/lit/ - Literature

>>19761419
How much do you know? If you can’t read or write it phonetically then start by memorizing this vocally and in writing, then get back to me if you follow through on that and I will not only give you more resources, I will in sha’ Allah help teach you

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sTTX7KZ1kv0

>>19761810
>>19761830
Brother, the reason this explanation is included in the Hilali-Khan translation is demonstrated by its full title, see pic related. It’s a very condensed summary of the exegesis given by Tabari, Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir. ALL THREE say this verse refers to the Jews and Christians and those like them. If you actually read the Quran you’d see these are pretty mild things compared to what is said about the respective sects elsewhere. But wait, there’s more! Because of ignorants complaining so much about this exegesis, these parentheticals were removed from the Surah and have not been printed since the 1990’s! That’s right, you’re griping so much over something that hasn’t been printed in this translation for over 20 years.

The scholars who translated this are not “Saudi officials”, they are simply legitimate scholars with sanad. And Darussalam is not the Saudi state, they are a private publishing house. As for their grading of hadiths, it’s strictly used as a reference for amateurs. No expert accepts it. Why? Because you need a license (ijaza) in usool al-Hadith to give official grade to a Hadith (and that can be disputed by another such licensed individual) and such a license, such credentials, can ONLY be given to a particular individual, not a publishing house. In order for the publishing house to give an authoritative grade they must put the name and credentials of the particular individual who graded something.

>>19762651
The Study Quran is perennialist and in its exegesis of Al Ikhlas it says this Surah isn’t incompatible with the Trinity, bold nonsense that no scholar in the history of our religion would concur with. To paint this as some new perspective of “Wahhabism” is cockamamie, simple as

>>19763143

See above

>>19763240
It’s great but is very sparse on harakat and you cannot possibly learn pronunciation from that. Recommending that to someone as a starting text to learn on their own is irresponsible, even if they learned multiple other languages. The only way someone quote new could learn anything from that is with a teacher (which is the intent of the book). You are setting him up to be discouraged and give up

What’s the best translation of the Quran? Heard this one’s pretty based.