Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="anamnlmslmn" data-source="post: 14624093" data-attributes="member: 453369">I've read that. His explanation is a bit skewed and he is alone with that view. He has put same verse from 10 different translations. Nearly all of them say that the heavens are being made VAST. Some with different words but similar meaning. He says "I should first note that most translations do not suggest a link between this verse and the concept of expanding universe:"  He puts the renowned translations of Yousuf Ali and Pickthall in that group. But they say that heaven is being made VAST. Pickthall - We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).Yusuf Ali - With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.I don't know who are the others. But they also have a closer meaning.I've explained about the grammar of the arabic word in the original post. It being plural present participle is very clear. The meaning of the word "moosi'oon" is very clear. That "We are the expanders/making vast". What he says is that, he does not reject that meaning. He gives an alternative meaning of "encompassing".He also says..."The active participle “mūsi‘” is derived from “si‘a.” The latter may mean “expanse.” For instance, “wāsi‘,” which is another active participle of “si’a,” is used 5 times to mean “vast.” This is the case when it is applied to describe God’s “land” (4.97, 29.56, 39.10) “mercy” (6.147), and “forgiveness” (53.32) as being “vast”. But in its remaining 8 occurrences, the term “wāsi‘” has the broader meaning of “accommodating” or “encompassing.” In these verses, “wāsi‘” is used to describe God Himself, i.e. it is is one of the Beautiful Names of God. I will revisit this particular use of “wāsi‘” later."Therefore, he also does not reject that meaning.What he tries to say is that, he gives an alternative meaning of "Encompasses". Well, it's not contradictory to the previous meaning, because to encompass/to accommodate something, there should be vastness in whatever property is being talked about.  But, at the end he almost rejected the earlier meaning. I can't understand why. If what he says is correct, then most of the scholars who did the translations all these years  are wrong, only he is right! Not possible I suppose.  When I searched about him, it appears that he was a christian later embraced islam and interested in quran. I don't think his idea would be acceptable against other accepted scholarly translators.</blockquote>

Verification: Hath warak paha keeyada? (hatha wadikireema paha)

Top Bottom