I’ve been reading the Quran’s translations and I have a few questions.
Question 1.
Why is there so much repetition? Thematically there isnt much variation across a lot of the surahs (i am at the Confederates right now, 2/3rds through), much mention of the same tribes of the past and selected prophets repeatedly. Is there a reason for this, and is the repetition effect less in Arabic?
when I first read the translation I came out with the same feeling.. like.... hmmmm.. is that it? I mean is that all my religion is about? bunch of stories repeated over and over again and loads of admonishing and threats? Is that ALL this Big Book, almost worshipped by all of us, has in it?
But then Allah did show me the correct path and only when I stumbled upon more accurate translations did I really 'get' the Message of the Qur'an.. That's when i found that I was reading a whole mess of nonsense called translation by some Maulana bin falana..
Do yourself a favor.. spend some money on a good Lexicon and Arabic dictionaries and then dive into the Qur'an yourself.. I can promise you, the trip would be worth it's while.. and u come out with a whole new perspective of the Book than that 'empty' feeling u may have right now.
thanks PA, I've always planned to read in Arabic eventually.
Im actually reading a very good translation of the Quran, I dont know if its as good as the versions you or funguy cite. I had tried reading translations before (yusufali/shakir etc) but been put off by the language/clunky translation.
The translation Im currently reading (Oxford World's Classics - Arthur J Arberry) is really good at preserving some of the flow and coherence of the Arabic Quran, my plan was to have the translated meaning in the back of my mind before I read the Arabic, just so theres an internal guide.
Second question:
The Quran says for every nation the message is revealed in their language. What defines nation? And what of the languages of nations post Islam?
My personal experience has been that unless you start relating the words of the Quran to the life you are living their is very limited gain for you in just simply reading through it. I say for every 5 verses you read try to see where in your life that affects you and you will see a lot more in the words of the Quran. Its not just a read but needs pondering as well and comparison with your life story. You must read a tafsir and study ahadith though to understand how the message compared and carved the life of the Prophet SAW during his lifetime. It will preserve the same essence, which is what you came out with, but how it applies to your life would be quite different and varies from individual to individual in my opinion.
What I see today by many is that they are trying to live their life as the Prophet SAW lived 1400 years ago menaing literally. I have always been opposed to this. These are the kind of people who I find incapable of applying the principle in Quran and ahadith to their current lives, so instead they try to change their lives so they can fit into the context of the Quran or hadith than rather apply to the principle in Quran or hadith to their current lives and circumstances. Their actions infact shatter the timelessness found in our sacred scriptures.
although tangential to my thread, let me ask you a question about your post USResident. do you figure trying to find message in Quran aside from the literal is akin to following your caprice? Akin to finding a beautiful water crystal in thousands of random water crystals, and believing that water crystal to typify the whole glass of water? Wouldnt every person find a different message in the Quran depending on who he is, and wouldnt he have been searching for that message all along?
as for reading the ahadis/tafseer along with the text, what was the sequence, did you read them together, interleave them?
as for reading the ahadis/tafseer along with the text, what was the sequence, did you read them together, interleave them?
There are some things that would be given for all those who want to live by the message of the Quran i.e. the fard things however what I mean is the change in morality comes about by analyzing how the message of the Quran aplplies to your live style. Say you are a dishonest person, after reading the Quran you realize that dishonesty is no virtue. You would apply it by resolving to act honest. Now for an already honest person, what would he reform after realizing honesty is virtue after reading the Quran. I would think if he wants to apply the principle in his life the he would become a advocate for honesty because he already practices it.
I had first read the translation of Quran and came out with much of the seem feeling like I am reading redundant things. After that I read through complete Tafsir Ibn Kathir (all of it, front to back) and it really changed a lot in me and I learned much in terms of applying what I am reading rather then just trying to remember what I read. I have also read Mawdudi tafsir. These days I have been concentrated on ahadith collections, which I have often refered to before from time to time but not with the intention of going through them front to back as I am now. Besides this I am always reading one book or another (not necessarily religious but also those which have stand in staunch oppositiion to religion i.e. evolution, economic theories etc etc). Today I never believe anything I hear unless I can verify it through research. You would be amazed how much of the stuff our Islamic scholars rip though are really taken out of context by them the same way people do with the Quran and ahadith. Not all our scholars play fair either when talking about other scriptures and research material. For instance I don't know if you have ever read through Origin of Species and Natural Selection by Darwin but you will find a lot of it quite acceptable as opposed to naming it in front of an Islamic scholar and he will spit of two or three fatwas right there against all of it. We all draw our own conclusions after reading through stuff.
The Quran says for every nation the message is revealed in their language. What defines nation? And what of the languages of nations post Islam?
I guess Allah defines 'nations' by the messengers He chose to send them.. so from Jesus till Muhammad whoever passed belonged to the 'nation' of Jesus..
Q3. In the Greeks, the verse goes..“The Greeks have been vanquished in the nearer part of the land, and after their vanquishing, they shall be the victors in a few years”. Who is this about, I thought the Roman empire was ruling at the time, and did they actually win back their land?
Well ajee, there is a set of Qoms (ad, samood, loot, etc) and a set of Prophets (musa, isa, shoaib, salih, ibrahim, nuh) and a lot of verses mention the prophets with respect to their nations in a number of chapters (aside from certain stories taht arent repeated as much, including that of Solomon and Queen of Sheba, and to some extent Jesus and Mary) . Without asking me to go back and catalogue the times these have been repeated, do you agree that virtually every large-ish chapter of the Quran mentions atleast one of these and their respective nation, and has a similar incident about the Prophet-nation (what the Prophet said, what the nation said, Prophet Salih's camel, Prophet Noah's ark).
Inshallah I plan to read the Arabic once I've gone once the whole way through in English though, just so I dont come up with meanings completely wrong.
Ravi Bhai I agree that the prophets are mentioned again but I doubt the same event is mentioned again, different parts of the same event are mentioned in different surahs.
I am sure you already know but I just want to mention that Quran when revealed was in a different order than it is compiled. I have heard that in some museum there is an ancient Quran compiled in the order it was revealed. Quran revealed to AnHazoor (saw) in Mecca had fewer mentions of these prophets, instead it was primarily based on oneness of Allah and the glad tidings of the future. Quran revealed in Madina with a large presence of Jewish tribes and some Christians deals with past prophets a whole lot. In my understanding it was to correct the past scripture that they would quote to Muslims and to talk in terms they would understand. It also goes to show the truthfulness of Quran that even in this day and age the majority of the world can relate to these prophets and their stories more so than any other prophets. Between the 2.1 billion Christians, 1.2 billion Muslims and 1 billion or so atheists with forefathers from the judo-christian back ground, the greater half of the world can discuss and find commonalities in religion and come together. As appose to if Quran talked about the prophets that came to the Germanic tribes of Europe or that of South America.
hmm.. interesting take ajee. To further your point about Germanic or South American Prophets, it also wouldnt make sense to talk about nations unknown to the people of that time (even the most learned people of that time) since any scripture has to make sense to the people it is revealed to.
But your point seems to suggest that there is a better ordering for the Quran than what exists right now, if so why would the Prophet order it differently himself (I believe as an ahmadi you would like Sunnies believe that the Prophet was taught this order by Jibraeel/recited this order himself to Jibraeel?)
All this talk about order of compilation after Prophet's death is without evidence. The Quran was revealed and is safeguarded in its actual form and order.
Q3. In the Greeks, the verse goes.."The Greeks have been vanquished in the nearer part of the land, and after their vanquishing, they shall be the victors in a few years". Who is this about, I thought the Roman empire was ruling at the time, and did they actually win back their land?
Only Arberry uses "Greek".. all other translators have translated it as "Rome" or "Romans".
Anyway, this is an interesting verse cuz almost ALL traditional translations talk of a Roman defeat and then victory, with Allah's help and believers rejoicing over it.
Some non-tradionalists have however blamed misplaced A'raabs and claim that it actually means the Romans were first victorious (Battle of Mutah) and were then defeated (Battle of Tabuk).
oh man! the thread was going along so nicely, with informative, to-the-point posts and some good discussion (first time I actually read something new/interesting in Religion forum). Most importantly, they were just posts (with which you could agree or disagree) and it was upon the reader to assimilate it and make his/her own opinion about the subject matter.
And now all of a sudden there are some judgemental posts and the whole ‘mazza’ of the thread is ruined thanks a lot guys!
I request the moderator to remove the unrelated, judgemental posts, so that normal discussion can be carried on.