Page 1 of 3

Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:13 pm
by manfred
Here is verse 16 from surah 26, translated as closely to the Arabic as possible:

The context is that Allah sends Moses and Aaron to see the pharaoh with these words:


26:16
Both of you go (the dual is used here in Arabic) and both of you say (dual again) : “We (i.e. more than one) are the messenger (singular) of the lord of creation’s all togethers.”



"We are the messenger" is neither correct in English nor in Arabic.... translators have generally polished over that in various ways... one has "we are the messengers" (which it does nto say) or "we have/bring a message" which is even more wrong, "I am the messenger" (changing the we to an I) or perhaps most creative " we are EACH the messenger" this avoids actual changes to the text, but adds a word that is not there.

This looks like a straight forward grammar mistake in the Qu'ran. Anyone disagreeing?

(Apart from Zakir Naik, of course, who claims the grammar in the Qur'an must be perfect because it is the mother of all rule books on grammar.)

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:08 pm
by SAM
That is why your Bible is corrupted, falsified and altered because the author does not understand the meaning of the verses. And they have interpreted it according to their own thoughts like you who were inspired by Satan to change the implicit meaning of the Quran verse 26:16.

As I said before, you only see explicit things, but not esotericism in the Qur'an.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:12 pm
by manfred
SAM wrote:That is why your Bible is corrupted, falsified and altered because the author does not understand the meaning of the verses. And they have interpreted it according to their own thoughts like you who were inspired by Satan to change the implicit meaning of the Quran verse 26:16.

As I said before, you only see explicit things, but not esotericism in the Qur'an.


:lotpot:

This is a topic about a very simple thing SAM: "Allah" making a grammatical mistake in this particular verse. It is not even about what the verse means. It is about its grammatical structure.

"We are ...." has to have a plural object in Arabic just as in English. This is plain and simple. This was also the case during the time the Qur'an was written, as the Qur'an itself proves by providing numerous examples of the rule being used accurately.

It has nothing at all to do with any biblical text SAM, nor with any mumbo jumbo meaning you claim only you know, but never tell. It is just about plain old grammar, Sam.

But you did make me laugh when you made the same mistake several times, SAM:

.... like you who were inspired ...


I am singular, so the relative clause connected to me cannot be plural. Your should say "you who was inspired by Satan".

OR ... if you want to connect the relative clause to the "thoughts", then you must change the word order and relative pronoun:

"And they have, like you, interpreted it according to their own thoughts who which were inspired by Satan to change the implicit meaning of the Quran verse 26:16."

or if you want to link the relative clause to "they" then it goes like this:

"And they who were inspired by Satan to change the implicit meaning of the Quran verse 26:16 have, like you, interpreted it according to their own thoughts."

The rule is that the relative clause always expands the noun immediately before it.

Let's look a little closer into what you said:

That is why your Bible is corrupted, falsified and altered because the author does not understand the meaning of the verses.


You claim there is only ONE author of biblical texts. "The author does" - both noun and verb are singular.

But straight after that:

"And they have interpreted ...."

Who are these "they"? The "author"? How did this one author suddenly become many?

And then the logic entirely leaves you behind SAM....

So the one biblical author did not understand what he was writing and that has caused some kind of falsification of his (?) own words. So someone writes something and he does not understand his own words, and that, by magic, changes his words,,,,, The suddenly multiplying author has become now many authors by some magic again, and they used their own understanding and that means they were inspired by "Satan", and that is reason for the grammatical error in the Qur'an. Thinking for yourself means you are "inspired by Satan", and is causes errors in the Qur'an many hundreds of year later, errors by a different author.

All very clear now, Sam.... :flush:

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:04 pm
by AhmedBahgat
Hello Manfred

In Arabic language and especially the language of the Quran, yon can use single to refer to more than one, see this verse where Lut is talking to the homos telling them about the angles that they his guest, the word Daif is sngle and it means guest, while the angles were more than one

الحجر:٦٨ قال إن هؤلاء ضيفي فلا تفضحون


So when I translated it, I made it plural because I know the language of the Quran better than non native Arabic speakers

15: 68 He (Lut) said: Indeed, those are my guests, so do not shame me.

And in another sure about the same story, Allah the mighty used the dual or the word Rasool, i.e. Rasoola, to refr to Musa and Harun, and this proves my argument byone any doubt because from the two suras, the dual = the single


طه:٤٧ فأتياه فقولا إنا رسولا ربك فأرسل معنا بني إسرائيل ولا تعذبهم قد جئناك بآية من ربك والسلام على من اتبع الهدى

20: 47 So go to him and say: Indeed, we are messengers of your Lord, so send with us the sons of Israel and do not castigate them. We have come to you with a sign from your Lord. And peace be upon whoever follows the guidance.



Cheers

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:44 pm
by manfred
Hi Ahmed, you seem to argue, like Zakir Naik, that the Qur'an sets the standard for Arabic, so it we need to start by assuming that this is the right way of saying things. My assumption is that the old Arabic should follow quite closely the grammar of Modern Arabic, but not perfectly. You notice that expressions/ the way people talk changes quite quickly, but grammar much more slowly, specially when rules are codified and there is a "standard text" which exemplifies the rules.

To me, verse 20:47, where the dual is grammatically correctly used in saying something very similar to the verse I mentioned, shows simply that the author of the text knew the correct form perfectly well, but "slipped" on that one occasion. If both consistently used the singular it would have been a better case, I think.

As to the "guest(s)" that could simply be another slip .... I have not come across Arabs using the singular to refer to a group of people. Can you say "I read the book" but mean you are reading a bundle of books?

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:56 pm
by AhmedBahgat
Helle mate

Who the **** is zakir naik, **** him

I presented my argument full of Quran evidences not bloody wishful thinking

You are the one who is too shocked with my reply so you are resorting to arguing

Please learn Arabic first then you will be entitled to argue and have a go at refuting my Quran evidences (and I have more to prove it but I thought one is enough for a reasonable man, I guess I was wrong) other than that you will be dismissed

Cheers

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:07 pm
by manfred
Ahmed, I merely pointed out that one verse uses the dual and the other does not. One is grammatically accurate the other is not. That is not wishful thinking, anyone can check that.

What is rather close to wishful thinking is that somehow the two things are the same.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:08 am
by Fernando
AhmedBahgat wrote: this proves my argument byone any doubt because from the two suras, the dual = the single
So conversely, the single=the dual. Keep going: only one more step and the single=the trinity. :idea:

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:03 am
by AhmedBahgat
Fernando wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote: this proves my argument byone any doubt because from the two suras, the dual = the single
So conversely, the single=the dual. Keep going: only one more step and the single=the trinity. :idea:



You can go and fcuk yourself

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:04 am
by AhmedBahgat
I said more than one you stupid blind

i.e. in the Arabic language the single may be used to refer to more than one, i.e. dual or triple or more

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:47 am
by BaigZaheer
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello Manfred

In Arabic language and especially the language of the Quran, yon can use single to refer to more than one, see this verse where Lut is talking to the homos telling them about the angles that they his guest, the word Daif is sngle and it means guest, while the angles were more than one

الحجر:٦٨ قال إن هؤلاء ضيفي فلا تفضحون


So when I translated it, I made it plural because I know the language of the Quran better than non native Arabic speakers

15: 68 He (Lut) said: Indeed, those are my guests, so do not shame me.

And in another sure about the same story, Allah the mighty used the dual or the word Rasool, i.e. Rasoola, to refr to Musa and Harun, and this proves my argument byone any doubt because from the two suras, the dual = the single


طه:٤٧ فأتياه فقولا إنا رسولا ربك فأرسل معنا بني إسرائيل ولا تعذبهم قد جئناك بآية من ربك والسلام على من اتبع الهدى

20: 47 So go to him and say: Indeed, we are messengers of your Lord, so send with us the sons of Israel and do not castigate them. We have come to you with a sign from your Lord. And peace be upon whoever follows the guidance.



Cheers


Hello, mate

Glad to see your reply. You explained well. Manfred brings up interesting questions.

I am not a fan of Zakir Naik but once he demolished a few polemicists who tried to show him a verse which they considered grammatically incorrect. They were talking through the modern Arabic or the street Arabic. He asked them a question: "Which came first? The language or the Grammar?"

This is the verse 20:63 which they presented:
قَالُوٓا۟ إِنْ هَٰذَٰنِ لَسَٰحِرَٰنِ يُرِيدَانِ أَن يُخْرِجَاكُم مِّنْ أَرْضِكُم بِسِحْرِهِمَا وَيَذْهَبَا بِطَرِيقَتِكُمُ ٱلْمُثْلَىٰ


They found the classical Arabic words هَٰذَٰنِ لَسَٰحِرَٰنِ incorrect and suggested "Hazzaine sahraine". I think they were thinking in terms of Bahrain. :lotpot:

The verse 26:16 in Arabic for the readers here:
فَأْتِيَا فِرْعَوْنَ فَقُولَآ إِنَّا رَسُولُ رَبِّ ٱلْعَٰلَمِينَ


The key word is إِنَّا , which means "Indeed both of us.

That cannot be translated into English as "We both is" or "Both of us is".

Salaams.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:56 am
by AhmedBahgat
BaigZaheer wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello Manfred

In Arabic language and especially the language of the Quran, yon can use single to refer to more than one, see this verse where Lut is talking to the homos telling them about the angles that they his guest, the word Daif is sngle and it means guest, while the angles were more than one

الحجر:٦٨ قال إن هؤلاء ضيفي فلا تفضحون


So when I translated it, I made it plural because I know the language of the Quran better than non native Arabic speakers

15: 68 He (Lut) said: Indeed, those are my guests, so do not shame me.

And in another sure about the same story, Allah the mighty used the dual or the word Rasool, i.e. Rasoola, to refr to Musa and Harun, and this proves my argument byone any doubt because from the two suras, the dual = the single


طه:٤٧ فأتياه فقولا إنا رسولا ربك فأرسل معنا بني إسرائيل ولا تعذبهم قد جئناك بآية من ربك والسلام على من اتبع الهدى

20: 47 So go to him and say: Indeed, we are messengers of your Lord, so send with us the sons of Israel and do not castigate them. We have come to you with a sign from your Lord. And peace be upon whoever follows the guidance.



Cheers


Hello, mate

Glad to see your reply. You explained well. Manfred brings up interesting questions.

I am not a fan of Zakir Naik but once he demolished a few polemicists who tried to show him a verse which they considered grammatically incorrect. They were talking through the modern Arabic or the street Arabic. He asked them a question: "Which came first? The language or the Grammar?"

This is the verse 20:63 which they presented:
قَالُوٓا۟ إِنْ هَٰذَٰنِ لَسَٰحِرَٰنِ يُرِيدَانِ أَن يُخْرِجَاكُم مِّنْ أَرْضِكُم بِسِحْرِهِمَا وَيَذْهَبَا بِطَرِيقَتِكُمُ ٱلْمُثْلَىٰ


They found the classical Arabic words هَٰذَٰنِ لَسَٰحِرَٰنِ incorrect and suggested "Hazzaine sahraine". I think they were thinking in terms of Bahrain. :lotpot:

The verse 26:16 in Arabic for the readers here:
فَأْتِيَا فِرْعَوْنَ فَقُولَآ إِنَّا رَسُولُ رَبِّ ٱلْعَٰلَمِينَ


The key word is إِنَّا , which means "Indeed both of us.

That cannot be translated into English as "We both is" or "Both of us is".

Salaams.



Hello mate

Another example in these verses


The word

Al-Khism is singular and referes to a couple of contenders

Those non Arabic speakers like Zakir Naik and Manfred will never understand the true meaning of the language and its use of words and verbs, they can dance and sing around it but will never give or understand the final say which I said it and proved it using the same book they dance about it

Cheers

ص:٢١ وهل أتاك نبأ الخصم إذ تسوروا المحراب
ص:٢٢ إذ دخلوا على داوود ففزع منهم قالوا لا تخف خصمان بغى بعضنا على بعض فاحكم بيننا بالحق ولا تشطط واهدنا إلى سواء الصراط
ص:٢٣ إن هذا أخي له تسع وتسعون نعجة ولي نعجة واحدة فقال أكفلنيها وعزني في الخطاب

38: 21 And has there come to you the news of the contenders, when they climbed the wall of the sanctuary?

38: 22 When they entered upon Dawood, so he was frightened by them; they said: Fear not; (we are) two contenders, one has transgressed against the other, so judge between us with truth and do not exceed the limits and guide us to the even path.

38: 23 Indeed, this is my brother who has ninety-nine ewes, and for me is a single ewe; so he said: Entrust her to me, and he overpowered me in speech.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:26 am
by BaigZaheer
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mate

Another example in these verses


The word

Al-Khism is singular and referes to a couple of contenders

Those non Arabic speakers like Zakir Naik and Manfred will never understand the true meaning of the language and its use of words and verbs, they can dance and sing around it but will never give or understand the final say which I said it and proved it using the same book they dance about it

Cheers

ص:٢١ وهل أتاك نبأ الخصم إذ تسوروا المحراب
ص:٢٢ إذ دخلوا على داوود ففزع منهم قالوا لا تخف خصمان بغى بعضنا على بعض فاحكم بيننا بالحق ولا تشطط واهدنا إلى سواء الصراط
ص:٢٣ إن هذا أخي له تسع وتسعون نعجة ولي نعجة واحدة فقال أكفلنيها وعزني في الخطاب

38: 21 And has there come to you the news of the contenders, when they climbed the wall of the sanctuary?

38: 22 When they entered upon Dawood, so he was frightened by them; they said: Fear not; (we are) two contenders, one has transgressed against the other, so judge between us with truth and do not exceed the limits and guide us to the even path.

38: 23 Indeed, this is my brother who has ninety-nine ewes, and for me is a single ewe; so he said: Entrust her to me, and he overpowered me in speech.


That is another good example. Thanks, mate. Have a nice Sunday.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:29 am
by BaigZaheer
Ahmed,

I like it when you quote verses without diacritical marks.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:34 am
by SAM
manfred wrote:This is a topic about a very simple thing SAM: "Allah" making a grammatical mistake in this particular verse. It is not even about what the verse means. It is about its grammatical structure.
There is no grammatical mistake in the Quran, unlike the Bible that is constantly modified according to the inspiration of the writers.

"We are ...." has to have a plural object in Arabic just as in English. This is plain and simple. This was also the case during the time the Qur'an was written, as the Qur'an itself proves by providing numerous examples of the rule being used accurately.
As I said earlier, English is a bad translation and has insufficient words for translation of Quranic verses. For example, God as Him, He and Father, like a human being.

It has nothing at all to do with any biblical text SAM, nor with any mumbo jumbo meaning you claim only you know, but never tell. It is just about plain old grammar, Sam.
In the Bible that writes,
“Let us make man in our image ” (Gen1:26)
“Come, let us go down, and there confound their language” (Gen11:7)

Tell me, whom the words "us" and "our image" your God refers to you?
Is it talking about the Trinity? Does God the Father create Adam "our image" based on Him and Jesus Iscariot?

In the Quran 50:16, "We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein."

Now I ask you, do you think we mentioned in the Qur'an 50:16 is the Trinity or He with Muhammad, the Angel or Allah uses the word "We" to refer to Himself? :whistling:

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:37 am
by BaigZaheer
Fernando wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote: this proves my argument byone any doubt because from the two suras, the dual = the single
So conversely, the single=the dual. Keep going: only one more step and the single=the trinity. :idea:


You cracked me up and I sprayed my tea over the monitor.

Trinity is a word that shows only one meaning. It can show nothing else but the alleged triune god.

A single word of Arabic can have many meanings.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:51 am
by manfred
There is no grammatical mistake in the Quran


There are several. I pointed out one to you. Ahmed helpfully provided another verse saying the same thing, but grammatically correctly. This proves that it must be an error, as otherwise, BOTH passages would have used the same grammatical structures.

All you need to do is look. Look at the two verses. There really is little else to say.

As to your bible stuff, where are the grammatical errors? Surely you know about majestic plural? Queen Victoria: "We are not amused." is an example. The pope uses it too.

However, there quite a few grammatical errors, specially in the NT Greek, too, but nobody claims God wrote that. And how does any of that explain away the Qur'an mistake?

Ahmed and Zaheer try to suggest that it can be answered simply by broadening grammar rules, in effect using the same approach to answer all other errors: Because there must not be an error in the text there cannot be. If something looks like an error, then the rules and definitions must be changed.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:59 am
by SAM
manfred wrote:It has nothing at all to do with any biblical text SAM, nor with any mumbo jumbo meaning you claim only you know, but never tell. It is just about plain old grammar, Sam.
In the Bible that writes,
“Let us make man in our image ” (Gen1:26)
“Come, let us go down, and there confound their language” (Gen11:7)

Tell me, whom the words "us" and "our image" your God refers to you?
Is it talking about the Trinity? Does God the Father create Adam "our image" based on Him and Jesus Iscariot?

In the Quran 50:16, "We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein."

Now I ask you, do you think we mentioned in the Qur'an 50:16 is the Trinity or He with Muhammad, the Angel or Allah uses the word "We" to refer to Himself?

I am waiting for your answer to my question above.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:06 am
by manfred
SAM google majestic plural. And stop trying to change the topic. If you want to discuss the bible, start a new topic. This is about one simple thing in the Qur'an.

Re: Qur'an ... perfect?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:19 am
by manfred
SAM YOU HAD TWO ANSWERS TO YOUR OFF TOPIC POST. ALL FURTHER OFF TOPIC POSTS GET REMOVED.