the reading(quran) is not the title of any book
-
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. -
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.
"This our book" would read "this book of ours" if translated that way. However, "h??? kit?bun?" means "this is our book".
-
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. Doesnt seem like no shirk to me.
God IS wisDOM ? So Allah is also al-hikmah ? And since al-hikmah is al-kitaab , Allah is al-kitaab as well ??!!
Al-quraan al-hakeem is 'THE CALL of the wise' ?
Ok, my apologies but I think I understand now why you can't get what I'm saying. I've certainly been wasting my time here.
Funny youd mention MY standard Arabic. Even if we used your neo-arabic where tilka means these, it wouldnt 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, theres no such article preceding ?y?t. So the tilka cant either way aim at the ?y?t
False due to misunderstanding of what I was saying. Firstly, I was responding to you when you inconsequentialised the 'al' in 'hadha al-quraan'. This act of yours showed that you missed out on the variant forms coming AFTER hadha. Tilka has been shown to denote singularity OR plurality. Ayaat doesn't need an 'al' there because it was you who falsely established the grammatical law to begin with.
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. Youd gonna have to give give me an example where h???/h??ihi is preceding AL and the whatever
Eh? The example was to show 'hadha' use without the 'al' to show you that 'al' is significant. You've missed the point completely yet again.
First of all, you clearly do not know the grammatical rules of either classic Arabic nor the quraishi one in the Koran. The verifications Ive 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?It's difficult for me to find your statement credible when you think 'al-quraan' is 'the call'. I'm beginning to see the strategies you employ in language and I'm sorry but I can't agree with them.
As for 'giving an accurate account', I've had no problems explaining my views in my world. Is there no possibility that you have a comprehension problem?
As for my Arabic learning process, it didnt 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.
Where did you learn these rules from? Do you consider these books to be infallible, always correct like Allah?
Does your 'el-aziz' handle come from your Arabic learning ? Rather strange considering how strongly you're against shirk.
-
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.
God IS wisDOM ? So Allah is also al-hikmah ? And since al-hikmah is al-kitaab , Allah is al-kitaab as well ??!!
Al-quraan al-hakeem is 'THE CALL of the wise' ?
Ok, my apologies but I think I understand now why you can't get what I'm saying. I've certainly been wasting my time here.This is what it means. Where are you trying to go with this nonsense!?
"Al qur'?n al hak?m" means "the wise qur'?n/call/whatever". Period.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
False due to misunderstanding of what I was saying. Firstly, I was responding to you when you inconsequentialised the 'al' in 'hadha al-quraan'. This act of yours showed that you missed out on the variant forms coming AFTER hadha. Tilka has been shown to denote singularity OR plurality. Ayaat doesn't need an 'al' there because it was you who falsely established the grammatical law to begin with.
There is no way you can prove that "tilka" is an alternative plural form. Give me subsancial proofs or leave it, ok?
As for the word h???, you believe that what is translated to as "this..." in English can be expressed in Arabic with both h??? with and without the AL. This is not correct. If it would be, you would have given me such an accurate translation. But you can'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?
Eh? The example was to show 'hadha' use without the 'al' to show you that 'al' is significant. You've missed the point completely yet again.
No, you have completely misunderstood the use of "h???". I'm sorry to say but there's not much of a chance that someone who knows arabic can agree with you.
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?It's difficult for me to find your statement credible when you think 'al-quraan' is 'the call'. I'm beginning to see the strategies you employ in language and I'm sorry but I can't agree with them.
Call or proclamation, yes. Either way, the subject of this thread is that "al-qur'?n" inside the Koran is not the reference to the title of the book. So it doesn't really matter does it? Especially since I'm still waiting for you to unveil the secrets of the "Koran=al-qur'?n" assertion.
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.
Where did you learn these rules from? Do you consider these books to be infallible, always correct like Allah?
Does your 'el-aziz' handle come from your Arabic learning ? Rather strange considering how strongly you're against shirk.
El-Aziz was just a name that I picked 'cause it sounds cool. It has nothing to do with our discussion. Nothing shirky about that.
As for the rules that applies to either modern or elder Arabic, they are results of how people has tended to speak and write. These rules have been gathered in books. And there's no book that is infallible like God, simply not comparable. Don't be stupid! -
This is what it means. Where are you trying to go with this nonsense!?
"Al qur'?n al hak?m" means "the wise qur'?n/call/whatever". Period.Nonsense ? It's you who said 'the call of the wise' above. Would you like to retract that statement or...?
As for 'the wise call' , I'm afraid this further confirms to me that I can't trust what you say about Arabic for the following reasons
-
Al-quraan calls itself names without the 'al' as well like 'qur'aanan arabiiyan' (41/3)
-
Al-quraan uses the word 'da'a' and 'nid'aa' for 'call'. So I'm afraid your lexicography falls short here.
There is no way you can prove that "tilka" is an alternative plural form. Give me subsancial proofs or leave it, ok?
As i've told you, 'ayaat' is in plural and tilkaa refers to 'ayaat'. I take al-quraan to be the confirmer of the Arabic language and so tilkaa can be plural for me. As for 'leave it', you might want to check the colour of your name in the mainpage. If it's blue, it means that you're not a moderator. Of course you can denounce all you want.
As for the word h???, you believe that what is translated to as "this..." in English can be expressed in Arabic with both h??? with and without the AL. This is not correct. If it would be, you would have given me such an accurate translation. But you can't.
So al-quraan's criteria is its suitability in ENGLISH D
Oh wow, this is most unusual !
So 'qatala Daud Jaluut' must be wrong too because in english it means 'He killed David Goliath'. Someone killed a chap named David Goliath!
No, you have completely misunderstood the use of "h???". I'm sorry to say but there's not much of a chance that someone who knows arabic can agree with you
Your 'insight' into the unseen has failed this time, im afraid. I have discussed my views with some Arab academics and it seems they are not so dogmatic. They've actually showed me problems that Arabic grammar hasn't been able to solve.
Call or proclamation, yes. Either way, the subject of this thread is that "al-qur'?n" inside the Koran is not the reference to the title of the book. So it doesn't really matter does it? Especially since I'm still waiting for you to unveil the secrets of the "Koran=al-qur'?n" assertion.
How can it not matter when you've asserted that I don't know Arabic (the assertion itself is not the issue but you as the asserter must be questioned) ? Your assertion must show that you know Arabic. And since you claim to know, saying 'al-quraan = the call' must be testworthy and it wasn't. God is 'wisdom' has also failed the test.
As for 'unveiling the secrets', its a matter of criteria. My criteria is al-quraan and it's yielded its results to me. Whether you believe in it or not, it's of no consequence to me whatsoever.
El-Aziz was just a name that I picked 'cause it sounds cool. It has nothing to do with our discussion.
As for the rules that applies to either modern or elder Arabic, they are results of how people has tended to speak and write. These rules have been gathered in books. And there's no book that is infallible like God, simply not comparable. Don't be stupid!Thanks for the insult.
El-aziz is also the name of Allah. Since you've mentioned shirk and you obviously know Arabic, I'd expect you to not use a name like that.
Since the books of grammar and lexicography are fallible as you've shown, then how they be trusted?
-
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
Kyle, would you mind telling us what you interpret the word 'al-quraan' as please?
The proclamation. It is The Book(universal Law) that is to be proclaimed to mankind.
-
The proclamation. It is The Book(universal Law) that is to be proclaimed to mankind
But it's doesn't call itself 'al-kitaab'/the book. It calls itself 'tafseel al-kitaab'/the detailing/parsing of al-kitaab (10/37).
And how is this proclamation made ? Do you read from something or is there something cosmic to proclaim?
-
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.
very good point bro
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.
of course bro, you are 100% right in here
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.
hey mate in either cases it id right, with or without the Al, The Al is called "Al Tarif" and can be added or removed from any word
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.
about 63 contexts in the Quran where it referes to itself as Quran
peace
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
But it's doesn't call itself 'al-kitaab'/the book. It calls itself 'tafseel al-kitaab'/the detailing/parsing of al-kitaab (10/37).
The details make up the Whole, we cannot proclaim the whole at once.
And how is this proclamation made ? Do you read from something or is there something cosmic to proclaim?
To tell someone that smoking is incorrect is proclaiming the book. To tell someone to feed the poor is proclaiming the book. But these are details of the WHOLE system.
-
mquran,
I think it?s rather my English that fell short. In Swedish it could be ?kall?, maybe that?s why I came up with that translation. Proclamation sounds a bit stiff, though. I think you can come up with a translation somewhere in between. As for ?da?a? and ?nid???, they speak of physical calls.
The Koran never gives itself names, does not entitle itself. No.
In 413, ?qur??nan? is an adjective and not a proper name. Thus ?a book, with its signs designed by an Arabic proclamation? or something like that.
The word ?h???? can be used in various ways. Though, believing that ?h??? al qur??n? and ?h??? qur??n? is the same thing shows a lack of knowledge of Arabic grammar.
As you say that ?tilka? can refer to a plural, it has no support what so ever in Arabic language. There are already plural forms that are ?h??l? or ??l??ika?. What tilka feels like to you has support only inside your mind and many an islamic scholar.As for the secrets, you have not yet been able to prove for sure that the ?qur??n? inside the Koran actually aims at the title of this very book. It never says ?h??? al kit?bu alla?? ismuhu al qur??n?. Never.
El-Aziz is not a name of God, no. Inside the Koran, the author(s) has put attributes to describe God. That is not the same thing as names.
Listen, a language is a language. Nothing more. It evolves. Things that used to be incorrect start to adapt to modern grammatical rules as time passes by. All languages do the same thing. Let me know if you?re coming anywhere with these questions, ok?
-
about 63 contexts in the Quran where it referes to itself as Quran
Even though I think we've reached that point quite some time ago, it's just about crunch time right now.
For what you just stated I would like only ONE among these 63 contexts where the Koran is mentioning these things together
- The title "qur'?n"
- the title clearly refering to the whole book in question.
Can you do that, can you post such a verse here?
-
about 63 contexts in the Quran where it referes to itself as Quran
Even though I think we've reached that point quite some time ago, it's just about crunch time right now.
For what you just stated I would like only ONE among these 63 contexts where the Koran is mentioning these things together
- The title "qur'?n"
- the title clearly refering to the whole book in question.
Can you do that, can you post such a verse here?
271 is clearly using the Quran as a noun, hence it is a name to it
"The tyres of the Car"
"The verses of the Quran"
the car is named car
the Quran is named Quran
also bro in arabic we can add an alif to a name to express another context
like Ahmada
or Al Ahamdayai, sure is a name of a sect
or what do you think?
peace
-
Peace
here is another cpuple of verses
?it is an honored Quran, ?
(77)
-> Obviously 5677 clearly says ?it is an honored Quran?, surely the word Quran represent THE WHOLE BOOK and is its name
This is a good one
?So when you read the Quran, seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Shaitan, ?
(9
-> Hence under the flawed understanding that Quran means reading and is not a name, the info in the verse should be rendered to ?So when you read the reading, seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Shaitan,,
"Read the Reading" sounds a bit funny to me, and surely confusing, as which reading exactly that I should seek refuge with Allah from the shaitan?
I bet the answer will be the name of the book ?Al Quran?, well Allah answed it Himself by calling his book ?Al Quran? in the same verse
Peace
-
about 63 contexts in the Quran where it referes to itself as Quran
Even though I think we've reached that point quite some time ago, it's just about crunch time right now.
For what you just stated I would like only ONE among these 63 contexts where the Koran is mentioning these things together
- The title "qur'?n"
- the title clearly refering to the whole book in question.
Can you do that, can you post such a verse here?
271 is clearly using the Quran as a noun, hence it is a name to it
"The tyres of the Car"
"The verses of the Quran"
the car is named car
the Quran is named Quranalso bro in arabic we can add an alif to a name to express another context
like Ahmada
or Al Ahamdayai, sure is a name of a sect
or what do you think?There's no article to "ay?t" in 271, so "the verses of the quran" doesn't make any sense in this context.
Do you think car is the name of a car? How about 465, "day of the judgement". The day is named judgement? I don't think so.Once again I'm asking you to establish your claim of qur'?n being a proper name, and in the same context where it's mentioned - show how this refers to the 114 chapter book. Can you do that?
-
There's no article to "ay?t" in 271, so "the verses of the quran" doesn't make any sense in this context.
what do you mean by there is no article to ayah 271?
and why the verses of the Quran does not make any sense to you, can you elaborate?
for example the followings make sense to me
imagine I have a Book named "Ali Baba"
would this does not make sense to you?
The final chaphter of "Ali Baba" book is great
Do you think car is the name of a car? How about 465, "day of the judgement". The day is named judgement? I don't think so.
well car is a name of an object, exactly like the names Allah taught Adam when He created Him, remember those verses about adam?
a car as name of an object will represent a book as a name of an object and it is also given a name by Allah called "Quran" becaise he consistantly refered to it as a whole book as a such,
Once again I'm asking you to establish your claim of qur'?n being a proper name, and in the same context where it's mentioned - show how this refers to the 114 chapter book. Can you do that?
There is no verse in the Quran that says "The Quran name is the Quran" so you may live with what you concluded and surley we will all meet on that day named "Judgment day", and Allah will be the best Judge in what we differ
-
Ahmad,
5677 says ?it is indeed a generous qur??n? continuing with 78 saying ??in a well preserved book?. If the ?qur??n? in verse 77 refers to the whole book, what book is it (verse 7 included in?
Next thing, you say that God calls the Koran ?al?qur??n? in the verse 1698. Not correct, obviously. First of all, God doesn?t write books. And second of all, it does not what so ever clearly point out the title of the book to be ?al?qur??n? as the same thing as it is speaking of. I wish I could say nice try, but that wasn?t even any near.
-
Ahmad,
5677 says ?it is indeed a generous qur??n? continuing with 78 saying ??in a well preserved book?. If the ?qur??n? in verse 77 refers to the whole book, what book is it (verse 7 included in?
mate, please you have no poinyt here, the verses are very accurate
Allah is telling us that this Quran is generous of a type of a book that is well preserved, what is wrong with that bro?
why you are trying to make it so complicated man?, it is that simple I can assure you
Next thing, you say that God calls the Koran ?al?qur??n? in the verse 1698. Not correct, obviously. First of all, God doesn?t write books.
how do you know that the He does not? also did I say God write books?, I didn't because I don't know and I don't say things about God that I don't know and that is what the Quran adviced us to watch out for
And second of all, it does not what so ever clearly point out the title of the book to be ?al?qur??n? as the same thing as it is speaking of. I wish I could say nice try, but that wasn?t even any near.
well, if you hear someone calling me Ahmed, would that be enough that it is my name
also I'm not trying to convince you nor convince others, I'm documenting my replys to the conjecture about Islam and the Quran that has no merit and values whatsoever and only shows how confused many muslims are
peace