Quran the Criterion?
-
Peace,
Verse 251 is about the Quran, as the Quran is the only Revelation send to the WHOLE world, while all other Revelations were send to specific people.
251 Most Blessed is He Who has revealed to His servant, the Criterion of the
right and the wrong so that it might be a warning to the world.21107 And We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds.
Feel like a record that is stuck, repeating the same over and over and over.......
-
Let's turn it around, show us previous Revelations that were also send to the whole world and not just to their people.
-
This would then read as a clarification of guidance and of right from wrong (what criterion is used in the quran as). It still means the same thing as whether it gives you the clarification of right from wrong or just right from wrong it's still inclusive of the right and/from wrong in the first place for both cases, so the quran being the criterion is established anyways.
peace SC,
Yes, but the quran is not the source of the guidance, it is an explanation. It is a book, and not all books are true. It can only be the criterion if it's interpretation is in harmony with the actual criterion.What's the revelation? And see above. added here I just realised that you might mean the revelation (whatever you mean by it) is al-kitab (what do you understand by this term as well??) but not the quran? Please explain if this is the case.
Well, the revelation is the understanding of al-kitab, which I believe is referring to this world/universe. The revelation isn't a book, it's just...this !
and whoever has that light bulb go off in his head writes it down or preaches it if he wants. That's probably how we get this quran.I think the Quran can't be the criterion because a criterion is a standard that we judge everything else by. We don't judge or critically examine a criterion. But we judge the quran all the time. We argue over what it says, and prove what it says by giving proof from the real world.
There's a reason we keep looking for proofs of the quran in the real world. It's because the quran isn't the criterion, the universe is.Tanveer, thanks for that explanation. I think I'll go for the second interpretation based on the above reasoning.
peace -
Peace,
Yes, but the quran is not the source of the guidance, it is an explanation.
The source of guidance gave the quran as guidance and explanation. Many other guides are there as well, I don't think this is the only way to make it.
It is a book, and not all books are true.
A book can be true.
It can only be the criterion if it's interpretation is in harmony with the actual criterion.
Explained somewhere below.
Well, the revelation is the understanding of al-kitab, which I believe is referring to this world/universe.
Previously you wrote
See, I'm thinking that "al-kitab" is the criterion and the quran is the explanation of it. Al-kitab is the revelation.
Bit confusing the two quotes? Al kitab is the revelation but the revelation is the understanding of al kitab but al kitab you believe is referring to this world/universe (or is it the revelation?) and al kitab is the criterion as well as the revelation which is an explanation of al kitab? Anyway, I'll just pick one and go with it. The world/universe cannot be a criterion. Think of it as a superset, a criterion has to be established by making subsets thus distinguishing. The world/universe is inclusive of all, so how can it be a criterion to distinguish between right and wrong?
and whoever has that light bulb go off in his head writes it down or preaches it if he wants. That's probably how we get this quran.
Okay.
I think the Quran can't be the criterion because a criterion is a standard that we judge everything else by.
And the world/universe is what we judge everything by? Makes far more sense for the quran or any subset to be a criterion than the world/universe as that is what you are distinguishing by. It's only logical that anything inclusive of everything needs a criterion that distinguishes something/anything out of that everything. This criterion is not the anything that is inclusive of everything obviously.
We don't judge or critically examine a criterion.
Why not? Any criterion should be critically examined. It should also be contrasted/used with the arena it is meant for to see if it makes sense. If it's true it will prevail/make sense/bring about growth/benefits for all etc etc, if not we ditch it. That doesn't stop it from being a criterion, it only makes it a false or true criterion.
But we judge the quran all the time. We argue over what it says, and prove what it says by giving proof from the real world.
That doesn't mean it just can't be a criterion, it means that we are using the criterion (theoretically or practically) in the real world and seeing it make sense. It goes hand in hand both aspects, the quran being a criterion means its got to be used to actually distinguish and where else are you going to use it? And once again, a criterion is something that distinguishes from say a blob that has everything in it. One can't use nature/world/universe as a criterion because other than the obvious issues, where does it distinguish right from wrong unless its contrasted with something else that actually gives you a criterion to distinguish with?
There's a reason we keep looking for proofs of the quran in the real world. It's because the quran isn't the criterion, the universe is.
Explained above. The universe doesn't give you the criterion, something else does...whether it's your own mind that tries to make sense of the universe or a book.Edit to add.
-
Bit confusing the two quotes? Al kitab is the revelation but the revelation is the understanding of al kitab but al kitab you believe is referring to this world/universe (or is it the revelation?) and al kitab is the criterion as well as the revelation which is an explanation of al kitab? Anyway, I'll just pick one and go with it.
-
Let's just put it this way
al kitab is the universe, which contains god's signs, and revelation is what comes from that.
EDIT I'll have to review the above statement to make sure it makes sense.The world/universe cannot be a criterion. Think of it as a superset, a criterion has to be established by making subsets thus distinguishing. The world/universe is inclusive of all, so how can it be a criterion to distinguish between right and wrong?
hmm
good point.Why not? Any criterion should be critically examined. It should also be contrasted/used with the arena it is meant for to see if it makes sense. If it's true it will prevail/make sense/bring about growth/benefits for all etc etc, if not we ditch it. That doesn't stop it from being a criterion, it only makes it a false or true criterion.
How do you know if a book's true?
How do you know if something's good or not?
There are people who haven't read the quran, or any other holy book, who know right from wrong, and truth from falsehood, how?
That's what I wanna know. Because I think there's more involved here than just a book, or an outside criterion.Explained above. The universe doesn't give you the criterion, something else does...whether it's your own mind that tries to make sense of the universe or a book.
Yeah, I think that's probably true. But again, the universe is the reality. We can't have right or wrong, or a book, without that reality. If we change the reality, our whole concept of right and wrong would have to change too.
-
EDIT I'll have to review the above statement to make sure it makes sense.
Np.
How do you know if a book's true?
How do you know if something's good or not?
There are people who haven't read the quran, or any other holy book, who know right from wrong, and truth from falsehood, how?
That's what I wanna know. Because I think there's more involved here than just a book, or an outside criterion.We try to use it theoretically and/or practically. If it doesn't work changes are called for, whether ditching the entire thing or modifying it. It's an expansive subject and a part of life which one would do with anything. Anything needs to be examined and then used, and then examined and used again, trying to make sure we are as objective as possible while analysing (obviously there will be some subjectivity but we have to try and minimise it, maybe setting up control parameters etc P). A learning process and part of our growth. Like I said, there are many ways to make it, this is but one of them. I definitely agree there's more involved.
We can't have right or wrong, or a book, without that reality. If we change the reality, our whole concept of right and wrong would have to change too.
Of course, you can't have a standard without anything to use that standard with. I doubt we can change reality, it is what it is whether we know it or not.
-
Peace Waleed,
Tanveer, thanks for that explanation. I think I'll go for the second interpretation based on the above reasoning.
You are welcome. No matter what interpretation you choose, both mean the same i.e. the criterion is contained in the Qur'aan. The Qur'aan is "clarifications FROM the criterion" just like it is "clarifications FROM the guidance" according to 2185, which means that both the guidance and the criterion are IN the Qur'aan. If it had said "clarifications OF the criterion", only then it could have meant that "the criterion" is separate from the Qur'aan, and only then you would have any point.
-
salam all,
...remember the verse that says if you're in doubt, produce a surah like it?
I think we need to go back to that point..
Also, remember when Musa went to Pharaoh and said, "In truth thou knowest that none sent down these (portents) save the Lord of the heavens and the earth as proofs.."Here's lies the answer... to the question, specifically speaking, "Is the Quran from God?"
(because, once we verified it is from God, then 2185 is true-- from God.)Phoenix,
We have a common ground, i believe, which is, there's a God.
Then, comes two possibilities
either 1) God has msg(s)/ scripture(s) / command(s)/ purpose(s) for us to know/ discover
or 2) not.In this case, if we can verify the whole quran comes from God, then all of its content is from God.
An illustration...assuming A is Quran, G is god's creation.
A={a,b,c}
G={A, B, C, etc},
hence,
G={a,b,c}Ways to see which options are true, is to...
Find and verify. (pls add if u know sumthing i dont)ways to verify
using the tools we have
hearing, (experience)
sight, (experience)
and reason(logical thinking and conscience/feelings).yes?
p/s will write more.. need to work my brain. eheh -
peace be upon everyone
I would like to start by saying that all my thoughts are jumbled up at the moment, and I'm trying to sort them out.
Savage, I pretty much agree.
But I do think that this universe can guide us. I mean, everything works in a certain way. Like a plug goes into a socket. Animals are always in harmony with the universe, but we aren't. And that's what causes all the crap.
Like Agent Smith from the Matrix put it, we're not mammals, we're a virus. We're doing things that aren't supposed to be done, and we're ending up harming ourselves. Nuclear fission doesn't exist in nature. We created it, and all that comes out of it is crap that kills everything it touches.
But then, animals fight and kill each other over food and females. I don't think we should. We're supposed to be unselfish and give up things for others. But that could be part of the universe's way too.
I mean, we're all part of this one universe, and everything we have comes from it. And if we have a inherent moral compass that guides us, then that's part of the universe too.
Tanveer,You are welcome. No matter what interpretation you choose, both mean the same i.e. the criterion is contained in the Qur'aan. The Qur'aan is "clarifications FROM the criterion" just like it is "clarifications FROM the guidance" according to 2185, which means that both the guidance and the criterion are IN the Qur'aan. If it had said "clarifications OF the criterion", only then it could have meant that "the criterion" is separate from the Qur'aan, and only then you would have any point.
Wait...wouldn't "of the criterion" or "from the criterion" mean basically the same thing? I mean, I get your point, if the quran's true, then it has to be a criterion, but I don't get how changing "of" to "from" changes the meaning.
From the criterion would mean that the quran is PART of the criterion. Of the criterion would mean that the quran is seperate from the criterion, but since it's an explanation of it anyway, it's the same thing.And if the quran is FROM the criterion, what is just... the criterion?
I think it all comes down to verifying this quran, and every other teaching, and following only what we have found to be true.
What I hate is when people say something like "the quran says women are inferior and because the quran is the criterion we must not question it try to verify it but we should just follow it and so all women should be slaves of men." Based on their interpretation, that's what the quran says, and they'll follow it. But as SC said, we should verify the criterions to make sure they're true. But then again, it's not the criterions that is guiding us, it's us.Katara,
We have a common ground, i believe, which is, there's a God.
Well, I dunno. What we mean by "god" could be different.
In this case, if we can verify the whole quran comes from God, then all of its content is from God.
I don't quite get the whole A,B,C = G stuff, but here I totally agree. IF the quran is true, then it is from god, because all truth leads us to god.
Also agree about the tools, and I think it's the conscience that troubles me the most. What the heck is it? And that would be our true guide, wouldn't it? I mean, that's what allows us to see the right and wrong in the quran.
Feelings, though, shouldn't be involved in the process of verification. Because feelings/emotions can make us do bad things. But then isn't our conscience a feeling?
How objective can we get? If we're really rational, we kill one person to save five others. But if we go with our conscience, we don't kill anyone because it's wrong to kill. But then again, we think it's OK to kill someone in a war like situation, where if you don't kill the other guy, he's gonna kill you, or if you're fighting terrorism or something.
So sometimes we have to go against our conscience to the right thing?? confused
But if we are objective, we become heartless and, as I've been called before, faithless etc.In I,Robot, Will Smith hates the robots because they don't have any emotions, and they save him instead of saving that little girl. They obviously made the objectively correct choice. But did they do the right thing?
-
Peace Waleed,
And if the quran is FROM the criterion, what is just... the criterion?
The Qur'aan is not from the criterion, it is "CLARIFICATIONS from the criterion", implying that it contains the criterion. In other words, the Qur'aan clarifies by the criterion it gives.
-
Peace,
But I do think that this universe can guide us. I mean, everything works in a certain way. Like a plug goes into a socket. Animals are always in harmony with the universe, but we aren't. And that's what causes all the crap.
Sure the universe gives us signs pointing and guiding. We have no sure way of knowing what real/true harmony for us/for them is like you follow with here, "But then, animals fight and kill each other over food and females. I don't think we should. We're supposed to be unselfish and give up things for others. But that could be part of the universe's way too.". In following things/making up criterias based on what's happening or the natural course of events in the world/universe and picking a course to follow we might end up with maybe an "axiom" like survival of the fittest by all means necessary or something, and it gets complicated.
I think another issue here is of morality. Where does morality come from and why/how do we choose to make it into a criterion to live our lives by. I don't think it's all subjective and/or complicated, I believe that there is objective truth and if one is sincere (in wanting to know, thereby erasing bias/ego/other factors as much as they can, using reasoning and logic etc eventually there comes a point of certainty), one will be guided to it regardless of where that guidance comes from (explained a bit further below). I like the story of Abraham here. I also think that a total clampdown on emotion is not right (just read your entire post now). I have always seen a true harmony like a balance. Everything working in tandem with the other and when they all point to the same thing, it's like you've hit gold.
I mean, we're all part of this one universe, and everything we have comes from it. And if we have a inherent moral compass that guides us, then that's part of the universe too.
Sure, and that inherent moral compass can also be skewed/ignored/played down due to various factors and that compass can also point us to many signs be it the sunrise, the resurrection of life in spring or a book. Questioning is good, and we also have to draw some conclusions along the way and then keep refining them. Imo, it would be a waste if all I had at the end of my life was a complaint that it was all so confusing, I gave up and let the wind spur me along.
edit
-
Peace Waleed, all,
But I do think that this universe can guide us. I mean, everything works in a certain way.
The universe does not guide. It is there to be learned from. We study the universe and take lessons from it - good and bad (in human terms). Repeating Nadia's sentiment, there's no certainty to be had in following any arbitrary path in nature. Nature's major lesson is harmony. We're here to carve our own path while maintaining balance/harmony. For all we know, our striving to be harmonious may be the very thing that causes disharmony and the eventual demise of the Earth. And that in itself may be part of the path of nature - just like a catastrophic asteroid.
I mean, we're all part of this one universe, and everything we have comes from it. And if we have a inherent moral compass that guides us, then that's part of the universe too.
I think we have to be careful in distinguishing what an inherent moral compass is, lest it become a crutch in times of bad decisions. As I've understood, the only thing inherent is the soul/spirit. What we call moral values or a compass can often be misunderstood in that many moral values we carry are not inherent, but inherited. Guilt is a great barometer for this. We often think of guilt as some sort of deep inner calling from the divine when in fact it can easily be sublime psychological conditioning via experience.
Waleed, you say the right things, you know what to do. It's time you do what you know. Stop thinking and meditate/pray/talk to God. When you limit your mind's chatter and redirect your focus inward, the light will shine. It may be dim at first, but with practice, it's gets brighter and brighter.
Peace,
Tay -
...remember the verse that says if you're in doubt, produce a surah like it?
Yes, 1038.
But I haven't yet seen one quoting 1113 (Or they say that he forged it. Say produce ten surahs like it)
Why?
And why do you think once it is "one chapter", and another it is "10 chapters"?
God is talking about two different things The Book and the Quraan.
Maybe Lobster is correct in differentiating between the two, but unable to give a precise definition to either. -
Peace Waleed,
The Qur'aan is not from the criterion, it is "CLARIFICATIONS from the criterion", implying that it contains the criterion. In other words, the Qur'aan clarifies by the criterion it gives.
Peace tanveer, phoenix, all
i know we may be splitting hair in four, but IMHO, if quran is or contains "clarifications from the criterion", the criterion must be outside (other than) quran. Problem of translation ?
lk
-
Peace all,
i know we may be splitting hair in four, but IMHO, if quran is or contains "clarifications from the criterion", the criterion must be outside (other than) quran. Problem of translation ?
According to 2185, the Qur'aan is "clarifications from the guidance", which means that it contains the guidance, i.e. it clarifies by the guidance it gives.
Similarly, the Qur'aan is "clarifications from the criterion", which means it contains the criterion, i.e. it clarifies by the criterion it gives.
-
Peace Tanveer
yes ok, i get what you mean, but doesn't that sound like bad English ? And how is it in Arabic ?
The book gives guidance from the book....(that it what it does come down to and no, i'm NOT hinting to kitab here).
Shouldn't it rather go the book gives guidance on a certain theme treated in the book ? Do you get what i mean ? Sorry, i did not really have the time to reflect on this, but this formulation does bug me.Anybody else ?
elke
-
Peace Elke,
The book gives guidance from the book....(that it what it does come down to and no, i'm NOT hinting to kitab here).
No, that is not what it comes down to. This is what it means
The book gives clarifications by the guidance contained in it.
OR
The book clarifies things by the guidance it contains.
-
Yes, 1038.
But I haven't yet seen one quoting 1113 (Or they say that he forged it. Say produce ten surahs like it)
Why?
And why do you think once it is "one chapter", and another it is "10 chapters"?
God is talking about two different things The Book and the Quraan.
Maybe Lobster is correct in differentiating between the two, but unable to give a precise definition to either.Salam Samia,
May you enlighten me regarding the two different things.. the book and the quran? tq..
Anyway, based on those verses and the example of musa, the quran, i believe have some criteria that distinguish itself from other books.. Characteristics that no other books have but the quran.. just like musa said of the micracles, "none sent down these save the Lord of the heavens and the earth as proofs.."
-
peace All,
Tan man,
The book clarifies things by the guidance it contains.
But that's not what the quran says, is it? Those aren't the exact words.
It says clarification from the guidance.
I don't know if it even matters.Tay,
The universe does not guide. It is there to be learned from. We study the universe and take lessons from it - good and bad (in human terms).
Yeah, the universe doesn't guide us, but we can be guided by studying it. Same goes for the Quran, then, doesn't it?
You can choose to not read it, and you can interpret it in different ways.Repeating Nadia's sentiment, there's no certainty to be had in following any arbitrary path in nature. Nature's major lesson is harmony. We're here to carve our own path while maintaining balance/harmony. For all we know, our striving to be harmonious may be the very thing that causes disharmony and the eventual demise of the Earth. And that in itself may be part of the path of nature - just like a catastrophic asteroid.
The thing is, in nature, there's no good and bad, but in our minds there is. That's the problem.
Isn't it possible that there is no such thing as good and bad, and it's just something us humans created?
So it doesn't really matter if we're good or not?I think we have to be careful in distinguishing what an inherent moral compass is, lest it become a crutch in times of bad decisions. As I've understood, the only thing inherent is the soul/spirit. What we call moral values or a compass can often be misunderstood in that many moral values we carry are not inherent, but inherited. Guilt is a great barometer for this. We often think of guilt as some sort of deep inner calling from the divine when in fact it can easily be sublime psychological conditioning via experience.
True, true.
Waleed, you say the right things, you know what to do. It's time you do what you know. Stop thinking and meditate/pray/talk to God. When you limit your mind's chatter and redirect your focus inward, the light will shine. It may be dim at first, but with practice, it's gets brighter and brighter.
Will that light show me how everything works?
the thing is, I need to know how things work. I feel like I can't trust something unless I know how it works. Same thing happened with the law of attraction thing. I'm still trying to figure out what the hell it may be. I dunno.