Thoughts?

>randomly slating islam for no real reason
go back to your containment board you fucking scum

Justify your manual, Abdul.

It's a problem with literary genre and absolute untranslability of Arabic.
Basicaly you either learn arabic or might as well stop reading.

Ah yes, the good old "don't read translations" meme my least favourite,

have fun never fully comprehending this masterpiece then, brainlet
youtube.com/watch?v=pH-aMl4OHTQ

Most of you have been reading the quran in a vapid manner.

Most of the words translated have multiple different meanings in the arabic language, which is why a single sentence can derive paragraphs of meaning.
The multiple sentences have a mathematical pattern, which is considered a "miracle" by some.

Correct me if I'm wrong but "disbelievers" are supposed to be people who did not allow the muslims to practice their faith. This was directed towards the people of Mecca who tried to starve the muslims then force them out of their homes.
They ended up selling all the muslims shit and then Muhammad had a war with the tribes of Mecca to get their stuff back. "God was on their side", so people ended up converting to islam.

The concept of God in the quran is different from all 3 books in a sense there isnt scientific errors. About 80% is scientifically accurate and the other 20% is ambiguous shit like the day of judgement, angels, etc.
The last few surahs mention proof that science confirms today.

Everybody is technically a muslim, which is submissive. Islam can mean both peace and submission.
"S'lam/S'lim"
A better word to describe it is commited I guess.

The whole idea of islam is that in this life you aren't free but you have free will to choose whether or not you want to submit yourself to one God.

If you're not in submission to God then you're in submission to other worldly things like alcohol/money/Veeky Forums.

The whole point that I got from it is:
Be good on earth, and you will be recompensed with good.
Be bad on earth, and you will be recompensed with bad.

Don't worship anything other than Allah, or you will be a slave to desire and not to reason.

God Speaks:
Whoever seeks me finds me,
Whoever finds me knows me,
Whoever knows me loves me,
Whoever loves me, I love,
Whomsoever I love, I kill.

Stay strong brothers, may Allah (praised be his holy name) be with you. :)

'Whomsoever i love i kill"
Where in the quran is that even said?

It's a terrible book, and an OK song if you can call it that.

I have no arguments, monotheism just doesn't float my boat.

Thoughts?
>hard-mode: put politics and the borrowed mesopotamian elements aside

Why is it so, well— repetitive, odd, and just bad?

There are parts clearly meant for ancient Israelites. I fail to discern how anything of value could be gleaned from said parts, some Christians have even spoken to that sentiment as well.

Wow Islam is so mystical and deep ;_;
In fact it looks like Jehovas witnesses tier bullshit.

Yes! It's religious fan-fiction at best.

It needed a better editor. It's also possible Jews never cared about style, and just wanted to write the important stuff down and move on with their day.

>Why is it so, well— repetitive, odd, and just bad.

It’s literally the ramblings of a deranged illiterate.

Muslims like to claim that it’s a high form of poetry but in reality Mohammed just tried to copy earlier Arabian poetry but was just bad. To answer for the lack of quality, Muslims now state that it’s unique and developed poetic form prove that is divine, since it’s different to the poetry that came before.

Additionally, Mohammed initially had to pander to certain groups. Which is why you have retellings of Jewish stories, Christian stories , Persian and Greek elements. At the same time all these needed an “Islamic” framing, so you end up with Alexander the Great being a holy prophet of Islam, and him reaching the setting of the Sun.

>O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Al-Muttaqun
You see, there are issues with translation. Disbelievers means those who are oppressing you, fight means make peace, and harshness means invite them over for humus and pita chips.

It's obviously the Religion of Peace, as anyone who has read it carefully understands.

Also, Mohammed had sex with Aisha when she was 19 NOT 9. Someone erased the "1" and it has been misconstrued.

It comes as a let down given the big expectations of it. Its one of the only books which claims to be literally the dictated product of God and not just men who were inspired by God.

So instead of getting some brilliant masterpiece that is universally brilliant you get a book thats disordered and can only be appreciated in one language which just happen to be that of the founder of the religion.

Then you add its dubious compliatoin

>Most of the words translated have multiple different meanings in the arabic language, which is why a single sentence can derive paragraphs of meaning.
Not much more than any other language and certainly not in a way that greatly changes its meaning.

>Correct me if I'm wrong but "disbelievers" are supposed to be people who did not allow the muslims to practice their faith.

The meccans only got antsy when Mohamed tried to stop them from practicing theirs. The Koran is iffy because it isnt chronologically ordered so you dont get to see the breakdown of it as it starts off as being peaceful before getting more violent and intolerant when the message isnt accepted as a continuation of the Jewish prophets.

>Don't worship anything other than Allah, or you will be a slave to desire and not to reason.
Its more don't worship anything other than Allah, or else you will burn in a great fire for eternity whilst the people who follow this rule will get to live in a paradise with special "companions" made by Allah although funnily enough this seems to be reserved for men only.

Thoughts?
>hard-mode: put politics and the borrowed Jungian elements aside

Why is it so, well— repetitive, odd, and just bad?

There are parts clearly meant for those already sorted. I fail to discern how anything of value could be gleaned from said parts, some sortees have even spoken to that sentiment as well.

Obviously not from your bullshit fake Kufic qura'an. It's from Aisha's qura'an, the true word of Allah. Too bad he couldn't save it from getting eaten by a fucking goat though.

The quran is full of scientific errors dude.

Ever heard of spherical carpets or semen coming from backbones?

Every religious book contains politics and have you ever thought there's more because it was rewritten multiple times by the order of rulers.

Name important stuff mentioned in the gospel that the torah and quran don't mention.

"Illiterate ramblings"
Here's stuff the quran mentions which you couldnt comprehend.

Earth is like 'dahaha', which is rounded. This resembles a geospherical earth, which was proved in the year 1577.

Light of the moon is reflected by the sun. You have to look into the arabic words "siraj" and "wahhaj" , which reference the sun's internal combustion. Whereas the moon is described as "muneer" a reflecting light.

Planetary orbits (modern scientists only found that out in the year 1609). By using the words "Yasbahun" or "Sabaha" also gave notion that the sun has its own orbit.

Development of embryo in the womb
(Professor and Chairman at the department of anatomy Keith Moore (biggest authority in the field of embryology)) found a verse which stated Proclaim! In the Name of Allah, the Cherisher, creator. Created man from alaq
The word alaq means clot of thickened blood and leech-like substance. And nobody in the field of embryology knew at the time, so the professor decided to study the initial stage of an embryo under an advanced microscope , then compared his observations to a diagram of a leech. He then announced that Muhammad must have been a messanger of Allah because it would be impossible for any human to know it during the time.

Pain Receptors present in skin (for the only time people only believed it was in the brain. Professor Tejasen a chairman at the department of anatomy researched and then beared witness Muhammad was a messanger)

Lying takes place in the frontal lobe, etc.

There's an entire chapter on bees which describes the work of female and male bees, and the english translations don't do it justice.
You either have to learn arabic or shut up about the translations of the quran.

It's like if you were fucking a chick who's a 2/10 instead of fucking a chick who's a solid 10/10. And then saying the 10/10 pussy is rank because of the expierence you had with the 2/10. BUT YOU NEVER FUCKED THE 10/10.

MY POINT IS :

You have to understand the arabic language before making an assertion, or else you'd only be cirtiquing the translator.

"Allah cloved asunder the heavens from the earth"

How scientific.

>muh original language

If Allah wanted his religion to spread. Than why wasn't Muhammad born an Englishman?

>Muh isogesis

You are reading into the text modern discoveries, if you look at ancient commentaries people didn't see all this in the quran. They took the most clear understandings which are far more obvious even now.

OT but this reminded me of when Rovelli said Dante was actually describing a Tri-sphere when he described the Paradise (basically a Tri-sphere is how the universe is shaped accordingly to Einstein) and Dante scholars jumped at his throat.

Explain why dhul qarnayn is in there. Explain why Mary is referred to as sister of harun
Explain why it claims jews believe Ezra is the son of God, when no Jews believed that

Learn arabic you illiterate swine.

I want to write and comprehend english, so I learned english.

I wanted to read and write in french, so I learned french.

If you truly want to understand the quran, then you would learn the language it's written in.

Because since the time of Muhammad there has been multiple words in english constantly changed and added and the language which the quran was written is classical. Which means it is one of the first languages on the earth.
There's many types of arabic but classical arabic can be understood by every division in the east.
Another guess is that the quran is easiet to memorise in arabic.

Most of the quran also doesn't make sense in english and there isnt a pronoun to describe Allah as genderless and non-plural in english.
So translators have to chop up the arabic language and produce trash in order for brainlets like yourself to comprehend it.

Also
>complaining about learning another language on a board dedicated to literature

Ancient scholars ended up creating schools and inviting knowledge with open arms. In fact they even welcomed the philosophies of aristotle and had translations of many different scientists so that they could understand the nature of God.

The arabic copy I own doesnt say that about jews, it's specifically towards a tribe.

Remember jews are the descendents of Isaac, therefore anybody who shares the bloodline is technically "jewish".

If Allah is omnipotent he could at least have made two original versions of the koran. One in Arabic, and the other in a normal language.

Pretty funny some people seriously believe in this Arabic supremacist drivel.

>Nahnu
>What is "we"

Just give up

You are lying

I speak Arabic and it says "the Jews say uzair is the son of Allah"

>Name important stuff mentioned in the gospel that the torah and quran don't mention.
Well I guess this Jesus guy was mentioned first in the gospels, not the quran. Also they have lots of neat parables, that's what makes the gospels more interesting than for example the ramblings of Paul.

It lite

ABRAHAMIC ONE OF THE FIRST LANGUAGES ON EARTH

It's fun to read because it's written in such an abrasive, fiery, arrogant style that an Arab had to write it lol

*Literally says jews

He was referring to one of the tribes/sects of the time before killing them off.

>Name important stuff mentioned in the gospel that the torah and quran don't mention.

Easy. Jesus lived in Palestine at the time of Pontius Pilate. When did Jesus live according to the Quran? Who knows. He may have been a contemporary of Mohammed or he may have lived centuries earlier. The only context the Quran gives us is that the Jews and the Romans wanted to crucify him at some point.

Sorry but all the scientific miracles have been dismissed thorougly, so much so, that one of the main proponents of the Quranic miracles, Hamza Tzortisis has publicly rejected the concept.

You’re free to the mental gymnasitcs necessary to interpret “leech-like” into a statement of embryonic development but the reality is that we had more detailed and accurate accounts of embryonic states from Galen’s studies.

We can make the same assertion of any translated work. How do you know Don Quixote isn’t a literary work above the Quran? Have you read the original Spanish?

...

No Jews believed that though.

>Remember jews are the descendents of Isaac, therefore anybody who shares the bloodline is technically "jewish

Well that’s just dishonest don’t you think? I could literally say “the Jews are atheists” and clearly there’s people of that bloodline that are atheist.

Surely God could be a bit more specific.

>Not much more than any other language and certainly not in a way that greatly changes its meaning.
I don't know Arabic and am not Muslim or a Muslim apologist, but I have to admit, if Idries Shah's interpretations are in any way right, Arabic can indeed do some very cool things which will be lost in translation and which not a lot of languages can do. For examples, just browsing leisurely through it, I can point you to page 11-14 (or page 20-21 of the pdf), page 124-129 (or pages 76-78 of the pdf), page 448 of the book (pg 238 of the pdf), pg 438 (pg 233 of pdf):

spiritual-teaching.org/rishi-sufi-teachings/ewExternalFiles/Idries Shah - The Sufis.pdf

If it looks daunting, you obviously don't need to carefully parse through all those passages if you don't want to. The important thing is that Arabic words are often based on triliteral roots, and words with the same roots often are meant to suggest each other/create a sort of underlying image behind all the words with the same triliteral root. Also, just Googling, you can find this much simpler, quicker explanation of it:

wahiduddin.net/words/arabic_glossary.htm

>This resembles a geospherical earth, which was proved in the year 1577.
bruh

In english Nahnu is the "royal we" when a king addresses the kingdom using "We" but he isn't referring plurally. That's the flaw with the english language vs plurally.

What was Jesus' main message? (aside from what Saul of Demascus had claimed)
How did Jesus pray when he went into hiding?
What is the first commandment?

Read the whole surah instead of a single part. It's obviously that Muhammad was talking about a specific tribe who had believed it. I'm pretty sure they're still around today but not common.

>Because since the time of Muhammad there has been multiple words in english constantly changed and added and the language which the quran was written is classical. Which means it is one of the first languages on the earth.
>Most of the quran also doesn't make sense in english and there isnt a pronoun to describe Allah as genderless and non-plural in english.

That's just simply incorrect. The word you're looking for is "It"; Was that so hard? I'm not sure what you're even getting across. Arab wasn't one of the "first language", and it clearly has changed as well, and you know that too. I'm being serious, here, friend. I just don't see how Quranic drivel can't be perfectly conveyed in any other tongue. All attempts to blame the translation are just odd, bordering on nonsensical. Moreover, even if there was a pronoun specifically for non-binary deities, how would that facilitate the transfer of anything.

Btw, ask people how translate engineering works into Arabic how they feel about the quality of Arabic.

and the royal we*

Good post.

>If you're not in submission to God then you're in submission to other worldly things like alcohol/money/Veeky Forums.
This was the point I agreed with the most.

No one in Islam is the 'son of God'

Gtfo here hadithfags

Fuckin newfags got nothing on Allah. My God of divine mathematics.

What do you think about the killing of apostates? How does that fit in with the commandments of Moses? How many times did Muhammad break the commandments, and did he have some sort of dispensation when breaking them?

>It
Not him, but his point makes sense, considering that "it" is often thought of as a demeaning or impersonal way to refer to something, not to a conscious entity. Calling God "it" would, whether we wanted it to or not, have a strange connotation in English.

>My God of divine mathematics.

You people keep saying this. What do you mean? Apart from vague things like the evenness of poetic lines.

Was Shakespeare a good too?

What's wrong with the royal we?

Youre full of shit.

I speak Arabic and nahnu is used normally to mean we. You are clearly overly influenced by Islamic preachers

God commanded Moses to kill many a Philistines, among other tribes. It's nothing new.

Remember, we believe it's the same God. This is a God who wants a RIGHTEOUS kingdom at all costs.

I can guarantee you he would order to kill for a divine, goodly kingdom. He would definitely not have approved of what Hitler did, for instance, and since both sides in the Crusades believed in him he most likely did not like that either, even though one side had a philosophical mistake.

Truly you must grasp how forgiving God is in order to understand the logic. He will order to kill if people prevent his kingdom from existing, but he will not order to kill if the people all believe in God steadfastly.

It was partially a joke. The only extant copy of Conics V through VII is in Arabic, because the Arabs loved On Conics. Ibn Al-Haytham even reconstructed book VIII.

To be honest though, I do believe in Allah. He is one God. But I believe God is good. And whenever I run across someone who believes in God, be him a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, I always find he enriches my mentality of life above that of any other atheist.

You dumb fuck. I quoted the exact verse of the quran where it claims jews think someone called uzair is the son of God.

No Jews ever believed that.

This is just furthering your ignorance on the arabic language. The nouns given to Allah in arabic are all noble.
That's why translators say "He" and use the royal "We" instead of "IT".

Sorry for the mistake on my end, the semitic languages are ancient.

Im not saying the quran can't be enjoyed in your mothertongue, but if you want to fully comprehend it then you would have to learn arabic.

That's why all prayers are recited in arabic, and all islamic schools are required to teach the Surahs by examining it in arabic instead of english.

We can't see numbers but we say they are an objective truth.
can't see muh Allah but he's muh objective truth.

Muslims don't whorship Muhammad like how Christians whorship Jesus.

If Muhammad had done something wrong then he would he recompensed for it in the grave.
Allah had created everybody imperfect and to make mistakes because he wanted us to go back to him.
Muhammad was perfect in sense of his circumstances, but it isn't up to muslims to say whether he was wholely good or bad because nobody is. Allah is most merciful because of it.

Idk where the hell you are but in palestine Nahn is we.

Arabic doesn't have a neuter pronoun "it's. All words are masculine or feminine so every pronoun is masculine or feminine

Allah is a masculine noun so masculine pronouns are used. Except he will refer to himself as we instead of I.

Maybe in your dog dialect but if you could even read or understand Arabic spoken properly nanhu is the correct term.

>We can't see numbers but we say they are an objective truth.
Muh Neoplatonist Muslim brethren!

Are you also white? We are the logical master race.

Nahnu*

Probably an artifact of semitic polytheism common among ancient hebrews and arabs.

Nahn is the correct term for we
Nahnu is the correct term for a noble we. Nahnu is what kings use to address themselves.
Which country are you from?

>there are actual Muslims on Veeky Forums
We truly have it all. Although I have yet to see a wicca.

You are wrong.

Nanhu is the correct term in standard and classical Arabic. Please find yourself a copy of babbys first nahw and learn the language you claim to speak.

Nahn is "we"

Why does the Prince of Saudi use the word Nanhu and then Nahn other times?

I have something for that too
youtube.com/watch?v=SUi8FbzJc28

Allah has no gender attached to him aside from in the english language.

>Read the whole surah instead of a single part. It's obviously that Muhammad was talking about a specific tribe who had believed it.

Lol keep deluding yourself. Are the Jews referenced here, the same Jews mentioned elsewhere in the Quran? Can you grammatically prove that the Jews here are a different tribe of Jew from those that tried to crucify Jesus? If not, that’s a big fuck up on Allah’s part.

Pro tip: you can’t

The whole section mentions Christians who whorship Jesus as a majority and a minority of Jews who said Ezra was the son of God.
Note that after it says
"that it is a SAYING imitating from their mouths"

The surah could have multiple different meanings. Ask an islamic scholar.

Literally that's the point of every religion ever existed, lol.

>muh ask an islamic scholar disbeliever
He can't.

>The whole section mentions Christians who whorship Jesus as a majority and a minority of Jews who said Ezra was the son of God.

9:30 “The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?”

Where are you getting the majority/minority qualifiers? It could have multiple meanings or it could have one. I’m not interested in ad-how bandain fixes to what the Quran claims to be “clear”.

The only thing that’s clear is the author’s shitty writing.

Ad-hoc band-aid fixes

>mfw my writing is just as shitty as Alllah’s

Okay? Shows that there is some objective truth out there huh?

Also, many religions do not have it as right as the monotheistic ones.

in a sense though, a lot of pagan religions are charming in that way. I always admired the people for whomst'd nature was everything, worldly desires were natural, and even their gods hung out in the same plane they did. it's really sweet.

Read this.
I understood it a lot better after reading this.
Some random things that I remember from it (mistakes due to me):
The earliest revelations tend to be toward the end of the book.
The chapters generally get shorter as you go on.
There is no overarching story, as in a lot of the Old or New Testament books; don't look for one.
Some passages are extremely poetic, including sound figures, allusions to other verses, allusions to older poetry, and passages that have never been translated satisfactorily into other languages.
Children learn the Quran often by memorizing these earliest revelations.
There are rules about how to recite the Quran.
There are Quran-reciting contests and people that are experts at reciting it.

I can't remember whether this story was in the book, or if I heard it from someone else: the writer was on a crowded bus in (I think) Cairo. Everyone was hot and annoyed. Someone put on a tape of a Quran recitation, and everyone became calmer and more peaceful.

>nature was everything
This is the way the Quran and Transcendentalist Christians approach God.

It is the best way to approach God's essence. Because, in a Rousseauian sense, man's meddling is what makes us deviate from God ultimately, even though civilization is a net good.

To which degree concepts of Nature are socially constructed, though?

>>hard-mode: put politics and the borrowed bible elements aside
That is hard, pretty much nothing remains

Exactly. They aren't. How could they be?

The concepts of civilization were created by man, there is inherently a certain amount of good or evil in these constructs because inherently good or bad effects can be felt through the introduction of said institutions or inventions into civilized life. Nature on the other hand, is without interference. If you are to learn a lesson from God, or receive a blessing from him, it would be in nature.

>If you are to learn a lesson from God, or receive a blessing from him, it would be in nature.
I just don't see which concepts we're supposed to use in order to separate nature from society for, if nature is the precondition of every experience, and society is in the sphere of human experience, it would follow that society is in nature. Therefore you still lack objective moral criteria.

Oh no, I don't lack objective moral criteria. I base my belief of objective morals in the divine orders given to society from God himself. The Ten Commandments, The Quran, etc.

If you want a good example of how to live your life well follow those.

I am talking about from an existentialist point of view. In order to empower and create and define your life, as you, you would need to interact and surround yourself with nature. After all, it is the bird who was the sign for Joseph in the prison. Not a man.

It is the Bush that was the sign for Moses. Not a man.

It is the Whale that was the sign for Jonah. Not a man.

It is the sky who let down torrents of rain to engulf the Earth.

Nature is God. If you pay attention, you can see him respond to things you think, say, and do in the wind, the weather, and the Sun.

Best english translation quran for historical and anthropological study?

Of course, I do follow the Word of God too. I was debating all the "nature is a teacher" rhetoric which is fundamentally logically flawed, and you haven't been able to bring up a sound counter-argument.
You say that the bush and the whale were signs. You see, I'm not a muslim, I'm a Christian. We do not have "signs", because we believe that God decided to become incarnate in the person of Christ. We do not follow dead signs. We follow a man, we follow a face, an actual teacher.

Just burn all the copies already.

Which is the flaw. You follow a face. That is inherently flawed from the very onset. How can you not see that worshiping any sort of material characteristics of individuals or reality is non-pure???

youtu.be/RO6ZNaWYwd4

It says Al yahood.

That means the Jews. Not a specific tribe. Just, the Jews.

Fuck off m8

You follow some illiterate goat herder who claimed to meet an angel in a cave who he thought at first was a demon.

In 2018 people still blindly believe this.