Miracles of the Quran.com

[Abu Zakariya]

mansio

I never claimed that I have knowledge in the arabic language.

However, my point was that someone that doesn't have knowledge of the arabic language shouldn't analyze an arabic scripture. You clearly don't agree, since you went ahead and did it just now, commenting on the verses in sura at-Taariq.
I didn't analyze the verses, rather I went to the experts on arabic as well as Koranic exegesis to get clarity instead of trying to analyze it by myself despite being ignorant of arabic. This can't be said for some other LI-members.

Wrong. I responded to that, but not according to what you expected.
"What a ridiculous explanation" was my response.

Great response there! Top notch refutation. Where did you learn to produce such in-depth analyzing arguments?

How is it possible to imagine for one second that the "sulb" and the "tara'ib" belong to TWO different persons ! Muslim scholars must really have been embarrassed by that sentence to find such a way out.

This isn't a far-fetched explanation made by muslim scholars as you try to make it seem, rather, this is how the verse is understood in arabic.

If that were true, God could have written "issueing from between man's loins and woman's ribs".

Why do that when it is already understood to mean that?

Even written like that the sentence would not make sense because of the words "from between". Semen would come from a place situated somewhere between the loins of a man and the ribs of a woman. How is that possible ? Would it float in mid air between the two persons ?

Again, tar'aib doesn't have to refer to the ribs. It is an ambigous term that could refer to any female body part.

The "tarâ'ib" (plural of tarîbat) are the chest, or the area between the breasts and the shoulder blades, or the ribs, or the breasts, or the area from the lower neck to the chin. That is how all translators understood it.
It may be that one sense of tarâ'ib is abdomen of a woman. The sentence then could have made some beginning of sense if it were written "issueing from the loins and woman's tarâ'ib" without "bayni".

Okay.
Could you please analyze the words in the verses and explain what they mean so that we can get clarity?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Mansio,

I never compared Hinduism with Islam. I compared the idea of Big Bang and Big Crunch that one of your link writers claimed to find in the Quran with a similar idea in Hinduism.
As soon as I manage to find the pages from Hindu scriptures about the cosmic egg Brahmânda with its seven heavenly levels I'll post them for you.

Oh, don't worry, there's no need for you to hunt for the verses, I already have the verses about the hindu cosmic egg which refute your claim that it is similar to the Qur'an! Here are the verses:

Chandogya Upanisad 3.19:1-4. In the beginning this world was simply what is non-existing; and what is existing was that. It then developed and formed into an egg. It lay there for a full year and then it hatched, splitting in two, one half becoming silver and the other half gold. The silver half is this earth, while the golden half is the sky. The outer membrane is the mountains, the inner membrane, the clouds and the mist; the veins, the rivers; and the amniotic fluid, the ocean. Now, the hatchling that was born was the sun up there. And as it was being born, cries of joy and loud cheers rose up in celebration, as did all beings and all desires. Therefore, every time the sun rises and every time it returns, cries of joy and loud cheers rise up in celebration, as do all beings and all their hopes. When someone knows this and venerates brahman as the sun, he can certainly expect that the pleasing sound of cheering will reach his ears and delight him. (SOURCE).

Also read these hindu verses which utterly destroy your claim that hindu creation beliefs match those of Islam!!

Wrong. I responded to that, but not according to what you expected.
"What a ridiculous explanation" was my response.

You're right I didn't consider that an intelligent response at all! Calling my explanation ridiculous does not in any way refute it!

How is it possible to imagine for one second that the "sulb" and the "tara'ib" belong to TWO different persons !

The sulb refers to the loins of the man while the tara'ib refers to the abdomen of the woman. Thus, the adequate english translation would be: emanating from between the [man's] loins and the [woman's] abdomen.
Muhammad Asad has translated this correctly.

Muslim scholars must really have been embarrassed by that sentence to find such a way out.

Please tell me, mansio, why Ibn Kathir, who died in the year 1372 CE, be embarassed by this passage? Why would he, and all other commentators like Ibn Jarir At-Tabari (d. 923CE) give such an explanation?

Furthermore, why is it narrated from Ibn Abbas! Why would a companion of the Prophet be embarassed by such a passage that he would need to redefine the words?!

Why would Al-Fayruzabadi (d. 818 CE) redefine the arabic language in his famous Al-Qamûs, just for this verse?!

If that were true, God could have written "issueing from between man's loins and woman's ribs".

If the word sulb is known to refer to a man, and the word taraib is known to refer to a woman, why would God have to write that?

It's like saying that a book that says sperm comes from the testes and the egg comes from the ovaries, should specify that it is the man's testes and the woman's ovaries!!

Even written like that the sentence would not make sense because of the words "from between". Semen would come from a place situated somewhere between the loins of a man and the ribs of a woman. How is that possible ? Would it float in mid air between the two persons ?

No, it goes from the man's loins to the woman's abdomen.

It may be that one sense of tarâ'ib is abdomen of a woman. The sentence then could have made some beginning of sense if it were written "issueing from the loins and woman's tarâ'ib" without "bayni".

Why? It makes perfect sense the way it is! The fluid emanates from between the man's loins and the woman's abdomen.

It seems quite clear that your desperate attempts to refute this linguistic fact are futile.

Regards

 

[mansio]

Here is the list of the bunch of idiots who have not heard of Ibn Kathir, Fairuzabadi and Tabari's explanations that the tarâ'ib are the abdomen of woman and not the thorax of man and woman.

--- Dr. Bucaille: He belongs to the very few translators who state that tara'ib in the Quran refers to the abdomen of woman.
He hesitated a long time (why ?) before he found the "right" translation. And you know where he got it from ? From a fellow French doctor, A.K. Giraud, a former professor at the Medecine School of Beyrouth (Lebanon was a French protectorate at the time).

--- Abdullah Yusufali: translates tara'ib as ribs. He is a Muslim.

--- Marmaduke Pickthal (a Muslim): ribs

--- M.H. Shakir (a Muslim): ribs

--- AJ Arberry: breast-bones

--- Ahmadiyya (Muslim): ribs (in German)

--- MA Rassoul (Muslim): ribs (in German)

--- Al-Azhar Institute Cairo: ribs (in German)

--- Zaidan (Muslim): ribs (in German)

--- Khoury (Muslim): ribs (in German)

--- Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: ribs (in French)

--- D. Masson (translation accepted by Al-Azhar Institute): ribs (in French)

The Greek and the Bible believed that semen comes from the kidneys area. The place pointed out by the Quran, between the thorax and the abdomen, is the kidneys area.

 

[sumay28]

may allah guide you.....

 

[mansio]

Sumay

Thank you for your wish.
You have not answered yet my two questions about Adam.
This forum is in English. I notice that you use the Arabic word Allah and not its English translation God. Do you make a difference between the two words ?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Mansio,

Here is the list of the bunch of idiots who have not heard of Ibn Kathir, Fairuzabadi and Tabari's explanations that the tarâ'ib are the abdomen of woman and not the thorax of man and woman.

First of all, even if that were true - what does it prove? Nothing. Does it refute my explanation? Absolutely not. Even if you had a list of translators twice as long, it still would not refute my explanation.

Secondly, many of the translators you cite are not considered authorities on the Islamic religion. Dr. Bucaille, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall - none of them are Muslim scholars nor did they even have a formal education in Islam. There are numerous other errors in their works that have already been noted, this would just be one more added to the list (even though it is not really an error as I will point out later). You also mention sectarian translators who are Ahmadi or Shia etc. and are also not regarded as authorties. And a number of your translations are from Arabic to German to English or Arabic to French to English, thus more meaning is lost and we lose the direct translation.

Thirdly, there are many other translators I can list for you who show that they did understand this concept. And even those who translated it in the way you listed does not mean that they didn't understand this. For example, if we consult the translation of George Sale (d. 1736), the well-known orientalist, translates this verse as:

issuing from the loins, and the breastbones.​

This is very similar to the translations you gave, but does it mean that Mr. Sale did not understand that taraîb refers to the woman? No, it does not because he includes the following footnote:

h i.e., From the loins of the man, and the breast-bones of the woman.1​

So even though he knew that the sulb referred to the man and the taraîb refers to the woman, he still did not see any reason why this must be explicitly included in the translation of the verse itself.

So even the translations you cited do NOT contradict the explanation given by Qur'anic commentators like Ibn Kathir or Ibn Jarir. So long as it is understood that the loins refers to the man and the ribs, thorax, or breastbones refers to the woman, there is nothing specifically wrong with the translation. Of course they could have made it clearer as Muhammad Asad did, but they didn't see it as necessary. Even the english translation of Ibn Kathir just has the word 'ribs' despite the fact that it is followed by Ibn Kathir's explanation of this specific word! So this does not mean that these translators were stupid or ignorant of these explanations, but for whatever reason they found their translation sufficient.

Fourthly, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, this is not the only way of explaining these verses. Dr. Naik uses the medical explanation of the descending of the reproductive organs during embryological development, and Moiz Amjad prefers the explanation that it is a euphemistic reference to the reproductive organ. Neither of these explanations are necessarily wrong either, but it goes to prove that no matter which way you want to analyze the verse it does not constitute an error.

The Greek and the Bible believed that semen comes from the kidneys area.

They can believe it comes out of their nose for all I care. It has nothing to do with the Qur'an. Besides, your comment about the Bible is not true. Where in the Bible does it say such a thing?

The place pointed out by the Quran, between the thorax and the abdomen, is the kidneys area.

I just gave you the explanation of sulb and taraîb and you still make such ignorant comments!

Regards

 

[mansio]

Ansar al Adl

If you want to go through Hindu scriptures instead of relying on scholars, you still have thousands of pages to go through. The scriptures that deal with the cosmic egg are the Brahmânda Purana (several volumes).

I checked with two Arabic dictionaries at the university bookstore. Tarîbat is the chest, or the upper part of the chest. Nowhere is it mentioned that it is the chest of woman (except of course when it refers to the breasts), and it has nothing to do with the lower part of the body. It relates only to the part between the waist and the chin.
The plural tarâ'ib are the ribs.

Your quote: "So long as it is understood that the loins refers to the man and the ribs, thorax, or breastbones refers to the woman, there is nothing specifically wrong with the translation."

In your before last post you stated three times that tarâ'ib refers to the abdomen of woman. Now you settle for the thorax of woman.
Let's suppose the tarâ'ib are only the ribs of woman. The verse would be nonsensical: what connection is there between reproduction and woman's ribs ?

I was expecting your criticism of the different translators. When there is something wrong in the Quran it is always the translator's fault.
I didn't mention all the non-Muslim translators (except one), so that you could not put forward the argument that they may have an anti-Islam bias.
You are strangely mute about the Al-Azhar and Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs sponsored translations.
Do you think they are not considered authorities on the Islamic religion ?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

If you want to go through Hindu scriptures instead of relying on scholars, you still have thousands of pages to go through. The scriptures that deal with the cosmic egg are the Brahmânda Purana (several volumes).

I don't need to go through any scriptures, I've already debunked that point of yours with the quote from Chandogya Upanisad 3.19:1-4. Scroll back to read it.

I checked with two Arabic dictionaries at the university bookstore. Tarîbat is the chest, or the upper part of the chest. Nowhere is it mentioned that it is the chest of woman (except of course when it refers to the breasts), and it has nothing to do with the lower part of the body. It relates only to the part between the waist and the chin. The plural tarâ'ib are the ribs.

This is a poor attempt to refute the linguistic explanation I provided. First, I quoted a nummber of classical tafasir and linguists who all confirmed this definition of the word. So even if your references were correct (and you haven't mentioned any of them) it still doesn't refute anything I mentioned because my references demonstrate clearly that a wide majority of arabs understood it to refer to the woman. So even if it has acquired the new meaning of just 'ribs' it still would not negate the already existing meaning that it had before.

Your quote: "So long as it is understood that the loins refers to the man and the ribs, thorax, or breastbones refers to the woman, there is nothing specifically wrong with the translation."

In your before last post you stated three times that tarâ'ib refers to the abdomen of woman. Now you settle for the thorax of woman.

No, I maintain the same position I always have. But I am stressing that even if you translate the tarâ'ib as a reference to the thorax it still does not negate the explanation provided. There is only one thing that is significant in supporting the explanation: the tarâ'ib refers to the woman's body. So the verse states that man is created from a fluid issuing forth between the man's loins and the woman's body.

And as I already quoted earlier about the term tarâ'ib:

It can apply to any region nearing the ribcage. Therefore, the area of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, or the uterus can easily fit into the general area that is being indicated by these verses.​

So, yes, 'ribs' is a translation of the term that is in concordance with science.

I was expecting your criticism of the different translators. When there is something wrong in the Quran it is always the translator's fault.

No, when there is a mistranslation we do not attribute that mistake to the Qur'an but to the translator.

I didn't mention all the non-Muslim translators (except one), so that you could not put forward the argument that they may have an anti-Islam bias.

But you quoted several sectarian translators so it nullified your argument either way.

You are strangely mute about the Al-Azhar and Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs sponsored translations.

No, I already responded to that in my comment about the translations when I used George Sale as an example. Sale translated the verses the same way although he understood them in the manner that I explained. The same is true for Saudi translators like Muhsin Khan and Taqiuddin Hilali.

Again, a futile attempt to attack my explanations. And just think about this: this is only one explanation - what if we consider the fact that there are the two other explanations that are also sufficient on their own, to refute the allegation. No matter what way you look at this, there is simply no way for the skeptic to establish that the Qur'an has an error.

 

[akulion]

well mansoi i think u are being unfair

ur allegations were refuted so u are reverting to calling scholars as "idiots"

however IRRESPECTIVE of that hindu scriptures say I reject them whole heartedly because at the end of the day this is what they are telling me to worship....


Meet one of the hindu Gods

Hanuman

:rollseyes :giggling:

 

[mansio]

Ansar al Adl

You really say nonsensical things. Do you try to make believe that the Arab scholars who write dictionaries do not know and do not use your classical tafsirs and linguists ?
Besides they certainly are Muslims. They want first and foremost their books to be bought by Muslims, as Muslims form the majority of Arabic speaking people.
Dictionary writers are educated people who know the controversies about the Quran. If tarâ'ib would have meant abdomen, of course they would have mentioned it !
Suppose tarâ'ib means abdomen of woman. You never denied that it means thorax too. According to your saying tarâ'ib means any part of the body between the chin and the pubes. So tarâ'ib becomes synonymous with body without the limbs and the head, which is called the trunk.

[QUOTE: It can apply to any region nearing the ribcage. Therefore, the area of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, or the uterus can easily fit into the general area that is being indicated by these verses.]

Are we being scientific or not! The ribcage belongs to the thorax and the reproductive organs of the woman to the abdomen. I have seen a number of ovariectomies in operation rooms where I have spent my last thirty years as an attendant.
The thighs are not far away from the ovaries so tarâ'ib could also apply to them.

Why do you mention "sectarian" translators ? Because they are not Muslims and translate tarâ'ib as a Christian translator is supposed to wrongly translate it ?

You will never make me believe that Al-Azhar and the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs know nothing of tafsirs and submit to Western scholars' opinions. Or is it another example of conspiracy ?

 

[mansio]

Akulion

It was not actually me that was calling scholars "idiots".
The "I am right all the others are wrong" attitude amounted to consider the work of dozens of Arabic proficient scholars as the work of "idiots".
Only "idiotic" Muslims scholars do not mention a translation countering "missionary" attacks against the Quran.

 

[akulion]

ur doing it again

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

You really say nonsensical things.

My friend, I have provided you with three different refutations of you allegation and have been quoting authentic sources from the start. It is you who is incapable of admiting defeat, no matter how manifest it may be.

I already pointed out to you that no matter which way you translate tarâ'ib it doesn't make a difference! The bottom line is that the verse says that man is created from fluid issuing from between the man and the woman! Finished. There can be no error in such an understanding. Whether you want to translate tara'ib as pelvic arch, as Muhammad Asad does, or whether you want to translate it as thorax, abdomen, whatever, it makes no difference. Let's use the definition you gave yourself:

It relates only to the part between the waist and the chin.

I agree! This part easily includes the reproductive system!

Why do you mention "sectarian" translators ? Because they are not Muslims and translate tarâ'ib as a Christian translator is supposed to wrongly translate it ?

By 'sectarian' they are not regarded as authorities on the language.

You will never make me believe that Al-Azhar and the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs know nothing of tafsirs and submit to Western scholars' opinions. Or is it another example of conspiracy ?

I never said that they didn't know about the tafsir. In fact, I specifically said that they DID know about the tafsir. THIS PROVES THAT YOU ARE NOT EVEN READING MY POSTS! TALK ABOUT NARROW-MINDED!

It is very clear that you have been refuted here with three different explanations and you are simply incapable of admitting your defeat. You are only interested in listening to your own ideas, however blatantly false they may be.

 

[mansio]

Ansar al Adl

Reproductive organs in humans are BELOW the waist.

"My" ideas are also the ideas of most Quran translators.

You have not answered why Al-Azhar and the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, despite knowing the tafsirs, translate tarâ'ib according to what you call "my" idea and not according to your idea.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Ansar al Adl

Reproductive organs in humans are BELOW the waist.

Have you never seen such a diagram?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Female_anatomy_frontal.png

The waist area clearly includes the reproductive organs, thus a part of tarâ'ib.

"My" ideas are also the ideas of most Quran translators.

A meaningless statement that does not refute any of my three explanations.

You have not answered why Al-Azhar and the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, despite knowing the tafsirs, translate tarâ'ib according to what you call "my" idea and not according to your idea.

Yes, I did answer that. For the third time, read what I wrote about George Sale and his translation plus his footnote.

 

[Khaldun]

Mansio are you arab? what knowledge do you have about Islam? Have you memorised the Quran? Studied the hadith etc? Just curious.