News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - Makaveli

#1
Table of contents for the impatient ones, as well as for people with OCD or similar, when it is hard to read long texts, to make the reading more structured:



Introduction

Basic elaboration and topicality

Hypothesis

Debate conditions

Literature review (compulsory reading)



Introduction

Because it was not even used as a negation in the OSA (Old South Arabic) and the abudance of other Semitic dialects.

It's primary use as negation is in Biblical Hebrew and we know, I mean I know  :sun:, that Biblical Hebrew i.e. a fabricated language was used as a primary tool to translate/understand/'diacritice' early Quranic manuscript, in a similar raping fashion that the authentic Old Testement (i.e. the books of the OT which are actually native to whatever there is to be authentic, not those that could have been added later in the collection) innocent texts were once 'translated' using Talmudic tools. The hint is in its diacritical tradition in 8th-10th century, the dots were used instead of shapes to mark vowels:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Kufi.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Arabic_script_evolution.svg/728px-Arabic_script_evolution.svg.png

The only other tradition to employ the dots in Semitic family is Hebrew/Judaistic scholarly, which is also proved by countless of contradictions in the Quran because they wanted to make it look more like Old Testament narrative, how it switches from topic to topic chaotiacally and omits context everywhere and how traditional translations require an abudance of brackets in order to somehow understand it. Also, because God in the Quran is no different than the bloodthirsty YHWY Eloyhim (same root as A-L-H), who is driven by emotions similar to humans are. It is because people have described God in accordance with their shitty patriarchal characters. The truth is, Semitic tradition has an abudance of definitions for roots and Arabic is considered the most 'richest one' not because it is, but because since introduction of the Quran they started adding word meanins out of the blue. This view is also supported by the author of the Sembase project:

QuoteIn the absence of compounding, vocabulary has evolved partly by assigning different but related meanings to variants of a root caused by sound shifts. One wonders if pressure to generate vocabulary has also resulted in the rather large number of consonants (twenty-nine in the Old South Arabian group). Vocabulary is also generated by simply adding yet more meanings to existing words. This has caused Arabic, for example, to be considered to be very "rich," in the sense that the same word can mean many things. The language is thus highly context dependent, and ideal for poetry. This semantic accretion and the phenomenon of accidental convergence of roots often make it unclear what one might consider to be the base meaning of a root.

Source: sembase.org/#s


Judaistic scholarly and namely the Talmudid works influenced the Quranic narrative and early Islamic religion as a whole. Traditional translation of the Quran and early Islam are basically a product of 7th century Jewish migration, as is evident from the history they themselves observe: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/great-rabbis-of-the-muslim-empire

You are basically reading and believing the product of the 7th-8th century Talmudic cookery if you believe the traditional interpretation/translation of the Quran is an authentic one.


Basic elaboration and topicality

In truth, laa as a negation was seldom used in Old South Arabic and most other dialects as a study portrays:

QuoteSecond, we tend to think of lā as the quintessential Semitic negation, but in fact most MSA languages, OSA, Phoenician and all the Ethio-Semitic languages do not use it at all. On the other hand, the particle ʾal is missing only in Arabic and Akkadian. So, if anything, ʾal is the most common negation particle in Semitic. Is it related to lā, as Blake, Pardee, Lipiński and others suggested? It seems unlikely, since they have distinctive functions and different distribution in early Semitic, hence, a development lā > ʾal, if it happened at all, happened prior to Proto-Semitic, as all Semitic languages attest to a dual set.
- p. 40.

Anyways, to sum up the need for an ongoing deciphering project, the arguments are as following:

- Text with the traditional translation of the Quran contridicts itself with abudance of contradictions, both contextual and theological, such as Iblees is mared as kfr although in previous verses kfr are defined as people who do not believe in god;

- Text is highly political and was obviously written 'above' its innate meaning so as to start the religion. Yes, Sunna 'elaborated' it further yet even Quran alone is not a guidance it claims to be, it is merely a book of constant pointless probitions and threats, which makes a believer follow someone who "knows" so as to lower his/her psychological pressure of the text. An example is following charlatans and deluded people like Sam Gerrans, who seems to be genuinely sure of his beliefs, which in turn are more influenced by the traditional libertarian right wing agenda rather than Quran itself, and trusting them in their mambojambo, instead of thinking for yourself and become the independent Self. Tell me it isn't so?

- Message in it is unscientific;

- Modern Arabic grammar is based ON the Quran i.e. the rules are made ABOVE the Quranic initial text, not vise versa. Think about it;

- Quran jumps from topic to topic, omits context, moves from one thing unto another, which makes it impossible to guess the context unless you are Zakir Nakir who plays with verse numbers;

- It is inconsistent. Is sura 4 'Women' actually about women? Only few verses are there, in its traditional translation, actually about the women, the rest is prohibitions, something regarding Isa bin Miryem and other topics.

Take a look at the recently deciphered passage in the Quran and then tell me who the heck are Harut and Marut in 2:102?  :rotfl: It does not talk about the angels nor two in the verse, two is added by a slight diacritic mark in it. But the true passage tells:

<2:102> And they immitated not what oppressors (ShTN) followed during the reign of Suleyman and not was Suleyman confining/restricting (KFR) whereas the oppressors confined/restricted (KFR). [He] learned [what is] mental eloquence and [this was] not exhibited [by] the Kings [of] Babylon [who] conquered and looted or if you prefer translation without brackets then simply 'conquests and lootings by the kingdoms of Babylon' and did not learn about “manifesting as one” [while] roaming. [He] said: “It is not suitable to sow dissension for that is confinement in [what is] learned from them. [Do] not; side with he/she who clearly cause unrest and join with him/her, and not [with] those who are forced/compelled by him/her. Unity is that which is in [the] advice on Leadership and to teach, not force them, {and} [about] what benefits them and such leads to learning about what is bad. [Do] not [be] like who is held back from taking shape and deals not with his/her wronging in themselves of such [there] is to learn.”

Note: the translation is inherently not 100% mine, although I recently started my independent project and changed some words in the passage to address actual root definitions, previous translation was not accurate enough, however translation of Harut and Marut is not of my origin.

Note: Highlighted in Italic is a part which is being worked on.

Now tell me what is more eloquent and makes more sense, two angels in Babylon Harut and Marut, or actually the contextually and historically logical outcome described above?  8) The passage is about two political entities, one of the Suleyman, who believed it is best to enlighten people and the Babylons who had no faith, as you would say, and looted and pillaged other nations.



Hypothesis

So the thesis is formulated as following: Quranic Laa is not a negation and the traditional understanding of the Quran was fabricated/forced to create a false image of the text so as to pursue specific political-religious needs of the clergy in medieval period, and needs to be deciphered based on the root meanings. Quranic Initials symbolize the root meanings and hint that author has to look down the Semitic roots and use definitions which are native to these root and not constructed out of the blue by the pen of clergy



Debate conditions

1) I will debate only with reasonable responses, and you will have to read the [compulsory] literature I provide first before debating me. This way I confine you (i.e. put a limit on you, cover you, root K-F-R) and impose my rules upon you. Kafiirun has nothing to do with faith. But the primary aim is not to confine you but to free ya'll from the 1200 year dogma you live in. Quranic tradition is probably later than 7th century, they probably really started working on it as close as 8th-9th century, based on historical observation, first scholarly/theological comments started appearing some 140-200 years after the alleged revelation of the Quran.

This is because you have to prove me you are capable of being a critical thinker, otherwise I am not debating zombies, it is of no use to me, in my 'fishing' practice. I 'fish' for golden people, not zombies. You have to prove you are worthy of my family.

2) I will also only debate you after you tell me what is the purpose of Laa in 90:1. Just propose your idea.


Also, Sam Gerrans is a pussy and how many wives a pussy "is allowed" to have in 35:1?  :offtopic:



Literature review (compulsory reading):


My ordeal with the Quran and God in the Quran, by Abbas Abdul Noor (free .pdf available on the Internet);

Pat-El, N. (2012). On Verbal Negation in Semitic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl?ndischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 162, No. 1 (2012), pp. 17-45.


Non-compulsory reading:

Walker, D. The Semitic Negative. The University of Chicago Press, 1896.


WWW:

Jewish Virtual Library A Project of Aice. Modern Jewish History: Great Rabbis of the Muslim Empire by Dr. Ezra Chwat. URL = http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/great-rabbis-of-the-muslim-empire (last checked 14.04.2018).*

* The above link is obviously NOT an anti-semitic propaganda but their own written history so it is plausible and neutral to include such links in the research.

Sembase. A database project for the study of Semitic roots. URL = http://sembase.org/
#2
I have noticed Rashad Khalifa movement's website includes the chronological order of the Qur'anic chapters. This is strange considering the fact that this movement should be Quran alone. How can they reject hadiths and simultaneously accept the chronology?


What is the stance of the current community regarding revelation? What do you think, was Qur'an written in full or were the ayats revealed in parts?

Now consider this, most Old Testament prophets always recieved revelation behind the back of the crowd. People never saw revelation themselves.

* ?Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha.?
{Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 47, Number 755}

*?the Divine inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her."
{Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Hadith 119}



This hadith is authentic, I have Bukhari, but I copypasted the above from the website.
#3
I will make it short.


I was in the middle of reading Sam Gerran's Last Revelation, when I stumbled upon his 4:34, where just as the traditionalists he translates ḍaraba as beat/spank. My .pdf version of the Last Revelation does not allow me to copy/paste text, so I will leave his video on the topic for you to review yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUsqdH_2Cs (you can also read his main points under the video title).

After careful examination of his explanation and reading what he had to say, I've sent him the following message on Facebook, depicting the critique of his own argument:

QuoteDear Sam,

I am reading your reformist translation of the Quran and just stumbled upon your interpretation of the 4:34. Tbh I am quite suprirsed that you actually translate it the way traditionalists do (spank or beat). I have read your explanation, but I do not agree with it for a number of reason:

1. Your primary focus of an argument here is historical/traditional one. Specifically you refer to the Orthodox Домострой as something, which established family conduct for Eastern Christians. This is all true and logical, but, at the same tome, how can you exclude hadiths or traditional approaches to the Quran if you yourself cite traditional sources in this emotional women-related subject? Yes, of course, even in '50's in America it was perfectly all right for husbands to beat their wives, until the 60;s - 70's liberal reforms. But who said that something, which was/is common and 'normal' is what is right?

2. Secondly, the verse 4:34 makes no sense, at least to me, if I use traditional (including yours) explanation, and this is something not taken from Edip Yuksel or other reformist translations, this is something I personally refer to. I can compare 4:34 with 47:4, which makes perfect sense in terms of wartime captives - once you have captured some, fight their side until subdued, then either release them or ransom. That perfectly makes sense, because you cannt release or ransom beheaded folk.

Now, how come the Qur'an is telling husbands to beat their wives AFTER they stopped sharing bed with them? It would perfectly make sense in case the verse would be as following: first admonish, then beat if they continue to disobey. But it says instead first admonish, leave them in beds apart, and then [ choose your interpretation ] . Personally choose 'leave' for three major sub-reasons:

1) It does not tell you the degree of what is 'spank' or 'beat', how strong one should spank her? Is it like Michaelle Corleone from Godfather 2 (Striking Kate Scene) or beat her to death? How one is supposed to know?

2) It does not tell you what will happen AFTER you beat her BUT she does not comply. It only says, if they obey you, seek nothing against them. But what if they contibue to disobey?

3) What is the point of beating her AFTER a man already made steps towards leaving her? I am not sure for all married couples out there, but for me personally ceasing to sleep with a wife means nothing but becoming [or simulating] being cold to her and eventually leave for good. How can I beat her once I already made steps towards naturally leaving her? It does not make sense.

3. In one of your videos where you explain why you did not 'accept Jesus as your Lord ad Savior' you mentioned dubious Bible interpretations by the Christians, who, as you said, do not understand the nature of semitic languages, which cannot be translated literally, but with 4:34 you seem to follow the very same path, by using the term ḍaraba in its literal explanation.

4. 4:34 may follow in the context of 4:29 (for ye who heed warning), which may not mean that other Qur'anic verses are automatically invalid outside of the specific context of 4:34. For instance, in 4:25 Qur'an states that in case one may not marry a free believing woman he may marry a maid, whose origins are not within monotheistic culture and in case she commits impurity then the punishment for her is but half of that for believing women. In the context of 4:34, what if a muslim man marries the non-,muslim [read outside of Quranic tradition] woman and she regularly disobeys him, can he punish her the same way one would expect him to punish a woman who [heeds warning]?

In conclusion, considering the above issues I fail to accept your (and the traditional) explanation of 4:34. I therefore kindly ask you to once again review this problem. I am certain that your own family atmosphere is harmonious enough that punishment described in 4:34 is seldom your personal private practice, but people who read your translation and choose the Last Revelation as the Qur'an they want to live by, may end up with wrong (in my opinion) view on solving marital problems.



After a few minutes, he bans me, then unbans and writes a short sentence of how he 'has no time for personal theories'. And after I reply he advises me to write a book, after which I am banned and cannot respond back.

While I was preparing given post he sent me a video of what a 'doer' is according to the Quran (more likely to his own interpretation), but again, I cannot respond:



Irony is that I have actually seen his videos and read some of his articles, including 'doers' topic, but this guy acts like a hypocrite. He hates the elite and calls them psychopaths ( see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuisW7rSU98 ), yet is acting similarly to fascists and traditionalists who ban anyone who is of opposite opinion.

This is the day I personally reject the Last Revelation by Sam Gerrans, not because of his translation but because of the personality of the author. If he was fair he would not ban people for sending him messages, considering no one bans his websites from spreading his books. And to myself such person is unfair and if he is unfair then I can fairly conclude that anything which comes from him, I consider such work as 'wrong' or unfair.

This is not about 'writing a book'. This is about the context of a specific verse within the Quranic context. It does not take a book to write, but a few pages perhaps. I can agree with him that there are 'doers' and 'theorists' and that they are not equal (there is also the Quranic statement which can be interpreted as such - 9:19), but this is not just my own points, I have included his own explanation of 4:34 as my focus, which left me questioning his primary argument regarding 4:34.

Just sharing my own experience, if you believe the Last Revelation to be true translation - in no way I am asking you not to follow it.

P.S. If you want more authentic proof that such 'conversation' took place, please contact me via PM, so we may connect on Facebook.
#4
Prophets and Messengers / Last Muhammad's sermon?
July 18, 2017, 04:38:34 PM
Salam,


Anybody knows if there is a more-or-less 'authentic' source of Muhammad's speech during his last sermon at Hajj? There is a submission article, which lists a number of contradictive hadiths regarding the Quran alone: http://submission.org/Last_Sermon.html

Thing is, I truggle to find most of these hadiths. For instance, googling Nu2408 mostly leads to the quran-alone and Islam-conspiracy sources. Muslim 15/19 indeed tells about Quran alone:

("I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray"), yet it also narates that if women disobey:

("you can chastise them but not severely".)

Source: https://sunnah.com/muslim/15/159

I and I am sure most of you have seen other hadiths where there is not a single word on beating women, yet again, which also mention either Sunna or prophers Family besides Quran. Is there at least one source for it, which would fully support the Quran-alone "logic" (such as not beating wives, following Quran alone and other important issue), and if there is, why would you trust it against countless of not-so-pleasant sources? I understand that most here would simply ignore hadiths, but then how would you explain how was the Quran (or any other Scripture) left for us to read if not as a historical text?

Thank you and peace


Edit: I briefly studied the subject once again, but not regarding the Sermon itself, but the overall problem of prophetic history. Here is a summarized data on historicity of Muhammad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

I also downloaded two books, cited in the article, which seem to be two nice bodies of historical literature: [S._A._Nigosian]Islam: Its History, Teaching, and Practices and [Tom Holland] In the Shadow of the Sword. I have yet to study these works, but Tom Holland is of particular interest as he thoroughly cites Ibn Hisham, the guy who supposedly narrated about Muhammad beheading 700 people during Invasion of Banu Qurayza. 


My hypothesis on this so far is: history is fabricated as a study and as a "science". History is not a science but a liberal arts discipline/field, which contains none of the actual scientific methods, similarly to Political science or any type of humanities studies. There is literally nothing true about events which happened in the past, as their narration was always done by the people who were never and will never be neutral in their political views. I would say the same about the 'authentic' war archieves - these too are written by people. Upon these days people still argue about Joseph Stalin...was he a tyran or a saviour of mother Russia? If you study the subject you will see how different sources (and all of them are purely political) view this figure. The same goes about Hitler. Was he a murderous maniac or a talented politician? The list goes on and on. There is virtually nothing all people would agree on in terms of past events.

Even now, when we live in the age of digital world of the media, we can clearly see how various world medias portray information differently, based on their biased political affiliation and financial support from either governments or government-associated ngo's. What is your stance on what happened in Yugoslavia (1999) or Ukraine (2014-)? What will you say will be based on the media you read/watch/trust. What unites all of the media is the fact that they all lie and distrot information. Years later teachers will 'teach' these fabricated articles of the media to young generations, when these won't be simply articles, but historical 'facts'. You just can't trust anything and never could. I officially renounce history. For me, it does no longer matter which speech did Muhammad give during his last sermon, or if he existed overall, there is just not a single bit of information, which I would critically regard as an authentic one, does not matter if this informtion is pro-Quran alone or pro-Sunno, with the exception of information which comes directly from my faith. Faith does not need evidence, as it comes from heart.


#5
Questions/Comments on the Quran / 'WE' in the Quran
July 16, 2017, 09:18:42 PM
Hello,

I am new here, and not really sure if this topic was covered before here on Free-Minds, but I never witnessed this issue was discussed among the Quran alone followers. In the Quran, in many verses, God speaks of himself as 'We' instead of 'I'. There are other verses, where 'I' is used too, but I did not count the exact amounts of both variants. Therefore, what is your theory on 'plurality' of God? I am well aware of every traditional explanation, but it's just something I am not personally buying, for several reasons:

1. Such manner of speech, when high ranked officials may speak of themselves (or their actions) as 'We' is something, which I strongly believe was not available ubiquitously up until modern times. I heard the Romans were the first to introduce such manner of speech when a person would say 'You' compared to 'you' when talking to a higher ranked official, out of respect, where 'You' would indicate higher position of that person, and that particular person would, in turn, speak of himself as 'We'. Such official (such as Ceaser) would then say 'We' as opposite to 'I' or 'Me' when discussing decisions, for instance. But I highly doubt that such forms of expression were popular in the pre-Islamic Arabic. Even among Romans this manner of speech could only be 'popular' among the elite, and not ordinary people. I speak Russian natively, and in Russian we say "Вы" (Vy') when addressing to an unfamiliar person, or a person of a higher social rank or official position, out of social respect. When we talk to a friend, we use 'Ты' (Ty') instead, which means 'you' and refers to friends, or ordinary people, while 'Вы' is used in two contextes, either if we speak to the group (You as the group."Why don't you guys etc.), or we speak to an unfamiliar person, or a person of higher age, or a higher social rank, so we say You (plural of 'you') as in "Вы" instead. Such form of experssion became popular among ordinary Russian people centuries after the events of the 7th century. Even serfs in the ancient Russia would address the Tzar as Ты (Ty') instead of 'You' as a plural or a polite form of you.

Therefore, I highly doubt that 'We' in the Quran is a manner of speech, which refers to the greatness of God. Surely, God is allmighty (16:78), but it probably has nothing to do with the manner of speech, since the Quran is the book for people of reason (2:164).

2. First Chapter (?Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help?) does not imply plural.

3. One of the perhaps greatest thing about God, is the fact that we cannot imagine Him or measure His Greatness (42:11). Therefore, if we use such narrative as 'We' and interpret it as a polite form, then we are comparing God to the king, or the top manager of some company.

4. There are similar 'pluralistic' forms of name of God introduced in other Scriptures. In the Torah, the term Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים‎ ?ĕlōh?m) is used, which is the plural of ?gods? but which is often used in combination with a singular form 'god'. This was later changed in the Greek New Testament and other versions, so most translations use onyl the singular form. But you check the Hebrew version of Genesis 1:26 and countless of other verses, where 'Elohim' is used.


So what are you thoughts on 'plurality' of God in the Quran and other Scriptures? I understand it's a huge topic, but aren't we all here to seek truth?


Peace.