Quran - The reading?
-
Peace Kyle,
Peace be upon you Danish,
Which verse says that this writing is called "Quran"? There are many descriptions for this writing, how do you differentiate between them and selct one as the leader? (similar to how people take one messenger and differentiate and make him the greatest messenger).
None. Likewise, which verse says that this writing is called "The Reading"? There may be many descriptions and meanings to this writing or any other name/title for that matter, the fact remains and will remain that this writing is given an identity, a name, a title, called Quran. The same scenario applies to your own and others names.
For what I have witnessed in your posts, is that every Arabic proper name (a proper noun) is now changed, twisted and given an English common name/title. How convenient? Might as well change all proper Arabic names to English meanings and start addressing them as such. This includes all names/titles of previous scriptures, all Muslim names, all books having Arabic or Muslim titles, and so forth. Perhaps the Arabic proper nouns (names and titles) have no significance but English ones does. Besides, as you had previously pointed out that you don't possess enough knowledge in Arabic language and linguistics, which speaks volumes.
-
peace be upon all,
I agree with Ayman and Idolfree, in the light of these signs (ayat) the word "quran" is not just some title but other books can be a "quran" as well
619, 7204, 123, 1741, 1789, 1854, 2530, 2776, 3058, 3927, 4331, all say "this quran" meaning there are other readings
1015 the disbelievers say "bring a quran other than this" if the word Quran was a unique title to The God's book then why would they say "a quran", obviously to the Arabs the word quran held a meaning and should be translated
122, 20113, 427 says the God's book is an Arabic quran, implying there are qurans in other languages and even in the language itself
1331, 17106, 3669, 3928, 413, 4144, 433, 5677 "a quran" is used, clearly this is not a title ascribed to one book
151 "a clear quran", that means there are "unclear qurans" as well
1587 the words "the great reading", so much for all of your condemnations of Ayman using this phrase
1788 says human and jinns "cannot produce a quran like this" therefore we can produce a "quran" or reading as well but not like The God's
8521 "a glorius quran"
721 "a wonderful quran"obviously "quran" is not a title but can be applied to other things that carry the meaning of "quran" itself which is reading and not compilation which would be clearly illogical in the context of the ayat (signs)
in response to those that say "al" coming before "quran" proves that its title is The Quran my response is-does 2185 mean the title of The God's book is Al Firqan? there are many others like that, thats just one example among dozens
another argument is that the repition of The God's book being called "Al-Quran" should signify that the name is "Al-Quran", in response to this I say then by your logic "Al-Kitab" should be the name
after all this analysis I see no other reason why some people in this thread stick to the name "Al-Quran" as the title of The God's book other then the fact that they can't let go of their traditional ways, to those I speak of keep these signs (ayat) in mind
He said ?An affliction and wrath shall befall you from your Lord. Do you argue with me over names which you and your fathers have created with no authority being sent down by God? Wait then, and I will wait with you.? (771)
"What you serve besides God is nothing but names which you have created you and your fathers, God did not send down any authority for such. The judgment is for none but God. He ordered that none be served but He. That is the true system, but most of mankind do not know.? (1240)
Have you considered Allaat and Al-`Uzzah? And Manaat, the third one? Do you have the males, while He has the females? What a strange distribution! These are but names that you made up, you and your forefathers. God never authorized such. They only follow conjecture, and personal desire, while the guidance has come to them from their Lord. Or shall the human being have what he wishes? To God belongs the Hereafter, and the world. And there are many Angels in heaven, who have no power to intercede, except after God gives permission for whom He wishes and is satisfied with him. Those who disbelieve in the Hereafter have given the Angels feminine names. While they had no knowledge about this; they only followed conjecture. And conjecture is no substitute for the truth. (5319-28 )
peace and God knows best
-
salam idris,
i just wanted to respond to the verses you posted.
619, 7204, 123, 1741, 1789, 1854, 2530, 2776, 3058, 3927, 4331, all say "this quran" meaning there are other readings
That is a very big conjecture on your part. At any rate, at the time the Quran was being revealed, the word Quran was an Arabic word.. this is not a word created solely for the book of Prophet muhammad. Hatha just specifies that it is THIS that is being referred to by the term Quran, NOT whatever else the Arabs used it for in their day and age... this does not in ANY way imply that there are other books of revelation called Quraan.
1015 the disbelievers say "bring a quran other than this" if the word Quran was a unique title to The God's book then why would they say "a quran", obviously to the Arabs the word quran held a meaning and should be translated
To claim that this verse implies there are other Qurans is actually totally unwarranted. Throughout the Quran the disbelievers say things like, well bring a Quran that can do miracles, or bring a Quran but change this or just bring a different Quran... this just means that they are not satisfied with the Quran revealed to the Prophet... it in NO WAY implies that IN REALITY there exist other Qurans that the disbelievers knew about and were asking for.
122, 20113, 427 says the God's book is an Arabic quran, implying there are qurans in other languages and even in the language itself
Again, this claim is unwarranted. The verse is saying that the Quran was revealed in Arabic... and you are taking that statement and inferring that Qurans must exist in other languages??? Perhaps your confusion is because you are basing your understanding purely on the english translation... Yusuf ali words it "We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an," but a closer translation would be "We have sent down the Quran in Arabic." As you can see, these verses actually go AGAINST your point.
1331, 17106, 3669, 3928, 413, 4144, 433, 5677 "a quran" is used, clearly this is not a title ascribed to one book
151 "a clear quran", that means there are "unclear qurans" as well151 "a clear quran", that means there are "unclear qurans" as well
This is a huge jump to a conclusion... you are too concentrated on the word "A" vs "the"... these are purely English concepts that are simulated in Arabic but it is not the same... at any rate, to claim that because in some verses the Quran was not called al-Quran, that therefore there must be other Qurans out there, is a huge inference... and your interpretation is by no means by itself convincing.
1587 the words "the great reading", so much for all of your condemnations of Ayman using this phrase
Actually, funny thing is that the words used are "AL-Quraan AL-atheem," not the great reading. So did you ever stop to think that if you are drawing such big conclusions based on the word AL, what does it mean when the Quran actually DOES use the word AL for Quran as in this case? And I don't think anyone here has condemned anyone for calling the book "al-Quran al-atheem."
1788 says human and jinns "cannot produce a quran like this" therefore we can produce a "quran" or reading as well but not like The God's
Again you fall prey to English translators... this is an unfortunate pattern here.
The actual words used are Qul la-ini ijtamaAAati al-insu waaljinnu AAala an ya/too bimithli hatha alqur-ani la ya/toona bimithlihi, which more closely translates to "If all the jinn and ins came together to produce something similar to THIS AL-Quran, they would not be able to produce something similar to it." That is much closer to the actual wording used. And again, as you can see, this statement in no way implies that Allah has used the term Quran for other books. All it says is if they tried to make something similar to it, they won't be able to.
And any time other books of revelation have been referred to, Quran has not been used for them.
Supplying numerous verses is not helpful if all we do is draw very wide and subjective conclusions.
As far as the idea of a label or title goes... well we are human beings and we like to name things... that is a fundamental characteristic we have. I don't recall a verse in the Quran that God says "Ismee Allah," My name is Allah. But we CALL him that because that is the most widely used term for him and used the most in the Quran. As for the Quran, it has been referred to by a few other terms but by FAR, it has been referred to as a Quran... so we call it the Quran. There is no harm in using this as a name... but as br Ayman suggests, we should not forget that this name is not a meaningless label, because it ALSO has a meaning.
wassalam
-
Peace,
Great points there Shuaib. As mentioned earlier, regardless of what meanings are given to the word Quran (and just like any other words), evidently, the fact remains that this revelation is called Quran.
Like the word 'reading' fits nicely in basically all the verses in the Quran, so does the word 'message', which apparently stands out better than the word 'reading'. In any case, the name or title addressed to HIS Final Revelation IS Quran.
There is no other book called Quran, never has been and perhaps never will be.
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab and Danish,
Do you realize that yuo are both afraid to even translate the word "quran"? Even as we discuss it you are afraid to translate, why?
Danish stated
Likewise, which verse says that this writing is called "The Reading"?No one, but who has given it the title "The Reading"? Certainly not me. I ALWAYS use the term "this reading(quran)", LOWER CASE.
It is a description, not a title.
Danish stated
Honestly and sincerely I do not know WHO gave the Quran its name. The fact remains that GOD's Revelation is called/titled/named as Quran, by its proper designation and identityHow can it be a fact when you said you DON'T KNOW? How do you reason?
Shuiab stated
As far as the idea of a label or title goes... well we are human beings and we like to name things... that is a fundamental characteristic we have.Yes, because we are in a world that makes things appear seperate, so we label things with named/descriptions, but the God is ONE and His message is ONE, so it needs no distinction of names, but we come to understand by the MANY descrptions that we merge into ONE.
I don't recall a verse in the Quran that God says "Ismee Allah," My name is Allah. But we CALL him that because that is the most widely used term for him and used the most in the Quran
The Creator has a name?!?!?! Far above names is the God. There are only descriptions of His qualities that we know and strive to bring out of our own being. Allah means "The God". It is the Arabic translation of the Supreme being, just as there are many other words used for other languages. To say that "Allah" is the God's name is blasphemous. Far is He above the things you associate with Him.
As for the Quran, it has been referred to by a few other terms but by FAR, it has been referred to as a Quran... so we call it the Quran.
Faulty logic. Please gather all the verses with the ARABIC WORD "quran" and do the work. TRANSLATE!
-
Peace Kyle,
Do you realize that yuo are both afraid to even translate the word "quran"? Even as we discuss it you are afraid to translate, why?
Likewise, do you realize that you are simply afraid of names/titles, specially the word Quran and much of others. Besides, if I was afraid of translating the word Quran, I wouldn't be giving examples of meanings/terms above. Like I said earlier, I prefer the word "message" over "reading" when it comes to applications, and could mean revelation, scripture, reading, etc., so there goes your crooked reasoning to claim otherwise. The fact that Quran is a name/title remains.
Btw, are you afraid of people calling you by your name Kyle?
Danish stated
Likewise, which verse says that this writing is called "The Reading"?No one, but who has given it the title "The Reading"? Certainly not me. I ALWAYS use the term "this reading(quran)", LOWER CASE.
Regardless of what term/s you use, 'this or the reading' is called Quran.
It is a description, not a title.
Wrong. It is a title and given a description.
Danish stated
Honestly and sincerely I do not know WHO gave the Quran its name. The fact remains that GOD's Revelation is called/titled/named as Quran, by its proper designation and identity.How can it be a fact when you said you DON'T KNOW? How do you reason?
Sorry to say but what a foolish question. I don't know who gave you your name Kyle but the fact remains. I don't know who gave the planets their names Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, etc. either, but that's what they are called and the facts remain. Now must I dig in to find out about zillions and zillions of names/titles to each and every thing as to WHO gave them....you must be kidding me! Oh, and by the way, DO YOU KNOW WHO brought about and gave "this reading" the name Quran???
-
Peace be upon you Danish,
I leave you with the hope that peace may be upon you.
Good "luck" in your following of titles.
-
As always, peace to you Kyle,
Peace be upon you Danish,
I leave you with the hope that peace may be upon you.
Good "luck" in your following of titles.
Thanks for realizing the easy way out. Good "luck" in determining titles/names to become some English meanings.
By the way, what does Kyle mean? Who gave you that name and why must everyone call or address you with your name/title? Just curious!
-
Peace be upon you,
Thanks for realizing the easy way out.
Not the easy way, the peaceful way, which is very hard for most, a very steep path.
Good "luck" in determining titles/names to become some English meanings.
A dead title is nothing but an idol that cannot benefit nor harm you.
(576) Say "Do you serve from other than The God what does not own/possess for you harm and nor benefit, and The God He is the hearing/listening, the knowledgeable."
Realize that your partner with the God is the physical pages of a book called "Quran".
By the way, what does Kyle mean?
I remember hearing it means "fair and handsome", but I don't think that my culture respects the concept of naming anymore, so I don't make too much of that. But for sure, my mother and father can confirm that this is my name, although I have been called by many nicknames over the years. It would be a big error to think my name was "idolfree1" just because many people call me that more than they called me "Kyle". Likewise, how do you reason, from all the desciptions, that this reading(quran) is called properly "Al Quran"?
Who gave you that name and why must everyone call or address you with your name/title? Just curious!
My parents gave me that name. People addess me with that name because it is my name. It would be incorrect to address me otherwise unless I asked them to , as with "idolfree1", which I don't mind being called. However, we don't have that KNOWLEDGE regarding this reading(quran), this criterion, this Wisdom, etc. So we understand that TRUTH is not limited to one book, it is to be READ in all creation. It is the TRUTH that permeates the Universe. This book people call "Al Quran" just happens to be one of the greatest readings available to us so that we don't have to repeat the mistakes of those before us.
-
salam guys,
you know i think the discussion is degenerating here.
idolfree, the word Quran means either reading or compilation, whatever you want, and it is used to refer to the physical book that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. If you are so afraid of the concept of names and titles, then fine... but obviously, the word Quran HAS been used to refer to the book... you want to just call it a description, someone else wants to call it a name or title, whatever.. as long as we understand that the word has a meaningful understanding.
i am not "afraid" of translating the word, or i would not have started this thread with an in-depth analysis of the word. I have stated my opinion, that I think Arabic should be revived... if you love english so much, then go ahead and use pure English. I will use Arabic when I can and if someone doesn't understand THEN i can use English to explain.
The Creator has a name?!?!?! Far above names is the God. There are only descriptions of His qualities that we know and strive to bring out of our own being.
A very glib argument, considering that undoubtedly you have read verses that say things like iqra bi-ISMi rabb (961), or 6118 So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced. Obviously when I say name I dont mean a name like yours or mine.. anything to do with Allah or the hereafter cannot be fully grasped by us except in glimpses... but there are certain words used to refer to Him, and some (Allah) are purely His description. That's what I mean by name.
No one here has ever claimed that the word Quran is an empty name/title. We all agree it has a meaning directly related to the book it describes. As far as those who would claim that there are OTHER books of revelation called the Quran... bring your proof. Br Idris tried to post some verses to that effect, but in each instance it was either a big stretch or an incorrect translation.
wassalam
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
When you eat your food, go ahead and say audibally the "Name" of the God.
Me, I will make sure that I pick foods that will NOURISH me, therefore the description of THE NOURISHER will be upon my food.
DO you see the WISDOM in that? SHould I say "Allah" audibly over a Twix candybar hoping that some "miracle" wil take place and change the candybar into a nutitional meal, or should we choose foods that are in agreement with the God's DESCRIPTIONS?
-
salam idolfree,
there's no point in your taking the conversation over to another topic on which there already has been plenty of debate. the point is that Allah has described for himself ISM/ASMAA or names in the Quran. I dont take those names to be proper nouns, they are descriptive/common nouns (according to the terminology used in one of Br. Ayman's articles).
As far as what you are trying to talk about, you are making a fallacious argument by implying that others deny the importance of eating nourishing foods. However, I do not think, as you imply, that foods can be in "agreement" with God's descriptions. That doesn't make sense, equating Allah's characteristics to that of mere food.
wassalam
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
You are free to believe as you like. I have offered my understanding and I leave you in Peace with yours.
-
Peace brothers Idris, Shuaib, all,
I don't know why people are still arguing on this thread when brother Idris's post should leave no doubt that "quran" is a common noun.
619, 7204, 123, 1741, 1789, 1854, 2530, 2776, 3058, 3927, 4331, all say "this quran" meaning there are other readings
That is a very big conjecture on your part. At any rate, at the time the Quran was being revealed, the word Quran was an Arabic word.. this is not a word created solely for the book of Prophet muhammad. Hatha just specifies that it is THIS that is being referred to by the term Quran, NOT whatever else the Arabs used it for in their day and age... this does not in ANY way imply that there are other books of revelation called Quraan.
The above objection is merely hanging at straws.
Brother Shuaib, you ignore the rules of Arabic (and in fact most other languages) when it comes to how "ishara"/pointing constructions are used with common and proper nouns.
Let's take any example. The first verse that brother Idris refers to 619, for instance
"...uw7ya ilaya hatha al-quran..."
"...this reading has been inspired to me..."Such construction CANNOT be used with proper names and can only be used with common nouns. You can take any proper name and try to fit it above and it will not work. Let's take the proper name of another book Al-Bukhari.
"...uw7ya ilaya hatha Al-Bukhari..."
"...this Al-Bukhari has been inspired to me..."The above is ungrammatical in both Arabic and English. Here is the correct logical construction
"...uw7ya ilaya Al-Bukhari..."
"...Al-Bukhari has been inspired to me..."You have to remove "hatha"/this to make it work. I can give you many more examples if you want but I know that you are an intelligent person and you can quickly get the point. So try the same exercise as above with your other objections and substitute any proper name in the place of the common noun "quran" and see if the sentence stays grammatical and logical.
I am at a loss as to why you are still arguing about this. You ALREADY admitted from DAY 1 that "quran" is a common noun and hence you started this whole thread and translated it. Common nouns are translated while proper names are not translated. Common nouns are common (i.e. not unique) BY DEFINITION.
I hope that I was able to clarify things a little bit for you as you have helped me clarify things on other occasions.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
salam br ayman,
nice to hear from you again bro.. argue is a strong word, i think we are just trying to achieve the truth and share opinions.
thanks for your explanation of ishaara, although i think it should have been obvious that i agreed on that point already. if you look at the sentences you quoted of me, i explained the exact same thing in other words. "Hatha just specifies that it is THIS that is being referred to by the term Quran, NOT whatever else the Arabs used it for in their day and age." By stating this I accepted the fact that Quran was not a proper noun. I went on to clarify my main point which was "this does not in ANY way imply that there are other books of revelation called Quraan."
Basically in other words, I stated that merely claiming Quran is not a proper noun, does not automatically imply that the word Quran was used to refer to other books of revelation too. It may have been used to refer to other things in general, and MIGHT have been used to refer to other books of revelation, but you have to prove it.
As far as using the term "Quraan" to describe other books of revelation in this day and age, I think that would be rather confusing dont you? Not only that, but I think it would detract from the uniqueness and perfectness of the Quran which is unparalleled. At the time the Quran was revealed (and of course from then onwards), no other book of revelation exists which remains pure from tampering and changing. In fact MOST religions openly claim their books were not revealed but rather were written as commentaries by human beings.
So basically, I completely agree with you. The only thing I am not convinced of is that it was ACTUALLY used to describe revelations other than this one in Arabic.
wassalam
-
As'Salaam Alaykum All,
They say that in the Ennuit language there are over one hundred words for snow, now whether you use one of these one hundred words or just... snow, none of them are what you are describing. A word, in ANY language is simply that a word; a sound or combination of sounds, or it's representation in writing or printing that symbolizes and communicates a meaning.
Example RAIN... RAIN... RAIN... does everybody know what I mean by rain? Now... did anybody get wet? Of course not... because the word rain is not the "reality" of rain, and if you and I are standing in a rain shower it it won't matter if you call it "rain" and I call it "ojo'gbu", we will both get wet. Now if we stand in a shower in our house we will also get wet, but... will we call it rain. To take the example a little further... If I say it's raining cats and dogs are you going to reinforce your umbrella because cats and dogs are heavier than water? By the way... when I referred to rain as "it" did anyone get lost in the translation from "rain" to "it"? We can Scream... "RAIN!" all day long, and it still won't "BE" rain.
We may call it the Qur'an, the Great Reading, the Message, the Collected Teachings... there will be those who go beyond the words and perceive the meaning and "spirit" of the words, and there are those who will simply see a collection of words made from letters, then they will argue ceaselessly because they are caught up/attached to a form, when what they are describing is formless. Words are empty and meaningless if they fail to convey the spirit of what they represent. The sounds will have no more meaning for them than... "Rain, Rain go away... Olu'sanya wants to play... with words... because they are never what they describe!
So who's right? Everybody! Well then who's wrong? Everybody! Everybody who gets past the word and through to it's "essential meaning" is correct, everybody who doesn't... is incorrect. It doesn't matter how well they phrase their... words. They will be empty... and meaningless, a void of understanding. So we should take care, so that we can avoid getting trapped by the words we use. We must not let our attachment to words "reign" over our reason, and we will end up showering each other with more... and more... meaningless words, and still... without understanding each other.
Ma'Salaam,
Olu'sanya lol -
Peace ayman, all
perhaps not knowing well enough that "The Reading" becomes just another title/name that many are addressing as such, only to find out that its now been given an uncertain and meaningless English title.
You are right The Reading is just another empty title like Quran. On the other hand, the great honorable reading is a description not a title.
Even "The Reading" might not be an empty title.....i might be wrong but according to my(admitedly poor)knowledge of english article "the" might denote and/or mean "supreme"....i have read of it, if i recall well, in webster and oxford dictionary.....but not sure if i got it right.... i think similar case might be with al- ilah or "allah"......
whatever, "the" denotes well known notion/object or previosly mentioned, or one that is subject of discussion , so when we say The Reading, it should be quite clear, at least on this forum, that we think of The God revealed reading.....
best wishes, Zlatan
-
They say that in the Ennuit language there are over one hundred words for snow, now whether you use one of these one hundred words or just... snow, none of them are what you are describing. A word, in ANY language is simply that a word; a sound or combination of sounds, or it's representation in writing or printing that symbolizes and communicates a meaning.
Wow! You said it! Reminds me of a chinese movie I watched called "Hero". There was a part where the main character talked about a chinese province called "Qin", where he asked a master at calligraphy and the sword to write for him the word 'sword'. Apparently in that little village/province of china there were 19 ways to write the word sword... he asked the master to write the 20th variaton. shock
We can Scream... "RAIN!" all day long, and it still won't "BE" rain.
Well said. We can use whatever word(s) we want, end of the day, what do they mean to us?... what do we do with them?
It is the God who reveals the verses to us.
-
Peace brother Shuaib,
Thank you for you response.
thanks for your explanation of ishaara, although i think it should have been obvious that i agreed on that point already. if you look at the sentences you quoted of me, i explained the exact same thing in other words. "Hatha just specifies that it is THIS that is being referred to by the term Quran, NOT whatever else the Arabs used it for in their day and age." By stating this I accepted the fact that Quran was not a proper noun. I went on to clarify my main point which was "this does not in ANY way imply that there are other books of revelation called Quraan."
Remember that the great reading is in Arabic, a language that was ALREADY in existance. The word "quran" existed in the Arabic language before the revelation. It is like saying "reading" doesn't in any way imply that there are other books that are read. Or if you take "quran" to mean "compilation", it is like saying "compilation" doesn't in any way imply that there are other things that are compiled.
As I said before, common nouns are by definition common (not unique) descriptions.
Basically in other words, I stated that merely claiming Quran is not a proper noun, does not automatically imply that the word Quran was used to refer to other books of revelation too. It may have been used to refer to other things in general, and MIGHT have been used to refer to other books of revelation, but you have to prove it.
Brother, there is only one "great reading" or you can call it "honorable reading", which is the Arabic book that descended on the prophet. A pre-quranic Arab would have understood the term "quran" as simply "a reading". Hence, those who didn't like it told the prophet to bring a reading other than this one. So a false reading is also a "reading" in the Arabic language.
As far as using the term "Quraan" to describe other books of revelation in this day and age, I think that would be rather confusing dont you? Not only that, but I think it would detract from the uniqueness and perfectness of the Quran which is unparalleled. At the time the Quran was revealed (and of course from then onwards), no other book of revelation exists which remains pure from tampering and changing. In fact MOST religions openly claim their books were not revealed but rather were written as commentaries by human beings.
That is why I always use the term great reading or honorable reading because otherwise it is confusing as you said. When we are reading it, The God doesn't need to always use those extra terms because "quran" is refering to what is being read presently. When I tell you "this reading speaks the truth" while you are reading something then it is not confusing and you know that I am talking about what you are reading. Otherwise, I have to further clarify by saying "the great reading speaks the truth", for example.
So basically, I completely agree with you. The only thing I am not convinced of is that it was ACTUALLY used to describe revelations other than this one in Arabic.
There are no other great readings or honorable readings so if one uses those descriptions, there is no chance of confusion.
Best wishes and peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Olusanya,
Thank you for your interesting comments.
Example RAIN... RAIN... RAIN... does everybody know what I mean by rain? Now... did anybody get wet? Of course not... because the word rain is not the "reality" of rain, and if you and I are standing in a rain shower it it won't matter if you call it "rain" and I call it "ojo'gbu", we will both get wet. Now if we stand in a shower in our house we will also get wet, but... will we call it rain. To take the example a little further... If I say it's raining cats and dogs are you going to reinforce your umbrella because cats and dogs are heavier than water? By the way... when I referred to rain as "it" did anyone get lost in the translation from "rain" to "it"? We can Scream... "RAIN!" all day long, and it still won't "BE" rain.
Actually, in the great reading (lower case) we see extensive use of similies. For example, when The God says that the rejecters are deaf and blind, no one thinks that they are really deaf or blind exactly like no one thinks that it is raining cats and dogs. However, those idioms evoke a certain mental image. The God is addressing our mind with mental images. Also, such idioms prevent the corruption of the message. In your example, no one can claim that "cats" is the proper name of a specific animal in Jerusalem or Makka that only the clergy know about.
We may call it the Qur'an, the Great Reading, the Message, the Collected Teachings...
We may not because all those are labels and meaningless proper names. You have to remove the CAPS and make them common nouns to be meaningful.
there will be those who go beyond the words and perceive the meaning and "spirit" of the words,
The meaning is arrived at by translating, otherwise it is like saying "Ojo'gbu".
and there are those who will simply see a collection of words made from letters, then they will argue ceaselessly because they are caught up/attached to a form, when what they are describing is formless. Words are empty and meaningless if they fail to convey the spirit of what they represent. The sounds will have no more meaning for them than... "Rain, Rain go away... Olu'sanya wants to play... with words... because they are never what they describe!
The objective is not to describe the physical phenomena of rain but it is to evoke the mental image of wanting to have fun. As such, idioms do convey meaning.
So who's right? Everybody! Well then who's wrong? Everybody! Everybody who gets past the word and through to it's "essential meaning" is correct, everybody who doesn't... is incorrect.
To get at its essential meaning one must understand a word. Translating a word is a must for understanding.
Peace,
Ayman