the reading(quran) is not the title of any book

unknownuser

Peace el-Aziz,

My translation at first sight would read something like ?and the messenger says ?my Lord, my people has forsaken this call/proclamation??. There?s nothing really implying that it would refer to the book where this scenario is being painted.

I believe that no doubt the messenger called/proclaimed to his people all that was commanded of him. But his call/proclamation was written down in a book form to be remembered for generations to take heed on. Once in a book form, in cannot be a "call or a proclamation" by verbal speech, but by reading. Keeping in mind that every book on earth has a recognition by its title, hence, this very book being an Arabic one, was given the same title of Quran in Arabic, which you see it as a call/proclamation. It is not necessary for any book to testify and authenticate its' title/name within its own contents. Besides, I sincerely doubt that anyone on earth has either come across or changed the name/title of this book, other than what IT IS.....The Quran.

unknownuser

Hey danish

sorry about the clash we had when I joined, i just didn't know you, neither you knew me however I started to sense the many wisdom in your words

thanks bro

Fahad1

Not at all. The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

words of man ? ! try this arrow

"There was a fundamental crisis in mathematics about a hundred years ago, a basic disturbance that affected all of logic till it was repaired. Logicians realized that for centuries they had left out the concept of "Self-reference." For centuries, Aristotle?s rule of the "Excluded middle" had been used. This rule is a proposition that states, "Every proposition is either true or false." Somebody was smart enough to question that very proposition. What if that proposition that states that every proposition is either true or false is false? People had overlooked that for centuries. Not so the Koran. If the Koran is what it claims to be then it should be aware of self-reference, as applied to its own statements."
click here
Koran and Self-Reference

(for discussion with the author, visit http//rationalreality.forumsplace.com/message42.html )
.

unknownuser

Hello All

Please read the following and I will keep adding to it

The inimitability of the Quran
The inimitability of the Quran is not limited to its content. In fact, the Holy Book of Islam is held by the Muslim scholars to be inimitable not only in its content but also in its language. The Quran, it has been constantly maintained, embodies linguistic and literary beauty which exceeds anything of human origin. This is borne out by the fact that no-one has ever been able to compose anything remotely resembling it in its linguistic, literary, or conceptual elegance. This point is repeatedly emphasized in the Holy Book itself. Thus the Quran says

"If the whole of mankind and the jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed each other up."

(8

The inimitable nature of the Quran was recognized by generation after generation of scholars. Al-Tabari (d. 923) dealt with this subject in his voluminous study of the Holy Book.

Al-Zamakhshari elaborated on this theme in his famous al-Kashshaf, as did Baydawi in his Tafsir. AlBaqillam, a prominent scholar, wrote a book which he devoted entirely to this subject and to which he gave the title I'jaz al-Quran (The Inimitability of the Quran). Here he wrote

The Quran is so wonderfully arranged and so marvellously composed, and so exalted is its literary excellence that it is beyond what any mere creature could attain.

Al-Jawziyya, also a noted scholar, added that

Whoever knows Arabic and is acquainted with lexicography, grammar, rhetoric, and Arabic poetry and prose recognizes ipso facto the supremacy of the Quran

Ibn Khaldun also dealt with certain aspects of the style of the Quran

The inimitability of the Quran consists in the fact that its language indicates all the requirements of the situation referred to, whether they are stated or understood. This represents the highest degree of speech. In addition, the Quran is perfect in the choice of words and excellence of arrangement.

The inimitability as well as the linguistic significance of the Quran can be better understood within its pre-Islamic context and according to the role language played during that period. Furthermore, the linguistic significance of the Quran can also be better understood within that same context. The linguistic aspect of the Holy Book was brilliantly used by the Prophet in challenging and eventually prevailing upon his fellow Arabs who held in high esteem those who were eloquent and articulate. The eloquence of the Quran clearly impressed and overwhelmed them. This explains why the Quran has been referred to as 'Muhammad's miracle', or. as the 'miracle of Islam'. The use of the power of the Quran as a means of persuasion was admitted by the Prophet himself and was mentioned repeatedly in the Quran mostly in the form of a challenge to the disbelievers to produce something similar. On the need and justification for the Prophet to use a book such as the Quran, Ibn Qutayba wrote

God offered the Quran as the Prophet's sign in the same way as He offered signs for all the other prophets. He sent the things most appropriate to the time in which they were sent. Thus Moses had the power to divide the sea with his hand and rod, and to let the rock burst forth with water in the desert, and all his other signs in a time of magic. And Jesus had the power to bring the dead back to life, to make birds out of clay, to cure those who had been blind from birth and the leprous, and all his other signs in a time of medicine. And Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him salvation, had the book and all his other signs in a time of eloquence.

Footnotes
A number of excellent works were devoted entirely to this aspect of tne Quran, e.g., al-Suyiti, al Itqan, and al-Baqillani, I'jaz al-Quran, Beirut, 1979.

Abu Ja far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Quran.

Mahmud b. Umar al-Zamakhashari (d. 1143).

Nasr al-Din al-Baidawi (d. 1286)

Al Baqillan, Op. Cit.. pp 45 ff

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Kitab al-Fawai'id al-mushawwig ila ?ulum al-Quran wa'ilm al-bayan, Cairo, 1909, pp. 7, 246.

Ibn Khaldun, Op. Cit., vol. 3, 338

Ibn Qutayba, Kitab Ta'wil mushkil al-Quran, Cairo, 1954, p. 10.

Ibn Khaldun, Op. Cit., vol. 3, 1266

unknownuser

Hello, just a small bit of info

Those are the known Arabs who took the Quran challenge only to fail misreably

Ibn al-Mukaffa

Musaylimah

Abul Ala al Marri

Yahya b. al Hakam al Ghazal

Sayyid Ali Muhammad

Ibn al Rawandi

Bassar bin Burd

Sahib Ibn Abbad

Abul Atahiya

I may post a lil info regarding each one failed try.

Peace

el-Aziz

Not at all. The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

words of man ? ! try this arrow

............................

Would you mind putting it in your own words instead? You have already refered to the article in question and I have already read it. Please show me what relevance this has to what I just stated about the Koran being the word of man and not of God?s.

Regards,
S

el-Aziz

Frid Danish,

Peace el-Aziz,

My translation at first sight would read something like ?and the messenger says ?my Lord, my people has forsaken this call/proclamation??. There?s nothing really implying that it would refer to the book where this scenario is being painted.

I believe that no doubt the messenger called/proclaimed to his people all that was commanded of him. But his call/proclamation was written down in a book form to be remembered for generations to take heed on. Once in a book form, in cannot be a "call or a proclamation" by verbal speech, but by reading. Keeping in mind that every book on earth has a recognition by its title, hence, this very book being an Arabic one, was given the same title of Quran in Arabic, which you see it as a call/proclamation. It is not necessary for any book to testify and authenticate its' title/name within its own contents. Besides, I sincerely doubt that anyone on earth has either come across or changed the name/title of this book, other than what IT IS.....The Quran.

?and I don?t believe that this refers to something that has occured but is actually happening.
I don?t mind a book having a title to be recognized by, but I?m confident that ?qur??n? inside the Koran does not refer to the book itself, but the call or proclamation that is to be remembered with the help of this book. The call does not fit in any book, but the whatever book (such as the Koran) may very well speak of the call, not actually reproducing it or giving account for it in words that can be typed with ink.

Fahad1

Not at all. The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

words of man ? ! try this arrow

............................

Would you mind putting it in your own words instead?

why do i need to put it in my own words ?! the author has written and explained in better words than i can explain in my words . why do u need my words ? what if i say the exact thing that the article says ?!

You have already refered to the article in question and I have already read it. Please show me what relevance this has to what I just stated about the Koran being the word of man and not of God?s.

you wrote

The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

i was just providing you that guarantee ,that the Koran is something other than words of men . something that it claims to be .

however i think that this discussion about "word of god or man" should be continued on seperate thread .

el-Aziz

Not at all. The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

words of man ? ! try this arrow

............................

Would you mind putting it in your own words instead?

why do i need to put it in my own words ?! the author has written and explained in better words than i can explain in my words . why do u need my words ? what if i say the exact thing that the article says ?!

You have already refered to the article in question and I have already read it. Please show me what relevance this has to what I just stated about the Koran being the word of man and not of God?s.

you wrote

The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

i was just providing you that guarantee ,that the Koran is something other than words of men . something that it claims to be .

however i think that this discussion about "word of god or man" should be continued on seperate thread .