Us? exactly how many people am I talking to?
Yusuf Ali was educated in the uk, he was sufficiently grounded in the language to know what he was doing, I agree his work was inaccurate but not in the way you imply, he and other english translators knew exactly the people they were translating to, they bent over backwards to make the koran mild, so maakiren instead of cheater vis-a-vis allah is the best of cheaters, allah is now the best of plotters, instead of beat your wives, it is beat(lightly) and many more like it without their interpolations () the koran does not make any sense to the conscience or to a rational mind.
For a person that does not know how to read arabic how can you stipulate the degree of which I implied inaccuracy of his translation or any other translators work ?
You were quick to state the translators had english as their third language and implied they didn't know what they were talking about, typical muslim attitude it must be corrupt.
YOu mean the Quran doesnt make sense to the indoctrinated Christian mind. What you and your contemporaries dont relate to others who are not muslim do.
Religion aside islam does not make any sense to a rational mind.
Quote:
To show flaw in the translators works that you and your contemporaries took advantage of I produced legitimate grounds of why their translations are rejected as an authoritive and credible Tafsir (explanation):
Read above
Rejected by whom?
Exactly what splinter group do you represent?
Quote:
You were to disprove and show inaccuracy in our Tafsir. This is where the challenge was at. However, your critic sources that you posted was not based on our Tafsir, but based on another translators work that was inaccurate and poor.
Have a look at the original post, I used your tafsir, I found it amusing how you came to such a detailed description of embryology given ..thing that sojourns, clinging thing, flesh on bones.
By those who agree with our Madzhab that speak arabic
You used my Tafsir then used a critic source that expounded on a different Tafsir translation that dated back before my post. I told you to go and present it to an Embryologiest not refer to criticism that already exist on an invalid translation.
Interesting, Lets see, here is the arabic :
Hold on a sec, where are you getting the translations for the transliterational words? I find it a bit strange your translation contradicts Hiliali and Khan. Yusuf Ali, Sale, Sher et al are you trying to tell us EVERYBODY got the translation wrong bar you. would you care to show the arabic to english dictionary you are using to obtain these very convenient translations.
And please don't be patronising by showing us the english dictionary of the english word.
If allah cannot pass on his message except via a language 90% of his converts do not speak or do not comprehend, and translations lose their meanings then the last message for all mankind for all eternity is a failure.
Wow ! I wonder why you have 76 revised editions of the Bible in English. Hmm, lets see, in order to properly undersand the bible you have to find aid in another language inorder to define its meaning.
Has the message changed?
Several questions pop up why did the jews want to kill Jesus, what was His crime? why did allah want to raise Jesus up dead? what for? what purpose surely God would do things for a purpose?
This has nothing to do with the subject
Well if you have the mentality that God does things for absolutely no reason you are not serving the same God.
Hmm bad reading. It didnt say Allah made it to appear to them so, it says it appeared to them so. Where do you see that Allah had something to do with it of it appearing to them so ?
If you want to argue on the fine points of the semantics, who made it appear so to them?
Quote:
BukhariVolumn 004, Book 055, Hadith Number 657.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Abu Huraira : Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler)[ What part in the above statement is figurative?]; he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya ...
Well he is not coming back according to Quran so what does it matter?
Exactly where does the quran stipulate this? Again which splinter group do you represent do you not have a name? or you are worried to reveal the name of your splinter sect?
Quote:
" The Pigs" and in some hadith it is singular as "The Pig". What pigs is he going to kill ? There are millions of pigs all over the word. In other Hadiths Jesus is to comback to kill an imposter Messiah called "Al-Masiha Dajjal" and those who follow him.
I see, you are basically saying the followers of the false messiah will be killed, do you realise the followers of the false messiah will be the jews? so you are implying that jews are the pigs being referred to here? as a former jew as you claim I find it truly amazing you would utter such a thing.
Personally I don't believe for one second that you were a former jew if your recent answers are anything to go by, you sound like another islamic imposter to me, muslims are the only people I have met that employ this tactic pretending to be a jew or a christian to gain some kudos when they are unable to answer basic tenets of the alledge faith they are no longer a part of, do you realise how bad it makes you look?
Do you honestly believe God would utter such a thing, this sounds like what a man would say when he has forgotten the things he was suppose to remember.
Remember ! God's thoughts are not you thoughts
But there is no dispute the thoughts of allah are those of Mohammed in fact there is no diffference between the two; when Mohammed needs to rape allah sanctions it, when Mohammed needs to have sex with his slave girls without paying them dowry allah sanctions it, when Mohammed needs to steal his son's wife allah sanctions it and says he saw Moahmmed's lust and made him give her up to him imagine that a god that sanctioned lust for his prophet when the God of the previous revelation punished David for such a thing.
Is this your excuse for an explanation?, the term was "sister of Aaron" yes we can both agree that they named themselves after their ancestors, the question was where in the whole of judaism do they name themselves as a sibling of an ancestor that was not their real life contemporary sibling?
Nope. The point is Muslims do not understand Sister of Aaron as you precieve it. We understand the statement Sister of Aaron as a respectable title of her sisterhood of the Aaronites, which expresses she was an Aaronite.
Exactly who are you trying to mislead with such a statement?
Let me remind you what we discussed:
Quote:
Nowhere in the Torah new testament, Talmud, Jewish or christian apocryphal wiritngs is anyone mentioned as a brother or sister of an ancestor
Quote:
Go to any Jewish website or to an Orthadox Jew, I would recommend a Rabi instead, and email or ask them or him what does "Sister of Aaron" and "Brother of Levi" in Jewish Idiom meain.
Quote:
I think it is time I call your bluff on this, if it is in there would you care to show us where it is, other christians have already done an extensive search in the quran, hadiths, jewish and christian scriptures and apocrypha no such idiom of naming someone as a sibling of an ancestor has been found except they were real contemporarty siblings the idiom has always been daughter of the ancestor or son of the ancestor, if it is in there don't beat around the bush show us.
The koran says
" sister of Aaron" Who were the people in the koran calling Mary "sister of Aaron", JEWS.
Who did Mohammed said called themselves after pious people...
"PEOPLE OF THE OLD AGE" <--- Those same jews in the koran. For you to now tell me that muslims
"do not understand Sister of Aaron as you precieve it. We understand the statement Sister of Aaron as a respectable title of her sisterhood of the Aaronites, which expresses she was an Aaronite" is a contradiction in terms, you are the one who was prepared to back the koran that the jews called themselves names like
"sister of Aaron" e.t.c a sibling of an ancestor that was not their real life contemporary sibling,
I reiterate for you to show me where in the whole of judaism this was done
I see, according to you Mary was put into the care of Zechariah which makes him her uncle as a guardian and her as his daughter, and since he is a descendant of Aaron this makes her a "sister of aaron" impressive deduction but...your koran states Mary is a literal "sister of harun", when Mohammed was confronted about this lie in the koran he said another lie that..The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them. The onus is on you to prove that the jews had this idiom, if it is in there spit it out.
,
Nope. Go back and read what I said. I stated her uncle or aunt was one of Elizabeth's parents, thus reject your statement. You not paying attention.
Please listen to yourself...
her uncle or aunt was one of Elizabeth's parents...so what would that make Zechariah who is the father of Elizabeth. according to you who was looking after her?
Where did you get this information from that Mary was a descendant of Aaron?, if Mary was a descendant of Aaron, even your koran would have known better to call her a "DAUGHTER OF AARON"
Nope. Imran was an Aaronite, Maryam was the only child of Imran contrary to the Amram in the old testament.
Can you not see that Mohammed heard that Amran was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, and that Jesus's mother was called Mary a derivation of Miriam and was confused that they were one and the same, to the point that the same Amran is now the father of Mary in the koran, even a child can see this.
Have you thought maybe the hadiths also contain fabrications of historical time line of events, a fabrication containing more fabrications...it would explain why they contradict each other.
When I come accross such hadith I delete them or mark them with a big X or they go straight to the garbage.
Your blind faith is the koran is inerrant, and everything must be discarded if it contradicts the koran or if it sheds light on it that shows it is no more divine than the utterings of a demon possessed man
Exactly, Quran comes first as it says. It is th Truth verifier for WHATEVER is before it.
So tell me, why would Muhammad need to copy from the Bible to get his info if he was possessed by the devil as you say? If he was possessed by the devil then he woudlnt need to copy from the Bible when he can get it all info from the evil dude himself. :roll:
You forget the 114 demonic epileptic utterings you called divine suras, and you forget the message from the previous revelation that satan pretends to be an angel of light, vis a vis satan is pretending to be God.
Since those hadiths are all we have on the formation of islam, we can only apply logic on those hadiths, far from contradicting the koran like you would have us all believe they shed light on it. I also believe the koran is a forgery on human and demonic proportions.
A Christian perspective of course would think like that. The Quran was written first before hadith so it has preference over the hadith. Plus. The Quran is regarded as divine and the hadith are not. So how could you take that which is believed to be NOT divine to supersede that which is believed to be divine?
Let me get this straight, you believe the quran to be divine, you do not believe the hadith to be divine, you chose the quran over the hadith, but you need a tafsir to understand the koran, I have not yet read a tafsir that didn't incorporate hadiths, but the hadiths are not divine and could be forgeries and the tafsirs are written years after the formation of the quran and hadiths, relying on both of them , yet if the hadith contradicts the koran it is to be rejected but you need a tafsir to understand the koran which relies on hadiths.... do you see my point?
You are not fooling anyone here, the quran makes no sense without a tafsir which relies on hadiths, unless you are not a sunni muslim you are an apostate.
Would you care to point us to where it says alnissa means adult women who have passed puberty?
Sure turn to chapter 3 the name of the chapter is annisaa (al nisaa) meaing Women. What is a woman ?
Would you like to tell us when this sura was revealed? (There is a reason for this question but I suspect it will be lost on you)
The hadiths say the quranic verse on stoning was abrogated by a goat, read into it what you will.
Hmm, maybe its a hadith reported by a goat that said that. Who cares.[/
quote]
It is a sahih hadith not contradicted in the koran, the whole abrogation nonsense fits in well with being eaten by a goat, the suckling of an adult was written on the same piece of paper that was eaten by a goat, the hadiths of Muslim, Abu dawood, Malik are filled with such stupidity yet it is not in the koran, the hadiths even give the valid reasons why it is not in the koran, but you chose to disbelieve it, keep deluding yourself.