Liberate wrote:So when your source says 70 ansar were killed what do you think it is restricted to especially with it's title being companions of the prophet.?
A Hafeez is a Qari or Qurraa'a(pl.)
The Ansar is an attributive name given to those who helped fight in the wars and aided the the Prophet. The fact of the matter they do not say 450 died in the battle Yamama as you stated Ibn Katheer said.
Let us refresh what this discussion is about:
I showed you a Bukhari hadith that states Zaid collected the koran from leaves barks, animal skin and the memory of men who knew it (qira/quraa).
I showed you hadiths that state that parts of the koran were lost from the memorisers when they died, Ibn Kathir states that 450 of these memorisers died at the battle of Yamama a significant number, I state to you that parts of the koran were being lost hence the need to collate it before huge parts were lost.
You go into an irrelevant argument showing me a website url that says 70 of the ansar died at the battle of yamama it doesn't occur to you that the ansar and the memorisers at yamama were completely different people, not all ansar were qira, you even proved this with your definition of who the ansar were I was trying to show you that the companions of 70 ansar does not contradict the number of 450 MEMORISERS (not all were ansar some of those ansar accoridng to some sources were jews) according to Ibn Kathir.
I ask you again H2O if the qiraa were so numerous why did Zaid need to collect leaves and barks and animal skin on which the parts of the koran was written on to collate it, why didn't he just go to a few qiraa to have them recite what they knew, the logical answer according to the sources H2O is parts were lost, parts were missing the majority of memorisers were dead it was a salvage job, you are being spoon fed lies about this superior mental ability of the arabs who transmitted perfect copies en mass from an illiterate people.
Liberate wrote:Help us out here, what do you mean when you say you agree with the earlier interpretation that the tablets mentioned are referring to the actual tablets the koran was written upon, and you agree with it because allah mentions the quran was also written on pages?
Obviously you dont take the time to read and understand my post correctly.
Liberate wrote:Completely irrelevant have you forgotten this ayat:
Nay! This is a Glorious Qur’an, (Inscribed) in the Al-Luah Al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet)! (Qur’an 85:21-22)
It says there is a copy of the koran in heaven, is allah keeping up with the 1,000+ characters added by the dajjal and his scribes or maybe the above is a terrible translation and your translation somehow omits the obvious as you have done all along.
And there are different views on the interpretation of that verse. Some believe The tablets mentioned are refering the actual tablets the Quran was written on, and others believe it is that tablets which are in heaven.
I agree with the earlier [the actual tablets the Quran was written on] cause Allah menitons the Quran was also written on pages.
Surah 80
[11] By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:
[12] Therefore let whose will, keep it in remembrance.
[13] (It is) in suhuf held (greatly) in honour,
[14] Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy
[15] (Written) by the hands of scribes,
[16] Honourable and Pious and Just.
"
Suhuf " ~ pages
These verses are not totally agreed on also as some who regard the tablets are in heaven rather than the tablets on which the Quran was actually written on believe the scribes here are refereng to angels. This we disagree with being that the verse as it is in connection with the various materials the Quran was recorded on such as Tablets and Pages (Parchments etc) as mentioned in the Quran are two different materials mentioned in plurality that cannot be allocated to
Ummul-Kitab which is one heavenly book.
The Quran mentions more than on particular material it was recorded on which does not conform to the idea of a heavenly book (Singular) as mentioned called Ummul-Kitaab which in indeed the heavenly.
Where are you going with this attempt?
The quran mentions it was more than one particular material, which does not correspond to a heavenly book?
Let us recall what this discussion is about:
You H2O state that you do not believe there is a koran in heaven
You H2O state that the verse
Nay! This is a Glorious Qur’an, (Inscribed) in the Al-Luah Al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet)! (Qur’an 85:21-22) does not refer to a heavenly book but to pages the koran was written on
Which brings us straight back to our dilemma where are these pages?
Why didn't Zaid use them during his collation of the koran
The verse says the pages are preserved, preserved where H2O?
Do you see the fallacy of having said koranic ayat when the koran hasn't been compiled yet? or do you accept that when it mentions the koran it is only talking of a partial koran?
Liberate wrote:Tell us what you mean by the above H2O in reference to tablets??
It loooks like you are either seriously confused or just an out and out liar.
Seems you want to be Psychic again. Why didnt you just stick to "you didnt understand and for me to confirm what I meant" rather than jumping to conclusions ? Why ask a question then answer it your self with negative notion ?
Liberate wrote:when H2O have you admitted that you might even REMOTELY be in error in any of your translations?
When you learn to speak Arabic then we can discuss this matter.
This is basically what you say to everybody, this about sums up your whole patronizing attitude, the person who thought you arabic is probably frothing at the mouth when he finds out how you reinterpret the religion.
As of now you blind of the Language. We have constantly submitted some of our translations to those who disagree with translations all together for proof. We are taking a step at a time. It took us 4 months just to translate Surah Al-Baqarah. Then made some corrections as it was proofed by Scholars.
Have we made mistakes ? Yes we have. Better suggestions have given help to us. Unlike the rest of the other translators they never put there translation out for criticism by other scholars. We have. After every Juz of the Quran is translate it is submitted to various ulimah for feed back.
Which ulimah?
I would really like to know who is allowing your free lance translation and which sect they represent, because if they are from al-azhar are they also aware of the mockery you make of the koran in relation to it's contextual history?
Also, you have went over board about my criticism of other scholars translations. I never said their whole translation work is in error. You are exagerating. WE merely disagreed with some horrible translated parts of the Quran that we have had debates about.
Some parts H2O?
Which parts did you agree with?
Fundamental parts like Jesus coming back you reject and reinterpret claiming Jesus suddenly died and was taken to some heavenly realm already dead (with no reason other than your own personal conjecture that no one can find the grave of Mary so Jesus must be buried somewhere near Mary) H2O your views on mainstream islam is alien to 95% of islam, and yet you act like are without error, even when your fellow muslims have confronted you over your very strange views.
Liberate wrote:You should have realised by now I don't take any of your translated ayats seriously there are merely your opinion backed up with the theatre of your mind
Then dont continue to debate with me. Our source is directly from the fountian, the Quran its self.
Which you retranslate, reinterpret and claim you are correct regardless of what the 95% of islam says.
Dont worry, we also included in our preface, that we are subject to error also, and that Quran in Arabic conveys more than it does in English and the Englsih does not substitute the Quran in Arabic etc.
Wait a minute what exactly can you convey in arabic that you are unable to convey in english? Does allah only tolerate arabic?
Liberate wrote:...no relevance whatsoever to do with islam, your line of thought is backed up by nobody in the islamic world except you and you alone, merely your opinion not incumbent on anybody, you are not a scholar of arabic you are a sorry excuse for a muslim apologetic. Unable to express yourself (or even lie properly) in english yet claim your english translations are superior and eithout error.
You have studied Islam based on a Sunni perspective, not a Salafi etc. There are various schools of thought called Madzhabs that you have nto ventured into yet. Why ? Cause you studied are dictated from Christian websites who propound the majority of time on Sunni views.
How many times have I asked you which islamic school of thought you are getting your views from?
How many times have you replied?
Where are your madzhabs H2O? we would like to know where you are getting this hybrid singular interpretation from, do you recall the numerous times I asked you to show me where you obtained the tafsir of samiy al mujalid? to this day you never showed anyone of us where you got that tafsir from, is this the attitude of someone who believes he has the onus on truth?
Liberate wrote:Oh I see it's rejected because you can't find any other hadiths to back them? (Have you looked for it (I seriously doubt it)? or the hadith rejecter part of you wants to surface)
It is rejected cause it has no support.
How do you define if it has no support? if the koran doesn't mention it it is rejected just as you reject that Mohammed had sexual intercourse with an 8 yr old girl because the koran said marry al-nissa which you automatically take to mean young women therefore Mohammed couldn't have done it with an 8 yr old girl!! (disregarding the law of abrogation which somehow doesn't apply to you because?? your madhzab says so? which you have been unwilling to show us it's beliefs and which no one knows what it will cough up when faced with yet another immoral issue) with an attitude like that how can you possibly find fault with any immoral law or action of alledge prophet with a fill in the gaps the way you want it mentality.
Liberate wrote:This is absolutely ridiculous, is it rejected because there are hadiths that contradict them? If so where are they?
Well then you might as well say court of law testamonies are ridiculous then. Its the saem proceedure as what they do in Law. If one person's testimony conflicts with another, and the other is supported by other testimony to the same thing then whos testimony is not backed by another is regarded as not credible. Its called weighing eveidence. And being that Hadeeth are not divine nor the word of Allah they will fall under such catagory.
This is not what you are doing you are contradicting esteemed scholars and imams, and re translating the koran according to what you want it to say contrary to what those who were closer to Mohammed believed.
Liberate wrote:Or are you rejecting it (without evidence) because you want to reject it or else your religion and standpoint come crashing like a dominoes deck...
Actually no. I reject it cause it is not supported
Not supported how?
Did you search for it?
Did your pre conceived notion already disregard it before comparison?
. You will not find that hadeeth in Imam Nawawi in his book "Riyadhussalaheen" which is a compilation of hadeeth by Bukhari and Mulim that only conform with Quran and with each other. There was one point in my life when I didnt accept hadeeth all together when I first embraced Islam.
If you cannot follow the edicts of a religion other than reinterpret it to your own liking, maybe the religion is not for you.
But I was consulted by some of my teachers after some years to reconsider they used the Quran to show me how to know if a hadeeth is bad or not and how to know if a hadeeth is credible or not.
Wow is all I have to say you mean you subjected yourself to authority???anyone reading your posts would get the feeling you regard yourself as the greatest koranic translator, reinterpreter and hadith rejecter this side of the atlantic even if Mohammed himself was to come to you and say this is what said verse means you are more likely to tell him to shut up that he doesn't understand arabic.
Liberate wrote:The debate has already been discussed and brought to surface by many a natural arabic speaker, a neutral translator shows it for what it is, why does "peace be upon him" have different arabic characters yet somehow mean the same for Mohammed and all other koranic prophets?? It is balatantly obvious your translation and many translations have tampered with the fact in order to hide that allah is praying for his prophet!! Yet you are brainwashed from youth that your "pure" arabic "understood by a child" doesn't really mean what it means.
So in our prayes we also say "Allahumma sallee alaa Muhammdiw-wa alaa 'aaali Muhammad kamaa salayta alaa Ibraheema wa alaa 'aali Ibraheem..." In which to Abraha the same thing is said. The word does not mean for Allah to pray for them. It means to bestow benediction on them.
Tell us H2O what is the arabic for Mohammed's pbuh and the arabic for all the other prophets' pbuh?
Liberate wrote:The translation is a literal translation of the word regardless of wether it is a name or not
I still woudl like to know what word it says "Coffee" it is so literal. We wrote that sentence from the top of our heads adn we did not say anything about "Coffee"
Since you wrote it from the top of your head (could it be possible that you made an error H2O? are you this conceited?). The neutral translator saw al qAhwatu in what you typed if you think you are not the one who might have made a mistake against a bot when you are the one who said you wrote it off the top of your head, then someone needs a lesson in humility, I find it hard to believe you will subject your koranic translations to any scholar with an attitude like this.
Liberate wrote:In that case would you care to show us what it says for Dr Mushin Khan's translation of Bukhari vol 9 Book 89 number 309 from any website, not Volume 6 Book 51 number 509
Yea sure you can download the hadeeth software from the link I provided below
In other words you have no proof and are unwilling to provide any proof that Mushin Khan's translation of Bukhari vol 9 book 89 number 309 included parentheses.
.
Also, I showed in prior post on this thread that other translators did not render such a parenthesized phrase
You showed a translation for Bukhari 6 book 51 Number 509, not for volume 9 Book 89 number 309
Liberate wrote:What editing did I make H2O?
You excluded when quoting me "H2O later wrote" which indicated a post that was done later conforming wiht the date you listed.
Liberate wrote:you are trying to join two threads from different forums with a gap of over 2 months to make it look like there were continuous
And that was the reason why I added into the quote "later".
Liberate wrote:anybody who sees the date the subject the topic and the forum will realise what you said as to why you became a muslim in the frist place (saudi oil prophecy) has no relevance to the other post two months later which you try as make as one regardless of wether you put "later" they will simply see you for someone who is dishonest and trying to wriggle out of his embarassing posts.
We will post what I said again:
H2O wrote:
Omega I havent forgot about this verse. As a matter of fact this was the verse I used to test the Quran with as final confirmation before becoming a Haneef. Now lets put it to the test.
H2O later wrote 2 months later in a separate forum with a separate subject and a separate topic:
So in my case, not speaking for no other muslim but my self and those whom may agree with me, how does Muhammad qualify as a Prophet of اللّــه G-D that satisfies me ?
1) The logical consistancy of the Quran.
2) The rational and challenge it gives
3) The wisdom and reasoning it applies
...
Without the clarification in bold above H2O you are trying to pass off both threads as relating to the same discussion when you told us in July you became a haneef because of the prophecy of Saudi oil in the koran, and over two months later you then decide to find circular reasons as to why Mohammed is a prophet...in other words Mohammed is a prophet because the koran which he did not write didn't see a word of and is recorded in several muslim traditions as having undergone several amendments from what Mohammed alledgedly said says he is a prophet without a prophecy of alledge prophet...
H2O addressing OMEGA wrote:
Allah said to the muslim Arabs in the time of Muhammad that HE will soon enrich them. And it doesnt take a 12th grader to know the arabs were a poor nation at that time in which the Biazantine and Persian empires didnt dominate them. When did the Arab muslim of that region become RICH ? Who supplies the 1/3 of the world's oil and has the LARGEST oil reserves in the world. Is not Saudi Arabia one of the richest countries in the world that is now a GOLD MIND ?
H2O wrote:
Your right( Liberate) 9:28 doesnt mention any about oil. It mention a prophecy of the Arabs of the Region becoming rich, in which after the establishment of[of what H2O? oil? then is it not a prophecy of saudi oil? listen to yourself], they became rich, without it they would probably be just like afghanistan.
Now rather than dictate to our audience let them decide for them selves if your accusaion is true or false. I made my point and woudl just leave it as is, but you dont want to leave. Everytime you bring this up I will keep repeating.
Liberate wrote:In other words you became a haneef muslim and then 2 months later you found out reasons for you becoming a haneef muslim!!!
Let our audience to decide.
Liberate wrote:that involved re-interpreting what a divine book was and how to define what a prophet meant so you can move the goal posts for Mohammed to qualify, at least the audience knows the mind set of the individual they are dealing with, ready to lie and deviate attention from the irrationality of his stance.
Thats you personal opinion. And yes atleast the audience knows what type of mind set mentality they are dealing with also.
Liberate wrote:H2O why did you conveniently delete the thread I asked you as to who gave Uthman the authority to burn the 7 readings the 'prophet' of allah stated the koran was revealed in?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I havent deleted anything.
Have a look at this thread have a look at the number of times I have asked you who gave Uthman the authority to burn the 7 readings and how many times you have side stepped the issue (even in this response)
Liberate wrote:Why have you side stepped discussing the delights of paradise H2O?
What is the topic of this forum ? Why cant you ever stick to the topic of a forum ? You never fail in doing it. You have soo much animosity it clouds you focus and comprehension.
I came here to this thread to clearify the misconceptions of Islam. Not in the offense to preach or teach our deen.
If you want to start another thread to talk about our beliefs in paradise then do it.
How many times have you said this so as to avoid the questions being asked of you?
You have already drawn us to a different subject and interupted the discussion with us and Rome
This is not the first time you have brought this excuse so as not to respond to a question?
. You cant help it cause its in your nature to bash, rather than to understand humbly.
Look who is talking about humility!!
Good grief H2O when have you responded to ANYBODY without patronising them before you respond to the main issue? I have not seen a thread that you have not stooped to patronising wether it be their knowledge of arabic, hebrew aramaic greek..., when you say understand humbly don't you mean just accept it? regardless of how irrational how immoral how antiquated, how silly?
You should ask your self what are you affraid of ? Dont hope for nothing for me cause it will be in vain and you know this
All I want you to do is apply rationality to your scriptures it does not stand up to the cold light of reason given the evidence in the koran and the context of those ayats in the ahadith.
So the only people you should be trying to convince is our audience, not me, cause I am surely not trying to convince you.
Have you really done justice to your view point as to why you are a muslim the whole time you have been on this forum? As I stated earlier all I want you to do is apply rationality to your scriptures as I told you a few months ago anybody can put on a good debate it really doesn't mean anything you only judge a reliigon on it's scriptures and with your God given logic, for all we know your coming on to a christian forum and debating them is your false sense of security to justify what you believe in, just as you are indirectly asking us to clear the bugs in your koranic translations you may feel if you can hold up a debate with a christian/christians on their own turf you can justify belief in your religion it is very revealing how you shy away from criticism against christinaity, the few threads where you touched on attacking christianity you had to quit when it was shown to you how irrational your stance was, like your thread about christianity incorporating the pagan myth of a virgin birth, when it was shown to you that the koran has this same alledged myth you decided to do what you do best and abandon the thread, it seems it is beginning to occur to you that any noose around christianity means a millstone for islam, or are you unwilling to confront christianity because maybe the questions you are afraid to ask when explained to you will leave you with no excuse? As the saying goes ignorance is bliss, like many of the muslims here who have left when they have been unable to defend the koran on many an issue, if you want to defend your faith and at the same time criticize us for not seeing the koran through your very tinted glasses you are not doing yourself any favors but making yourself look very dishonest indeed.