Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
MartyS

What do these words of Jesus mean?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, MartyS said:

Yes, you are both correct. The verses in Hebrews 2:16-17 do not mention the sacrifice Jesus (God in human flesh) would Himself become, to die in place of sinful men and destroy Satan; nor do they specifically mention Jesus by name. Let me go back to earlier verses in Hebrews 2:9,14-15...

9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. -Hebrews 2:9

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. - Hebrews 2:14-16

I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

I merely entered this discussion to suggest that Jews just DO NOT believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

That is all.

If you are trying to say they do, quoting Hebrews is meaningless because it is a part of the New Testament, which Jews do not believe in.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Not exactly. The Qur'an states that the concept of trinity is false but never refers to the 'Bible' as it is commonly known to Christians today.  That is because the Bible in its present form didn't exist at the time the Qur'an was revealed. 

The Qur'an never uses the word 'Bible' or any equivalent term. The word Injeel is used to refer to the Book given to Jesus, but this is not the 'Bible' (don't want to belabor this point). The  'words of Jesus' are also referred to in the Qur'an but this is also not the same as 'Bible' 

 

 

Not exactly exactly. The Qur'an calls the Jews and Christians, "People of the book". In order to do so there had to be a book. Any wonder what that book might be? The bible was established by Emperor Constantine, back around 330, and the only change since is translation, Greek to everything. It's hard to imagine the Christians with any other book. It wouldn't be leather bound, gold imprint, in English of course, but there's no reason to believe it is any different in wording now. 

The Injeel is mentioned 9 times in the Qur'an, never as a book. There's no record Jesus carried a book. The Injeel, as I understand it was the revelation given to Jesus, nothing tangible. The closest to the Injeel would possibly be the recorded quotes of Jesus, yet they would still be a divine revelation put into language. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 4:49 PM, Son of Placid said:

Not exactly exactly. The Qur'an calls the Jews and Christians, "People of the book". In order to do so there had to be a book. Any wonder what that book might be? The bible was established by Emperor Constantine, back around 330, and the only change since is translation, Greek to everything. It's hard to imagine the Christians with any other book. It wouldn't be leather bound, gold imprint, in English of course, but there's no reason to believe it is any different in wording now. 

The Injeel is mentioned 9 times in the Qur'an, never as a book. There's no record Jesus carried a book. The Injeel, as I understand it was the revelation given to Jesus, nothing tangible. The closest to the Injeel would possibly be the recorded quotes of Jesus, yet they would still be a divine revelation put into language. 

They are called 'People of the Book' because 

1. They claim to follow a Prophet that was in fact a Prophet sent by God. In the case of Jews, it is Prophet Moses, in the case of Christians, it is Prophet Jesus (may peace be upon them both)

2. Both of those Prophets had a book that was sent to them by God. In the case of Moses, it was the Taurat, in the case of Jesus, it was the Injeel. 

But, the 'Book' in 'People of the Book' does not refer to the modern day book which Christians follow, which is not the same as the Injeel. The Injeel was a single book, with a single corpus of written text which was given, and then didn't change. If you want to draw a parallel between the 'Injeel' and the Bible, you must first establish which 'Bible' you are talking about. As you know, there are hundreds of different versions of the Bible, most contain many textural differences between them and some (in the case of the Catholic and Protestant Bibles) have many chapters that are contained in one and not in the other. Also, which language are you talking about. The original words of Jesus were in Aramaic, which is the dialect of spoken Hebrew that was the 'lingua franca' at the time Jesus lived (approx 2000 years ago) and the place he lived (modern day Palestine). Jesus didn't speak Greek and he was not from Greece, so to say the original Bible was in Greek is not accurate. Even the Codex Vaticanus (which is what many Christians call the 'original Bible') is Greek. This is not the original Bible, at the very best and most optimistic, it is a translation (from Aramaic to Greek) of some of the words of Jesus. So even this that is called the 'Bible' is not the Injeel, because it is at best a translation. 

To draw a parallel here to clarify, when Muslims say the 'Qur'an', they are talking about the book that was given to Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h). This book was given in the Arabic language, since that was the language spoken by Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) as well as the people in the region where he gave his message. When non Arabic speakers read a translation of the Qur'an, such as the one by Yusuf Ali, which is the most common one I have seen, Christians might call the 'The Qur'an', but a Muslim will never call this 'The Qur'an'. It is a translation of the Qur'an. That is why to be considered 'educated' as a Muslim, you must know Arabic, not the spoken dialects of Arabic (there are many of those) but the formal Arabic, referred to as 'Fusha' which is the Arabic of the Qur'an. 

So the Injeel was a book, a single corpus whose text hasn't changed,  dates to the time Jesus lived and the place where he lived, and the language of that book was the language that Jesus(p.b.u.h) spoke. Is there a book like that which exists ? 

If you can find one, then we can draw parallels between the 'Bible' and the Injeel. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

They are called 'People of the Book' because 

1. They claim to follow a Prophet that was in fact a Prophet sent by God. In the case of Jews, it is Prophet Moses, in the case of Christians, it is Prophet Jesus (may peace be upon them both)

2. Both of those Prophets had a book that was sent to them by God. In the case of Moses, it was the Taurat, in the case of Jesus, it was the Injeel. 

But, the 'Book' in 'People of the Book' does not refer to the modern day book which Christians follow, which is not the same as the Injeel. The Injeel was a single book, with a single corpus of written text which was given, and then didn't change. If you want to draw a parallel between the 'Injeel' and the Bible, you must first establish which 'Bible' you are talking about. As you know, there are hundreds of different versions of the Bible, most contain many textural differences between them and some (in the case of the Catholic and Protestant Bibles) have many chapters that are contained in one and not in the other. Also, which language are you talking about. The original words of Jesus were in Aramaic, which is the dialect of spoken Hebrew that was the 'lingua franca' at the time Jesus lived (approx 2000 years ago) and the place he lived (modern day Palestine). Jesus didn't speak Greek and he was not from Greece, so to say the original Bible was in Greek is not accurate. Even the Codex Vaticanus (which is what many Christians call the 'original Bible') is Greek. This is not the original Bible, at the very best and most optimistic, it is a translation (from Aramaic to Greek) of some of the words of Jesus. So even this that is called the 'Bible' is not the Injeel, because it is at best a translation. 

To draw a parallel here to clarify, when Muslims say the 'Qur'an', they are talking about the book that was given to Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h). This book was given in the Arabic language, since that was the language spoken by Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) as well as the people in the region where he gave his message. When non Arabic speakers read a translation of the Qur'an, such as the one by Yusuf Ali, which is the most common one I have seen, Christians might call the 'The Qur'an', but a Muslim will never call this 'The Qur'an'. It is a translation of the Qur'an. That is why to be considered 'educated' as a Muslim, you must know Arabic, not the spoken dialects of Arabic (there are many of those) but the formal Arabic, referred to as 'Fusha' which is the Arabic of the Qur'an. 

So the Injeel was a book, a single corpus whose text hasn't changed,  dates to the time Jesus lived and the place where he lived, and the language of that book was the language that Jesus(p.b.u.h) spoke. Is there a book like that which exists ? 

If you can find one, then we can draw parallels between the 'Bible' and the Injeel. 

 

You said you didn't want to belabor this point.

I had no intention of "drawing a parallel" between the 'Injeel' and the Bible, nor NT even. It is where you find Jesus. 

"The book" was established 300 years before Muhammad, unless you have another book. Actually, it would explain a lot if the Christians in Medina were a runaway heresy with their own strange book.  

Moses was given the Torah, (The law), on tablets, the Ten Commandments. That is the only mention of anything tangible, the rest was oral. According to the Jews, the Torah was written by Moses, not given to him. 

I'd be thinking, somebody at some time, some where within the dozen disciples that surrounded Jesus for years, and everything written, at some point somebody would have noticed and made mention of a book. A Prophet with a cheat sheet wouldn't go unnoticed, neither would it go over very well. 

Muhammad wasn't given a book either, you're speaking metaphorical? Muhammad, the same as every Prophet received revelation, which was then recorded, and eventually made into a book.

I'm not worried English translations vs Arabic. If Yusuf Ali mistranslated the Qur'an he'd have dug the hole Salmon Rushdie was hiding in.

You'll have to show me a reference in the Holy Qur'an that says the Injeel was a tangible book. 

Let's not get in to "hundreds" of versions. You make it sound like variations. We've seen less variations between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles than between the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Qur'an, not counting dots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

You said you didn't want to belabor this point.

I had no intention of "drawing a parallel" between the 'Injeel' and the Bible, nor NT even. It is where you find Jesus. 

"The book" was established 300 years before Muhammad, unless you have another book. Actually, it would explain a lot if the Christians in Medina were a runaway heresy with their own strange book.  

The 'Book' was what ? Again, which version are you talking about. There were many Bibles that existed 300 years after Jesus

Here is a partial list

The Latin Vulgate

As the Latin language changed, though, the many Old Latin manuscripts (of which just more than 50 MSS survive today) became diverse from one another, prompting Jerome (IV century) to comment that there were nearly as many different translations as manuscripts! Because of this diversity and because fo the changing language, it was deemed important to provide a "common" (vulgate) standard text of the Bible in Latin which everyone could read. Jeromecompared and revised Old Latin translations of the NT, completing his Latin text by 383 CE. He translated most of the Old Testament himself, translating directly from Hebrew. [It was at this time that he discovered that certain books were not found in Hebrew in his day--the books that became known as the Deuterocanonical OT books or "Apocrypha".]

The Latin Vulgate, as it became known, was revised several times, and many (8000+ !) manuscripts of the Vulgate are extant today. Eventually it became a necessity to follow only the standard Vulgate text, and by the 14th century the Old Latin had disappeared. The oldest surviving complete Latin Bible is a Vulgate manuscript (called "A", from the VIII century). The Latin Vulgate rapidly became the official Bible of the Catholic Church, and indeed translations made into other languages (including English) would be made from Latin rather than Hebrew or Greek! More about that when we get to English.

Syriac Versions

The first Christian works translated into the language of Syria was not the Bible itself, but a harmony of the gospels called the Diatessaron made by a man named Tatian sometime late in the II (second!) century. The Diatessaron may have been done in Greek or in Syriac originally; this is not known. What is known is that the harmony became extremely popular in his region and circulated widely in Syriac in the centuries to come.

In addition to Diatessaron manuscripts, we also possess a few Old Syriac MSS. In fact, the Old Syriac survives in just two incomplete manuscripts of the gospels. Perhaps, the first Syriac gospel translations were done c. 300 AD. The two manuscripts date toward the end of the IV century. No manuscripts survive of any of the rest of the NT in Old Syriac, although Paul's letters and Acts were certainly translated.

Pe[Edited Out]ta Syriac

Traditionally, a new "simple" translation into Syriac was made in the 2nd quarter of the V century. By the middle of the century, the text appears to have reached its final form, which became recognized by both sectors of the splitting Syrian church. The term "pe[Edited Out]ta" (or "pe[Edited Out]to") roughly means "simple" and is a contrast to one of the more difficult to read forms, the Harklean Syriac.

Other Syriac Versions

The next to develop was translated c. 507 AD. This Philoxeniana was made and circulated for doctrinal reasons. Thomas of Harkel revised this text in 616 by comparing it to various Greek manuscripts. His rendition is known today as Harklean. His rendering of the Greek was much more careful and more direct than the Pe[Edited Out]ta, but this made it more difficult to read. Harkel's text was translated almost exclusively from what we will call a Byzantine Greek text.

Coptic Versions

Coptic is almost unique among written languages, because it employs Greek characters (with additions) in writing an Egyptian language. In fact, Coptic has been called "colloquial Egyptian." By the end of the III century, a tradition of the New Testament in Coptic was fairly widespread. Coptic manuscripts exist in seven different dialects, although two of these dialects Sahidic and Bohairic are considered "major" dialects for the purpose of NT study. Sahidic Coptic is an older dialect and is often referred to as "classical" Coptic; Bohairic Coptic was more widespread in the Coptic Church and was the language of the Upper Nile delta. The Duke Papyrus Archive has photographs of quite a few manuscripts in Coptic. Select this link to go there and view one of them. Not surprisingly (since Alexandria is in Egypt), the Coptic manuscripts often preserve an Alexandrian text type in translation from Greek.

Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic Versions

The Armenian version is probably translated from Syriac rather than from Greek (late IV century). Georgian translations developed over the years as Georgia was evangelized through Armenia. Therefore, the Georgian version is also based on Syriac, although a revision was made later making reference to then-current Greek texts. The Ethiopic Church, which also accepted 1 Enoch (you may recall), translated their gospels from either Greek or Syriac--it is not known. Acts and the universal letters were translated directly from Greek. The source language for Revelation is unknown. This creates somewhat of a controversy surrounding the Ethiopic version. Traditionally, a full Bible in Ethiopic was complete by 678 AD.

https://www.friktech.com/rel/canon/versions.htm

Quote


Moses was given the Torah, (The law), on tablets, the Ten Commandments. That is the only mention of anything tangible, the rest was oral. According to the Jews, the Torah was written by Moses, not given to him. 

I'd be thinking, somebody at some time, some where within the dozen disciples that surrounded Jesus for years, and everything written, at some point somebody would have noticed and made mention of a book. A Prophet with a cheat sheet wouldn't go unnoticed, neither would it go over very well. 

Muhammad wasn't given a book either, you're speaking metaphorical? Muhammad, the same as every Prophet received revelation, which was then recorded, and eventually made into a book.

I'm not worried English translations vs Arabic. If Yusuf Ali mistranslated the Qur'an he'd have dug the hole Salmon Rushdie was hiding in.

You'll have to show me a reference in the Holy Qur'an that says the Injeel was a tangible book. 

Let's not get in to "hundreds" of versions. You make it sound like variations. We've seen less variations between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles than between the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Qur'an, not counting dots.

 

I've never met a Jew yet who said Moses wrote the Taurah. According to Jews, the Taurah was revelation from God, I.e. it was given by God to Moses. Maybe Moses did the mechanical process of putting the words to paper, but he did not write it in the sense that it came from his own mind, according to Jews. 

Yusuf Ali didn't misinterpret the Qur'an. He did his best with the tools that he had, I.e. the English Language. I'm not sure if you are multilingual yourself, but if you are you know that there are many phrases and concepts that cannot be translated from language to language. They must be understood in the context of the language they were written in. There are not translations that are 100% accurate. That is impossible, since language is connected with culture, which is not translatable. 

About the Injeel being a book (and also the Taurah)

وَيُعَلِّمُهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَالتَّوْرَاةَ وَالإِنجِيلَ

3:48 And he will teach him (Jesus)  The Book, and wisdom, and the Torah, and the Injeel

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَى آثَارِهِم بِعَيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ

5:46 And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those [earlier Prophets], confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We vouchsafed unto him the Injeel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious.

3:40 Mentions a book in the context of the Injeel. 5:46 say (translation) 'confirming what remained of the Torah', meaning it was a book. How could something other than a book confirm a book. Also, everyone agrees the Taurah was a book, so logically you cannot say something confirmed the Torah unless it was also a book. 

 

وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ أَقَامُواْ التَّوْرَاةَ وَالإِنجِيلَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيهِم مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ لأكَلُواْ مِن فَوْقِهِمْ وَمِن تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِهِم مِّنْهُمْ أُمَّةٌ مُّقْتَصِدَةٌ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ سَاء مَا يَعْمَلُونَ

5:66 and if they would but truly observe the Torah and the Injeel and all [the revelation] that has been bestowed from on high upon them by their Sustainer, they would indeed partake of all the blessings of heaven and Earth. Some of them do pursue a right course; but as for most of them -vile indeed is what they do! [84]

This puts the Injeel as the same category as the Torah and the other revelation (I.e. the Qur'an). These are all books. Therefore the Injeel is also a book. I think this is enough to make the point 

As for your last point regarding 

the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Qur'an, not counting dots.

I'm not sure why you said this. I really thought you weren't into using tired old tropes of Christian Missionaries. In case you don't already known the answer to this, and in case there are maybe a few here who haven't already heard this trope and the answer to it. Hafs and Warsh are not different 'versions' of the Qur'an. These are differences in Arabic pronunciation, I.e. spoken dialects of Arabic that existed prior to the revelation of the Qur'an. The Arabs used to write without the 'dots' as you call them (the accent marks for pronunciation, some are not dots, btw). Most Arabic that is written today (like news articles, textbooks, etc) is written without the accent marks. These accent marks didn't change the meanings of the words, only the pronunciation (Like how Americans say 'about' and Canadians say 'aboot', which mean the same thing and are written the same way) . In order to standardize the pronunciation of the Qur'an, the text was standardized (approx 20 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) to include all the 'dots' and other pronunciation marks so that there was no difference in pronunciation. There was never any difference in the text, I.e. words and word order, number of words, number of verses, chapters, etc.

I have challenged many Christian missionaries (there have been many) that came on this site and made this claim that there was or is multiple 'versions' of the Qur'an. However, none of them brought any evidence, aside from this tired old trope, designed to deceive Christians and some illiterate Muslims, which isn't evidence. If you have any further evidence of multiple 'versions' of the Qur'an, please post and we can discuss. Maybe there is something I haven't already heard before. 

BTW, I  have been to Masjids (mosques) in Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Toronto, London, Paris, Detroit, Beirut, Dubai, Cairo, Mecca, Medina, etc. Every time I go in, I pick up a random copy of the Qur'an and begin reciting it. Because I can read Arabic, I can read the Qur'an. I have never seen any variation at all, ever, in the Arabic text. That is enough evidence for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.friktech.com/ = source?

Calling "translations","versions" is a corruption of it's own. You are showing me translations throughout the years. Means nothing unless you can show me which "version"  Muhammad was exposed to. If it was an oddball version then you guys have spent many years bashing a Bible because of a rogue version. That would be sad. If you insist it was not the same Bible as we have today, then you've been kicking the dog because you don't like the cat.

Quote

I've never met a Jew yet who said Moses wrote the Taurah. According to Jews, the Taurah was revelation from God, I.e. it was given by God to Moses. Maybe Moses did the mechanical process of putting the words to paper, but he did not write it in the sense that it came from his own mind, according to Jews. 

I'm pretty sure you know I know that already, and it is what I wrote. Your version seems to have a slight twist that might make others think I thought Moses made it up? I'd be as shallow as you portray me if I didn't catch that.

We've just kinda agreed Moses did not get a book, he got a revelation, which he, (not of his own mind), had processed into a book. We've both said that now. It's okay to agree on some things.

 

Quote

And he will teach him (Jesus)  The Book, and wisdom, and the Torah, and the Injeel

Is that four things, or supposedly one thing described four ways? 

Call it old tropes if you like but pronounce these.

hafs_3.146.gif        warsh_3.146.gif 3:146

 

Edited by Son of Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

tropes if you like but pronounce these.

hafs_3.146.gif        warsh_3.146.gif 3:146

  

فتل :be curled ; be entwined ; be twined ; be twisted - bend ; contort ; curl ; curve ; entwine ; flex ; ...

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/فتل/

قتل :annihilate ; assault ; attack with violence ; butcher ; claim ; crush ; destroy ; devastate ; eradic.

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/قتل/

battle against ; brawl with ; clash with ; contend with ; counter ; encounter ; engage in conflict w...

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/قاتل/

How many a Prophet there has been with whom a multitude of godly men fought. They did not falter for what befell them in the way of Allah, neither did they weaken, nor did they abase themselves; and Allah loves the steadfast. (146)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/3:146

وَكَأَيِّن مِّن نَّبِيٍّ قَاتَلَ مَعَهُ رِبِّيُّونَ كَثِيرٌ فَمَا وَهَنُوا لِمَا أَصَابَهُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ وَمَا ضَعُفُوا وَمَا اسْتَكَانُوا ۗ وَاللَّـهُ يُحِبُّ الصَّابِرِينَ ﴿١٤٦

 

this is only applicable to people like as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & Hamza (رضي الله عنه) uncle of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) the master of martyrs before martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) 

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

فتل :be curled ; be entwined ; be twined ; be twisted - bend ; contort ; curl ; curve ; entwine ; flex ; ...

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/فتل/

قتل :annihilate ; assault ; attack with violence ; butcher ; claim ; crush ; destroy ; devastate ; eradic.

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/قتل/

battle against ; brawl with ; clash with ; contend with ; counter ; encounter ; engage in conflict w...

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/قاتل/

How many a Prophet there has been with whom a multitude of godly men fought. They did not falter for what befell them in the way of Allah, neither did they weaken, nor did they abase themselves; and Allah loves the steadfast. (146)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/3:146

وَكَأَيِّن مِّن نَّبِيٍّ قَاتَلَ مَعَهُ رِبِّيُّونَ كَثِيرٌ فَمَا وَهَنُوا لِمَا أَصَابَهُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ وَمَا ضَعُفُوا وَمَا اسْتَكَانُوا ۗ وَاللَّـهُ يُحِبُّ الصَّابِرِينَ ﴿١٤٦

 

this is only applicable to people like as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & Hamza (رضي الله عنه) uncle of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) the master of martyrs before martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) 

 

These words don't seem very interchangeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

These words don't seem very interchangeable.

It maybe happened because of error in writing or some differences between Arabic words between multiple regions for example when a Iraqi talks Arabic with his accent it’s very different from Arabic speaking someone from Egypt or a Lebanese  that they created “ Fasih Arabic” clear Arabic for academic & news without slangs & accent that is soulless & robotic like as English that news anchor are talking that is just good for learning English but you can’t learn idioms & slangs from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

It maybe happened because of error in writing or some differences between Arabic words between multiple regions for example when a Iraqi talks Arabic with his accent it’s very different from Arabic speaking someone from Egypt or a Lebanese  that they created “ Fasih Arabic” clear Arabic for academic & news without slangs & accent that is soulless & robotic like as English that news anchor are talking that is just good for learning English but you can’t learn idioms & slangs from it. 

I'm thinking it was the difference in personality between Abu Bakr 'Asim, and Nafi' and how it was recited to the Transmitters. I have no idea the difference in dialect. Nafi' was from Medina, Abu Bakr was from Kufah. There would be differences in some words, but nothing to actually change the meaning. Abu Bakr used the "Royal We" in narratives, but often used "I" in quotes, where Nafi' preferred the Royal We for all references pertaining to Allah. This is only a difference in men.

Depending on their own experience, one noted many a Prophet and good men fought, the other felt more empathy to those who were killed. There is no doubt both happened so there is no case for contradiction. It is an obvious conclusion many fought and many were killed. Two men, two perspectives, same conclusion with a fuller understanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 12:05 AM, Son of Placid said:

 

hafs_3.146.gif        warsh_3.146.gif 3:146

 

Hi SoP

Could you kindly give us the web address where the above appear and also the web address with the general Harf Warsh discussion that you rest your arguments on?

In any case, here is Yusuf Ali's translation of Q. 3:146

"How many of the Prophets fought (in God's Way) and with them (fought) large bands of godly men? But they never lost heart  if they met with disaster in Gods Way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And God loves those who are firm and steadfast."  

And if you  replace one or both occurrences of the words "fought"  by the dictionary meaning "entwined" or "twisted" or "curled", it just does not make sense.

Not even in broken Arabic.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22-compilation of Qur'an the life of Imam Ali Sayed Moustafa Qazwini

Translation of the Holy Qur'an | Full documentary 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, baqar said:

Hi SoP

Could you kindly give us the web address where the above appear and also the web address with the general Harf Warsh discussion that you rest your arguments on?

In any case, here is Yusuf Ali's translation of Q. 3:146

"How many of the Prophets fought (in God's Way) and with them (fought) large bands of godly men? But they never lost heart  if they met with disaster in Gods Way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And God loves those who are firm and steadfast."  

And if you  replace one or both occurrences of the words "fought"  by the dictionary meaning "entwined" or "twisted" or "curled", it just does not make sense.

Not even in broken Arabic.

Cheers

I have a few links. I'm not sure you'd like any of them. Some are Christian, some are ex Muslim. What's annoying is all sites have to be so one sided it's difficult to ignore the bias. Separation of evidence and opinion helps. I want their information, not their agenda.
There is one page I ran across years ago that started me looking in to it. Might be the best link to start.

The Qur'an compiled by Imam Ali

A simple 'versions of the Qur'an' search will give you lots to look at.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter that we wouldn't like them. 

Do please let us have them.

The honest and fair way to go about a discussion is for all sides to be fully armed with the sources being used.

Otherwise people are working in the dark and the discussion will never end.

You say "A simple 'versions of the Qur'an' search will give you lots to look at."  

But people should not be expected to waste their time looking at lots of stuff when all they want is the precise source being quoted.

In any case, if one party uses a source, they should provide it, rather than expect others to do the search.

I remember you had brought the subject of versions up several years ago.

But nothing came of it, because they were all working on separate frames of reference.

As you will probably agree, ex-Muslim and non-Muslim sites can hardly be used to prove anything about Islam, just as ex-Christian and non-Christian sites cannot be used for Christianity.

But since you are using them, fair enough, you are entitled to.

However, you must present them, rather than expect others to do the search.

And now you have changed the subject to Imam Ali's Qur'an.

This will only make matters worse and we keep going round and round the mulberry bush, never ending at a consensus or even a "We agree to disagree" statement. 

I think Shias and Sunnis fortunately both share some info on this topic.

And as best as I know, Imam Ali did not compile a different Qur'an.

He knew the Qur'an by heart and he wrote it down from memory, and it is believed he pencilled some notes there.

There were no pencils in those days. But you know what I mean.

I would probably also do something similar if I knew the Qur'an by heart.

However, I believe there is no evidence to suggest that his Qur'an was different from the one in common circulation, even by a letter.

U see, all Muslims recognize that he was the greatest scholar of the Qur'an but there is no record that he ever quoted a verse (or verses) from outside the common Qur'an.

Nor did his sons or their sons, grandsons etc, ever mention it or quote a verse that was different.

Nor is there any statement by any one of them disclaiming the Qur'an in circulation.

In any case, that Qur'an has been lost to the dust-heap of history and only God knows if it will ever be retrieved. 

So my friend, there you are.

For the time being,  I think ShiaChat should aim to resolve the issue you raised relating to versions, with your help and participation.

It is no use jumping from one topic to another and getting nowhere.

And I suggest we leave Imam Ali's Qur'an for the time being and concentrate on the discussion at hand.

Thanks

And have a nice Easter.

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to have irked you. I meant that the page I linked was what got me wondering. There seems to be some talk of the order of the Surahs. I don't see how that actually changes anything and was not my intention to imply it was.  The problem with web pages and such is the opinion of the author, is not, (pretty much never), mine. As I said, I want their info, not their opinion.

I'm willing to help with sources but don't care to offend anyone with links to slander. My reference to a google search was so I didn't have to get in the middle of what you found. My apologies for making it look like a brush-off. I figure, those who care will follow 17:36, those who agree to disagree will only look at the links to see the slander, those who don't care wouldn't open the links anyway. 

Which Qur'an?  is probably the most comprehensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SoP Thanks for the link.

I was not irked at all, my friend. 

I merely thought that we would never end the discussion the way we were going.

I have not been part of this in any major way either now or in the past.

Nor do I particularly wish to because I believe it is just a scam meant to lead people to more loathing for an already battered victim. 

Anyway, this topic has been hanging around in this site for years now and we really need to bring it to a satisfactory close.

So while the others seem to be enjoying their Easter break, I'll butt in briefly with my position on the link you have kindly sent.

On page 3, the link has quoted verses Q. 2:125 and Q. 3:146.

And Q .2:125 does indeed correspond to the Hafs mentioned in that link.

But Q. 3:146 has neither QATAL nor QUTIL in my 4 Qurans. rather QAATALA.

So I do not know what they are talking about.

Anyway, assuming that I am missing something, we still need to know how and where we can get hold of this other version.

I don't think it is possible to look into this matter much further in its absence.

We need to study and analyze the material that enabled them to list a large number of differences between the two versions and then document them.

Whether it is well and truly another version or perhaps someone's penciled copy created centuries ago and then recreated multiple times, only God knows! 

But we should somehow find this mysterious monster before we can proceed further. 

I, for one, believe that without this elusive book, the discussion will amount to nothing more than groping in the dark.

Unfortunately, I am sorry I do not have the resources for this enormous task.

And without it, I believe everyone here will merely be wasting their time.

But maybe someone at this site knows where to find it or how to go about the discussion without it.

All the best

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

I noticed the email address of the author of the article on the top of the first page.

It occurred to me to ask him where I could find a copy of the WARSH Qur'an.

So I fired off an email to him with that request.

If he replies, I shall publish the information here.

Regards

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, baqar said:

Update:

I noticed the email address of the author of the article on the top of the first page.

It occurred to me to ask him where I could find a copy of the WARSH Qur'an.

So I fired off an email to him with that request.

If he replies, I shall publish the information here.

Regards

 

From what I understood, the Warsh is still in use in the Western parts of Africa. As far as I know there is nada English. You can correct me at any point.

This link may help. http://http://www.assabile.com/Qur'an/collections/all/warsh-a-n-nafi/Qur'an/collections/all/warsh-a-n-nafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of Placid said:

From what I understood, the Warsh is still in use in the Western parts of Africa. As far as I know there is nada English. You can correct me at any point.

Hi SoP

If the WARSH is still in use in parts of Africa, then the HAFS-WARSH differences simply cannot be in the text, rather in things like script and /or pronunciation.

Because, if my information is correct, at the moment, textually, every Qur'an ALL over the world is exactly the same.

And that gives substance to my niggling suspicion that the author has manipulated the differences in script and / or pronunciation to make it sound like textual.

He has put in a lot of work, of course.

So we cannot take him lightly.

if there are people in this site with the overall knowledge and expertise to dismantle this article, please come forward.

Otherwise, we need to look outside the box.

I think this subject requires fairly high-level scholarship - perhaps not of one but a team of scholars.   

I would request those of us who have contacts with English speaking scholars (Shia and Sunni), to give them this article for their written comment.

If a number of people in this site can hep, we could get several teams of scholars working in different parts of the world and then collate the results.

A non-English speaking scholar may be helpful as a consultant, but he will not really be able to actively lead the project.

If I was living in Iran, Iraq or other ME countries, I might go full steam with this. 

There are a few English speaking scholars in the part of the world I inhabit, and I will see if I can get in touch with them, but as things stand at the moment, I doubt it.

I am sorry I cannot explain my difficulties in this matter in further detail. 

But I am hoping some others may be able to help.

Mods and admins, could you please use your resources to help dismantle the article in question.

Anyway, anyone reading this -: if you can find ( and get in touch with) an English speaking Muslim scholar, please bring this article to his notice and please try to arouse his interest.

We really need to do something about it.

However, until the author of the article replies to my email, if he ever does, I am going to keep reading bits and pieces, to see if I can see through the silver painting.

The first thing one notices is that the article has been published in a godless website (the name free-minds is a clear indication that it is godless).

So even though the author seems to bear some sort of a Muslim name, he clearly is a former Muslim.

Therefore readers should not expect honesty of purpose from him.

But just because he is a former Muslim, we cannot say that he is talking rubbish.

We have to refute his arguments logically.

Until more can be done, let us all keep reading it and see what we can make out of it.

I have a lot of other stuff on my plate at the moment but I too will read it when I can.

We should read it slowly as the flaws will be more easily apparent if we read it slowly and concentrate upon it.

All those of us who can, let us get to work now and share our findings, if any.

In the meantime, also, let us not forget our search for English-speaking scholars.

The article has been given to us by a member and is as follows:

https://www.free-minds.org/sites/default/files/WhichQuran.pdf 

Thanks again, SoP, for that link. God bless you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baqar said:

Therefore readers should not expect honesty of purpose from him.

I like your style. The crux of every page is it's written with a goal to convince you their opinion is right, not always the same as truth.

If this falls in the category of "writes with their hands and says it's from Allah" the penalty is grave and I don't want to promote it. I do want to know what's truth and what's story, but am limited to English, some old Quebec French, and how to get directions to a bathroom in Spanish. (Doesn't mean I understand the directions.) 

The Bible has gone through the agony of critical thinking for centuries, to the point nobody knows what they should believe or not. The movement is not actually Christian against Muslim, nor vice versa, we're all fighting secular atheism. In the mean time, we're all still divided.

If you don't know the argument you have no defense. 

@baqar Thank you for taking this serious. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...