Do you have an explanation for this? Poll

[Mazhar]

Again you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 17:7. Traditionalists also cant explain this.

Please re-read it by focusing attention of the past verb and then subjunctive particle and subjunctive verb. And notice that the apodosis clause of time adverb is elided.

[Wakas]

peace pm,

1) I never said Quran was the focal-point.
2) "wajh" does not always mean the physical "face"
3) your translation of 2:143 inserts "face", which is not there in the Arabic

From article:

In addition to 2:142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2:115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2:177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2:115, 2:142-150, 2:177.

[Bender]

Please re-read it by focusing attention of the past verb and then subjunctive particle and subjunctive verb. And notice that the apodosis clause of time adverb is elided.

Hi,

I have absolutely no idea what you wrote here, to advanced for me, but if he does that then what is he going to see?

[imrankhawaja]

Hi,

I have absolutely no idea what you wrote here, to advanced for me, but if he does that then what is he going to see?

i think its the grammer of Information tecnology or new age grammer,

[Mazhar]

 It was about this remark by Wakas

Again you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 17:7. Traditionalists also cant explain this.

His opinion was erroneous. The text is NARRATIVE, it narrates past real life events. Without knowing grammar - morphology and syntax very little can be known what is stated in the text.

[Hizbullah]

Peace Mazhar

It was about this remark by Wakas

His opinion was erroneous. The text is NARRATIVE, it narrates past real life events. Without knowing grammar - morphology and syntax very little can be known what is stated in the text.

You are absolutely correct.


Peace Wakas

I dont see any strong link from 5:21 to 17:1.

If you read the story of Musa, he left Madyan with his family and travelled through the night and they reached Tur. The Tur was a forested area where Musa noticed a fire in the distance. This was the first encounter with the LORD ? Chapter 20, 28?

After he rescued the Israelite, Prophet Musa went for a second meeting with THE ALMIGHTY, at the same location where he met the LORD in the first time, the Tur. This Tur is the Masjidil Haram, where Musa received the Furqan. It was the same place where the Last Prophet received the Quran ? Chapter 28, 52, 53; wooded forested area!

After receiving the Furqan, Prophet Musa was instructed to the Bless Land ? Chapter 5:20 ? 21. The Bless land was non other than what I have written in my thread,  http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608396.0, you ignored!

In Ch 25, messenger of Quran is referenced first, Moses appears 25:35. See 2:185 for furqan with al quran.

What about 02:53 and 21:48?

Again you ignore the future/imperfect tense in 17:7. Traditionalists also cant explain this.

The whole event of the Israeli captivity was already prophesied in the Book, before the Israeli captivity - 17:04. Its narration of what will happened to the Israelite in the 1st promise - 17:05; already fulfilled, and what will happened to them in the last promise - 17:06-08. The 2nd event or to be more precise, the last promise is mentioned again in 17:104 which, you, Wakas ignored.


Q:17:101 - And We had certainly given Musa nine manifest signs, so ask the Children of Israel, when he came to them and Fir3aun said to him, "Indeed I think, O Musa, that you are affected by magic."

Q:17:102 - [Musa] said, "You have already known that none has sent down these [signs] except Lord - the heavens and the earth as evidence, and indeed I think, O Fir3aun, that you are destroyed."

Q:17:103 - So he [Fir3aun] intended to drive them [the Israelite] from the land, but We drowned him and those with him all together.

Q:17:104 - And We said from after him [Fir3aun] to the Children of Israel, "Dwell in the land, and WHEN THERE CAME THE PROMISE OF THE LAST, We brought with you all a mix race."


Also please read Mazhar's comment

[parvez mushtaq]

peace pm,

......
2) "wajh" does not always mean the physical "face"
........

From article:

In addition to 2:142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2:115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2:177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2:115, 2:142-150, 2:177.

I do agree with you with regards to your point NO:2 and your translation of verse 2:148
وَلِكُلٍّ وِجْهَةٌ هُوَ مُوَلِّيهَا ۖ فَٱسْتَبِقُوا۟ ٱلْخَيْرَٰتِ ۚ أَيْنَ مَا تَكُونُوا۟ يَأْتِ بِكُمُ ٱللَّهُ جَمِيعًا ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

Secondly , i even agree with you about 2.115.2.177
if some one got another view on this .......he is welcome
what is disagree with you is ....

1) I never said Quran was the focal-point.
...

so as per you in your article

Based on the above, usage of the root QBL in AQ, CAD meanings, and the only other occurrence of "qiblah" in 10:87, in terms of likelihood for the meaning of "qiblah", in my view, are:
1) focal-point - focus of interest/attention or activity
2) direction - general aim or purpose; a general way in which someone/something is developing
3) point-of-approach - a way in which to approaching something
4) counteraction - to oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action

If it is not Quran then as per the verse 2.145
And if you brought to those who were given the Scripture every sign, they would not follow your qiblah. Nor will you be a follower of their qiblah. Nor would they be followers of one another's qiblah. So if you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, indeed, you would then be among the wrongdoers.

how will you differentiate between our focus of interest/attention or activity and the focus of interest/attention or activity of the people of scripture
what is the focal-point of Muslim and focal-point of people of scripture because our focal-point is based on quran and their is based on their scriptures
it is something like Verse 2.120
And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, "Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance." If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper.

and

surah 109 (For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.)

otherwise(if it is not quran) ...the focal-point is the traditional meaning  of qiblah
as the verse 2.120 and the surah 109 is differentiating between the scriptures/laws/religion and  the verse 2.145 is differentiating us with them in the qiblah

3) your translation of 2:143 inserts "face", which is not there in the Arabic

It was not mine , Wakas rather it was sahih international .I agree with you "Face" is not there but does it change the  meaning

but term عَلَىٰ عَقِبَيْهِ implies  the meaning

[Bender]

It was about this remark by Wakas

His opinion was erroneous. The text is NARRATIVE, it narrates past real life events. Without knowing grammar - morphology and syntax very little can be known what is stated in the text.

I know on what you were commenting but didn't understand what you were trying to say.
But now you have translated your sentence to my English, I am able to understand what you were trying to say, thx!

[parvez mushtaq]

It was about this remark by Wakas

His opinion was erroneous. The text is NARRATIVE, it narrates past real life events. Without knowing grammar - morphology and syntax very little can be known what is stated in the text.

I know on what you were commenting but didn't understand what you were trying to say.
But now you have translated your sentence to my English, I am able to understand what you were trying to say, thx!

Everything is a big bouncer and has gone over my head
will you pl people talk in a language we understand .

[imrankhawaja]

perfect imperfection