Verse 9:30

[Danish]

Peace all,

Since mquran and Leyla failed to provide complete translation and explanation of 9:30, can anyone here be sincere and courteous enough to execute my request? It will greatly enhance my understanding of who those people were that said "Ezra/Uzair is Son of God" and "Messiah/Jesus is Son of God", if that's what is mentioned. In reality as we currently witness, I can only think of Jews and Christians.

[AhmedBahgat]

Peace Danish

I will refer to my own weak English to translate this crystal clear Arabic verse:

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللّهِ وَقَالَتْ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللّهِ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِؤُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ (30)

[The Quran ; 9:30]
-> ? وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللّهِ?, ?And the Jews said Uzair is the son of Allah?

-> ? وَقَالَتْ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللّهِ? , ?and the Christians said The Messiah is the son of Allah?

-> ? ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ? , ?that is their sayings with their mouths?

-> ? يُضَاهِؤُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ? , ?they copycat what the infidels said before?

-> ? قَاتَلَهُمُ اللّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ? , ?Allah will fight them wherever they go ?

please note the above is my own translation using my weak English, but I can elaborate on the meaning if you wish

*edit to fix a few typos*

Peace

[Leyla]

Peace all

Just for the records:

Everyone who wants to know what this is all about should read the threads "Every kind of similitudes" and "what does islam mean to you" and then judge for himself.

The silly thing is, and he knows that himself, that in my case Danish did not ask me for a complete translation of 9:30 before I answered his posts. Only while I did so he changed and edited his previous posts and then put this request into it . As far as I recall it right he did so at least two times. Therefore my "unwillingness" to give him a direct translation. Very impressive tactic, as I said.
Of course I look pretty stupid now!

Furthermore, I already gave Danish enough clues to do the translation on his own. I will repeat these clues here in an elaborate version and then do the work for him.

al-yah?d - is difficult to directly translate from quranic Arabic into English for me because I am not perfect in any of these languages. However, a qur'?nic variant of the same word (and also translated as jews in traditional translations) is alladh?na hud?, which I can directly translate as those who were guided

an-naSara - doe directly translate as "Those who stood by, those who helped"

uzair - derives from the word wazara, meaning to carry (a ministry, a responsibility)

al-mas?h - directly translated into the annointed one, the touched one

With this information that I already gave to Danish he could have done the following on his own. I don?t understand his fuzz and his editing.:

"Al-yah?d (those who were guided?) said that one who carries ministry is the son of All?h. And those who helped said the annointed one is the son of All?h. That is their sayings with their mouth. They copy the speach of those who rejected before them. All?h will fight them. Truly, they are without understanding."

Ther?s no need to read Jews and Christiasn into this when following qur'?nic language.

Furthermore, Danish?s main issue was not the whole verse but only the people about whom this verse talks about. Mquran gave him a second verse to understand this better I defended mquran and when then Danish transferred the whole issue to a totally unrelated thread  I gave to Danish the clues that I?ve presented above, though I admit that I gave them in a less elaborate manner.

I will now REALLY close this issue. I know that I already said this two times but this post had to be made to set things straight.

Leyla

(Note: This post was also edited several times. I don?t need to hide that because I don?t use editing as a tactic to easily let others look stupid..)

[AhmedBahgat]

Peace sister Leyla

I'm sorry the translation in your comment is very flawed

al-yah?d - is not difficult to directly translate from quranic Arabic into English  and It means the Jews

an-naSara - is also not hard to translate because it is a common word in the Arab world even between the Arab Christians and it means the Christians, this is due to a city name where they came from and is called "Nasoriah"

"Al Ansar" is the one the means "The Supporters" NOT "Al Nasara"

You can even see that one of the terrorist groups call themselves "Ansar Al Sunnah", ie, The Supporters of the Sunnah", they don't call themselves "Nasara Al Sunnah", BECAUSE if they do the Arabs will laugh at them,  :lol:

uzair - means only one thing in Arabic and it is the name of Prophet Uzair whom Allah made dead for 100 years then made him alive again

al-mas?h - it can NOT [/u]be the touched one for sure, it has to be the ONE WHO TOUCHES, and this is very well known in the Arab world even by the Arab Christians, because Isa used to touch the sick to heal them, I was raised between the Arab Christians for 23 years BTW, not as a Christian but all my friends were Christians

Peace be with you

[Leyla]

Peace Ahmed

Thank you very much for your insights.
I will consider them.

However, I would kie to ask for carefulness when eaueting modern standard Arabic with qur'?nic Arabic. Modern standard Arabic is a language that was definitely shaped through Sunni mistranslations.
Just look at the translations for zak?h and sal?h.
The same would apply for terms like yah?d and naSara, I opine. These terms are easily deducable from pure Arabic roots and do not need to be seen as terms coming from the outside (like a loanword yah?d would be).
Furthermore the variant alladh?na hud? is in no way consistent with that loanword theory, I would say. We need an Arabic root meaning for that word.

I have to say, though, that contrary to me, mquran in the other thread thinks it comes from HWD, meaning approaching, not related to guidance. An interesting option as well to think about.

I know that helpers is anSar. That?s why I didn?t translate it as helpers but those who helped. Nevertheless, the Arabic root is totally identical. Coming from that root, how would you directly translate the term, I wonder? Just deducing it from the root, not by the supposed meaning of "Christians"? I am interested in your opinion here.

The notion of the prophet Uzair comes purely from teh ahadith. Quranic scholars have always pointed out to it and have supposed other meanings to the word. E.g. Parwez equated it with the Egyptian God Osiris.
Again, I would rather vote for deriving it from pure Arabic because All?h Himself says that He has revealed the qur'?n in pure consistent Arabic. We should never forget this last fact.

Hmm, thanks for the interpretation of masih. Well, at least we both know that it definitely comes from a root that means too touch. I have read too many scholarly opinions that claimed that he is the touched one, not the one who touches. But of course, I will always be happy about a conquered wrong understanding. Let?s research that more!

salaam,

Leyla

[Danish]

Thank you Ahmed for the interpretation. That is all what was requested for on this thread. Plain and simple.

In my understanding as well, the Quran came AFTER Judaism and Christianity and because of them, the verse 9:30 was revealed, as we witness it even today. Hence, the believing in Ezra (by the Jews) and Jesus (by the Christians) as Sons of God respectively was the cause influxed in nature thenceforth the revelation of 9:30 being professed. If such beliefs weren't there, 9:30 would be meaningless, given the specifics of what nature had called for. I arrest my case.

Finally, Arabic words do get translated/interpreted in proper English terminology in the context in which it speaks and by its very existence/reality/nature.

[stillearning]

salaam all

?

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللّهِ?, ?And the Jews said Uzair is the son of Allah?

-> ? وَقَالَتْ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللّهِ? , ?and the Christians said The Messiah is the son of Allah?

and

al-yah?d - is difficult to directly translate from quranic Arabic into English for me because I am not perfect in any of these languages. However, a qur'?nic variant of the same word (and also translated as jews in traditional translations) is alladh?na hud?, which I can directly translate as those who were guided

an-naSara - doe directly translate as "Those who stood by, those who helped"

Wow. Sorry to prolong this debate.
One of those two is obviousouly wrong.
If the literal tranlation(which ever of the two it is) then question is why?
Are those that deliberately mistranslated trying to fit Islam with their own beliefs rather than the other way round.
It also distrubs me that as someone with no arabic knowldge is how wrong translation can be very misleading.
Would it not be better for those who have command of arabic language to stick to the literal meaning and let the reader make his/her mind up as to the understanding.
regards

[AhmedBahgat]

Peace Ahmed

Thank you very much for your insights.
I will consider them.

Peace Sister

No worries sister, anytime

Sister, we share the same faith and we believe in the same God and we also suppose to be following the same unchanged book, I wonder why the believers always differ, while they may differ in actions and sayings, there is something that can not be understood differently which is the Quran, ?The exact words of our God?, the fact of the matter that the Quran includes some :?Mutashabihat? verses, ie ?Confusing verses? just to make it simple, does not warrant that the other many verses with clear and well established meaning may be considered ?Mutashabihat?, this is the argument of the weak when they run out of ammos so they say, sorry this verse is ?Mutashabihat?and we will stick with meaning we have, well I have absolutely no problem with that because that is their freewill, bit what I will always have problem with is promoting this wrong understandings and indirectly confuse many others, I also consider the ?Mutashabihat? verses as ?Muhkamat? because being ?Mutashabihat?  WAS PART OF THE DESIGN OF THE BOOK BY HIS AUTHOR AS PER 3:7, Also for some verses to be ?Mutashabihat?, was a necessity  as part of this huge testing life to both the believers and the unbelievers as per 3:7.

3:7 never told us that the believers with knowledge will know the meaning of these ?bMutashabihat? verses, rather THEY WILL SUBMIT, DO NOT ARGUE AND SAY: BOTH ?MUTSHABIHAT AND MUHKAMAT? ARE FROM ALLAH.

In 3:7 we also read that the unbelievers will try to make up meanings to these verses seeking discord, that discord is targeting the believers, ?who else you reckon sister??, hence it is logical and practical to see many believers following this discord caused by the ?Mutshabihat? verses, can you see how this specific test is very well set/planned by Allah sister? Well the Quran told us that Allah is the best of Planners and I believe no believer can dispute that.

I can show you a perfect case study for a  ?Mutashabihat? verse and you will see clearly how the test is perfectly planned and how dumb most of us are, please let me know

However, I would kie to ask for carefulness when eaueting modern standard Arabic with qur'?nic Arabic. Modern standard Arabic is a language that was definitely shaped through Sunni mistranslations.

Sister, this is one hell of a weak argument that I hear for many years, it is unfounded due to the following facts:

The Arabic Quran is a perfect book where the language was used at its max perfection in all aspects

Hence the Quran is the one that made Arabic globally recognised, and indeed the Quran fixed a lot of language flaws that was in existence already, you will find books of Arabic grammar based on the Quran alone, my father bought me 3 and I will receive them in January inshallah and I will share it with all of you here.

The Quran came with a builtin challenge to write a sure like it and no one managed to do that in more than 1425 years, this means the Quran is the standard NOT THE LANGUAGE

Now I will prove to you clearly using the Quran that all the words used in 9:30 WERE ALREADY COMMON WORDS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS AND UP TO THIS MOMENT and has nothing to do with modern Arabic and the verse can not be ?Mutashabihat?, because there is nothing is more modern, original, perfect, unmatchable like the Arabic Quran even if compared with the best written Arabic book ever by the best Arabic speaker ever.

Let?s start with the words ?Ansar? & ?Nasara?

These two words are common and known since the Quran was revealed, and UP TO THIS MOMENT. We don?t need to worry about the word ?Ansar? because you agree that it means ?Helpers?

Firstly I really careless about this flawed root method because it is damn flawed and confusing and certainly the native Arabs hardly use it. ?very rare?

For example for the root ?Na Sa Ra? I know at least 20 words, each one has a unique meaning despite it was based on ?to make someone victories?, ?helper?, but yet EACH ONE HAS A UNIQUE USE, that is why I said they are surely different.

On the other hand some of these words may be used as personas names, city names, street names, etc etc, and has nothing to do with the root, as well as in each language there are words with similar letters like ?Stationary? and ?Stationery? and ?Station?

So during Jesus time, the first followers of him and ?they were true followers btw? were from a town  called in Arabic ?Nasra? which translated in English as ?Nazareh?, anyway, his followers were called ?Nasara? and the English translation must be ?Nazarenes? exactly like ?New Yorkers?, however it was always used by the Arabs as a metaphor for the followers of Isa, ie, the Christians, here is all the words that are based on ?Na Sa Ra? and 100% relate to Christianity:

- Nasara ?A group of Christians ? males and females?

- Al-Nasara ?The group of Christians ? males and females?

- Nasrani ?a single male Christian ?

- Al-Nasrani ?The single male Christian ?

- Nasrania ?a single female Christian?

- Al-Nasrania ?The single female Christian ?

Ignoring the Al, we end up with 3 Arabic words that 100% mean ?Christian(s)?:

- Nasara ?A group of Christians ? males and females?

- Nasrani ?a single male Christian ?

- Nasrania ?a single female Christian?

There is nothing more sister, but we also use ?Masihi? and ?Masihia? ?Mesiheyeen? as equivalent to the above and more widely used because it is the day to day life language used. But  in most Arabic countries, the other 3 words are also widely used even between the Arab Christians

The Quran clearly in a few locations used this word and IN NO WAY IT CAN MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CHRISTIAN:

?Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe are the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.?
[The Quran ; 5:82]

لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُمْ مَّوَدَّةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ الَّذِينَ قَالُوَاْ إِنَّا نَصَارَى ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لاَ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ (82)

-> How come sister in the above verse it suppose to mean ?we will find the most people that hates us are the Yahud and the most who will befriend us are the Helpers?? would that make any sense to you?


?Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.?

[The Quran ; 3:67]

مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلاَ نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَكِن كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُّسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (67)

-> Let?s test the ?Helper? meaning hear, so do you think the above verse really means ?Ibrahim was not a Yahudi or a Helper but a Submitter??

Of course not sister, it only have one meaning : ?Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim?

Just look at the translations for zak?h and sal?h.

Sister I don?t need to look at any translation  because I?m a native Arabic speaker, the words are crystal clear to me for me without even the need of the Quran

Salah means ?Connection?  or ?making a Connection? and is used to describe the religious Islamic practice of worshipping God when making a direct connection with Him.

Zakat is a good deed that will benefit the person who is doing it,

Very easy sister, why I have to look at a translation unless I?m discussing it with a non Arabic speaker?

The same would apply for terms like yah?d and naSara, I opine. These terms are easily deducable from pure Arabic roots and do not need to be seen as terms coming from the outside (like a loanword yah?d would be).

I?m sorry sister I have shown you enough evidences regarding the meaning of  ?Nasara? and for an Arabic speaker like me if I compare it with  ?Ansar? THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORDS but they just look similar like ?Stationery?, ?Stationary? and ?Station?, due to a time constraint I have to explain the very common Yahud word later when I can

Furthermore the variant alladh?na hud? is in no way consistent with that loanword theory, I would say. We need an Arabic root meaning for that word.

Again this is a case of word letters similarity and will be refuted inshallah when I continue my comment regarding the word ?Yahud? and sure I will  discuss the two words ?alladz?na hadu?, the root is hardly needed for native Arabic speakers

I have to say, though, that contrary to me, mquran in the other thread thinks it comes from HWD, meaning approaching, not related to guidance. An interesting option as well to think about.

Sure I will read it when I have time and see if I can respond to it as well, but I already responded to him, but he does not want to concede

I know that helpers is anSar. That?s why I didn?t translate it as helpers but those who helped. Nevertheless, the Arabic root is totally identical. Coming from that root, how would you directly translate the term, I wonder? Just deducing it from the root, not by the supposed meaning of "Christians"? I am interested in your opinion here.

Well, as I explained before it is a matter of mistranslation because they referred to the flawed root method and not to the proper method of ?THE FACTS? understanding the Quran was never based on that flawed root method, it just help a bit those non Arabic speakers, however it is their responsibility to confirm the matter in question with the ones with proper knowledge.

In this case here the bit of info I wanted to show you later AND WAS SHOWED TO MQURAN, but with my respect he insists to follow conjecture:

Naz?a?rene (năz'ə-rēn', năz'ə-rēn')  
n.
A native or inhabitant of Nazareth.

Jesus.

A member of a sect of early Christians of Jewish origin who retained many of the prescribed Jewish observances.

A member of an American Protestant denomination, the Church of the Nazarene, that follows many of the doctrines of early Methodism.

adj.
Of or relating to Nazareth or its inhabitants.
[Middle English, from Late Latin Nazarēnus, from Greek Nazarēnos, from Nazaret, Nazareth.]

The notion of the prophet Uzair comes purely from teh ahadith. Quranic scholars have always pointed out to it and have supposed other meanings to the word. E.g. Parwez equated it with the Egyptian God Osiris.

I don?t really call it hadith sister, I call history books and I can use my mind to see of it maks sense or not, in any case sister your argument to derive it from the root still flawed because  Uzair in the context IS THE NAME OF A PERSON, regardless who is this person

For example, Egypt had a president called ?Naser? and it  also means ?to make someone Victories? that does not mean Naser the person made any one  Victories at all.

In this case sister any name mentioned in the Quran should cause a bit of hardship for you because you will refer to the root to confirm it or what else you will use now including the name Mohammad? And how about Ibrahim?

Again, I would rather vote for deriving it from pure Arabic because All?h Himself says that He has revealed the qur'?n in pure consistent Arabic. We should never forget this last fact.

Yep and by you resorting to this clearly flawed method you are hurting  this consistency, it will be better for you sister to check with a native Arabic speaker as well.

Hmm, thanks for the interpretation of masih. Well, at least we both know that it definitely comes from a root that means too touch. I have read too many scholarly opinions that claimed that he is the touched one, not the one who touches. But of course, I will always be happy about a conquered wrong understanding. Let?s research that more!

I do not think we agreed on that one sister, the word ?ma?sih? on the wazn pf ?fa?eel?  MUST MEAN the person who is doing the verb, hence IT HAS TO BE THE PERSON WHO TOUCH

A person who is touched MUST BE on the wazn of ?Maf?ool? ie. the verb was done on him , hence it has to be ?Mamsoh? and if it was a female it has to be ?Mamsoha?

There is no question that the scholars who suggested this DO NOT KNOW ARABIC and 500% wrong

Good luck sister with your researches

salaam,

Leyla

Peace be with you

[mquran]

Salaamun alaikum Ahmed,

A question to you please:

do you believe al-quraan's posits are true even now?

[AhmedBahgat]

Salaamun alaikum Ahmed,

A question to you please:

do you believe al-quraan's posits are true even now?

S. A. Mquran

I'm not sure what posits mean exactly bro, I checked with my wife who is a native english speaker and she topld it means someting small?

I will assume it means the Quran verses "Ayat",

All I can say that in 25 years with all the reading and researches I did I found the Quran stands true at any time since revelation, hence and  based on that trend I believe it will stand true till the Judgment Day

Peace bro