Yeah, I have enough free time to learn Arabic (sarcasm).
I study the Qur'an and Islam extensively. Unfortunately, growing up in an English speaking nation, within a Turkish speaking home, I've had no time to learn Arabic (especially at such a tender age).
If my studies, just because done so in English, seems inadmissable to you, then I'm sorry. Just try explaining that to the tens of millions of Muslims who cannot speak Arabic.
P.S.: I have learned to read the Qur'an in Arabic; I just have no damn idea what it means.
I study the Qur'an and Islam extensively. Unfortunately, growing up in an English speaking nation, within a Turkish speaking home, I've had no time to learn Arabic (especially at such a tender age).
If my studies, just because done so in English, seems inadmissable to you, then I'm sorry. Just try explaining that to the tens of millions of Muslims who cannot speak Arabic.
P.S.: I have learned to read the Qur'an in Arabic; I just have no damn idea what it means.
I did not mean to sound patronising, sorry if I was offensive. I just get tired of all the brainwashing that goes on, esp when the original is available to anyone who cares to take the trouble. Seems to me that people who profess Islam could at least take the trouble to actually read the Quran instead of having it explained to them. Isn't that the whole point of keeping the original as is? So that any misinterpretations by translators can be nullified by those with more understanding/education in Islam?
The two verses that I gave the translation for, for instance, at least some translators are honest enough to put their additions in brackets, others simply alter the meaning by putting what they think is the right meaning.
See?
042.049
YUSUFALI: To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills (and plans). He bestows (children) male or female according to His Will (and Plan),
PICKTHAL: Unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He createth what He will. He bestoweth female (offspring) upon whom He will, and bestoweth male (offspring) upon whom He will;
SHAKIR: Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He creates what He pleases; He grants to whom He pleases daughters and grants to whom He pleases sons.
042.050
YUSUFALI: Or He bestows both males and females, and He leaves barren whom He will: for He is full of Knowledge and Power.
PICKTHAL: Or He mingleth them, males and females, and He maketh barren whom He will. Lo! He is Knower, Powerful.
SHAKIR: Or He makes them of both sorts, male and female; and He makes whom He pleases barren; surely He is the Knowing, the Powerful.
Its always best to go back to the original.
Yusuf Ali is Indian/Pakistani, Shakir was Egyptian and Pickthall was English. Do you honestly think their various cultural backgrounds did not influence the translations in any way?
They are all described differently, and their presentation varies amongst the translator. However, the meaning is always identical, to whichever of these three translator's work you analyze.
The important thing is the actual content of their translation, and not how it differs from one another. There are a myriad amount of ways to say one simple message, which is why things can be seemingly confusing.
Essentially, Ali/Shakir/Pickthall all translate identical messages: Allah gives females and males to married couples as he pleases, and to some He makes sterile. This has absolutely zero connection with sexuality, be it hetero or homo. You were misleading in presenting this verse, and implied it to allow homosexuality. There is nothing about who marries who in these verses; its primary message focused on showing how Allah chose a couple's offspring (and only men and women can have offspring together - not homosexuals).
The important thing is the actual content of their translation, and not how it differs from one another. There are a myriad amount of ways to say one simple message, which is why things can be seemingly confusing.
Essentially, Ali/Shakir/Pickthall all translate identical messages: Allah gives females and males to married couples as he pleases, and to some He makes sterile. This has absolutely zero connection with sexuality, be it hetero or homo. You were misleading in presenting this verse, and implied it to allow homosexuality. There is nothing about who marries who in these verses; its primary message focused on showing how Allah chose a couple's offspring (and only men and women can have offspring together - not homosexuals).
Frankly I don't see how you get offspring at all. The verse previous to this actually deals with sins (especially those committed by the hand), so why it should suddenly discuss offsprings makes no sense at all. And the word is zauja (Aw yuwazzijuhum) or marrying.
PICKTHAL: Unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He createth what He will. He bestoweth female (offspring) upon whom He will, and bestoweth male (offspring) upon whom He will;
Allah will bestow females, males, or both upon the couples to which he wills. If this isn't enough to convince you that Allah was indicating offspring in this verse, then there's not much to say. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
EDIT: Why the hell is your offline/online label always grey? I can never catch it green, and we both know that you're online.
Allah will bestow females, males, or both upon the couples to which he wills. If this isn't enough to convince you that Allah was indicating offspring in this verse, then there's not much to say. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
EDIT: Why the hell is your offline/online label always grey? I can never catch it green, and we both know that you're online.
Now remove the offspring from the translation. Since it is added on, and look at it objectively.
Edit: to avoid stalkers.
I seem to have forgotten to respond here. Sorry: articles to write, children to feed, etc.
Reproduction is a religious duty. Hmm. Not sure I like the sound of that. But four men could reproduce with a single woman, so long as they did it carefully. No, I don't buy your argument in defense of this practice.
Gee, how noble. "Say, honey: you're looking a little grey around the gills. What say I dump you for the hottie over there?"
Rather, why did Mohammed include it? If you prefer a world where apostates are not in mortal threat: good. I encourage it. Every single islamic country in the world disagrees with you, however, so you have some work to do. But end this practice (and a couple others) and your faith has my complete support.
My point is that they say they are. Now, you say they aren't. Okay. Who's right? It's not me you have to convince. You say "killing apostates isn't islamic". I say "well, it kinda sounds like that's what Mohammed said, and islamic states everywhere are into it, and there's a huge groundswell of support for it, but ok, cool. Now get everyone else to accept your version and we're jake."
...how about the not slavery or slaughter? Can we have that option on the table?
(PS: Thanks for the tip Sam.)
Look, you want to be islamic: great. Fine with me. Just stop the supremacist stuff that tags along with it and everything's fine. That being said, the West has its own work to do too.
Reproduction is a religious duty. Hmm. Not sure I like the sound of that. But four men could reproduce with a single woman, so long as they did it carefully. No, I don't buy your argument in defense of this practice.
Gee, how noble.
"Say, honey: you're looking a little grey around the gills. What say I dump you for the hottie over there?"Rather, why did Mohammed include it? If you prefer a world where apostates are not in mortal threat: good. I encourage it. Every single islamic country in the world disagrees with you, however, so you have some work to do. But end this practice (and a couple others) and your faith has my complete support.
My point is that they say they are. Now, you say they aren't. Okay. Who's right? It's not me you have to convince. You say "killing apostates isn't islamic". I say "well, it kinda sounds like that's what Mohammed said, and islamic states everywhere are into it, and there's a huge groundswell of support for it, but ok, cool. Now get everyone else to accept your version and we're jake."
...how about the not slavery or slaughter? Can we have that option on the table?
(PS: Thanks for the tip Sam.)
Look, you want to be islamic: great. Fine with me. Just stop the supremacist stuff that tags along with it and everything's fine. That being said, the West has its own work to do too.
Now remove the offspring from the translation. Since it is added on, and look at it objectively.
Edit: to avoid stalkers.
Too late. Stalkers are here. You vote on the zombie poll yet or not? :bugeye:
Children to feed?
How old are you?Reproduction is a biological and religious duty, you can say. Four men could reproduce with a single woman, however: the other three men would probably not be too satisfied, especially if they wanted it to be their children; also, it would not be as efficient as one man with four women. There's the difference.
Gee, how noble.
It was nothing like that, and your crude mockery of it only encourages my point.
But...my faith doesn't support it. Give me one reason why Allah would choose to omit this extremely sensitive and important issue from the Qur'an, but choose to include, 'let there be no compulsion in religion.'
For something to be Islamic, it must be in the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an. If Allah, in the Qur'an, doesn't mention death for apostates, then no amount of belief for the contrary matters.
Well, then you run the risk of being slaughtered yourself. Like I said, there are some nations/tribes/etc that fight until they can't possibly fight any more. The assyrians of ancient times were ruthless and barbaric fighters; if they had lost a war, and saw their victors turn a blind eye, they'd pounce at the opportunity for revenge.
What 'supremacist' stuff?
Now remove the offspring from the translation. Since it is added on, and look at it objectively.
Edit: to avoid stalkers.
I still understand it. It would take someone nearly illiterate not to comprehend something so simple.
Well, that's what it sounds like to me. She can't compete so he kicks her loose?
Ask the Wahhabis (and some Sunnis, and some Shi'ites, and islamic governments everywhere) how they interpret that whole ayah. "For the right path is henceforth distinct from error" is all the justification that some people need. And: why else is it there?
Great. In which tradition is it permitted to ignore the hadiths? Whichever one it is, it has my full support.
Again: this isn't a solution.
Not going to list it here; what needs to be done is evident.