I had that difficulty with Thai, being around Thais everyday made picking up slang easier the written word was more difficult. I had to go to the local school and pay for lessons but it's paying off big time.
Would that be in the native language (English)? We understand and forgive you, it comes with being a Scouse In all honesty though that's really cool...
No one else that works here bothered but now they're jealous when I go all Arabic on their arses! I just think it's polite and also welcoming when someone new lands here straight out of an immigration centre (prison!).
I did have one incident though... A guy moved in and wanted a prayer mat, they don't sell them in Weymouth. I bought a bathmat instead as it was a similar size - he wasn't that happy with the mat, to put things lightly. We made up and I got one off some dude at the Mosque!
I like the out of the box thinking though Lol.... Well it doesn't have to be a prayer mat, as long as the place is clean or put something down that is clean is good enough to pray on.....
We are looking at designing a Muslim Yoga mat which can double as a prayer mat! Now you can train the body and the spirit in one - thats the tag line.
Well let's take the first few minutes Quran is a govt production? No it was written before an Islamic govt was in place. Prophet Muhammad had a team of scribes with a person heading the team and each verse had to be verified by 2 people word for word Egypt version and India Pakistan version? These are not versions. The content is the same. The "difference" is in how its presented to make it easier to read for people who don't have Arabic as a first language. What I mean here is the dots and dashes. So a dash above a letter is called a "zabr" in Urdu. And below a letter is called "zer". What these do is aid in how the letter is pronounced. So the first letter in Arabic is called " alif" in Urdu. A zabr on it an "aa" where a zer makes it an "ee" When I went to Saudi Arabia I struggled with the Saudi Quran as they dont bother with dashes etc. I don't need dashes etc in Urdu but a Saudi would, the alphabet is almost the same but pronunciation and how certain words are read is different, the dashes ensure correct pronunciation for those whose language is different BUT it doesn't change the word Maybe a daft example but its the first thing that came to my mind, Sean and Shaun are spelt different but are said the same. So these " versions" he speaks about say the same thing verbatim
To add further, as I listened to more, what he says about Abu Bakr and Uthman is partially correct with a little "poetic license", to be polite. The Quran was indeed written on various materials but the people in charge had it collated, so let's accept Hafsa was entrusted with it. The problem Abu Bakr highlighted was the sahabah were dying, through war or natural causes, and those who had it memorised would obviously die out at some point. The bigger issue however was that as these Muslims went to other areas people who listened to them took notes or wrote things down. As anyone who took notes in a lecture you will know 10 students will write 10 different understandings or you get the Chinese whispers effect. This was problematic. When Uthman took the Quran from Hafsa and had it printed and sent out and ordered other copies to be destroyed, it was the " notes" versions to be replaced with the correct original Quran. Furthermore the Quran has certain rules and regs associated with it, one of which is, for example, that a translated version is not the Quran. We as muslims do a ritual ablution before reading the Qur'an (as in pickbup and read) but we don't need to for an English translation as despite the title its a translation not THE quran
My main concern about reading it is the translation won't be accurate. The main reason why nobbers like Tommy Robinson think they've read the Quran, but actually they've read an interpretation of the Quran.
Nope. I've already said I don't see the koran as a credible authority, so you can't 'prove' god exists simply because it's in some recollections of someone's psychotic episodes. For it to be true, you need to prove god outside of that book. By believing g the book, as you say you do. It's your own evidence of something from nothing, which is what you were asking for. So, if your book is true, you are wrong about being unable to create something from nothing. To lose your argument, you need to prove your God exists, to win it, you have to accept the book is wrong. Crack on.
Tbh this is a problem sometimes and depending on the translator a word can be misrepresented. Let's take the word kafir. This word today is seen by most as infidel and as insulting but it never was. Th e original meaning is "to cover" and its used in the Quran in other contexts. So a farmer who covers his crop would be described using the word kafir but a translator will not use infidel here but will for say Jews and Christians where it is said they covered something. Recently there was a warning as a new publishing company had made subtle changes to an Arabic print of the Quran where they had changed letters which changed meanings. Of course right wingers used the new meanings.
So we are trusting that these scripts were written down and the people that kept them initially didn't die at the battle of yomum (sorry for the spelling). T?he doubts I have that if the guys that were entrusted died how could they have be catalogued?
Which one? I've never ran from a discussion, so you'd best remind me. Sometimes your posts make no sense, so I possibly assumed it wasn't for me. Post a link. EDIT. Just skimmed back. Was it the debate about you saying that islam traditions don't have pagan roots? Given the traditions predate islam, you've still yet to show why they're not pagan.
It was the battle of Yamama in the region of Alyamama. Around 800 people who had memorised the Quran died there. They key word is " memorised". My 13 year old nephew has memorised the Quran ( his old man is Arab so easier for them) I only managed so many chapters in my youth. Point being many Arabs now memorise it so the companions would certainly have. However this never took away what was written, completed and collated in the life of Muhammad. The battle was after Muhammad. The death of the people just made Abu Bakr suggest copies of the written Quran to be made freely available We know that all those charged with the writing/ collation were not at the battle and even if they were we would know if they specifically were killed anyway
