the reading(quran) is not the title of any book
-
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
-
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
-
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 -
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. -
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 .
-
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 .
Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?
And still, what you quoted a couple of posts ago doesn't really guarantee no words of God and not of man, does it?
-
-
Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?
when did i say that Koran contains all of God's words ?!
You didn't say all. Nor did I. What I said was to express the words of God. Not a couple of them, not a book, not a newspaper. No word that can be typed is sufficient to express something on behalf of the Lord. Neither do I think that the Koran is an exception by mentioning some of them. Period.
-
Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?
when did i say that Koran contains all of God's words ?!
You didn't say all. Nor did I. What I said was to express the words of God. Not a couple of them, not a book, not a newspaper. No word that can be typed is sufficient to express something on behalf of the Lord.
and where did u get that idea from ?
-
Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?
when did i say that Koran contains all of God's words ?!
You didn't say all. Nor did I. What I said was to express the words of God. Not a couple of them, not a book, not a newspaper. No word that can be typed is sufficient to express something on behalf of the Lord.
and where did u get that idea from ?
Well, since I didn't find it in the Encyclopedia Britannica under "idea", I had to do some thinking and reflectioning on my own.
A long shot, I admit - but I can assure you it was worth it!
-
An example of Musaylimah the liar
During the time of Prophet Muhammad there arose a man called Musaylimah who started claiming the Prophethood. So, he also started saying "revelatory pronouncements". His revelatory pronouncements resembled
The form of these sayings correspond to a large extent with that of the earliest surahs, and they are in part prefaced by strange oaths, just like the surahs. It is however questionable whether Musaylimah was in fact the source of any of these sayings. Perhaps they were all invented at a later date and ascribed to him as a clumsy imitator of Muhammad. One of the sayings is modelled in a particularly obvious fashion on the mode of expression of the Quran. it runs
"The elephant. What is the elephant? And who shall tell you what is the elephant? He has a ropy tail and a long trunk. this is a trifle of our Lord's creations."
lol lol lol lol lol lol
Concerning the style of his speech
He followed the kahin style of rhymed prose, and of the pronouncing of oaths. One such, swearing by mountain goat, the black smooth-skinned wolf and dark night are suggestive of animals symbolic of the pagan gods.
And
When Musaylimah met the Prophetess Sajah they parleyed in rhymed prose, Musaylimah being credited with the use of "Islamic" turns of phrase such as 'Alay-na min salawati ma'shari abrar, ... yaqumuna 'l-layla wa-yasumuna 'l-nahar, li-rabbi-kumu'l-kubbar, rabbi 'l-ghuyumi wa 'l-amtar (Upon us are the blessings from a company of dutful men ... The night they spend in vigil; during the day they fast for your great Lord, Lord of the cloud and rains).
Al-Baqillan?, who systematically analyzed the poetry of Musaylimah (apart from Imru' al-Qais and others) has been quoted
The pieces reported to have been composed by Musaylimah are so ridiculously poor in style that nobody could seriously compare them with the Quran.
-
Peace be upon you Ahmed,
Thanks for sharing that story, but what does it support?
-
Peace be upon you,
Can we serve the God without "Koran" as a partner?
-
Peace be upon you Ahmed,
Thanks for sharing that story, but what does it support?
Peace mate
it supports 1788
ie. if the Quran is human words as some confused muslims/non muslims think then the challenge 1788 should have been met at least once in 1400 years
so I'm showing the others who know nothing about the arabic language, how the Quran can not be inimitaded using its original langauge and by top arabic language experts
HENCE IT IS THE EXACT WORDS OF ALLAH AND CAN NOT BE HUMAN AS THE QURAN STATED IN 1788
I still have a few trial by aome arabic language talents and their failure to create somthing like the Arabic Quran
all those following ideas based on the English Quran are most liely flawed 100%
peace
-
-
Peace be upon you Ahmed,
Thanks for sharing that story, but what does it support?
Peace mate
it supports 1788
ie. if the Quran is human words as some confused muslims/non muslims think then the challenge 1788 should have been met at least once in 1400 years
so I'm showing the others who know nothing about the arabic language, how the Quran can not be inimitaded using its original langauge and by top arabic language experts
HENCE IT IS THE EXACT WORDS OF ALLAH AND CAN NOT BE HUMAN AS THE QURAN STATED IN 1788
I still have a few trial by aome arabic language talents and their failure to create somthing like the Arabic Quran
all those following ideas based on the English Quran are most liely flawed 100%
peace
I really don't get it. What is it in your opinion that proves that this supposedly impossible challenge is the word of God and nothing else?
-
i dont agree with your idea .
Can I ask you (and I'm not being ironic)...have you been doing any thinking of your own, or are you controlled by common interpretations of books as the Koran?
in the light of the Koran . without it , i was blind .
You know what defines a blind person? One that cannot see. One that has lost his eye sight.
So here's my question, are you blind or seeing as as you say you cannot see using your very own eyes, the ones that were given to you by God? -
Peace be upon you Ahmed,
Thanks for sharing that story, but what does it support?
Peace mate
it supports 1788
ie. if the Quran is human words as some confused muslims/non muslims think then the challenge 1788 should have been met at least once in 1400 years
so I'm showing the others who know nothing about the arabic language, how the Quran can not be inimitaded using its original langauge and by top arabic language experts
HENCE IT IS THE EXACT WORDS OF ALLAH AND CAN NOT BE HUMAN AS THE QURAN STATED IN 1788
I still have a few trial by aome arabic language talents and their failure to create somthing like the Arabic Quran
all those following ideas based on the English Quran are most liely flawed 100%
peace
I really don't get it. What is it in your opinion that proves that this supposedly impossible challenge is the word of God and nothing else?
I'm sorry bro that you can't seeit, possibly because you are not a native arabic speaker hence you don't know exactly what the structure of this langugae is, possibly you know about the root thingy which "as I said before" is good enough for primary schools, it is obvious that this root thingy is so novice because it deals with words only and not context or sentenses
back to our point about the arabic Quran, the Quran came with a few builtin challenge as you know. I don't think a human writer writes a book and claim in it that no (human/jinn/fake god) will be able to write something like it, i guess this human writer will be an idiot if he included something like this in his book
we also never heard a human caliming that the Quran is his/her work, only one entity claimed that it is his work and that entity is Allah, hence we have to take that challenge in the Quran very serious indeed
that challenge is not for the non arabic speakers neither it is for the average arabic speakers, it is for the best of the best in the arabic language and what I'm showing here is the tries of the best of the best and how drastically they failed, did you read "Al Elephant" by Musa;iamah the liar above, lol
It is clear to me that you totally ignored this challenge in the Quran, I understand that this challnege will sound nothing much to you as a non arabic speaker so I'm trying to show you/others that this challenge is never met by the top Arabic speakers starting from the time of the prophet
in fact in my generation there was a TOP ARABIC WRITER named "Taha Hussain" he was blind but was a top arabic language expert and his work is taught at schoools in Egypt, that man looked at the Quran challenge and admitted that in no way he can write something like this and he never did, he said that after it was suggested that "Taha Hussain" can do it., he is dead now and he never did it.