Messages

31

General Discussions / Quran translation with multiple meanings side-by-side?

« on: January 15, 2013, 07:07:31 AM »

Salam All,

I was wondering if anyone knows of a good Quran translation that has 2 or 3 meanings side-by-side, so that I get the full scope of A word without memorizing A concordance.

I'm not looking for a secondary meaning in the footnotes, but like right next to it in the translated text.

Example: Lord of the Alameen (Creatures / Worlds / Universe)

32

Discussions / Re: The Lost Injeel

« on: January 14, 2013, 09:59:47 AM »

Salam Brother Joseph. Sorry to get back on this topic. But I thought this might interest you.
I noticed you said previously, that the Injil was a physical scroll/book available during the Prophet's ministry.
Well I did some digging and I was surprised by what I found.

My hypothesis is that the 'Injil' is actually the Syriac Peshitta:

1. The word 'Injil' itself is not Arabic. It is a transliteration of the Greek ''Evangelon."
"In this recension the Gospel according to Matthew has the title Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. It means "the Gospel of the Separated," and points to the existence of single Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, in a Syriac translation, in contradistinction to Tatian's Harmony"
This proves that this Book had the same name in Greek, Syriac and Arabic.

2.  The Canonized Peshitta was completed just a century prior to Prophet Muhammad's birth.
"The Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD. The New Testament of the Peshitta, which originally excluded certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become the standard by the early 5th century."

3. The Qur'ans stories, parables, analogies, etc. are references to the Peshitta.
"One thing is certain, that the earliest New Testament of the Syriac church lacked not only the Antilegomena – 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse – but the whole of the Catholic Epistles. These were at a later date translated and received into the Syriac Canon of the New Testament, but the quotations of the early Syrian Fathers take no notice of these New Testament books.
From the 5th century, however, the Peshitta containing both Old Testament and New Testament has been used in its present form only as the national version of the Syriac Scriptures."

Proof:
a. The Quran tells us the biography of Jesus by referencing the 4 Gospels and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Is it no wonder that Peter, Paul and the rest of the early Christians mentioned in Acts, as well as the Epistles, are unequivocally missing from the Quran? It also makes sense because, as you've proven yourself, their is no evidence of Jesus' resurrection/killing Dajjal whatsoever in the Syriac Peshitta. These are only found in the later books present in the modern New Testament. This could be one of Allah's way of showing us that he knew what parts of the NT were false and conjecture, and what parts were truth.

33

Discussions / Re: Discussions on Manuscripts and My Responses to a Critique by Jason Wilson

« on: January 14, 2013, 09:26:14 AM »

Salam, nice response to the critique.  Anyway, this should help Jason Wilson out:

http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/quran/maili.html

As a side note, what do you make of the lack of vowels(fatha, damma, kasra) in the first century manuscripts. Just for knowledge's-sake.

34

General Discussions / Re: Hajar al aswad

« on: January 14, 2013, 08:29:11 AM »

You understood my point differently! 

What I meant was this.  The hadees (in which second khalifa Umar is reported to have said he was kissing the stone because he  had seen prophet doing so) can not be true because if Khalifa Umar had actually seen prophet kissing the stone, he would have verified the reason for doing so from the prophet himself or those around him at the same time! 

It would be safe to assume that any Hadith attributed to the Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Ali were, in the majority of cases, concocted to establish religious laws.

Umar is the best example. Is it not ironic that only Umar pointed out the mysterious Stoning(rajm) law? Did everyone else just so happen to forget?

Also, this Black Stone. Maybe a later witness to the Hajj wanted a reason for Stone Veneration and falsely attributed it to Umar, because his word held authority in that era. Salam

35

Discussions / Well of ZamZam

« on: December 28, 2012, 06:10:08 PM »

I know that ZamZam is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an, but I found something quite interesting about this word.

Wikipedia has the Hajar background: "Neither Sara nor Hājar are mentioned by name in the Qur'an, but the story is traditionally understood to be referred to in a line from Ibrāhīm's prayer in Sura Ibrahim (14:37): "I have settled some of my family in a barren valley near your Sacred House."[12] While Hājar is not named, the reader lives Hājar's predicament indirectly through the eyes of Ibrāhīm."...

NON-Quranic
"Hājar panicked and ran between two nearby hills, Al-Safa and Al-Marwah repeatedly in search for water. After her seventh run, Ismā'īl hit the ground with his heel and caused a miraculous well to spring out of the ground. This is called Zamzam Well and is located a few metres from the Kaaba in Mecca.[15]"

I was reading through the Bible and as luck has it, Deuteronomy:

20 (That was also regarded as a land of giants;[a] giants formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them ZAMZUMMIM, 21 a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. But the Lord destroyed them before them, and they dispossessed them and dwelt in their place,

Wikipedia on the Rephaites: "The area of Moab at Ar, (the region East of the Jordan) before the time of Moses, was also considered the land of the Rephaites. Deuteronomy 2:18-21 refers to the fact that Ammonites called them "Zamzummim", which is related to the Hebrew word זמזם, which literally translates into "Buzzers", or "the people whose speech sounds like buzzing." In Arabic the word زمزم (zamzama) translates as "to rumble, roll (thunder); murmur". As per Deut 2:11, the Moabites referred to them as the Emim."

Since this was written around the time of King Josiah, and is in North-West Arabia, it is possible that these are the 'Ad people mentioned in the Qur'an!

36

Prophets and Messengers / Re: Yahya's kitab?

« on: December 25, 2012, 01:28:43 PM »

Yes, he was an exemplary prophet.
19:92 translates to: " Oh Yahya, kuzil the Book in power; and We gave him wisdom as a child." 

Kuzil can translate to "Hold fast." Hilali-Khan says this refers to the Torah(i.e. Old Testament). This makes the most sense since the Qur'an never refers to 'the Book of Yahya' anywhere else, unlike the Tawrat, Zubur and Injil.

So Yahya received wisdom on the Torah(OT) as a Child, whereas Jesus received new Wisdom from Birth.

You are right in saying that both have similar, exclusive, blessings:
"And peace be upon him the day he was born and the day he dies and the day he is raised alive."
They also are the only Prophets described using the word Zakkiyya (Pure, Faultless).
Christians also believe he 'Prepared the way for the Lord.'

37

General Discussions / Re: Manuscripts

« on: December 24, 2012, 08:06:23 AM »

Thank you for replying. I will address each of your Quotes separately:

A. The main study I used was by a Muslim, Layth Al-Shaiban. She made her own translation. The entire exposition is at
http://www.free-minds.org/sites/default/files/WhichQuran.pdf

She uses the earliest Quranic manuscripts, of which I gave you some examples. She also pointed out the verse number difference to the Saudi printers.

B. I'll be honest and point out that I have took his word on the 'Qibla' manuscript discrepancies. There is ample evidence that the Qibla was changed during the Ummayad and Abbasid Wars. This was obviously much after the Prophet's death, utilizing the use of non-muslim sources as well. Dan Gibson gave most of his archaeological evidence at: http://searchformecca.com/evidence.html
Muslims at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html
attempted to refute this claim. But the 2 Iraqi and 1 Egyptian Mosques whose Qiblas they calculated, triangulate in North-West Arabia, not near Mecca nor Jerusalem. Dan Gibson refutes these and other claims as well, such as Masjid Al-Qiblatain.
There is also a document from Jacob of Edessa that states that:
1. In Egypt, Jews and Muslims prayed in the SAME compass direction(East).
2. In Iraq, they BOTH pray to the West. Notice that Iraqis today must pray South-SW to face Mecca.

C. Sana'a Manuscipts:
The German scholar Elisabeth Puin (of Saarland University), whose husband was the local director of the restoration project until 1985, has transcribed the lower text of six folios (and one side of another folio) in four successive publications.[7][8][9][10] Behnam Sadeghi (Professor of Islamic Studies at Stanford University) published, in 2010, an extensive study of the 4 folios auctioned abroad and analyzed their variants using textual critical methods. In March 2012, Behnam Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi (of Harvard University) published a long essay containing a complete edition of the lower text of the folios in the House of Manuscripts and those auctioned abroad, along with an analysis.[1]

I encourage you to read and comment on these studies.

38

General Discussions / Huroof Al-Muqatta'at - Hamiduddin Farahi's Method

« on: December 23, 2012, 04:51:17 PM »

Salaam all Sisters and Brothers,

After reading Joseph's article on Huroof Al-Muqatta'at, I decided to apply Farahi's 'method' to each Surah and compare the Letters in a Final Analysis. It is at my website:

http://thequranisclear.blogspot.com/2012/12/huroof-al-muqattaat.html

Please tell me what you think about it in the comments. Jazakullah.

Here is a small portion:

'AYN

This literally means Eye in Arabic and Hebrew. It can also mean to project (that is far away) or be lofty. One can recall the words 'Ala and 'Ali, which means lifted/exalted as well. Lo and Behold, this also fits the narration chronology (Shakir):
22.    So she conceived him; then withdrew herself with him to a remote place.
Even if one were to deny this secondary definition, the primary one follows shortly:
26.    So eat and drink and refresh the eye. Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent Allah, so I shall not speak to any man today.
After this Mary is accused by the Jews of Jerusalem. Amazingly enough, the third definition is 7 verses away:
33.    And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.

24 verses later, the prophet Idris is also mentioned being raised:
56.    And mention Idris in the Book; surely he was a truthful man, a prophet,
57.    And We raised him high in Heaven.
Therefore, this letter could be a reference primarily to the Jesus infancy-narrative due to large amount of textual support, but may also refer to the entire second quarter of the Chapter(After Yahya).

39

General Discussions / Re: Manuscripts

« on: December 23, 2012, 04:34:54 PM »

So do you say that those Muslims who recite using Warsh recitation are incorrect beyond a doubt(because they are a minority)? The letters are different but appear to be based on a dot-less skeleton identical to Hafs. What do you say of Shia' distortions, which definitely exist?

2:125 in Hafs is وَاتَّخِذوْا “WatakhIzu” (You shall take) / In Warsh it is وَاتَّخَذوْا “WatakhAzu” (They have taken/made). These are totally different in meaning.

Verse counts for Hafs are 6236, while Warsh records 6214.

You state: "In other words, a Hafs copy is consistent with all the Hafs copies." I would have to respectfully disagree with this claim. May you please address these inconsistencies brother:

A. Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, and Uwe Bergmann have written about a palimpsest found at Sana’a. It dates from the the first half of the seventh century AD; it does not belong to the Uthmanic textual tradition;19 and it contains textual variants from the Uthmanic tradition:

1. In 2:196, the word Ru'usakum (your heads) is not in the inferior text. It appears to be a clarification addition.
2. In 63:7, the inferior text has min Hawlihi after Yanfaddu. This is a clear deletion of the phrase 'from around him' at the end of the sentence.

B. Tashkent: More importantly, the general study of this text reveals that in addition to it missing many Chapters, it also appears to be a deviant text missing complete words in some places and even dropping letters in mid-sentence.

1. In 19:72, it has Fa instead of Nun.
2. In 7:69, BaSta has Seen instead of Sad. Neither in Hafs or Warsh.

C. Gold Quran: Online by John Hopkins has elements of both variants.
The Hafs version only matched with 32% of the verses compared, while the Warsh version produced a 53% match with the Gold Quran.

1. 9:107, has Wa-lazeena instead of Al-Lazeena contrary to Warsh.
2. 5:53, has YaQul instead of Wa-YaQul, same as Warsh.

D. Dan Gibson claimed that: "I then examined hundreds of old Qur'anic manuscripts to search for these verses, and they are missing in all of the Qur'ans written during the first 100 years of Islam. This clearly indicates to me that the Qur'an was re-compiled by the Abbasids." He is reffering to the verses of the Qibla change". Archaeology seems to support his claims.

E. Sana'a: Based on research on some of Puin's work.

1. Moreover, in the the verb ‘yu’addibhum’, ‘he (Allah) will punish them’, found on ‘Fol. 16r, Z.13’, is not explained with ‘adaban aliman’, ‘with a painful punishment’, as in the Standard Text (StT). Fits the verse' context as well.

2. Instead of the word ‘Jahannnamu,’ , found in the Standard Text, the old manuscript version contains the synonym ‘l-naru’, ‘the fire’. It is almost identical with a parallel text found in today’s Surah 24:57. Coincidence?

40

Discussions / Re: The Lost Injeel

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:20:47 AM »

"018.074
"Then they both proceeded until they met a boy, then he killed him. He (Moses) said: "Have you killed a soul 'zakkiyyatan' (pure / innocent / righteous / blameless) who had slain none? Truly you have done an evil / foul thing!"
-It is also useful to remember that Prophet Yayha is also attested to be 'zakatan' in the Quran (19:13)."

I'm definitely going to use that in my debate with Christians!

On the point of the alteration of His Word: The Bible, as the Quran, also claims it is unchanged.

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever (Isaiah 40:.
If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came; and the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44).

There are early manuscripts (obviously, the Bible has more discrepancies) that are very different in details, when compared to the standard Egyptian-Arabic Quran of today. How can an objective person then decide what is God's 'unchanged' word, even if it is an oral tradition, which is less credible than tangible written accounts???

41

General Discussions / Early Qibla?

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:05:27 AM »

Dan Gibson made this statement:

"There was confusion during the following 100 years until the Abbasids firmly established the qibla in the present Mecca direction. This contradicts the Qur'an which tells us that the qibla changed during Muhammad's lifetime. How did those verses get into the Qu'ran? Were they inserted by later writers? I then examined hundreds of old Qur'anic manuscripts to search for these verses, and they are missing in all of the Qur'ans written during the first 100 years of Islam. This clearly indicates to me that the Qur'an was re-compiled by the Abbasids, and verses were added to substantiate their decision to move the Black rock to Mecca in Saudi Arabia."

Can you refute these claims, as he is a renown researcher I just passed by while reading? Jazakullah

42

General Discussions / Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change

« on: December 19, 2012, 11:34:59 AM »

According to Gibson : http://searchformecca.com/Jerusalem.html

Neither Jerusalem nor Mecca were the First Qibla. In fact, it was Petra. The same location used by Arab pilgrims for centuries!!!

"It is very true the the Mosque of the Two Qiblas faced Jerusalem, but if one examines a map, it is obvious that Petra is located between Medina and Jerusalem. Thus this mosque faced BOTH Jerusalem and Petra. If you examine the Changing of the Qibla Timeline you will discover that there are a dozen early mosques that faced Petra, including the mosques in Medina and Jerusalem! These mosques alone are solid archeological proof that Petra was the focal point of the first qibla and not Jerusalem. Not a single mosque, outside of the Mosque of the Two Qiblas points to Jerusalem, but EVERY mosque built during the first hundred years of Islam pointed to Petra."

43

General Discussions / Re: Questions about Makkah or Bakkah article

« on: December 19, 2012, 11:34:42 AM »

According to Gibson : http://searchformecca.com/Jerusalem.html

Neither Jerusalem nor Mecca were the First Qibla. In fact, it was Petra. The same location used by Arab pilgrims for centuries!!!

"It is very true the the Mosque of the Two Qiblas faced Jerusalem, but if one examines a map, it is obvious that Petra is located between Medina and Jerusalem. Thus this mosque faced BOTH Jerusalem and Petra. If you examine the Changing of the Qibla Timeline you will discover that there are a dozen early mosques that faced Petra, including the mosques in Medina and Jerusalem! These mosques alone are solid archeological proof that Petra was the focal point of the first qibla and not Jerusalem. Not a single mosque, outside of the Mosque of the Two Qiblas points to Jerusalem, but EVERY mosque built during the first hundred years of Islam pointed to Petra."

What are your thoughts on this Brother Joseph?

44

Discussions / Re: The Lost Injeel

« on: December 16, 2012, 06:04:15 PM »

You've answered some of my questions. Are you trying to say that when the term 'son of God' was permissible at one point in history? Also, on the 'special status' point, isn't it true that Jesus is the only Sinless human (Zakkiyya) which is why he is Al-Masih, and most of the Prophets were Israelites. Why does the Quran suddenly make the claim that referring to men as the 'son' is wrong, if the prophets clearly did so.

On the topic of biblical alteration, why would Allah allow this to happen? How could the Word of God be lost by the hands of a few Rabbis??

45

Discussions / Re: The Lost Injeel

« on: December 02, 2012, 11:56:56 AM »

Thank you for replying. 
You state that Jesus could have referred to Jesus as Abba, which I agree with.
I know that 'son' (ibn) and even 'begotten' (walad) are used as both figuratively and literally, in the Holy Bible. But the Quran seems to state that both of these methods of 'affection' are wrong when applied to God. What confuses me is throughout the Psalms, Prophets, and of course, the New Testament, people are reffered to as 'sons of God'. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls have these words in Hebrew. How could people have been wrong about the 'son' thing from even before Christ(pbuh).

The Quran denies, and even threatens, those who claim Jesus is:
ibn - 5:18, 9:30
walad - 4:171, 19:35, 19:88, 19:91, 19:92
in the light of Allah. Therefore, how can it be misinterpretation on the part of the Jews and Christians? Also, do you believe any of the Old Testament was changed, if so, how much of it?