the reading(quran) is not the title of any book
-
Peace be Upon you El Aziz,
You will never get that verse D
Lets get this straight. You open a book, it says 'this al-quraan' isnt from other than Allah. And you think it points to something else?
This proclamation was not delivered as a book. If someone writes divine messages into a physical book, then great, but the God's Word cannot fit into a physical book. It is the UNIVERSAL LAW that is proclaimed to mankind when he WAKES UP. And this, the proclamation, cannot be from other than the God.
-
Peace be Upon you El Aziz,
You will never get that verse DSay what?
This proclamation was not delivered as a book. If someone writes divine messages into a physical book, then great, but the God's Word cannot fit into a physical book. It is the UNIVERSAL LAW that is proclaimed to mankind when he WAKES UP. And this, the proclamation, cannot be from other than the God.
There you go! In a couple of places inside the Koran, it clearly says that all the ink in the world is not sufficient compared to the words of the Lord.
By saying that a specific word, sentence, book, chapter etc - is one of God's, it is inevitable that one doesn't pick out certain elements that would be of God's. In this knowledge is in my opinion not of any man's possession. This form of distraction from God is refered to as "shirk" in arabic. -
Are you refering to the title of the book or "al-qur'?n" that is being mentioned inside "The Koran"?
It's clear to me that 'al-quraan' is the name of what you call "the koran", so whenever I say 'al-quraan', please take it to mean that.
It makes the conversation a bit more difficult for the both of us, but ok. I guess I'll gonna have to ask every now and then if that's ok with you.
I think you're already aware of the fact that you and Kyle speaks of different "qur'?n"s, so why this question?
You still haven't shown the corelation between the "qur'?n" that the Koran refers to, and that it actually would be itself as a book that it speaks of.
-
It makes the conversation a bit more difficult for the both of us, but ok. I guess I'll gonna have to ask every now and then if that's ok with you.
Perhaps, but for the readers of this thread the world over , I doubt many would be confused with what I mean when I say 'al-quraan'.
You still haven't shown the corelation between the "qur'?n" that the Koran refers to, and that it actually would be itself as a book that it speaks of.
I start with myself. I open a book. This book says 'this al-quraan.....'. It also says 'we relate to you the most beautiful qasaas in this al-quraan' (12/4) and it says 'TSM, THESE are the ayaat of al-quraan, that is a kitaabun mubiin' (27/1). If you understand that to mean something else, that's fine but that's proof enough for me.
-
There you go! In a couple of places inside the Koran, it clearly says that all the ink in the world is not sufficient compared to the words of the Lord.
By saying that a specific word, sentence, book, chapter etc - is one of God's, it is inevitable that one doesn't pick out certain elements that would be of God's. In this knowledge is in my opinion not of any man's possession. This form of distraction from God is refered to as "shirk" in arabic
.Can you please explain or rephrase the underlined quote? Why is it inevitable?
-
Peace be upon yuo MQ,
WB Kyle. How do you know al-quraan wasn't delivered as a book?
Thanks bro, great to be back amongst my online spiritual family trodding the path to truth. D
Speaking of the physical book, it says of itself that the God brings the message to the heart of men. This is intuition within, not a book being delivered.
In life experience, the God reveals to me by inspiration. I have read several books that lead to righteousness, but when the truth is revealed to me, those statements in ALL of those physical books comes alive.
-
Speaking of the physical book, it says of itself that the God brings the message to the heart of men. This is intuition within, not a book being delivered
Indeed, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's also on pages (80/11-16) and in a clear book (27/1).
In life experience, the God reveals to me by inspiration. I have read several books that lead to righteousness, but when the truth is revealed to me, those statements in ALL of those physical books comes alive.
That's cool, who am I to deny your experience. I'm just looking for what al-quraan says about itself. Since you don't believe 'quraan' refers to what I call 'al-quraan', I'd just like to know how you arrived there. Thus far, I don't see the evidence for it.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
I start with myself. I open a book.
Already we are limiting an uncountable number of people. There are people alive today who do not have that same "book", as well as people before this "book" was written who cannot follow this method you are using as your evidence.
Also, is this the same method the companions of that author used? Did they have that book to open?
This book says 'this al-quraan.....'.
When this verse was intuited, what book was around that one could open? The universe WAS here however, as it is here for ALL PEOPLE at ALL TIME, in ALL LOCATIONS.
It also says 'we relate to you the most beautiful qasaas in this al-quraan' (12/4)
Yes, Life contains uncountable stories that serve as examples for us to learn from. The story of Musa, Noah, etc etc happen all the time, not just in the past in the middle east.
and it says 'TSM, THESE are the ayaat of al-quraan, that is a kitaabun mubiin' (27/1).
Once we understand what TSM is, then we can discuss further. I have no knowledge of those "statements". However, when they were being INtuited by the author, there was no book for it to mean they are verses of the book.
-
mquran,
I?ll rephrase;
By saying that whatever is from God and selecting that object specifically, you are ascribing divine attributes to this whatever it may be.Next, you keep translating incorrectly. It does not say THESE in 271, it says THIS.
You cannot translate "hadhaa l-qur'?n" with ?this AL qur??n (or whatever being put as the translation for qur'?n, if any)?. It has to be ?This qur??n?. Or would you translate ?ha?ihi s-safHa? with ?this AL page? or ?this the page??
When it comes to your proofs, what are they based on? If you want to show me a proof, then it?s gonna have to be based on logic of the language and context - not already established personal reflections.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
Quote
Speaking of the physical book, it says of itself that the God brings the message to the heart of men. This is intuition within, not a book being deliveredIndeed, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's also on pages (80/11-16)
Yes, Laws are written down, but we can never collect all of the God's Universal Law into a book. Truthful statements are indeed written by scribes, and indeed it is wise to follow wise statements after they have been verified as truth. But we have no authority to say that "this reading" refers to the book called "Koran".
We read the same thing the prophtes read, that is the Universal Law.
and in a clear book (27/1).
The universe is clear for EVERYONE, a book called Koran is not even available for any human before it is written, nor people in certain areas of the world today.
Quote
In life experience, the God reveals to me by inspiration. I have read several books that lead to righteousness, but when the truth is revealed to me, those statements in ALL of those physical books comes alive.That's cool, who am I to deny your experience. I'm just looking for what al-quraan says about itself. Since you don't believe 'quraan' refers to what I call 'al-quraan', I'd just like to know how you arrived there. Thus far, I don't see the evidence for it.
I arrived at the book called "Koran" because I blindly believed in a man named "Muhammad" and an Arabic religion named "Islam", but as I study further, I realize that what the "Koran" speaks of is a humans attempt to help focus people on Divine Universal Law, just like all "religions" originally atempted until people come and corrupt them.
DO not take this to mean that I think the book called "Koran" is wortheless, it is not worthles, but indeed very powerful when it is purified. As well as other written books. In fact This book called "Koran" says that we should believe in that which came to us and those before us. It says to hear ALL opinions and follow the best (which would be the ones we verify as truth).
-
Ill rephrase;
By saying that whatever is from God and selecting that object specifically, you are ascribing divine attributes to this whatever it may be.Ok understood. So when Allah says Wa AL-QURAAN AL-HAKEEM, is Allah Himself comitting shirk ? Al-hakeem is Allah Himself, don't forget.
Next, you keep translating incorrectly. It does not say THESE in 271, it says THIS
Keep translating incorrectly? Tilka can be either 'this' or 'these'. If you notice, 'ayaat' is in plural.
You cannot translate "hadhaa l-qur'?n" with this AL qur?n. It has to be This qur?n. Or would you translate ha?ihi s-safHa with this AL page or this the page?
Sorry, I'm not an adherent of your modern standard Arabic and its rules. Al-quraan is what confirms the Arabic language for me (46/12). What may sound funny in english is of no consequence to me if al-quraan has already set its own rules about the matter. 'Hadha' has been used with non-specified objects and specified objects. You're telling me both are the same 'this book' and 'this OUR book' ? Hadha al-quraan shows specification and al-quraan's description of itself adds weight to this argument.
When it comes to your proofs, what are they based on? If you want to show me a proof, then its gonna have to be based on logic of the language and context - not already established personal reflections.
It was based on language and context but you brought some artificial linguistic rule to verify it. The problem is, I don't subscribe to those rules. As I said above, lisaanun arabiyan is confirmed by al-quraan for me and so in its own context, it makes perfect sense.
Did the book or cd where you learnt Arabic come down from the sky? If not, the authors 'personal reflection' was involved in it.
-
This book says 'this al-quraan.....'.
When this verse was intuited, what book was around that one could open? The universe WAS here however, as it is here for ALL PEOPLE at ALL TIME, in ALL LOCATIONS.
and it says 'TSM, THESE are the ayaat of al-quraan, that is a kitaabun mubiin' (27/1).
Once we understand what TSM is, then we can discuss further. I have no knowledge of those "statements". However, when they were being INtuited by the author, there was no book for it to mean they are verses of the book.
salam .
i had answered to this before too . hereeven back when Quran was not completed , "THIS" could refer to the kitab that was being compiled , being written down ,or being recited to the nabi by gabriel . even if it was a single page , it was a kitab .
idolfree1 write If that was the case, then why do we see instance of AL kitaab. Certinaly one page compared to a group of pages is not the same thing. Only one of them can be THE Kitaab.
So if we are reading about kitaab and there is no completed book, then your understanding has a serious flaw.
The argument of refering to it as such while it was not finished yet has really no merit
for example if it took me 5 years to write a book, during all these years I can refer to it as a book, why not?
idolfree1 wrote I doubt you would look at a your first page and say this is "THE book"(al kitaab). You would say "part of my book" , not THE book. How can you look at something unfinished in say "in it is guidance , sure without doubt". If I stop you right then and there, and wanted to get THE BOOK, could I do it?
Saladin wrote how would "part of my book" sound after the book will be complete . the complete book refering to itself as "part of the book" ?!
most books carry an introduction to themselves by the author in the opening pages . this is not an unusual thing . and when the author is giving the introduction like "this book is designed to help those who ...." , he uses the word "book", NOT "this part of the book" or "this page" .
that is exactly what the Quran does in surah baqarah when it says "zalika al kitab la raib feeh...(this is the book(written one) wherein there is no doubt...)" .
so i repeat , how would "part of my book/page" sound after the book will be complete . the complete book refering to itself as "part of the book" ?!
this just shows how little sense this arguement of yours makes , just like most your others .
EDITED
-
Peace be upon you Saladin,
Yes you responded, but there was no evidence in your response. Either quran=page, or quran=book. Pick one.
-
Yes you responded, but there was no evidence in your response. Either quran=page, or quran=book. Pick one.
Al-quraan doesn't mean the book or the page. It means the declaration,recitation. It describes itself AS a book when it says 'this book' and 'this our book' (please see my response to stephane) above.
-
I?ll rephrase;
By saying that whatever is from God and selecting that object specifically, you are ascribing divine attributes to this whatever it may be.Ok understood. So when Allah says Wa AL-QURAAN AL-HAKEEM, is Allah Himself comitting shirk ? Al-hakeem is Allah Himself, don't forget.
God is wise and the wisdom itself, yes. ?The call of the wise? makes perfect sense to me. And still has no one been able to prove that it refers to a book of 114 chapters. Doesn?t seem like no shirk to me.
Keep translating incorrectly? Tilka can be either 'this' or 'these'. If you notice, 'ayaat' is in plural.
Sorry, I'm not an adherent of your modern standard Arabic and its rules. Al-quraan is what confirms the Arabic language for me (46/12). What may sound funny in english is of no consequence to me if al-quraan has already set its own rules about the matter. 'Hadha' has been used with non-specified objects and specified objects. You're telling me both are the same 'this book' and 'this OUR book' ? Hadha al-quraan shows specification and al-quraan's description of itself adds weight to this argument.
Funny you?d mention MY standard Arabic. Even if we used your neo-arabic where ?tilka? means ?these?, it wouldn?t make sense. As you might have noticed ?this?? is expressed by ?ha??/h??ihi AL??. Or ?that?? by saying ???lika/tilka AL??. And as you know, there?s no such article preceding ??y?t?. So the ?tilka? can?t either way aim at the ??y?t?.
In the case that you refered to, 692, it is not to express ?this book? but ?this book?. The same thing goes for 4529 where it means ?this our book?. You might have noticed that Arabic seldom uses ?to be? where we normally would put it. So your examples are not applicable on the matter. You?d gonna have to give give me an example where ?h???/h??ihi? is preceding AL and the whatever?When it comes to your proofs, what are they based on? If you want to show me a proof, then it?s gonna have to be based on logic of the language and context - not already established personal reflections.
It was based on language and context but you brought some artificial linguistic rule to verify it. The problem is, I don't subscribe to those rules. As I said above, lisaanun arabiyan is confirmed by al-quraan for me and so in its own context, it makes perfect sense.
Did the book or cd where you learnt Arabic come down from the sky? If not, the authors 'personal reflection' was involved in it.
First of all, you clearly do not know the grammatical rules of either classic Arabic nor the quraishi one in the Koran. The verifications I?ve given you are based upon the understanding of its consequent use of the language inside the Koran, but you fail on showing me reference points. You confuse them all of the time.
As you say that the Arabic language is confirmed by itself inside the Koran and this makes sense to you ? how is it then that you are not able to give an accurate account of them?
As for my Arabic learning process, it didn?t involve very much personal reflection, no. In order to make my self understood, I had to stick to the rules already established as a result of etymological evolution.