Muslim here. Ask me a question..

[Apple7]

Googled garbage that you cannot defend.

Let's see if you can tell us what they had to say regarding أندادا

:cigar:





The Literal rendering...

http://www.koranlitranslateandtheconspiracy.com/

Here...

Let me bump it for you again, for the 30th time.....:wazzup:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Here...

Let me bump it for you again, for the 30th time.....:wazzup:

That link doesn't lead to anything agreeing with you. Patrick Jane and others, check it out for yourself.


I'll leave with one last attempt (#16) at getting you to answer this: Why do no experts in religion or Arabic languages agree with your translations?


Have a wonderful, dishonest, and delusion filled day, Apple7. I truly hope your life's work of making up lies about a holy book was worth the trouble

 

[Apple7]

That link doesn't lead to anything agreeing with you. Patrick Jane and others, check it out for yourself.


I'll leave with one last attempt (#16) at getting you to answer this: Why do no experts in religion or Arabic languages agree with your translations?


Have a wonderful, dishonest, and delusion filled day, Apple7. I truly hope your life's work of making up lies about a holy book was worth the trouble

Apple7: ‘When are you going to rebut my direct quote from Lane?’

GJ: ‘Why you, you….you liar!....you coward…you, you, ect, etc,’

 

[Greg Jennings]

Apple7: ‘When are you going to rebut my direct quote from Lane?’

GJ: ‘Why you, you….you liar!....you coward…you, you, ect, etc,’

:rotfl:

Yep....that's exactly how it went :chuckle:

 

[Apple7]

:rotfl:

Yep....that's exactly how it went :chuckle:

When you resort to name calling, that means you are not confident in your position.

 

[freelight]

Muslims have demons...so what can we expect...?

The same could be said for a good number of so called 'christians', which need so much prayer and 'deliverance'.

I don't see why muslims are being continually 'demonized' by you, beyond your penchant for bigotry.

 

[Apple7]

The same could be said for a good number of so called 'christians', which need so much prayer and 'deliverance'.

I don't see why muslims are being continually 'demonized' by you, beyond your penchant for bigotry.

You liberal PC'ers are all alike.

I'm exercising my freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

If that offends you, and the best word that you can counter with is 'bigot'....then, the laughs on you....deal with it...:sheep:

 

[freelight]

served...............

served...............

You liberal PC'ers are all alike.

I'm exercising my freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

If that offends you, and the best word that you can counter with is 'bigot'....then, the laughs on you....deal with it...:sheep:

I'll add my commentary to Gregs challenging your mis-interpretations and mis-translations from our other thread for readers here, so they can see your continued biased, super-imposed reading into the text, which almost all standard Koran translations reject or consider "incorrect, far-fetched, non-conforming or misleading". - source here.

 

[Greg Jennings]

When you resort to name calling, that means you are not confident in your position.

Not really, no. I call someone a coward when they hide, I call someone a thief when they steal, and I call someone a liar when they lie.

You stole material from another without properly giving credit. Therefore you are a thief.
You hid and dodged when I asked you a question 16 times in a row. Therefore you are a coward.
You lied about E.W. Lane and the Quran. Repeatedly. Therefore you are a liar.

That's not name-calling. That's outing you for what you are.

 

[freelight]

Not really, no. I call someone a coward when they hide, I call someone a thief when they steal, and I call someone a liar when they lie.

You stole material from another without properly giving credit. Therefore you are a thief.
You hid and dodged when I asked you a question 16 times in a row. Therefore you are a coward.
You lied about E.W. Lane and the Quran. Repeatedly. Therefore you are a liar.

That's not name-calling. That's outing you for what you are.

:thumb:

 

[Apple7]

I'll add my commentary to Gregs challenging your mis-interpretations and mis-translations from our other thread for readers here, so they can see your continued biased, super-imposed reading into the text, which almost all standard Koran translations reject or consider "incorrect, far-fetched, non-conforming or misleading". - source here.

Keep dreaming of more adjectives....after all that is all you two have left...rotflol :rotfl:

 

[Apple7]

Not really, no. I call someone a coward when they hide, I call someone a thief when they steal, and I call someone a liar when they lie.

You stole material from another without properly giving credit. Therefore you are a thief.
You hid and dodged when I asked you a question 16 times in a row. Therefore you are a coward.
You lied about E.W. Lane and the Quran. Repeatedly. Therefore you are a liar.

That's not name-calling. That's outing you for what you are.

No impressed, GJ.

You can do better...

 

[freelight]

Some learning in right order.....

Some learning in right order.....

~*~*~

Continuing discussion with appple7 from this post here (moving a few post exchanges to this more appropriate thread on Koran related issues), he pointed out that he used openburhan as a resource and claims its only good as a 'concordance'. Well, its a great resource for many different translations of the Koran, not just a 'concordance'.

It further indicates that the Hilali/Khan translation below (as well as a few other translations) are "considered either incorrect, far-fetched, non-conforming or misleading".

All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the Alameen (mankind, jinns and all that exists). **

If you go to openburhan, and go to Surah : 1 - Al-Fatiha , to verse 2....you can click on the verse header and get at least 17 different translations, to which some are not regarded as 'trustworthy' which it indicates by a **. The 'translation' above is one of those to be 'cautious' of.

This is the one of the few translations where the translator ADDS the words ('mankind, jinn, and all that exists) to the verse. Furthermore, the Hilali/Khan translation has some problems which are described in detail here & here.

This translation even goes as far as to name 'Jews' and 'Christians' (again in 'parenthesis', the author's embellishment) as those who have earned God's anger and went astray! - this right in the 1. Surah Al-Fatihah (the Opening to the Koran)...verse 7 - see below -

1. In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

2. All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).

3. The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

4. The Only Owner (and the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)

5. You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything).

6. Guide us to the Straight Way

7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).

- Hilali/Khan translation here

In all this 'mess',....still no proof that even in this 'paraphrased' ' translation, that 'Allah' is 'satan' or a 'devil',...but the Koran praises Allah as the 'Lord of worlds, all beings, all creation'. Only a One and Original Creator-Deity could be Lord and Sustainer of all that exists, a true 'monotheism'. This is the fundamental declaration of the Al-Fatiha.

 

[freelight]

Well bless your little heart.....

Well bless your little heart.....

Keep dreaming of more adjectives....after all that is all you two have left...rotflol :rotfl:

You are being mopped up here silly. Clean up on aisle 7 lol. -its getting messy here

All jokes aside, as it is good to be light-hearted and jovial, the textual and scholarly issues are serious here in considering your 'claims' or any claims on the subject. Frankly, I don't think your 'god' has any greater claim of 'authenticity' or 'reality' than a muslims 'god', beyond what various concepts, forms, images, qualities or attribites you recognize or assume this Deity has.

One universal reality and truth remains at the heart of existence, absolute reality itself, independent of what descriptions or embellishments you or I give this 'reality', it remains what always IS (timeless, unchanging in essence, omnipresent, infinite, indivisible). You might want to look into this universal reality, from which you might appreciate the value and meaning that our various religious traditions contribute to our human race and world,...from which a study of comparative religions, metaphysics and philosophy would be of great assistance.

As far as Islam goes, I enjoy the mystical branch of Sufism, and they have a lot to offer. This has inspired a renewal to look deeper into Islam, so I see it as a good thing

 

[Apple7]

Continuing discussion with appple7 from this post here (moving a few post exchanges to this more appropriate thread on Koran related issues), he pointed out that he used openburhan as a resource and claims its only good as a 'concordance'. Well, its a great resource for many different translations of the Koran, not just a 'concordance'.

It further indicates that the Hilali/Khan translation below (as well as a few other translations) are "considered either incorrect, far-fetched, non-conforming or misleading".

'Misleading' according to the people running the website....wow!

How scholarly!

If you go to openburhan, and go to Surah : 1 - Al-Fatiha , to verse 2....you can click on the verse header and get at least 17 different translations, to which some are not regarded as 'trustworthy' which it indicates by a **. The 'translation' above is one of those to be 'cautious' of.

Amazing...at least 17 different ones....and how many provide exegetical reasoning for their rendering?

What's that?

Zero.

 

[Apple7]

This is the one of the few translations where the translator ADDS the words ('mankind, jinn, and all that exists) to the verse.

Wow....where did they get that idea from, I wonder...?

Furthermore, the Hilali/Khan translation has some problems which are described in detail here & here.


This translation even goes as far as to name 'Jews' and 'Christians' (again in 'parenthesis', the author's embellishment) as those who have earned God's anger and went astray! - this right in the 1. Surah Al-Fatihah (the Opening to the Koran)...verse 7 - see below -



- Hilali/Khan translation here

In all this 'mess',....still no proof that even in this 'paraphrased' ' translation, that 'Allah' is 'satan' or a 'devil',...but the Koran praises Allah as the 'Lord of worlds, all beings, all creation'. Only a One and Original Creator-Deity could be Lord and Sustainer of all that exists, a true 'monotheism'. This is the fundamental declaration of the Al-Fatiha.

Good thing that we are not using the Khan rendering....

 

[Apple7]

You are being mopped up here silly. Clean up on aisle 7 lol. -its getting messy here

Did you even make it to page 2 in your google search bar?

All jokes aside, as it is good to be light-hearted and jovial, the textual and scholarly issues are serious here in considering your 'claims' or any claims on the subject. Frankly, I don't think your 'god' has any greater claim of 'authenticity' or 'reality' than a muslims 'god', beyond what various concepts, forms, images, qualities or attribites you recognize or assume this Deity has.

We've been through this already.

You can't be bothered with studying the original languages of either book...and you get your information from the internet....and everything that you read on the internet you believe is true!

 

[freelight]

More to nibble on.......

More to nibble on.......

Amazing...at least 17 different ones....and how many provide exegetical reasoning for their rendering?

You can look up many commentaries on the Koran,...and there is plenty of support for the traditional rendering of Al-Fatiha 1.2, describing Allah as 'Lord of the worlds'.

Still, out of over 30 translations,....only the Hilali/Khan translation mentions 'jinn' (in parenthesis as a scribal note). AND its in the "Controversial, deprecated, or status undetermined works" section in this resource here. Not going very well for this 'translation'. I guess at least 30 generally accepted translations and translators all are mistaken in their 'exegesis' by translating the verse as "Lord of the worlds". :doh:

Remember,...this is still besides the point that you have nothing to support your claim that this verse somehow makes Allah into some satanic or devilish personality, because He is Lord of all (this includes mankind, jinn and all that exists).

Good thing that we are not using the Khan rendering....

But that's all you got, as far as anyone interjecting (adding) anything about 'jinn' into the text, which is what Khan freely did in his embellished translation. Lets remind your highness again, that even if the original text said specifically that Allah was Lord of the jinn...this does not make Allah into a 'satan', 'devil' or evil being. - to assume such is 'retarded'.

 

[Apple7]

You can look up many commentaries on the Koran,...and there is plenty of support for the traditional rendering of Al-Fatiha 1.2, describing Allah as 'Lord of the worlds'.

None of your googled renderings provide ANY exegesis at all.

They do not even agree with each other - otherwise there would not be the need for so many renderings in the first place.

Use your head...

Still, out of over 30 translations,....only the Hilali/Khan translation mentions 'jinn' (in parenthesis as a scribal note).

'A scribal note'......rotflol...

AND its in the "Controversial, deprecated, or status undetermined works" section in this resource here. Not going very well for this 'translation'. I guess at least 30 generally accepted translations and translators all are mistaken in their 'exegesis' by translating the verse as "Lord of the worlds". :doh:

'Controversal' according to the webmasters of that particular website.

You have already confirmed Lane's Lexicon as truth.

Stop your non sense.

Remember,...this is still besides the point that you have nothing to support your claim that this verse somehow makes Allah into some satanic or devilish personality, because He is Lord of all (this includes mankind, jinn and all that exists).

Jinn are demons.

As lord of the jinn, then then makes the koranic god 'allah', Satan.

But that's all you got, as far as anyone interjecting (adding) anything about 'jinn' into the text, which is what Khan freely did in his embellished translation. Lets remind your highness again, that even if the original text said specifically that Allah was Lord of the jinn...this does not make Allah into a 'satan', 'devil' or evil being. - to assume such is 'retarded'.

This is just the beginning.

Still waiting for you to refute Lane's Lexical entry. :cigar:

 

[freelight]

'God' is Lord and Creator of All

'God' is Lord and Creator of All

Try not to overlook it this time...

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume five, pp. 2138 - 2142


العَالَمُ ذ , (S, Msb, K, &c.,) said by some to be also pronounced ↓ العَالِمُ , (MF, TA,) and pronounced by El-Hajjáj with hemz [i. e. العَأْلَمُ], is primarily a name for That by means of which one knows [a thing]; like as الخَاتَمُ is a name for “ that by means of which one seals ” [a thing]: accord. to some of the expositors of the Kur-án, its predominant application is to that by means of which the Creator is known: then to the intelligent beings of mankind and of the jinn or genii: or to mankind and the jinn and the angels: and mankind [alone]: Es-Seyyid Esh-Shereef [El- Jurjánee] adopts the opinion that it is applied to every kind [of these, so that one says عَالَمُ الإِِنْسِ (which may be rendered the world of mankind) and عَالَمُ الجِنِّ (the world of the jinn or genii) and عَالَمُ المَلَائِكَةِ (the world of the angels), all of which phrases are of frequent occurrence], and to the kinds [thereof] collectively: (TA: ) or it signifies الخَلْقُ [i. e. the creation, as meaning the beings, or things, that are created], (S, Msb, K,) altogether [i. e. all the created beings or things, or all creatures]: (K: ) or, as some say, peculiarly, the intelligent creatures: (Msb: ) or what the cavity (lit. belly) of the celestial sphere comprises, (K, TA,) of substances and accidents: (TA: ) [it may often be rendered the world, as meaning the universe; and as meaning the earth with all its inhabitants and other appertenances; and in more restricted senses, as instanced above: and one says عَالَمُ الحَيَوَانِ meaning the animal kingdom, and عَالَمُ النَّبَات the vegetable kingdom, and عَالَمُ المَعَادِنِ the mineral kingdom:] Jaafar Es-Sádik says that the عَالَم is twofold: namely, العَالَمُ الكَبِيرُ, which is the celestial sphere with what is within it; and العَالَمُ الصَّغِيرُ, which is man, as being [a microcosm, i. e.] an epitome of all that is in the كَبِير: and Zj says that العَالَمُ has no literal sing., because it is [significant of] a plurality [of classes] of diverse things; and if made a sing. of one of them, it is [significant of] a plurality of congruous things: (TA: ) the pl. is العَالَمُونَ (S, M, Msb, K, &c.) and العَوَالِمُ: (S, TA: ) and the sing. is [said to be] the only instance of a word of the measure فَاعَلٌ having a pl. formed with و and ن, (ISd, K, TA,) except يَاسَمٌ: (K, TA: ) [but see this latter word:] العَالَمُونَ signifies the [several] sorts of created beings or things: (S: ) [or all the sorts thereof: or the beings of the universe, or of the whole world:] it has this form because it includes mankind: or because it denotes particularly the sorts of created beings consisting of the angels and the jinn and mankind, exclusively of others: I'Ab is related to have explained رَبُّ العَالَمِينَ as meaning the Lord of the jinn, or genii, and of mankind: Katádeh says, the Lord of all the created beings: but accord. to Az, the correctness of the explanation of I'Ab is shown by the saying in the beginning of ch. xxv. of the Kur-án that the Prophet was to be a نَذِير [or warner] لِلْعَالَمِينَ; and he was not a نذير to the beasts, nor to the angels, though all of them are the creatures of God; but only to the jinn, or genii, and mankind. (TA.) ― -b2- عَالَمٌ is also syn. with قَرْنٌ [as meaning A generation of mankind; or the people of one time]. (O, voce طَبَقٌ, q. v.)


:cigar:

Apple7 says to freelight:

Still waiting for you to refute Lane's Lexical entry.

Ok, here we go.....

All you have above is a 'lexicon' from one person. And please note carefully the entire commentary which mentions other translators and their opinions about this 'term',...it can refer to all sentient beings and creation itself (inanimate, insentient matter, sun, moon, stars, heavenly bodies, elementals, etc.) and includes a 'plurality' of orders and catagories of life-forms. Also it appears in some places that the term is used more exclusively to indicate 'mankind' and 'jinn' more exclusively (as sentient beings/souls/spirits), but never only 'jinn' exclusively, unless the word 'jinn' is actually in the text being referred.

So,...this 'lexicon' (which is not an official translation necessarily btw) does not really support your assumption, except to say that Lane describes Allah as 'Lord of the jinn' merely as a descriptive title, BUT NOTE,...it is NOT of jinn only, but of MANKIND too.....and...this is only the case in some passages, whereas the term usually includes all beings, all creation. Remember the term being used in 'proper context'. Honest 'exegesis'.

Remember, only the not so good Hilali/Khan translation throws in the word 'jinn' in parenthesis, but 'jinn' it not in the original text. We keep reminding you of this.

This is still a day late and a dollar short of proving Allah is a 'satan' or 'devil' of any kind, and simply holds the fundamental monotheistic truth that 'God' (Allah, YHWH, Elohim, Brahman, The Supreme Being, Ain Soph, call 'Deity' by whatever name)...is the Lord and Creator of all beings, all creation.

Anything else other than this basic monotheistic proposition (that 'God' is Lord of all, Lord of all worlds) is something being 'super-imposed' into the text. - and that my friend is the 'truth' of the matter.