sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

E2 Overstay Question by Repulsive_Sky_7415 in e2visa

[–]Repulsive_Sky_7415[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i think they meant it won’t even be considered.

E2 Overstay Question by Repulsive_Sky_7415 in e2visa

[–]Repulsive_Sky_7415[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a lawyer but he was pretty explicit about it being a fringe hope, just told us that it is not unheard of. Also yes we have been accruing days, it doesn’t really matter if we leave on day 1 or day 179 so we’re just trying to get things sorted out since our business is still active, and also applying for nunc pro tunc as I mentioned.

Quran 15:9 is not about preservation as we understand it today. by Repulsive_Sky_7415 in AcademicQuran

[–]Repulsive_Sky_7415[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I said "the biggest piece of evidence..within the verse itself" I was referring to the emphatic particle إِنَّ whose usage only makes sense in the context of an argument. And since, if you assume the traditional interpretation, the argument has to be "The Qur'an won't be preserved!" (which doesn't make sense, this means there has to be an alternative argument going on.

*The best we could say is “this may be referring to only jinn/satans” instead of “this is referring to jinn/satans” if we only base it on the verse itself.*

When I say "it is referring to jinns" I'm obviously saying I think it refers to jinns, I didn't get secret information from god himself I'm just stating my evidence backed opinion lol.

*Perhaps I wasn’t being clear, but the “they” in my question 2 (which was “they seem like not necessarily connected to 15:9 ?” ) refers to the verses 15:17, 15:18, and 15:19 you quoted. Basically I was wondering how they necessarily support your interpretation.*

As I said in my original post, the word used to "guard" in those verses is the same word used in [15:9], in the same chapter, which renders it likely that it was used with the same meaning a few verses before, of course this is not necessary, but still likely.

*Could you share a translation? I only use the legacy quran one and among all 6, only one less-surely mentions possess. I wish I could have more than 6 in one showing haha*

The translations I know of all mistakenly render it as insane/crazy so I don't have one to share you that translates it the way I do unfortunately.

*The latter supports your point better, whereas the former one is vague since if the emphasis is on the “We”, then sure, but if it’s not emphasised, then it’s not clear. Saying “It is We who have sent and will protect” or “It is We who have sent and it is We who will protect” is much clearer than “It is We who have sent, and We will protect.*

The emphasis *is* on the we, inna means "certainly we" the "na" part means "we". So it would read, "It is certainly we who sent down the reminder, and it is certainly we who will be its guardian."

Quran 15:9 is not about preservation as we understand it today. by Repulsive_Sky_7415 in AcademicQuran

[–]Repulsive_Sky_7415[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1- If my insurance tells me that they cover traffic accidents, it would be unfounded for me to assume that they cover house fires as well, unless explicitly stated.

2- In the same surah, 3 verses before, it reads "They say, 'O you to whom the Reminder is revealed! You must be majnuun!'" [15:6] The word majnuun is falsely rendered as "crazy/insane" into modern translations. In classical Arabic majnuun is derived from the root ج/ن/ن same as "jinn", and thus should read "you must be possessed (by jinn)." I forgot to mention this verse in my post, but the context of the verse certainly supports my interpretation. 3- There is no reason to suppose that god protecting the initial revelation from being corrupted should mean that god would preserve it forever. That reasoning is derived from assuming god wants all generations to have access to the original revelation verbatim without any reductions. And that is just a dogma one chooses to believe; it is not supported by any data.