Quran - The Word of God or Man.

ichephren

Peace Ahmed,

sis, you said the following"He was the vessel through which the message was given. So, he is the only one who can relate to us the facts wherein we differ."

and that is exactly what I'm saying, I don't underastand how you repeate it then say it is someting else?

If you can tell me where Muhammad got his extra-quranic information from then you can solve our problem. As long as there is none, then all the info must be the Quran. So, the verse can have only one meaning.

ichephren wrote
This ayah is talking stricly about the disbursement of spoils of war,

Ahmed wroteDoes the verse say so?, absolutely not, unless you are referring to the hadith?

I am not referring to hadith. I am saying that the CONTEXT of the verse is spoils of war, so the meaning should be limited to the CONTEXT. You seem to ignore the fact that verses are not written without surrounding context to give them meaning. The entire sura(even if it has no name) is about going to war and dividing the spoils of war...so when the verse says that we should accept what Muhammad gives to us, it can only be talking about in times of war when we divide spoils of war.

The Quran told us clearly that Mohammad was Dallan and Allah hadah, i.e. He was guided by Allah to prepare him for his role as a prophet

now there is something I would like to ask you, your refute for LeTobain was a typo, i.e. the dots should be under not above, while I expected more than that as a refute, it seems your refute will affect the whole Quran, i.e. how you know that every Ta, Ba, Tha and Ya is right?

When did I say that LeTobain was a typo? All I said was that your interpretation was wrong. I could care less about the grammar that you seem to be dodging the question with. If you believe that the Quran is complete, please point to me where GOD tells us that he gave Muhammad anything other than the Quran, and you will may have a point. If there is nothing other than the Quran, then your interpretation is just flat out wrong.

claurianta

now there is something I would like to ask you, your refute for LeTobain was a typo, i.e. the dots should be under not above, while I expected more than that as a refute, it seems your refute will affect the whole Quran, i.e. how you know that every Ta, Ba, Tha and Ya is right?

also do you believe Allah when He told us in the Quran that He will preserve it?

When did I say that LeTobain was a typo? All I said was that your interpretation was wrong. I could care less about the grammar that you seem to be dodging the question with. If you believe that the Quran is complete, please point to me where GOD tells us that he gave Muhammad anything other than the Quran, and you will may have a point. If there is nothing other than the Quran, then your interpretation is just flat out wrong.

I am the one who talked about the typo, not ichphren. To answer AhmedBaghat, I will say that seeing as there were many people who had the Qur'an committed to memory, I would say that most of the Ta, Ba, Tha, and Ya are correctly marked. However, as can be seen from the differences between the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Qur'an, there is not always agreement on whether a letter is a Ta, Ba, Tha, or Ya. Therefore I would say that any time that changing one of those letters for another makes sense in the context, and would radically change the meaning as in this case (is it Muhammad or the Qur'an that is supposed to solve the differences between the people?), we need to be extremely carefully in placing full authority on the text that we have, given the way it was conserved and passed on in the early years. It's such an easy change to give more authority to the hadith, and would therefore be very tempting especially as it is so minor as to be difficult to trace.
I'm not saying that the revealed version of this verse is not with "LeTobain", and in that case I would apply the interpretation of ichephren that it was to be used by Muhammad to get rid of the differences among his people. This however, doesn't give Muhammad any interpretative authority, but only the authority to assert what is clearly stated in the Qur'an. However, the possibility remains that it was in fact revealed as "LeYobain", which seems to match better with the rest of the Qur'an whereby God sent it down to humanity as a guidance.

And as for God preserving the Qur'an... There are two possible interpretations of that ayat, one of which can easily be disproven.

The first interpretation is that the text of the Qur'an that we have today is totally unaltered from the form it was revealed to Muhammad. This can be disproven by the fact that even today we have the Hafs and Warsh versions, as well as a couple other less popular ones, which do indeed have minor differences, such as dots in different places, and indeed even additional letters as compared to other versions. Also, let us remember that when Uthman made his copies, he had all the other differing copies burned... therefore, there were even then differing copies of the Qur'an. Therefore this interpretation must be rejected in face of this proof.
The second interpretation is that the Qur'an (or rather Umm al Kitab) that God has up in heaven with him is a collection of immutable laws, and God has promised to us that he won't change these rules. He set up a set of rules when he created the universe and these will not change. So the fundamental laws of physics will not change (our understanding of them may, but the fundamental laws will not), the illegality of murder is not going to just change at some point. So basically the basic immutable laws that God has set up for his creation are always going to be the same and will not change... God has promised that he will protect them.
I have yet to see any kind of proof that God has up and changed any of these fundamental immutable laws, though he most certainly is capable of doing so. Therefore, this second interpretation remains a possible interpretation, whereas the one in (1) above must be rejected as not being possible.

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

Peace sister

sis, you said the following"He was the vessel through which the message was given. So, he is the only one who can relate to us the facts wherein we differ."

and that is exactly what I'm saying, I don't underastand how you repeate it then say it is someting else?

If you can tell me where Muhammad got his extra-quranic information from then you can solve our problem.

I myself can?t tell you really, I only believe what Allah said about his prophet

Allah clearly told us that He gave Mohammad Al Kitab wa Al Hikmah and also other things that we never knew but from Mohammad alone, one of thiose things that humans didn?t know is the Salat

A similar (favour have ye already received) in that We have sent among you a Messenger of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and teaches you that which you did not know

(151)

-> Clear as light from 2152, Allah sent His prophet to do the followings

? ?, i.e. ? rehearsing to you Our Signs?
? ?, i.e. ? and sanctifying you?
? ?, i.e. ? and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom?, obviously we can see that scriptures is something else other than wisdom and both should be instructing to us by the prophet, this can cover the Salat clearly but if is not enough for you then point 4 will knock it to bed
? ?, i.e. ? and teaches you that which you did not know?, this is a killer of an argument, Allah is telling us clearly that the prophet should teach us what we don?t know, these teaching is something else other than the scripture and wisdom, as those two were also mentioned earlier, now how to perform salat should be covered under what we don?t know as well it is not in the scripture neither it is part of any wisdom, I rest my case regardung this point sister

As long as there is none, then all the info must be the Quran. So, the verse can have only one meaning.

I?m not really sure sister where you got this rule from?, is it from the Quran?

But I showed you above that Allah clearly stated that the prophet should teach us things that we never knew and those things are not part of the scripture neither it is wisdom, just a mere how to pray

How he knew it ?, well if he was a messenger of Allah, i.e. appointed by Allah, i.e. Allah communicated with him by whatever mean, then this is enough to conclude that the prophet great teaching and wisdom came form Allah, verse 2151 clearly says ? ?, which means ?Allah sent him?, now no one will send anyone to deliver a message unless there is a message given by that one who chose a messenger to action it, Allah in 2151 is telling us the messge sent with Mohammad consisted of 4 main parts as follow

?rehearsing to us Allah Signs?
?sanctifying us?
?instructing us in Scripture and Wisdom?
?and teaches us that which we did not know?

ichephren wrote
This ayah is talking stricly about the disbursement of spoils of war,

Ahmed wroteDoes the verse say so?, absolutely not, unless you are referring to the hadith?

I am not referring to hadith. I am saying that the CONTEXT of the verse is spoils of war, so the meaning should be limited to the CONTEXT. You seem to ignore the fact that verses are not written without surrounding context to give them meaning. The entire sura(even if it has no name) is about going to war and dividing the spoils of war...so when the verse says that we should accept what Muhammad gives to us, it can only be talking about in times of war when we divide spoils of war.

sister, it does not matter what the entire sura is about unless it is a short sura, in effect all long suras can actually be considered short suras, unless you can provide hard core evidences that the verse ONLY MEANS WARS then what you say is conjecture

The Quran told us clearly that Mohammad was Dallan and Allah hadah, i.e. He was guided by Allah to prepare him for his role as a prophet

now there is something I would like to ask you, your refute for LeTobain was a typo, i.e. the dots should be under not above, while I expected more than that as a refute, it seems your refute will affect the whole Quran, i.e. how you know that every Ta, Ba, Tha and Ya is right?

When did I say that LeTobain was a typo? All I said was that your interpretation was wrong. I could care less about the grammar that you seem to be dodging the question with.

no dodging here sister, you are suggesting that there is a typo, I didn?t say it is grammatically wrong, in either case Ta or Ya it will stay grammatically correct, you are the one that suggested that the dots may be under and was somehow put in top, any evidences please?

If you believe that the Quran is complete, please point to me where GOD tells us that he gave Muhammad anything other than the Quran,

I did provided the evidence and I have more evidences from the Quran

So far I provided 1664 and 2151 and you are in denial, fine that is your choice not mine, I only provide info based on the best knowledge I have that took me years to gain

and you will may have a point. If there is nothing other than the Quran, then your interpretation is just flat out wrong.

I believe 2151 clearly said that Mohammad was sent to do 4 things, in fact 5 because teaching the scriptures is different to teaching the wisdom, one of those 5 things the prophet was sent to do is to teach us what we don?t know and one of the things that we didn?t know is how to perform salat, we know about salat but we didn?t know how to perform it after Mohammad was sent,

salam

unknownuser

Here is another compelling Quran evidence sister ichephren, I have tens and tens of them, that is what you expect form someone who spent 25 years eating the Arabic Quran

And were it not for Allah's grace upon you and His mercy a party of them had certainly designed to bring you to perdition and they do not bring (aught) to perdition but their own souls, and they shall not harm you in any way, and Allah has revealed to you the Book and the wisdom, and He has taught you what you did not know, and Allah's grace on you is very great.

(113)

-> Clear as light from 4113, Allah gave His prophet the followings favours

? ?, i.e. ? Allah has revealed to you the Book and the wisdom?
? ?, i.e. ? and He has taught you what you did not know?, see, Allah taught Mohammad what Mohammad didn?t know, obviously this is something else other the Scripture and the Wisdom because there were mentioned just before it.

no wonder the verse ended by saying the following about Mohammad ? ?, i.e. ?and Allah's grace on you is very great. "

Just for the record sister, I provided the following Quran evidences so far

1664, 2151 and 4113

Salam Sister

claurianta

Peace Ahmed

Am I correct in saying that you think that the Qur'an is not enough? Soy someone who has never heard of Muhammed or the Qur'an or anything related to the two. Then he is able to procure a Qur'an... is it sufficient guidance for him, or must he also know the tradition of Muhammed in order to follow properly the laws?

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed

peace sister

Am I correct in saying that you think that the Qur'an is not enough?

it is enough for the guidance and slavation and not enough for the compulsory practises like salat, and as we were ordered by Allah that we should take it from the prophet, look at the quran alone muslims look how confused they are in knowing how to perform salat, so if the Quran is complete regarding the practices as you think, why those Quran alone muslims are so confused about Salat?

Soy someone who has never heard of Muhammed or the Qur'an or anything related to the two. Then he is able to procure a Qur'an... is it sufficient guidance for him, or must he also know the tradition of Muhammed in order to follow properly the laws?

I don't accept your word "tradition", but if you said it as teachings of Mohammad, then yes the teachings of Mmohammad is reuired to fill in the empty gaps that were delibertly left empty by Allah to see if we will follow the prophet as He told us or not, it is a test for us indeed

salam sister

claurianta

Peace Ahmed

peace sister

I am male... so please call me a brother... you seem to have some trouble with that on this thread, but no harm done.

I don't accept your word "tradition", but if you said it as teachings of Mohammad, then yes the teachings of Mmohammad is reuired to fill in the empty gaps that were delibertly left empty by Allah to see if we will follow the prophet as He told us or not, it is a test for us indeed

Here's a question for you... why is it, as the hadith say (and to be clear, I don't deny the authenticity of the entirety of the hadith; I do deny their religious authority), that Muhammad didn't want his own sayings to be written down? It doesn't make sense that if the hadith complete the empty gaps of the Qur'an, Muhammad would not have wanted them written down, or indeed would not have made people memorize them like the Qur'an. Why do everything to stop them being put down on paper if they are so important? Why didn't he make sure to initiate an oral tradition to pass on those saying that were important? Why didn't he make it clear when he was interpreting the Qur'an and when he was just giving a personal opinion on a non-religious matter, so that we could separate the important stuff from the non-important stuff? Did Muhammad ever say that his way is the ONLY way? Are there not other possible ways of fulfilling our duty? Does God not give us a wide latitude to chose a way, as long as it's within his given bounds? Is everyone not an individual who can best decide how to follow the Qur'an for himself?

Oh, and here's a clinger... it is a well known tradition in the middle east that people are judged and punished based on their religious law - law was not territorial, but rather attached to one's community (it is only after the fall of the Ottoman empire that this concept has started to diminish, but is still very much present for example in Lebanese family law). Is it not very possible that in certain cases that as ruler of the land, Muhammad was, due to the concept of religious freedom, deciding cases involving Jews or Christians based on Jewish or Christian law (and this would apply to the other religions as well)? And could it therefore not be possible that some of these decisions were taken out of context and recorded as hadith, and therefore you end up importing the laws of foreign religions into Islam?

So for me the hadith open up such a pandora's box that the only one's that can be considered to have religious value are those that mirror the Qur'an, in which case they are superfluous, as we can just refer to the Qur'an.

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed

peace sister

I am male... so please call me a brother... you seem to have some trouble with that on this thread, but no harm done.

Sorry bro, I got mixed up with the other sister, I have an issue remembering nick names and somehoe yoyr names looked similar to me, sorry again

I don't accept your word "tradition", but if you said it as teachings of Mohammad, then yes the teachings of Mmohammad is reuired to fill in the empty gaps that were delibertly left empty by Allah to see if we will follow the prophet as He told us or not, it is a test for us indeed

Here's a question for you... why is it, as the hadith say (and to be clear, I don't deny the authenticity of the entirety of the hadith; I do deny their religious authority), that Muhammad didn't want his own sayings to be written down? It doesn't make sense that if the hadith complete the empty gaps of the Qur'an, Muhammad would not have wanted them written down, or indeed would not have made people memorize them like the Qur'an.

I agree with you and I thought about this issue a lot, I actually write something about it a few months back on another board so I will try to remember

Firstly the prophet prohibited recording his sayings, but he also encouraged talking about his teaching and this was in the same hadith, therefore it was allowed to transfer the teachings verbally but not in a documented manner, now this should be ok for a some years then it will start going down hell due to many factors, some of these factors may be, loss of memory for those hadith narrators and the corruption in the human nature influenced by satan to start transferring non sense verbally while it never said by the prophet, this problem aroused a very soon after the prophet died, and rumours of non sense and lies started to circulate around, therefore a decision must be taken at the time and a new rule was implemented which overwrite the prophet rule not to document his teachings, this is to protect the prophet reputation and consequently the whole Muslims reputations, however when the hadith was compiled about 300 years after the prophet, somehow they used weird sense to justify what they included in these books, they sure lacked experience in the sort of attacks that can come from these hadith, they knew that attacks happened because of it and that is why they decided to document which in effect will stop circulating the hadith verbally, what the Muslims now need to do 1400 years after the prophet and 1100 years after documenting the haidth is to take the same decision again and fine tune all these hadith by onlky keeping what is qualified by the Quran and the common sense and throwing the rest in the rubbish bin, this will surely put this matter to bed

Why do everything to stop them being put down on paper if they are so important?

I guess the hadith that we should know about that is very important are very little, possibly about the Salat and a few other practises, other than that it is nothing but teaching that anyone can follow or not, the whole saga can also be a trial from Allah to see if we will follow the prophet or not in the things he knew and we didn?t know and was not detailed in the Quranlike how to perform salat for example

Why didn't he make sure to initiate an oral tradition to pass on those saying that were important?

he did, in the same hadith he prohibited recording it on papers the sahaba asked him if they can talk verbally about him and he allowed that, do you know that hadith?

Why didn't he make it clear when he was interpreting the Qur'an and when he was just giving a personal opinion on a non-religious matter, so that we could separate the important stuff from the non-important stuff?

I think it was made clear by Allah, so if Allah has made it clear, why the prophet need to make it clear?, in fact the prophet made it clear in the hadith and the Quran he delivered, the hadith that should be followed must be qualified by the quran and the common sense, i.e. it must be of a religious natire, any non sense or sense that is not of a religious nature we don?t need to know about it, also Mohammad didn?t comment on the whole Quran, he hardly commented on 1/3 of the Quran, this makes sense because his job was not really to teach us the Quran it was to recite the Quran, teach us Hikmah and teach us things that is not detailed in the Quran like Salat ?mentioned but not detailed?, other things that are detailed, the prophet does not need to tell us anything about it

Did Muhammad ever say that his way is the ONLY way?

in the hadith yes he did, and the Quran evidences so far inclines that it is, because simply it was taught to him by Allah

Are there not other possible ways of fulfilling our duty?

Why I have to look fo any other ways if this is the way told to us in the Quran?

I don?t know bro, it sounds to me that it is the only complete way as the Quran told us in numerous locations

Does God not give us a wide latitude to chose a way, as long as it's within his given bounds?

I think this can be applied within very few issues but not all the issues, because simply He told us exactly what we need to do to prosper and be winners , possibly the freewill given can be considered a wide latitude to chose a way based on our choices but the safe one way was told to us

Is everyone not an individual who can best decide how to follow the Qur'an for himself?

if they have the knowledge of the language then fine they can do it but still Allah will be the only one to pass on the right knowledge regarding the meaning, for the others who don?t know the language, they must confirm with others who know the language and can be trusted

Oh, and here's a clinger... it is a well known tradition in the middle east that people are judged and punished based on their religious law - law was not territorial, but rather attached to one's community (it is only after the fall of the Ottoman empire that this concept has started to diminish, but is still very much present for example in Lebanese family law). Is it not very possible that in certain cases that as ruler of the land, Muhammad was, due to the concept of religious freedom, deciding cases involving Jews or Christians based on Jewish or Christian law (and this would apply to the other religions as well)? And could it therefore not be possible that some of these decisions were taken out of context and recorded as hadith, and therefore you end up importing the laws of foreign religions into Islam?

bro as I said very little of the existing hadith that can be accepted as an elaboration on some verses, all the rest can be thrown in the rubbish bin

So for me the hadith open up such a pandora's box that the only one's that can be considered to have religious value are those that mirror the Qur'an, in which case they are superfluous, as we can just refer to the Qur'an.

I agree, that is why the hadith that we should upheld as true teaching by mohammad should be very little and must be qualified by the Quran, and the common sense,

Peace bro

claurianta

Peace brother Ahmed,

I feel we may be approaching agreement on this subject, and I will use the example of salat to express what I believe. God gave us some guidelines as to salat (such as the timing thereof), but a lot is left unsaid. My personal interpretation is that when engaged in private salat, then that is a matter between the individual and God. No one, not even the Prophets, can tell us how this is to be done... the only constraints we have are those set by the Qur'an, and if our nafs is sufficiently clean, as long as we follow our heart, we will do it in an appropriate manner - appropriate to us individually, but not necessarily appropriate for someone else. Therefore there is a wide latitude in the manner in which to perform private salat. Remember, there is to be no compulsion in religion - so forcing oneself to do it in a manner that is incompatible with one's spiritual development does more harm than good.
The second problem is communal salat, where the community comes together to give praise. I think in this case it is necessary to have a uniform method of doing the prayer - not uniform across the entire Ummah, but uniform to all those gathering at a specific place at a specific time. If all can agree on a method to follow, then there is no problem. There is no "differing", and thus no need for prophetic guidance. If, however, there is no concensus on how to proceed, then we can take the method of Muhammad as a default that all can agree on as valid. So if there is a local way of doing things, as long as it follows the loose guidelines of the Qur'an, there is no problem as long as the method is not being imposed on anyone.

This is what I meant by other ways of fulfilling our duty - realizing that there is no other way than following the Qur'an, but that there may be other ways than the hadith - the hadith may be only one example among many possible ways, and perhaps our heart is destined to follow one of these other paths that is also in conformity with the Qur'an. Religion is an individual affair in which there is no compulsion, and I don't think there should be any need to conform to the practices of others except when necessary, such as during communal salat.

unknownuser

Peace brother Ahmed,

Peace brother

I feel we may be approaching agreement on this subject,

Inshallah brother lol

and I will use the example of salat to express what I believe. God gave us some guidelines as to salat (such as the timing thereof), but a lot is left unsaid. My personal interpretation is that when engaged in private salat, then that is a matter between the individual and God. No one, not even the Prophets, can tell us how this is to be done... the only constraints we have are those set by the Qur'an,

I try to make things simple on myself, Allah also told us that He made the Deen easy and not a hardship, the hardship is not confined to physical hardship but it also includes mental hardship, in fact I found the mental hardship is far harder to bear than a physical hardship, it is clear that the Quran never told us the exact timeing of the Salat, in a way it can be speculated, therefore I chose to follow the prophet in how many Salats and how to perform it, this made the issue for me very easy indeed and very controlable as well, my Salat is not for Mohammad for sure and Allah knows that it is for Him, He also knows that I could not work out how to pray from the Quran and how many times which lead me to follow the prophet and take him as an example, now please tell me bro, who will be a better example than the great prophet to follow regarding Salat?

you may say the ahadith regarding Salat can not be 100% confirmed that it is said by the prophet, which I surely agree, but there is another factor here that I will include in my criteria to judge a hadith and that is the common sense, which is my common sense for sure hoping that it is truly common sense for most, I can only use my brain not the others brain and if I will do that once then there is only one person that I will try to use his brain, that person is prophet Mohammad

and if our nafs is sufficiently clean, as long as we follow our heart, we will do it in an appropriate manner - appropriate to us individually,

I agree and in many cases I change my salat slightly as my humbling staus allows, like extending the sijood, I can even chose to do sijood more than two times in one Rakah, I just use the overview from what is known about the prophhet and made sense to me as a guidline for my salat, all in all regarding actions I do it possibly about 75% of how the prophet was known to do it, regarding humbling, I believe I will never be near his

but not necessarily appropriate for someone else.

sure, only the ones who posses a logic that is based on common sense

Therefore there is a wide latitude in the manner in which to perform private salat.

that is why I choose from this wide latitude what I manged to know the prophet to follow as much as i can, for me I may actually trust the prophet more than trusting myself

Remember, there is to be no compulsion in religion - so forcing oneself to do it in a manner that is incompatible with one's spiritual development does more harm than good.

yes but salat is not really a religion, it is a compulsory practice that is required, therefore I made up my mind to be a muslim, and there is no compulsion and I made up my mind to follow the prophet as much as I can regarding my Salat and again there is no compulsion

The second problem is communal salat, where the community comes together to give praise. I think in this case it is necessary to have a uniform method of doing the prayer -

exactly right, but it will be confusing to totally have a different Salat than the one in Jamaa, I accept that indvidual salat and Jamaa salat may differ but ONLY SLIGHTLY, in fact I have seen it many times in mosques that the imam started finsishing the Salat "Tashahood" while others still extending the sijood

not uniform across the entire Ummah, but uniform to all those gathering at a specific place at a specific time.

if we all gather to do Haj from everywhere in the world then I guess logically speaking the Salat by all must be as close as possible, possibly slight differences due to culture, language and traditions that were inherited regardless we wanted it or not, for example I found the lebanese start saying the salam the moment the imam says the first Salam, while the egyptians only say the salam after the imam finishes the second salam, very lil differences indeed

If all can agree on a method to follow, then there is no problem.

I agree and even if modified slightly under the advice of a muslim committee that is representing all muslims from everywhere in the world

There is no "differing", and thus no need for prophetic guidance.

the guidance was delieverd and the prophet is dead, what we can do is to use the history records about him as a datum/guidlines

If, however, there is no concensus on how to proceed, then we can take the method of Muhammad as a default that all can agree on as valid.

I take it as starting from what we know about Mohammad performing salat then we take it from there under the rule of a huge committee representing all muslims in the world

So if there is a local way of doing things, as long as it follows the loose guidelines of the Qur'an, there is no problem as long as the method is not being imposed on anyone.

sure, but it is safer to follow the great teaching of one of the best humans ever existed on earth, and this is a safe bet for me, it is personal to be honest and btw I never been a sunni in my whole life, i may sound like them but I'm worlds apart from them since I recognised my islam at a very young age

This is what I meant by other ways of fulfilling our duty - realizing that there is no other way than following the Qur'an, but that there may be other ways than the hadith - the hadith may be only one example among many possible ways,

to be honest bro, the Quran told us that satan will do his best to screw us, one of the things is to screw our salat while making looks good to us, therefore the safest action for me is to see how the prophet used to do it and take it as a very strong messure after passing the Quran and the common sense, if it passes the Quran and the common sense and I was discovered wrong in the JD then I will have a strong argument in my defence and I know that Allah is 100% just

I don't gamble bro and if I have do it then I have to go with the safest bet based on logic not on the arrogance/ego of my capabilities.

there is no rewards for discovering new things here (I mean religiously) as the Quran told us that Allah completed His words and His message to us 1400 years ago, the reward is only to follow that message, and because of the account and the punishment, I have to play it very safe bro by putting my arrogance/ego a side, however you may see me very arrogant in normal asspect of life but when it comes to religion and following the message i have to give it to the ones who have knoweldge in it and the one that will always be on top of all those religiously knowledgable humans is prophet Mohammad

and perhaps our heart is destined to follow one of these other paths that is also in conformity with the Qur'an. Religion is an individual affair in which there is no compulsion, and I don't think there should be any need to conform to the practices of others except when necessary, such as during communal salat.

my heart is following one thing since i was 14 years old, which is the Quran, i was never a hadith advocate, in fact due to my native arabic tongue I can see the difference clearly between Allah words in the Quran and te human words in the hadith, so the hadith for me is almost nothing, but I will use it to fill the empty holes in the Quran that I believe were delibertly left this way by Allah as a test for the true believers and as a test for our arrogance, and Allah told us many times in the Quran that He hates the arrogants

peace be with you

claurianta

Peace brother Ahmed,

First of all, let me make one thing clear. I'm not saying in any way that following Muhammad's way in the salat is wrong in any way. I fully respect your right to do it that way, and I agree that it is accordance with the Qur'an. So no problem there.
I guess there might be a bit of a difference on how we came to the Qur'an and its teachings. I am not a Muslim by birth. I was baptized Christian when I was a baby, but I never held their beliefs. Over the years I sort of tried to discover what is it that is right for me... and many times I would realize I had gone the wrong way, and then I would change my ways. So I agree with you on the arrogance/ego aspect... it has no place in religion. I have however felt some sort of guidance coming from outside of myself, directing me in the right direction. From what I had seen of Islam, based on the practices of the sunni, shi'a, and sufi, I realized that there were things that went against my beliefs there. I did realize though that it was the closest to my own beliefs, despite these differences. Then one day I picked up the Qur'an to read it, because I really felt the need to know what it said... it was a sort of urge that I can't quite explain. I do know some arabic, but not enough to attempt reading the Qur'an in it, so obviously I had to go with a translation. When I read it, I really felt that this is already what I believe in... and the way I already was directing my life. There were few things that at first sight just didn't seem right, but when read as a whole, I realized that I was just misreading.
I thus believe that that which is essential in the Qur'an, the immutable laws of human conduct, are is some sense already inscribed in all of our hearts. The problem is that our nafs just gets so screwed up that we can't read our heart. The Qur'an is there to remind us of what is in our heart, to help us to find what God has placed inside every single one of us. It's there to be found without the Qur'an, but that's the difficult way, the way that takes years and years of self-searching, of accepting who we are and realizing that there is something higher than us.
Therefore, I had already before reading the Qur'an, and before acquinting myself with the hadith, found in my heart a method that allowed me to praise God, a method that I see as being compatible with the Qur'an. I will not elaborate on it because I think my way is appropriate to me, and I wouldn't want others to try and take after me, because my method probably won't be correct for them.

One of the most important things I have learned though, which I believe very much is in harmony with the Qur'anic ayat that says there is not compulsion in religion, is that much harm is done when I force myself to do something. If I force myself to do something, then I am not doing it genuinely. So I am faced with the choice of trusting my heart and knowing I am in contact with God in my own way, or forcing myself to conform to the way the Prophet showed. I will not force myself to do something which I desire to do, while fully recognizing that at some point in the future, as I develop spiritually, I may well end up desiring to contact God in another manner. Ultimately we have to realize that it is not our choice. We are nothing when it comes to these matters. We must follow some guidance in the manner. You choose to follow the guidance of Muhammad, and I what I believe God has placed in my heart for me to follow, but not to impose on others. And I think either way is correct. Mine may be more risky, but I have such confidence in God to believe that he will not lead me astray. I have very many times encountered the evil forces, and I thank God for giving me the ability to in the end distinguish between that which is good and that which is not.

unknownuser

Salaam Ahmed,

Your replies to my previous last two posts warrants senselessness, meagerness, unconstructive, personal and a high degree of prejudice. It?s not an atom?s worth of consideration. I?d rather respond to someone?s constructive, rational and intelligent criticism and there are quite a few on this forum, perhaps not interested or not quite ready for this topic.

Besides, you profess conflicting, biased and close-minded views. You boast about not being a Sunni, open-minded and unbiased, yet everything you project and promote is nothing but strictly Sunnism (part of idol-worshipping dogmas) by unprecedented Quranic injunctions just like any Mullah.

When someone asks a question or mentions something, you quickly substantiate by saying ?its not in the Quran? or challenge them to bring a verse. On the contrary, when you cannot substantiate your own views in strict and clear support of a verse when asked to bring forward, you start taking about Muhammad?s preaching and explanations outside the fold of Quran, and that too being unsubstantiated and incomplete (the topic of salaat being one for example). When I bought forward verses from the Quran by several well known interpreters, you arrogantly and defiantly rejected them all by saying that these are all men?s works and has no bearings, yet you bring about the same interpreter?s verses to support your views, specially that of Shakir. This sort of tactics is double standard, hypocritical and misleading. You may be knowledgeable about Arabic linguistics like many others but understanding the Quranic ?message? thereof seems quite appalling.

I do find some wisdom the Quran portrays. But much of it is history, unrelated, inconsistent and irrelevant to OUR time and dating back to hundreds perhaps thousands of years even before the Quran was compiled and written by men. Even the calendaring is outdated. Quran also adjudicates by starting its verses to ?recall? or ?remember? throughout its contents. It is not possible for any human today, to recollect any event whatsoever that took place back then, let alone verifying the information in truth as per 1736. Is it a contradiction or blind belief? If neither, then what is it? If it?s a blind belief, then 1736 and as well as the ?recall/remember? statements become meaningless or perhaps totally misconstrued. I believe and it certainly makes sense that those statements were addressed to the people of their times who had the knowledge and knew those events. To reflect/understand upon those events today, is one thing, but to recall/remember them is out of question.

2228, 2282, 411-15 and many other verses for example, are irrelevant to OUR time. Beside some contradictions, I also find several verses quite dreadful. Keeping all the above in mind and what I have previously elaborated, the Quran cannot possibly be the actual words of GOD but that of a man or men?s perspectives directly related to the events of their times.

The story of Abraham written in the Quran makes an excellent point of what I have been talking about in this thread. If Abraham already had the scripture written down for him, then the stories as depicted in the Quran about him would become rather nonsensical. His wisdom and intelligence in reflecting upon the natural and realistic wonders of the world entranced his love for the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and everything within and beyond (a reflection of life/nature/reality). Such were the people of powerful minds and great love. Their stories went down in book form as ?truth? and became ?revelations? that took the shape of ?religions?.

People throughout the world have been comparing Quranic translations for centuries. Today, there are more translations/interpretations of this book in every language manifold, than any other book one can imagine. Come to think of it realistically, it has caused more confusion and divisions within its Islamic Religious fold. One such case is a miniscule (a tiny spec) of what is being witnessed on this forum alone. How many members here have already opened up new websites to promote Quranic message with varying perspectives and at the same time promoting several other translations/interpretations by linking other websites for ?comparative study? and continue to develop revised versions, perhaps hundreds more to come?

Lastly, injecting cocky/brashful statements such as ?Allah said this or that?, ?Allah forgot this or that?, ?did Allah say this or that?, ?Allah didn?t say this or that?, ?Allah knew this or that and that?s why it is this or that?, ?Allah deliberately did this and that?, ?Allah couldn?t have done this or that? and so on and so forth, is just one pathetic way of making a mockery out of the book itself and taking Allah?s name in vain at every step of the way. The book itself warns this but their followers seem ignorant. At least be respectful and considerate towards the contents of the book you dearly call ?Allah?s Words? rather than playing god without certainty.

Sorry mate, just relating facts as seen per your posts.

claurianta

Danish,

While there is much sense in your post, please do try to keep the tone respectful. We all have different interpretations, and we do have a God given right to the freedom of opinion, however skewed our opinion may be. Only God may judge whether we are on the correct path or not.

Though I respect you opinion about the Qur'an being the word of man, I am of another opinion - I believe that more likely than not the Qur'an (that is, the written work we have in our hands) is mostly the work of beings more knowledgeable than humans; angels come to mind as the most likely authors. I say mostly their work because I acknowledge the possibility of human error and malice in the transcription process.
I feel that you are falling into the same trap you are warning of - you have come to the realization that the Qur'an is not the verbatim words of God, and therefore automatically say that it is the word of man without considering the other possibilities, such as angels, jinn, aliens. Logical thinking requires us to analyze all the possibilities, and only reject those that we have conclusive proof against. All the other possibilities, well, they remain just that possibilities. And so I will agree that there is a possibility it was written by man, but the evidence points me to say that it was most likely authored by someone more knowledgeable and less prone to error than us humans. While the possibility remains that this "other" is God, I do believe that the evidence points to some dilligent creation of his that authored it... Jibril and his buddies perhaps?

So, in conclusion, let's keep our discussions civil, our minds open, and our hearts steady.

thegod

claurianta wrote...
Though I respect you opinion about the Qur'an being the word of man, I am of another opinion - I believe that more likely than not the Qur'an (that is, the written work we have in our hands) is mostly the work of beings more knowledgeable than humans; angels come to mind as the most likely authors.

when u say that u believe its most likely that the angels authored the quran, do u mean the angels wrote of their own will or at the decree of god? -)

claurianta

when u say that u believe its most likely that the angels authored the quran, do u mean the angels wrote of their own will or at the decree of god? -)

Well, I don't think they went against the will of God... seeing as according to the Qur'an they are rather incapable of doing so. Whether it was by their own initiative or whether God prompted them to do so... that is a question I don't have an answer for, at least not yet.

thegod

claurianta wrote...
Well, I don't think they went against the will of God... seeing as according to the Qur'an they are rather incapable of doing so. Whether it was by their own initiative or whether God prompted them to do so... that is a question I don't have an answer for, at least not yet.

if and when u do get an answer, be sure to share it! -) in the meantime what do u think about the following

3 7 He is the One who sent down to you the Scripture, from which there are firm verses; they are the essence of the Scripture; and others which are similar to each other. As for those who have disease in their hearts, they will follow what is similar from it seeking to confuse, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none know its interpretation except God and those who are well founded in knowledge, they Say "We believe in it, all is from our Lord." And none will remember except the people of understanding.

the words i am interested in knowing ur views about at the moment are..."He is the One who sent down to you the Scripture,..." and "...We believe in it, all is from our Lord."

ofcourse, if u want to give ur views on more than that...cool! -)

unknownuser

Salaam Ahmed,

Peace mate

Your replies to my previous last two posts warrants senselessness, meagerness, unconstructive, personal and a high degree of prejudice. It?s not an atom?s worth of consideration. I?d rather respond to someone?s constructive, rational and intelligent criticism and there are quite a few on this forum, perhaps not interested or not quite ready for this topic.

lol mate, I thought after the above firey introduction that you should not respond to me but it seems you just had a ride on your high horse when you said that then you stepped down to continue, LOL bro, let me see what you have to say about my ignornace

Besides, you profess conflicting, biased and close-minded views. You boast about not being a Sunni, open-minded and unbiased, yet everything you project and promote is nothing but strictly Sunnism (part of idol-worshipping dogmas) by unprecedented Quranic injunctions just like any Mullah.

mate what you say above is baseless, I'm not a sunni but you can keep promoting this lie, it is just a small dust in thin air, in all cases I have to give my account to Allah not to any human, but if following the prophet as the Quran told us is something you consider sunni then I'm proud to be

When someone asks a question or mentions something, you quickly substantiate by saying ?its not in the Quran? or challenge them to bring a verse. On the contrary, when you cannot substantiate your own views in strict and clear support of a verse when asked to bring forward, you start taking about Muhammad?s preaching and explanations outside the fold of Quran,

the above is a clear cut manipulation, I only use the Quran, I never use the hadith in my debates also, I provided 3 compelling verses that clearlly tell us that the prophet should teach us things we don't know and is not Quran neither wisdom

what is your refute to the 3 verses I posted?

and that too being unsubstantiated and incomplete (the topic of salaat being one for example). When I bought forward verses from the Quran by several well known interpreters, you arrogantly and defiantly rejected them all by saying that these are all men?s works and has no bearings,

you brought different translations by different humans, hence they are different then telling me here it is the work of man, lol

obvioulsy you don't get my point, I don't give a fluke if you bring in 100 transltions to the Quran, what counts for me is the Arabic Quran and it has one translation in my mind because I'm a native arabic speaker

yet you bring about the same interpreter?s verses to support your views, specially that of Shakir. This sort of tactics is double standard, hypocritical and misleading.

I believe you totally missed the plot here danish, you brought in different translations to prove that it is the work of men, and this has no merit to me really neither to the common sense, if you bring verses discussing the meaning yes I will look at it

no hypocricy here other than the one you made up in your mind

You may be knowledgeable about Arabic linguistics like many others but understanding the Quranic ?message? thereof seems quite appalling.

excuse me, I spent 25 years in my life reading the Quran almost daily, this is a knowledge bro, alhamullelah that it was all fun for me and I enjoyed it to the max and still enjoying it

I do find some wisdom the Quran portrays. But much of it is history, unrelated, inconsistent and irrelevant to OUR time and dating back to hundreds perhaps thousands of years even before the Quran was compiled and written by men.

firsly you can't just bring these accusation without a single proof, you need to make up a case and present it, not the chat chat type of crap and accustaions without any back up, now prove to me the incosistancy in the Quran please

for the history similarities with other scriptures, this is actually great as it confirms that the messages are coming from the same God and humans just messed it up but unfortunatlly for them they can't mess with the Arabic Quran

Even the calendaring is outdated.

what is that argument bro?, it is inadmissable as I don't care if the calendar has been updated or not this is not part that I have to believe in, I do my fasting and Haj according the Lunar year as the Quran said and I live my daily life according to the other calendar and that is enough for me, I'm not going to private invistigate it really but if you want to do it, be my guest but please pass on your discovries and I will look at it, consider me lazy bro

Quran also adjudicates by starting its verses to ?recall? or ?remember? throughout its contents. It is not possible for any human today, to recollect any event whatsoever that took place back then, let alone verifying the information in truth as per 1736.

you have no argument because verse 1736 NEVER SUGGESTED TO VERIFY ANY INFO, this is something the Quran alone muslims made up and I refuted it tens of times so far, I can have another go with you, possibly you have the magic trick to convince me

Is it a contradiction or blind belief?

according to your understanding of 1736, do you ever follow anything blindly?, before you answer I can assure you that you do, for example you follow street directory in an area that you haven't been before, logically speaking that is considered following blindly, did you verify that the map in the street directory is right before you follow it? of course not

then you follow it because you trust the dude who made it while you never met that dude, that is bloody the same thing exactly to what i'm following

if you read the verse again you will read the word "Takkif" which means Cause to folloo NOT to follow, therefore 1736 means DON'T CAUSE OTHERS TO FOLLOW WHAT YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE IN

now I want you to show me where it said verify all info first in 1736

If neither, then what is it? If it?s a blind belief,

no it is not, because it was verified by the following

some other dudes
myslef through my brain that is used for common sense

then 1736 and as well as the ?recall/remember? statements become meaningless or perhaps totally misconstrued.

well forget 1736, you totally misunderstand it, but let's discuss the word remember

you have no argument because the word remember means just to recall the incident in our minds through the Quran reading, all the incidents that happened in the past are not seen by us and it is part of the belief to believe in it, becuase it was said to us in the Quran by Allah not by humans, and 22-3 clearly say this book is guidance for the the believers who believe in the UNSEEN

I believe and it certainly makes sense that those statements were addressed to the people of their times who had the knowledge and knew those events. To reflect/understand upon those events today, is one thing, but to recall/remember them is out of question.

it was addressed to all, the ones who saw it and the ones who didn't see it, I consider all the incidents that happened in the Quran that I saw it because the informer was Allah and not a human, if it was a human then it is totally different story

2228, 2282, 411-15 and many other verses for example, are irrelevant to OUR time. Beside some contradictions, I also find several verses quite dreadful. Keeping all the above in mind and what I have previously elaborated, the Quran cannot possibly be the actual words of GOD but that of a man or men?s perspectives directly related to the events of their times.

if you are going to discuss contradictions in any verses then please don't brief as above, I need elaboration in a clear manner if you want me to reply to it, forget the history records as i replied to this above, I want to see the contradictions you are alleging please

The story of Abraham written in the Quran makes an excellent point of what I have been talking about in this thread. If Abraham already had the scripture written down for him, then the stories as depicted in the Quran about him would become rather nonsensical. His wisdom and intelligence in reflecting upon the natural and realistic wonders of the world entranced his love for the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and everything within and beyond (a reflection of life/nature/reality). Such were the people of powerful minds and great love. Their stories went down in book form as ?truth? and became ?revelations? that took the shape of ?religions?.

fine bro if that what you chose to believe, i chose to believe something far more simpler and not confusing as the above, cheers

People throughout the world have been comparing Quranic translations for centuries. Today, there are more translations/interpretations of this book in every language manifold, than any other book one can imagine. Come to think of it realistically, it has caused more confusion and divisions within its Islamic Religious fold. One such case is a miniscule (a tiny spec) of what is being witnessed on this forum alone. How many members here have already opened up new websites to promote Quranic message with varying perspectives and at the same time promoting several other translations/interpretations by linking other websites for ?comparative study? and continue to develop revised versions, perhaps hundreds more to come?

I like that the Quran took the world by storm and still doing it, it is sure different to any religious book lol this makes me happy indeed hoping that I'm one of the rare humans who will achieve the proper knoweldge of the Quran with Allah Willings

Lastly, injecting cocky/brashful statements such as ?Allah said this or that?, ?Allah forgot this or that?, ?did Allah say this or that?, ?Allah didn?t say this or that?, ?Allah knew this or that and that?s why it is this or that?, ?Allah deliberately did this and that?, ?Allah couldn?t have done this or that? and so on and so forth, is just one pathetic way of making a mockery out of the book itself and taking Allah?s name in vain at every step of the way. The book itself warns this but their followers seem ignorant. At least be respectful and considerate towards the contents of the book you dearly call ?Allah?s Words? rather than playing god without certainty.

I guess you are making more mockery to say indirectly that Allah is a clear cut liar by telling us that He is the only Quran author while you come and say it is written by men for sure

my mockery is an inncocnet example to clear some ignornace while your mockery is a clear cut conviction (Allah forbids)

Sorry mate, just relating facts as seen per your posts.

peace be with you

unknownuser

Hello Claurianta,

If you have a God given right to freedom of opinion, then you must have a God given right to freedom of using your mind, eyes and ears to reason and judge what you do and say is wrong or right. The causes and affects that happen, seen and experienced in one's real life is just one simple way of understanding and realizing what measures be taken.

Nothing in my previous posts carries disrespect or incivility, but a rational rebuttal to substantiate how and what was being said. Perhaps you?re a very sensitive type and not the type who could take criticism and respond with constructive authority.

Though I respect you opinion about the Qur'an being the word of man, I am of another opinion - I believe that more likely than not the Qur'an (that is, the written work we have in our hands) is mostly the work of beings more knowledgeable than humans; angels come to mind as the most likely authors. I say mostly their work because I acknowledge the possibility of human error and malice in the transcription process.

If you acknowledge the possibility of error and malice (a strong word) in the Quran that we have today, then it?s simply mind boggling to even think of attributing it to ?higher beings?, let alone GOD. Besides, what proof do you have that the Quran may have been the works of angels, aliens or jinns. NONE! and a dead end.

I feel that you are falling into the same trap you are warning of - you have come to the realization that the Qur'an is not the verbatim words of God, and therefore automatically say that it is the word of man without considering the other possibilities, such as angels, jinn, aliens. Logical thinking requires us to analyze all the possibilities, and only reject those that we have conclusive proof against. All the other possibilities, well, they remain just that possibilities. And so I will agree that there is a possibility it was written by man, but the evidence points me to say that it was most likely authored by someone more knowledgeable and less prone to error than us humans.

It seems that you?ve skipped, ignored or simply not ?brushed up? enough for what I?ve been talking about, hence making statements as in bold above. You don?t have one single evidence to prove that the Quran was authored other than man, let alone knowing what, why, how and who wrote the Quran in the first place. The ONLY way out for you and others is by picking and choosing verses from within the book itself to support (not prove) your biased and unconstructive points, which you?ve already acknowledged to be of ?error and malice?, not to mention the inconsistencies, incomplete sentences, contradictions, unrelated and irrelevant statements, etc. How is it even possible to call it GOD?s Words or even angel?s words, is a shame, let alone making all sorts of ?opinions?. This is by no means a constructive discussion and thus the petty personal feelings that come about as pointed out by you.

Much of what the Quran advocates has already been revealed in previous books, the events of which took place millenniums ago. As I mentioned earlier, all we can do is take note of it, reflect upon it and use it to understand our own current paths, just like zillion other spiritual and inspirational books, poetry/poems, movies, songs, sayings, etc. that touch are hearts. Most importantly, the reality/nature and all that is seen, heard and witnessed first hand, speak of itself as its truest and purest form in real life situations and what better way to understand, contemplate, reason, learn and act upon as such in order to lead a good life.

claurianta

if and when u do get an answer, be sure to share it! -) in the meantime what do u think about the following

3 7 He is the One who sent down to you the Scripture, from which there are firm verses; they are the essence of the Scripture; and others which are similar to each other. As for those who have disease in their hearts, they will follow what is similar from it seeking to confuse, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none know its interpretation except God and those who are well founded in knowledge, they Say "We believe in it, all is from our Lord." And none will remember except the people of understanding.

the words i am interested in knowing ur views about at the moment are..."He is the One who sent down to you the Scripture,..." and "...We believe in it, all is from our Lord."

ofcourse, if u want to give ur views on more than that...cool! -)

It is an interesting problem, and I will point you to 1038, and I will give you two translations, one from the paper copy I have, and another from the free-minds version

Paper version - This Qur'an could never have been produced except by Allah. It is a confirmation of that before it and an exposition of the Book. There is no doubt about it. It is from the Lord of the Worlds.

Free-minds.org version - This Qur'an could not have been produced without God, but it is to authenticate what is already present, and to give detail to the Scripture in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.

Now, what makes me wonder a bit is the usage of three different words in the Qur'an - Umm al Kitab (="Mother of the Book), al Kitab (="the Book" or "the Scripture") and al Qur'an (="the Reader" or "the Message"). Putting 37 and 1038, it would seem that they are not the same. Only part of al Kitab is from Umm al Kitab (37), whereas al Qur'an is an exposition or a detailed version of al Kitab (103.

Now think of the of the People of the Book (ahl al Kitab) that the Qur'an talks of in several places. These people were sent al Kitab through previous Prophets (Moses for example; see 253), and since I think we can all agree that an arabic al Qur'an was not sent down to Moses or the other People of the Book, the arabic Qur'an we have does not equal al Kitab.

So, Umm al Kitab is not the same as al Kitab is not the same as al Qur'an.

So what to make of 1038? This is where a close analysis of the arabic is what will be important... see the two widely differing translations above. Having looked at the arabic, the free-minds.org translation looks to be more true to the text than the paper copy I have - the "but" (present as "lakn" in the arabic) is key to the understanding here I believe. What is the purpose of this "but"?

Why would the Qur'an say that God wrote the Qur'an, but that it is only a confirmation of that which is only present? Would it not be more appropriate to just use the conjuction "and" (w in arabic)? The "but" only makes sense if it is not the word of God, but it is only a confirmation, which could not have been made if God did not exist. That is to say, if God did not exist, then there is no way the angels could have been able to put together the Qur'an, because they wouldn't have had the proper guidance from al Kitab.

So then we do run into trouble with 37, because here we see that God revealed (nazal) al Kitab to someone, presumably Muhammad. By 443, it would seem that this revelation happened in one night, which is not the case with the Qur'an... as we all know it took several years for the Qur'an to be revealed. So what is this al Kitab, which was given to both Moses and Muhammad? What is its relation to the Qur'an? These are indeed difficult questions. Personally I believe that while definitely Umm al Kitab, and probably al Kitab are God's original work, the Qur'an is not - it is a derivative work based on al Kitab. I think that al Kitab is not something that can be written down on paper in human language, and therefore in order for those who have not been revealed al Kitab directly to have some sort of guidance, it is necessary to make some sort of explanation or translation, which is an arabic al Qur'an.

So from this I deduce that we have Umm al Kitab, which is the collection of immutable laws; Al Kitab, which contains the Umm al Kitab, is probably more of a collection everything related to these laws; and al Qur'an which is either an arabic 'translation' of Al Kitab, or simply an explanation of its contents - an exposition of the main concepts and an explanation thereof with examples etc. This, however, is purely personal opinion, and I know that as I study more al Qur'an, I will discover new things. Just looking at the different passages mentioning al Qur'an, al Kitab, and Umm al Kitab has made me really think about the subject and the what I have so far figured out is outlined above.

claurianta

not to mention the inconsistencies, incomplete sentences, contradictions, unrelated and irrelevant statements, etc.

At this point I'm going to join the chorus of other voices and ask you to give one concrete proof of each of the following in the arabic Qur'an inconsistency, incomplete sentence, contradiction, irrelevant statement. Because, honestly, I would like to know, and I think it would further my understanding of your position.