User talk:Nightmare140

Scientific Errors in the Qur'an

You can make edits here for responses to that article: Scientific Errors in the Qur'an (Response). --Axius (talk | contribs) 10:32, 14 May 2014 (PDT)

Quran 4:16

That was Yusuf Ali, a famous translator. See Tafsirs that I just added. The other Quran verses (and hadiths and everything else on that page, quotes from scholars) are clear in saying that homosexuality is wrong/forbidden/punishable, so Quran 4:16 is not saying something new. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:24, 29 May 2014 (PDT)

I didn't say homosexuality isn't wrong, but this verse doesn't include the word "men". It says "the two" so it doesn't specify if its between 2 men or between a man and woman And all people make mistakes, so it isn't weird if Yusuf Ali, based on a specific understanding of this verse, mistakenly added a word. By the way, do you have the tafsir in Arabic? I'd like to check it. --Nightmare140 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2014 (PDT)

What recognized translations say and what the scholars in the Tafsirs says overrides what you and I say. No I dont have the Arabic tafsirs but what I quoted are the authentic English versions of the Tafsirs. In the Tafsirs when they say "men" they mean "men" and that is true whether it is Arabic or english. One of the Tafsir explains why its wrong to interpret that as 'a man and a woman' and it is in fact 'two men'. (1) Did you see that explanation? When the Quran says "The two" it is talking about "two men" as the Tafsirs from two Islamic scholar explain.

(2) Why do you think this verse is saying something new that everything else on that page is not saying? Other Quranic verses and what hadiths say about a topic has to be considered to find out what the meanings are or what Islam says about a topic. --Axius (talk | contribs) 02:55, 30 May 2014 (PDT)

Additional translations for "two men" [1]

Ahmad Ali: If two (men) among you are guilty of such acts then punish both of them. But if they repent and reform, let them be, for God accepts repentance and is merciful.

Talal Itani: If two men among you commit it, punish them both. But if they repent and reform, leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Full of Mercy.

Wahihuddin Khan: If two men commit a like abomination, punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. God is forgiving and merciful.

--Axius (talk | contribs) 03:11, 30 May 2014 (PDT)

I found the Arabic versions of the tafsirs, and what I concluded is that most of the scholars (even the ones you mentioned) don't know certainly if it was meant for 2 men or a man and woman although some of them believe one of the meanings is more suitable than the other. For example, Tafsir Ibn Al-Jalalayn that you brought up talks about the 2 possibilities and then says that the 2nd possibility of the meaning being 2 men is more suitable because the pronoun used is for masculine. But I'll tell you that in Arabic if you want to refer to a group of people containing both men and women, you use the masculine pronoun, so it isn't a decisive clue that "2 men" is the meaning here. And I say again that the word "men" wasn't mentioned even once in this verse, so if someone, while translating, understands it from the meaning and it's not written, he should write it within parentheses (if he's sure) like what Ahmad Ali did. As for Tafsir Ibn-Kathir, he put up 3 possibilities of what the meaning would be, one of which means 2 men. The other tafsirs are mostly the same as these 2.--Nightmare140 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2014 (PDT)

This just proves again how false the Quran is when it makes the claim of being in detail and that "Nothing have we omitted from the Book". A lot has been omitted from the book and a lot is unclear and could have been written in a more clear way. [2]

So indeed:

Tafsir Ibn Al-Jalalayn that you brought up talks about the 2 possibilities and then says that the 2nd possibility of the meaning being 2 men is more suitable

It is two men. As for your analysis, again what the two Tafsirs say overrides what you say. "Two men" may not have been mentioned but as the Tafsir says its most likely two men that the Quran is referring to.

What do you think of the reasoning made in the first Tafsir quote?:

but this [opinion of his] may be countered by the fact that [the reference to] the two [men] becomes clear on account of the particle min being attached to a masculine pronoun [minkum, ‘of you’], and by the fact that they suffer the same punishment, [both effect the action of] repentance and [are both granted] that they be left alone [thereafter], [all of] which applies specifically to men, given that for women detention is stipulated, as was stated before.

Once again I ask you for the 3rd time: Do you think the "two men" version of 4:16 goes against what has been said about the topic in other locations? That is all quoted on that page and this includes verses. The topic of the people of Lut is mentioned in many places on that page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:25, 30 May 2014 (PDT)

No I don't. The point I'm talking about is if "this" and only this verse is talking about 2 men or not, not if the whole thing about homosexuality is true or not. You're saying the Qur'an isn't as clear and detailed as it claims to be. Hell, if you want it to be clearer and more detailed than that, do you want a 20000-page book that no one can read? God claims the Qur'an is clear and detailed, and indeed it is. He doesn't say each and every verse has an independent meaning that could be clearly understood while standing alone, but the Qur'an as a whole stands tall, with each verse clarifying the other ones if necessary. Now, if people can understand a verse, then there's no need to clarify it with other verses, making a 603-page book even bigger. Now, as you can read from Tafsirs, we can infer from other verses and Hadiths the punishments of adultery or homosexuality and apply it here to understand the meaning clearly. So even if you still don't know the partial meaning of the verse (if it's 2 or 2 men), you clearly and fully understand the complete meaning of the subject in hand, so what do you want more? Anyway, let's continue, you again quoted the Grammatical reasoning that was made to prove it, which I already talked about in the last edit. --Nightmare140 (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2014 (PDT)

We just quote authentic, recognized translations and in addition if they are supported by Tafsirs of of well-renowned Islamic scholars, that is more than what needs to be done. If you have a problem with the sources, you can start contacting Islamic scholars around the world and get them to invalidate Yusuf Ali's translation and the two Tafsirs (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn and Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

I like these kinds of discussions as they result in further improvement of our site. In this case I found out additional Tafsirs should be present on the page.

In regards to your comments about Quran getting long if additional detail was added, no it would not. Ideally Quran should not be repetitive and for example contain the same statement 31 times ("So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?"). 30 of these verses should have been deleted from the Quran and the same words could have been used to fill out many details or perhaps include amazing miraculous verses which would attempt to prove the 'divine' origin of the Quran. In the case of 4:16, it would take only one arabic word to clarify the meaning of this important verse. Mistakes like these further prove the non-divine origin of the Quran. But such debates are for the FFI forum which you can visit.

Any other issues relating to this article or comments that could result in the improvement of the page? --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (PDT)