I am saying is that Mohammad pbuh was taught all . :)
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
Translations not just can but do vary. 17:104 is a the classic which has past and future tense and in one translations predicts Israel exists because we're in the end times.

Then interpreting what one reads is a subject to "verses of abrogation" which states that some verses have replaced/took precedence over earlier ones.

NB: Saying the Arabic is there, which is sometimes true online, is not a cure because learning Quranic Arabic takes dedication and time.


Can you explain what you mean about Israel exists because?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Translations not just can but do vary. 17:104 is a the classic which has past and future tense and in one translations predicts Israel exists because we're in the end times.

Then interpreting what one reads is a subject to "verses of abrogation" which states that some verses have replaced/took precedence over earlier ones.

NB: Saying the Arabic is there, which is sometimes true online, is not a cure because learning Quranic Arabic takes dedication and time.

This is the first time I am honestly hearing this. I mean about Israel existing because we are in the end times. Who said that? Help me out.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Can you explain what you mean about Israel exists because?

Here are 6 translations of 17:104. I was specifically thinking of Sher Ali "when the time of the promise of the Latter Days..." along with Khalifa. So since "bring together out of various peoples" is the reality of Israel today, it can be taken as an end-times sign from that translation. What the true meaning of the Arabic is, I don't know. But I do know there are end-times prophecies in the Quran that correspond to those in the Bible.

Khalifa
And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, "Go live in this land. When the final prophecy comes to pass, we will summon you all in one group."
Yusuf Ali
And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
Pickthal
And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.
Shakir
And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.
Sher Ali
And after him WE said to the Children of Israel, Dwell ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days comes, WE shall bring you together out of various peoples.'
"Progressive Muslims"
And We said after him to the Children of Israel: "Dwell in the land, then, when the time of the second promise comes, We will bring you all together as a mixed crowd."
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Here are 6 translations of 17:104. I was specifically thinking of Sher Ali "when the time of the promise of the Latter Days..." along with Khalifa. So since "bring together out of various peoples" is the reality of Israel today, it can be taken as an end-times sign from that translation. What the true meaning of the Arabic is, I don't know. But I do know there are end-times prophecies in the Quran that correspond to those in the Bible.

Khalifa
And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, "Go live in this land. When the final prophecy comes to pass, we will summon you all in one group."
Yusuf Ali
And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
Pickthal
And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.
Shakir
And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.
Sher Ali
And after him WE said to the Children of Israel, Dwell ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days comes, WE shall bring you together out of various peoples.'
"Progressive Muslims"
And We said after him to the Children of Israel: "Dwell in the land, then, when the time of the second promise comes, We will bring you all together as a mixed crowd."

You think this is a prophecy of "end times"? Is there any indication of the end times in this verse?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hello :)

In Islam, you have the Arabic words of Allah and in saying that, whenever you read a translated copy, always have the arabic there next to it. This way you are always obliged to go back to the Arabic if you do not understand it and can ask about it.

Yes, there are many translations of the Quran but only one Arabic version. :)

IMO, that's nonsense. Are we supposed to take Muslims' word on their faith or not? I think we disrespect Muslims when we don't take what they say at face value.

Muslims claim that the Quran is the perfect, timeless, unalterable word of god. Based on that, when the Quran declares itself to be clear and easy to understand, we must conclude that Muslims must support the Quran's own claim, correct?

So when top Islamic scholars spend years working on translations of the "clear and easy to understand" book, it seems disingenuous to then claim that translations are insufficient. Nonsense, IMO.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
You think this is a prophecy of "end times"? Is there any indication of the end times in this verse?

To be clear, I wrote "in one translation predicts Israel exists because we're in the end times."

When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]." Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi

I also realize that ascribing Israel to the "mixed crowd" (etc) in the Quran is denied by Muslims and presumably the vast majority of Muslims.

Finally interpreting prophecy typically involves the belief of the interpreter and I'm certainly guilty of doing the same. So I absolutely only assert that this is my personal opinion and not a claim of accuracy.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
To be clear, I wrote "in one translation predicts Israel exists because we're in the end times."

When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]." Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi

I also realize that ascribing Israel to the "mixed crowd" (etc) in the Quran is denied by Muslims and presumably the vast majority of Muslims.

Finally interpreting prophecy typically involves the belief of the interpreter and I'm certainly guilty of doing the same. So I absolutely only assert that this is my personal opinion and not a claim of accuracy.

This translation is false. Intentionally meddled with. He has entered words into the sentence to fulfil a particular agenda. Those words, end of days, in the land of Israel, do not exist in that verse.

I know this guy.

Yet, thank you for your clarification. I understand your premise and that's what I was seeking.

Peace.
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
IMO, that's nonsense. Are we supposed to take Muslims' word on their faith or not? I think we disrespect Muslims when we don't take what they say at face value.

Muslims claim that the Quran is the perfect, timeless, unalterable word of god. Based on that, when the Quran declares itself to be clear and easy to understand, we must conclude that Muslims must support the Quran's own claim, correct?

So when top Islamic scholars spend years working on translations of the "clear and easy to understand" book, it seems disingenuous to then claim that translations are insufficient. Nonsense, IMO.

It's your opinion. You don't have to take our word for it. The Quran is in indeed a book for the understanding but the depth of the Arabic language, not everyone understands it...Help is always there. It's why Mohammad's sunnah is there to help explain the Quran. They go hand in hand. I totally respect those who know the grammar in Arabic. It is detailed.
 

MyM

Well-Known Member
To be clear, I wrote "in one translation predicts Israel exists because we're in the end times."

When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]." Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi

I also realize that ascribing Israel to the "mixed crowd" (etc) in the Quran is denied by Muslims and presumably the vast majority of Muslims.

Finally interpreting prophecy typically involves the belief of the interpreter and I'm certainly guilty of doing the same. So I absolutely only assert that this is my personal opinion and not a claim of accuracy.

Where is your proof? Which aya in Quran by authenticated scholars of tafseer or what is the hadith and its train of narrators ? We don't just take anyone's "words" on any given subject when it deals with our religion. Can you prove this by stating your proofs?
 
Last edited:
Top