Salam,
I was reading translation of Soorah Yousif, verse 4, and one thing confused me, don’t u think KOKAB means planet ? why do we say 11 stars when it says 11 planets ?
I am confused help me out.
Dear Garam Masale
This is “Religion” section, Pose your question in Astronomy section. Why do People think that Religion has answer to every question in the world (or the Universe in this instance)?
Welcome to Gupshup.
NYAhmadi,
You are getting cocky since you were voted best debator and most knowledgeable! :)
Zara
Dear Zara,
That was my way of welcoming a New member.
I don’t consider myself to be the best debater or knowledgeable. There are people on this forum that know a lot more than I can ever know. My specialty is annoying and irritating people (luckily there is no category for that).
I know, I was just teasing you! Don't take me wrong! I enjoy your irritating posts, and one of your biggest fans.
Zara
[quote]
Originally posted by zaraatif:
one of your biggest fans.
Zara
[/quote]
Millat Fan?
anyways, this Kokab issue is the first that I have heard. Is'nt Kokab used to describe stars only? or is it used for heavenly bodies (stars and planets) that shine whether it is due to their own light or just as a reflection of light from a primary source?
I dont know the answer, but that came to my mind. Anyone know the answer?
Well, I think that the use of Kokab is not meant to be taken literally. It's more metaphorical and it that sense anything reflecting light (whether a planet or a star) can be termed as Kokab, just as what NYAhmadi said.
NYAhmadi, would I need a big telescope to find the Astronomy section on Gupshup? My regular 19" won't do?
Ohhh come on guys...
Isn't there anyone who knows what KOKAB means ???
I am confused and so are u guys. So ASK SOME BARAY BUZURK log what KOKAB means. I can't find anyone here cause there is no one here who can give me a help like that.
Garam masala,
I have a concordance of the Quran, by Hanna E. Kassis, and it translates "kawkab" (that's the way they spell it) as "a star." It translates that particular verse as "I saw eleven stars, and the sun and the moon."
Concordances are pretty neat, because they take each word, tell it's root and meaning, and then mention all the times in the Quran when it appears and give a translation. It's good to look at one if you are arguing a particular point about a verse, but you don't know Arabic.
Zara
[quote]
Originally posted by garam_masale:
*Salam,
don't u think KOKAB means planet ?
*
[/quote]
Kaukab means 'star' in arabic
Star is also known as shahaab.
Planet is 'sayyara'
[quote]
Originally posted by garam_masale:
Salam,
I was reading translation of Soorah Yousif, verse 4, and one thing confused me, don't u think KOKAB means planet ? why do we say 11 stars when it says 11 planets ?
I am confused help me out.
[/quote]
i
Hi GM :)
Here are three translations of 12:4 of Noble Quran, in response of your question.
012.004
YUSUFALI: Behold! Joseph said to his father: "O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to me!"
PICKTHAL: When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.
SHAKIR: When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! surely I saw eleven stars and the sun and the moon-- I saw them making obeisance to me.
Now we must keep this in mind that what we are reading is an English translation of Noble Quran. In order to have clear and accurate understanding one must posess appropriate knowledge of Arabic the language of Noble Quran. Please keep that in mind that Arabic is 8 (eight) times more complexed than English. But you can clearly see that Marmaduke Pickthall (a convert Muslim and true servant of Islaam) has used the word PLANET, so one translation and/or a different choice of word does not constitues an error. I hope I was able to shine some light.
Peace :)
THE REAL PROBLEM OF CULT OF CHRISTIANITY
JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER?
Dear Christian:
You ask me to accept Jesus as my personal Savior; yet his behavior and
teachings often expose one who should be escaped, not sought. I ask
only that you read what follows in the spirit of open-mindedness taught
in Prov. 15:10 NIV ("he who hates correction will die") and Prov. 12:1
NASB ("he who hates reproof is stupid") because I seek to "Prove all
things" (1 Thess. 5:21).
While on the Cross Jesus said, "My God my God, why hast thou forsaken
me" (Mark 15:34). How couid Jesus be our savior when he couldn't even
save himself? Those aren't the words of a man voluntarily dying for our
sins; those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred other
places he would rather be.Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of
hell fire" (Matt. 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matt.
23:17, 19 and Luke 11:40 and 12:20 show. Shoulgn't he be in danger of
hell too?Except those of biased Christian writers, there isn't one writing
outside the Bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus
of Nazareth.Isn't Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40
that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the
whale three days and three nights? Friday afternoon to early Sunday
morning is only one and a half days.Jesus' prophecy in John 13:38 (“The cock shall not crow, till thou
[Peter] hast denied me three times”) is false. Mark 14:66-68 shows the
cock crowed after the first denial, not the third.How could Jesus be our model of sinless perfection when he denies he
is morally perfect in Matt. 19:17 ("And Jesus said unto him, Why callest
thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God")?In 1 Cor. 1: 1 7 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to
preach the gospel”) Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matt.
28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them....” So
how could Jesus be the fountain of wisdom?How could Jesus, whom the New Testament repeatedly refers to as the
son of man, be our savior when this is clearly forestalled by Psalm
146:3 ("Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom
there is no help") and Job 25:6 ("How much less man, that is a worm? and
the son of man, which is a worm")?How can Jesus be God when he repeatedly said he was not God's equal,
wasn't God? Obvious examples are: John 14:28 (“...for my Father is
greater than I”), John 20:17 ("I ascend unto my Father, and your Father,
and to my God, and your God"), and John 7:16 ("My doctrine is not mine
but his that sent me").While on the Cross Jesus said, "Forgive them Father they know not
what they do.” To whom was he speaking? They say, "God.” But I
thought he was God. How can God speak to God if there is only one god?
That's two gods.Jesus told us to "honor thy father and mother” (Matt. 15:4), but
contradicted his own teaching in Luke 14:26 ("If any man comes to me and
does not hate his father and mother ... he cannot be my disciple").In John 3:13 ("And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, even the Son of man...) Jesus erred because 2
Kings 2:11 (“. . . and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") shows
Elijah went up earlier.In Matt. 16:28 Jesus said, “There be some standing here, which shall
not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his
kingdom." Yet, they all died and he never came.Jesus told us to "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you,” but
ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matt.
23:17 ('Ye fools and blind"), Matt. 12:34 ("O generation of vipers"),
and Matt. 23:27 (". . . hypocrites ... ye are like unto whited
sepulchres...”) are excellent examples of hypocrisy.Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his
comment in Matt. 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword")
contradicts verses such as Matt. 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his
place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword").The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom. 1:3, Acts
2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies
in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who
was not his natural father (the Virgin Birth)?Jesus told a man in Mark 8:34 that "whosoever will come after me,
let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." The obvious
question is: What cross? He hadn't yet died on the cross. There was
nothing to take up. That man would have had no idea what he was talking
about.In Mark 10:19 Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments. Yet one
of those listed by Jesus was "defraud not," which isn't even an Old
Testament commandment.In Luke 12:4 Jesus told his followers to "Be not afraid of them that
kill the body." But Matt. 12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54,
and Mark 1:45 show that he hid, escaped, and slunk around often.In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “Today shalt
thou be with me in paradise." But how could they have been together in
paradise that day if Jesus lay in the tomb for three days?For Jesus to be executed for our sins makes about as much sense as
my son telling a judge that he would accept execution for my crimes.
Although a nice gesture, it has nothing to do with justice. What judge
worthy of the title would agree?Lastly, in Matt. 15:24 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel," but later told his followers to "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations" (Matt 28:19). To whom, then, are they
to go--only to the Jews, or everyone?
These examples expose only a few of the many reasons I can't accept
Jesus as a Savior.
NOTE: THE ABOVE IS FROM BIBLICAL POINT OF VIEW AND TO REFUTE CHRISTIANITY AND CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY, THEY ARE VERY ACTIVE IN PAKISTAN TO DECEIVE MUSLIMS INTO CHRISTIANITY. ALL MATERIAL IS FROM BIBLE ITSELF.
Bubble Buster
"The true EVIL lies in IGNORANCE, not in suspicion."
[This message has been edited by Bubble Buster (edited March 26, 2000).]
How do you know they are called "planets" and not "Stars" dont mean to be rude but dont you think thats kinda unconfused and stupid question that you are asking...maybe some defect with translation or something...quran is what it is...translation can be wrong...let me take a look what your are talking about anyways laterz
Jaawan
Till next time**Keep_It_Simple_Stupid**©
RANI, HERE IS SOME MORE JUICY POOP :)
Going Out and Education in Hinduism
Women and Sudras were declared to be unfit for study of the Vedas:
" And as women, Sudras and the inferior members of the twice-borne classes were unfitted for hearing the Veda, and were infatuated in desiring the blessings, arising from the ceremonies, the muni, with a vision to their felicity, in his kindness composed the narrative called the Mahabharata."
-- [Bhag.Pur. I.4.25 ] Muir III,p.42 ]
Also Madhava Acharya stated that " they [women and Sudras] are debarred ... from being competent students of the Veda" [Vedarthaprakasha of Madhava Acharyya on the Taittriya Yajur Veda, quoted in Muir III, p.66]
Divorce was not permitted. And No Remarriage **
Even if the wife ran away from the harsh husband, she could never get remarried.
**Sati (Widow-Burning
The Aryans, upon their invasion of India ca. 1500 B.C. introduced the horrific custom of Sati, i.e. the burning of a woman after the death of her husband. When performed singly it is referred to as Sati, when performed en masse by all the women and daughters of a town in anticipation of their widowhood (e.g. when the men were to fight a battle against all odds), it is known as jauhar. It is sanctioned by their most sacred texts, and was practiced from the fall of the Semito-Dravidian Indus Valley civilization to the modern age.
Scriptural Sanction
The most sacred of Aryan scriptures are the Vedas, and the Rig-Veda, the oldest Veda, first mentions the custom of Sati. The following famous `Sati Hymn' of the Rig-Veda was (and still is) recited during the actual immolation of the widow [Kane 199-200]: -
" Let these women, whose husbands are worthy and are living, enter the house with ghee (applied) as corrylium (to their eyes). Let these wives first step into the pyre, tearless without any affliction and well adorned."
-- [Rig Veda X.18.7] [Kane 199-200]
In recent times some Aryan apologists have arisen who try to prove that this verse does not sanction Sati. This concept arises from a mistaken reading of the word agne or agneh, which they believe is agre. This is a wrong interpretation, and other evidence exists that the Aryans definitely practiced Sati from the earliest times. They distorted this verse which directs the widow to enter the pyre (agneh) so as to mean that the wife was to rise from her pyre and go to the front (agre). In addition to these examples, ancient
Aryan scripture encourages Sati. The Garudapurana favorably mentions the immolation of a widow on the funeral pyre, and states that women of all castes, even the Candalla woman, must perform Sati. The only exceptions allowed by this benevolent author is for pregnant women or those who have young children. If women do not perform Sati, then they will be reborn into the lowly body of a woman again and again till they perform Sati.
[Garudapurana II.4.91-100] [Kane 237] According to Vasishta's Padma-Purana, a woman must, on the death of her husband, allow herself to be burnt alive on the same funeral pyre [Abbe DuBois 345]. The Vishnusmirti gives two choices for the widow:
"If a woman's husband dies, let her lead a life of chastity, or else mount his pyre"
Vishnusmrti xxv.14 ] Clayton 13 ]
Brahma is one of the main Aryan gods, being the creator of the world ( later he was identified as an incarnation of Vishnu ). One of the Puranas is named after him, the Brahma Purana. Like other Puranas, it was composed after the Vedas ( Pandits hold 4000 B.C., Indologists 700 B.C.) This scripture also sanctions sati:
" It is the highest duty of the woman to immolate herself after her husband ",
Br.P. 80.75 ] Sheth 103 ]
Once again we hear that sati is sanctioned by the Vedas:
" ..is enjoined by the Vedas ",
Br.P. 80.75 ] Sheth 103 ] and is " greatly reputed in all the worlds "
Br.P. 80.75 ] Sheth 103 ]
Long life is promised to the Sati:
" She [the Sati] lives with her husband in heaven for as many years as there are pores in the human body, i.e. for 35 million years. " -- [Bor. 80.76, 80.77] [Sheath 103]
Vishnu Dharmasutra XXV.14 contains the statement:
On her husband's death, the widow should observe celibacy or should ascend the funeral pyre after him.
Several other scriptures sanction widow burning. Some of these are as given below [Wilkins]:
"It is proper for a woman, after her husband's death to burn herself in the fire with his copse; every woman who thus burns herself shall remain in paradise with her husband 35,000,000 years by destiny."
"The wife who commits herself to famous with her husband's copse shall equal Arundathi and reside in Swarga (heaven)."
"Accompanying her husband, she shall reside so long in Swarga as the 35,000,000 of hairs on the human body.
"As the snake-catcher forcibly drags the serpent from his earth, so bearing her husband [from hell] with him she enjoys heavenly bliss."
"Dying with her husband, she sanctifies her maternal and paternal ancestors and the ancestors of him to whom she gave her virginity."
"Such a wife adorning her husband, in celestial felicity with him, greatest and most admired, shall enjoy the delights of heaven while fourteen Indras reign."
"Though a husband had killed a Brahman, broken the ties of gratitude, or murdered a friend she expiates the crime." Wilkins ]
Thus, it is evident that the Aryans introduced the custom for Sati since it is encouraged in their scriptures and many goddesses performed the act.
[This message has been edited by Irrefragable (edited March 26, 2000).]
Point is that system is ot rigid and fossilized like Islam where words are treated as words from god in which no change is made.
I am a brahmin and my relatives have married across caste and even across religion and nobody is burning them alive or gone for karo-kari. An untouchable caste person is president of India.
Hiduism is not static. Nor is Hindu society. In medieveal times women were under veil. But in Vedic times, some of parts of vedas are written by women. And you can definitely witness the freedom that Indian and Hindu women have in modern times.