Quran - The Word of God or Man.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Brother claurianta
I believe you have the wrong understanding regarding Umma Al Kitab in 37
the arabic words says "Huna Umma Al Kitab" Huna is referring to the Muhkamat verses i.e. Umma AlKitab means the foundation of the Quran, i.e. the Muhkamat verses are the foundation "the base" of the Quran, this is 100% bro and I'm sure about it
37 never talked about other books but the Quran and specifically the Muhkamat verses which are the foundation of the Quran. (Huna Umma Al Kitab)
peace bro
-
claurianta wrote...
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.hmmmm! so u propose quran, al kitab and umm al kitab are 3 different scriptures! ok, if i get it right, u are saying when god is referred to as having revealed the kitab, it does not necessarily imply quran was also revealed by god! further, u have stated that it seems that the quran is an exposition of the kitab! cool! -)
before we get into that, what do u say about this
4 82 So do they not consider The Koran, and if (it) were from at other than God, they would have found in it much difference/disagreement.
-
Brother claurianta
I believe you have the wrong understanding regarding Umma Al Kitab in 37
the arabic words says "Huna Umma Al Kitab" Huna is referring to the Muhkamat verses i.e. Umma AlKitab means the foundation of the Quran, i.e. the Muhkamat verses are the foundation "the base" of the Quran, this is 100% bro and I'm sure about it
37 never talked about other books but the Quran and specifically the Muhkamat verses which are the foundation of the Quran. (Huna Umma Al Kitab)
peace bro
Peace brother Ahmed,
Look at 37 again. Does it use the word "al Quran", or the word "al Kitab"? It uses al Kitab, and more precisely, it doesn't use "hadha al Kitab", so it is not "this Book" but rather "the Book". The is the same al Kitab that was given to Moses (253). We actually have a fourth term that I have recently found, "al furqan", the Criterion, which was also revealed to Moses (253) and Jesus (5113), and mentioned in 33-4 as being separate from al Kitab, the Torah, and the Injeel.
So we have here SIX entities al Kitab (253, 37, 5113, 454), Umm al Kitab (37, 1339), al Quran (2185), al Furqan (253, 34), the Torah and the Injeel (33, 5113).
Now, there is repetitive references to al Kitab being revealed BEFORE al Qur'an (253, 454 for example - the ahl al Kitab have al Kitab before the revelation of al Qur'an - if they didn't, they would be ahl al Torah or ahl al Injeel or ahl al Furqan, but they are not; they are ahl al Kitab) so then how can al Qur'an = al Kitab??? Or was al Qur'an revealed prior to it being revealed to Muhammad? (NO, it was not).So what do we know of these six entities?
Al Furqan given to Moses (253, 214 and Aaron (214. It is clarified by al Qur'an (2185). Revealed during a battle (841).
Al Umm al Kitab It is precise in meaning, and forms part of al Kitab (37); it is with God (1339); it mentions al Kitab (434).
Al Kitab given to Moses (253, 287) and the descendents of Abraham (454), and Jesus (1930); there is no doubt in it (22); it is recited by the Jews (244) and the Nazarenes (2113); authenticated by a messenger or God (2101); has a people (ahl al Kitab 2105, 2109); it is the truth (2144); it is well known (2146) BUT a messenger was sent to teach al Kitab and what was not known (2151); the pious believe in it (2177); sent down with the Prophets (2212) so they may judge between the people in what they were disputing; separate from al Furqan, al Torah and al Injeel (33-4, 349); part Umm al Kitab, part allegory (37); revealed to Muhammad (37); much of it was hidden by ahl al Kitab (515); taught to Jesus (5110); fully details all things (5154); detailed/expounded by al Quran (1037); conferred upon the progeny of Lot (2927); part of al Kitab was inspired to Muhammad (3531); sent down in one night (443)
al Quran considered Kitab (a book) but never al Kitab (413); sent down during Ramadan (2185); could not have been produced without God (1037); authenticates that which is already present (1037); details/expounds of al Kitab (1037); guides to that which is upright (179); something is cited in it (1741); it is a healing and mercy to the believers (1782); neither the humans nor the jinn can create Qur'an like it (178; was not sent down all at once (2532, 7623); it is easy to learn (5417, 5422); marked by God (551)
Al Torah a guidance and a light (543); authenticated by Jesus (546); no indication as to which prophet it was given, but it is possessed by the Jews (543); it is revealed (544)
Al Injeel given to Jesus (546); a guidance and a light (546); it has a people (ahl al Injeel - 547)Now, seeing as there are manifest differences in how al Kitab and al Qur'an are described in the Qur'an, and the fact that in no part of the Qur'an does it say that the two are one and the same, or even that one is part of the other. And nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that Huna Umma al Kitab refers to anything that is actually in al Qur'an, but rather that which is in al Kitab. I must admit that I am still a bit confused on how these all can be put together, but for me it is now clear that al Kitab and al Qur'an are not identical, and therefore that which is said about al Kitab (such as 37) cannot automatically be applied to al Qur'an. Al Kitab is al Kitab, and al Qur'an is Al Qur'an.
-
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.
Surely, you can join and sustain your voice along with the chorus, but make sure you know and understand the lyrics and rhythm. The majority of Muslims have a blind faith in believing the Quran to be the exact words of GOD, thenceforth the inconsistencies, contradictions and irrelevant issues are ?blinded? as subjected to their faith. With such mindsets, it becomes somewhat arduous to relate and emphasize conflicting and revocable points. This is one of the main reasons of declaring my opening as well as my last statement in my first post. Secondly, there are not one but many inconsistencies, contradictions and irrelevant/unrelated issues that have been already talked about and discussed not only on this forum but on the World Wide Web. Search and research for yourself. Hint type ?contradictions in Quran (or Koran)?, and ?inconsistencies in Quran (or Koran)?.
I?ll share a few inconsistent/unrelated verses pertaining to OUR time for your inquisitive mind.
And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement. The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.
And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.
Notice that in the Islamic shariah, the women and men committing adultery are stoned to death and not confined to their homes. Also notice that the Quran often mentions burning in hell and fuels of fire, etc. throughout its pages. The stone-age history tells us that in those times people of all sorts were burnt alive and stoned for indecent acts and disobedience to their superiors, hence reflecting the verses talked about. These events took place and got written down in books long before even the Quran was invented.
These acts of stoning to death and burning people alive culminates from historic times and were real. Witnessing the barbaric and cruel nature of such events, people with great minds of peace and tranquility ordained these events to become submissive and morally righteous by policing and implementing rules and regulations as understood in the Quran (and ofcourse pre-Quranic books). If not, then burn them, stone them, kill them, etc., etc. as some of its traces are still apparent in the dogmatic Islamic religious world.
Here?s another. Not only are these two following verses rather irrelevant to OUR time but are somewhat unsound when it comes to accuracy of proper distribution and has been discussed in detail on this and other forums. Now let us see if YOU can figure it out and provide us with a definite breakdown of shares for each and every individual these verses talk about pertaining to their historic times and I shall bring another family tree for you to solve its shares from in exact accordance to these verses
Allah enjoins you concerning your children The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth after (the payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allah and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.
-
Surely, you can join and sustain your voice along with the chorus, but make sure you know and understand the lyrics and rhythm. The majority of Muslims have a blind faith in believing the Quran to be the exact words of GOD, thenceforth the inconsistencies, contradictions and irrelevant issues are ?blinded? as subjected to their faith. With such mindsets, it becomes somewhat arduous to relate and emphasize conflicting and revocable points. This is one of the main reasons of declaring my opening as well as my last statement in my first post. Secondly, there are not one but many inconsistencies, contradictions and irrelevant/unrelated issues that have been already talked about and discussed not only on this forum but on the World Wide Web. Search and research for yourself. Hint type ?contradictions in Quran (or Koran)?, and ?inconsistencies in Quran (or Koran)?.
I?ll share a few inconsistent/unrelated verses pertaining to OUR time for your inquisitive mind.
And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement. The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.
And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.
Notice that in the Islamic shariah, the women and men committing adultery are stoned to death and not confined to their homes. Also notice that the Quran often mentions burning in hell and fuels of fire, etc. throughout its pages. The stone-age history tells us that in those times people of all sorts were burnt alive and stoned for indecent acts and disobedience to their superiors, hence reflecting the verses talked about. These events took place and got written down in books long before even the Quran was invented.
These acts of stoning to death and burning people alive culminates from historic times and were real. Witnessing the barbaric and cruel nature of such events, people with great minds of peace and tranquility ordained these events to become submissive and morally righteous by policing and implementing rules and regulations as understood in the Quran (and ofcourse pre-Quranic books). If not, then burn them, stone them, kill them, etc., etc. as some of its traces are still apparent in the dogmatic Islamic religious world.
Here?s another. Not only are these two following verses rather irrelevant to OUR time but are somewhat unsound when it comes to accuracy of proper distribution and has been discussed in detail on this and other forums. Now let us see if YOU can figure it out and provide us with a definite breakdown of shares for each and every individual these verses talk about pertaining to their historic times and I shall bring another family tree for you to solve its shares from in exact accordance to these verses
Allah enjoins you concerning your children The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth after (the payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allah and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.
Ok... I do see what you mean by things that are not relevant today, and I will say that I fully agree. The Qur'an must be placed in the timeframe in which it was revealed. Only then can we understand all of it (though some of it is timeless). Remember that the Qur'an is supposed to be a guidance and a light, not a rule book of immutable laws. The three month waiting period can today be abolished with pregnancy tests. As for the adulterers, the punishment is given in measure to the punishment of the times... it is an indication of how grave the crime is. We should therefore maintain it in that gravity in relation to other crimes. The punishment can change with the times... the gravity of the crime does not - also do notice that there is no definition of what an adulterer is exactly, so this is a notion that can adapt with society in my humble opinion. As for Shar'ia law, I'm not a proponent of it as far as it diverges from the principles of the Qur'an. And I think that's what's important... the basic principles. So yes, some of the Qur'an is not directly applicable to us. That which applied to a certain place and time is applicable to us through the lens of historical change.
As for the burning in hell... Personally I take it as an allegory to the fact that breaking the timeless and immutable laws (such as the interdiction of murder) have consequences not only in this life, but after it too. It is simply an effective manner of getting the point across to the people of the time, and again should not be taken literally.As for the inheritance question, please do give a familyh tree and I'm sure I will be able to determine the shares based on the Qur'an. As for the irrelevance of the inheritance question to our times, I will beg to differ. Personally I believe strongly, and did so before ever reading the Qur'an, that the structure of the family has been greatly compromised in the past century, at least in the West, to a great detriment especially for the children. Considering that ideally the male is responsible for the financial uphold of the family, whereas the female is responsible for the emotional uphold of the family, it does make sense to give a larger proportion of the financial inheritance to the male (he will have to use that inheritance to take care of his family, whereas the female can use hers on whatever she wants because she is not financially responible for the family). Now, if you do believe that both male and female are equally responsible for the financial uphold of the family, then I think you would have to modify the equation to reflect that fact. However, I'm going to hold of to my "old fashioned" ideas whereby the responsibility of uphold is divided equally based on function and not based on perfect egality.
So yes, I will agree with you fully that there are elements of the Qur'an that are figurative, and we should not try to take them literally, because taking them literally would lead to contradictions (see my comments regarding this in http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5012&highlight=. Also, I recognize very well that some of the Qur'an is meant for a certain place and time, and we must extrapolate the rules to our times taking into account the differences between our society and Muhammad's society. I don't think there is anything in the Qur'an that forbids such a practice. It is a guidance and should be taken as a guidance. If it is taken as a literal book of laws, then you will quickly run into strange contradictions. At this point, we have two possible options either reject the Qur'an as you have, or alternatively see if there are logical figurative or alternative meanings and historical comparisons that can be made to rid the text of its contraditions.
One book I suggest you read is The Bible, The Koran and Science by Maurice Bucaille. He only analyses the scientific statements in the Qur'an, but realizes that if the commonly accepted meaning of a word in the Qur'an is taken, the Qur'an flagrantly violates some of the most basic tenets of science. However, looking back at all the various meanings of the words in classical arabic, he always found an alternative meaning that put the Qur'an in conformity with science (and generally this alternative meaning was the most basic and ancient meaning of the word). Which leads me to believe that on so many levels the Qur'an is one of the most misinterpreted books in history, and hence the warning against ignorant interpretation in 37.And that brings us to this website. I think the main aim of this website is to discuss the Qur'an in such a manner that we debunk theories (such as so much of Shar'ia law) that while in seeming conformity with one verse, can be rejected when looking at the Qur'an in a global manner. It is also about coming up with alternative interpretations (either literal or figurative), and then seeing how they hold up in light of the Qur'an.
The Qur'an says it is a clear book, which is what leads to people thinking they can just take literal meanings of everything. Personally I'm of the opinion that this clarity comes not from it being literal but logical. The logic can sometimes be very complex, but it is logical in that once the complex logical computation is done, we have a clear answer that is in conformity with the entire text. The problem is that people have contented themselves with the simple literal meanings without taking intoo account logic, and therefore much of this logical work remains undone.
I give as a comparison science, which to the lay person can sometimes look convoluted and confusing, but the person who has the proper knowledge will see the logic and clarity of the situation. So it is with the Qur'an, but unfortunately we are seriously lacking in people who have knowledge of the Qur'an because it was decided a long time ago to stop studying it more (you can recite a scientific equation as many times as you want but unless you have knowledge, you won't understand it - same with the Qur'an). Today's study of the Qur'an is stuck in the Middle Ages, and we need to bring it to the 21st century. The insistence of medieval interpretations of the Qur'an is like the stubborn insistence of a "scientist" that the world is flat. Let us study it more and use the tools we have now that didn't exist then to better understand this book. Let us find that knowledge necessary to understanding its message in a holistic manner. -
Hey claurianta
the book by Dr Murice is great, i read it in two languages and have it in my liberary
cheers
-
Hey claurianta
the book by Dr Murice is great, i read it in two languages and have it in my liberary
cheers
Peace Ahmed,
It is indeed a great book. I've only read it in the original, French... haven't felt the need to seek out a translation as the original is quite clear. And I think the most important lesson is how we have to critically look at word meanings in the Qur'an because it is possible that we've attached the wrong meaning to a word that can have several meanings. His discoveries are quite amazing too.
-
Hey claurianta
the book by Dr Murice is great, i read it in two languages and have it in my liberary
cheers
Peace Ahmed,
It is indeed a great book. I've only read it in the original, French... haven't felt the need to seek out a translation as the original is quite clear. And I think the most important lesson is how we have to critically look at word meanings in the Qur'an because it is possible that we've attached the wrong meaning to a word that can have several meanings. His discoveries are quite amazing too.
true bro, my two sisters are fluent in french and i was in my teens now at 40 I almost forgot everything about
your note regarding words is valid however only for tough words like Solb and Tra'ib that were explained in that book by Dr M through an egyptian expert, most of the words of any language are common and I believe when Allah talked to us in the Quran , He mainly used common words, very rare tough words that is used in the Quran to be honest, even words that are used in the arabic public usage of the language are commonly used in the Quran
cheers
-
true bro, my two sisters are fluent in french and i was in my teens now at 40 I almost forgot everything about
your note regarding words is valid however only for tough words like Solb and Tra'ib that were explained in that book by Dr M through an egyptian expert, most of the words of any language are common and I believe when Allah talked to us in the Quran , He mainly used common words, very rare tough words that is used in the Quran to be honest, even words that are used in the arabic public usage of the language are commonly used in the Quran
cheers
No doubt most of the words are used in a manner which people can easily understand. I think if you look at Maurice Bucaille's book, the terms he found had been misinterpreted were generally complicated, whereas the alternate meanings he propose are easy to understand. I think the main danger is that when the Qur'an was revealed, or shortly thereafter, a certain new meaning was attached to a word in the Qur'an due to either popular belief or prejudice or even simple miscomprehension or stupidity, and then these new meanings entered everyday usage, which makes it so hard to trace any such errors. That's why it's so good that the arabic language is constructed with roots, which makes it easier to find the more basic meaning. For example maktabe means library, but looking at the root KTB, we find book/writing, add the prefix M and you've got yourself a place of books. Office is maktab, also from the same root. A place where a lot of writing takes place. I'm sure you know all of this, but it is important to keep it in mind when reading the Qur'an that the common usage word might of today may not have been the common usage word 1400 years ago, and therefore it's important to use word roots to get at the meaning of words.
-
Peace brother Ahmed,
Peace mate
Look at 37 again. Does it use the word "al Quran", or the word "al Kitab"?
mate, it does not say al Quran but it gave us an important clue that al Kitab MUST mean al Quran here is the clue
-> ? ?, ? He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book?, ?The Quran? is referred to as ?Al Kitab?, i.e. Al Kitab in verse 37 means 100% ?Al Quran?, i.e. Al Quran was sent down to Mohammad by Allah.
See the important clue you missed
It uses al Kitab, and more precisely, it doesn't use "hadha al Kitab",
So?,
Of course al Quran is a Kitab and is also al Kitab the context will tell us if the name Quran was substituted with the word Kitab, Al has no significance in the meaning whatsoever, regarding hadha, this is another Arabic word that can be added to any noun and has no meaning but pointing a finger to something in the vicinity so hadha has nothing to do with the meaning of what will follow it, I can explain inmore deatiails what hadha in the arabic language is exactly, but here is a couple of verses that clearly describe the Quran as Kitab and without hadha
2- A revelation from the Beneficent, the Merciful Allah
3- A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Quran for a people who know
(2)
(3)-> You can read clearly that 412 says it was sent down (exactly as it was said in 37) then we read in 413 that what is sent down is a Kitab as well an Arabic Quran, did you read the word hdha any where? Actually the word hadha should be pronounced ?Haza? with a zee
so it is not "this Book" but rather "the Book".
Inadmissible bro because of the following reasons
-
I showed you in 413 that the Quran can be called Kitab without Haza as haza can be added to any Arabic noun and not explicit to the Quran (in fact Haza and its similar is a huge subject in the arabic grammar)
-
37 clearly started that the book that was sent down and Mohammad didnlt receive any books from Allah but the Quran. 37 clealy says ? ?, ? He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book?.
The is the same al Kitab that was given to Moses (253).
Absolutely not the only similarity that Moses and Mohammad both received a Book, but different books, this is clear from the following verses
44- Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers.
45- And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.
46- And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).
47- And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.
48- And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(4-> Can you see the sequence bro? you may also see how the three books were sperate entities sent to separate prophets, each book was confirming the books before it but when it came to the Quran it confirmed the 2 books before it as well a guardian over it, please let me know if you want me to walk you through the above verses in great details
We actually have a fourth term that I have recently found, "al furqan", the Criterion, which was also revealed to Moses (253) and Jesus (5113), and mentioned in 33-4 as being separate from al Kitab, the Torah, and the Injeel.
bro the three books revealed to the three prophets are also called Furqan, this is common knowledge because these books guide us to the right path and identify to us the wrong path
now for 34 the word Furqan there refers to the Quran that was sent after the Torah, and the Injeel as stated in 33. btw all three books can be called Furqan, Al Kitab in 33 means al Quran and al Furqan in 34 means al Quran
mate, Allah is not going to confuse the humans with books THAT HE DID NOT SENT TO THEM, how He can hold us accountable to books that we never saw?
So we have here SIX entities al Kitab (253, 37, 5113, 454), Umm al Kitab (37, 1339), al Quran (2185), al Furqan (253, 34), the Torah and the Injeel (33, 5113).
from those entities I reject Umma a Kitab because Umma Al Kitab means the following in each verse mentioned
-> 37, it is referring to the Muhkamat verse and called Umma al Kitab as a metaphor of the Mother of the Quran i.e. the foundation of the Quran
-> 1339 it means that He has the master copy of the Quran which is a small part of a main book or books that Allah have, but we are not going to give account against Umma al Kitab that Allah has (because we have no idea about it neither we saw it) rather against the three books Allah sent to us which we have in our hands
however you missed one entity and it is called ?al Zikr? i.e. all the three books are also called ?al Zikr?, here is a sample from the Quran
We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).
(9)
now before I look in detail about the next huge paragraph I would like to summarize to you
we have three books each has a name
-
al Quran
-
al Torah
-
al Injil
all the above can be called the followings
-
Kitab, al Kitab, haza al Kitab (Al and Haza has no effect on the meaning of Kitab which is a book)
-
Furqan, al Furqan, Haza al Furqan ( due to the fact they seprate good and evil through the guidance and warning)
-
Zikr, al Zikr, Haza al Zikr ( due to the fact that these books should remind us Zikr means a reminder)
-
I think we missed this one which is ?Sohof? and can be said on all three books, Sohof means ?scriptures?, here is an example for Sohof which means in the following verse al Torah
Or, has he not been informed of what is in the scriptures of Musa?
(36)
see bro how we can call these three books many names
Now, there is repetitive references to al Kitab being revealed BEFORE al Qur'an (253, 454 for example - the ahl al Kitab have al Kitab before the revelation of al Qur'an - if they didn't, they would be ahl al Torah or ahl al Injeel or ahl al Furqan, but they are not; they are ahl al Kitab) so then how can al Qur'an = al Kitab??? Or was al Qur'an revealed prior to it being revealed to Muhammad? (NO, it was not).
bro a torah is a kitab (obviously it is bro no tricks here), the Injil is a kitab, and the Quran is also a kitab, what is wrong here bro, I absolutely can?t see anything wrong at all, they all different kitab but all are books of course, please bro this is getting ridiculous, sorry to tell you that
So what do we know of these six entities?
Al Furqan given to Moses (253, 214 and Aaron (214. It is clarified by al Qur'an (2185). Revealed during a battle (841).
The Furqan that was sent to Moses is also the Torah and is also a Kitab, The Quran was also called Furqan, here is a sample
Blessed is He who sent down the Furqan to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures;-
(1)
Al Umm al Kitab It is precise in meaning, and forms part of al Kitab (37); it is with God (1339); it mentions al Kitab (434).
Sorry bro, I reject your understanding to 37 and 1339 here is my comment again
-> 37, it is referring to the Muhkamat verse and called Umma al Kitab as a metaphor of the Mother of the Quran i.e. the foundation of the Quran, also Al Umm al Kitab is grammatically wrong as ?Umma al Kitab? CAN NEVER HAVE AL in front.
-> 1339 it means that He has the master copy of the Quran which is a small part of a main book or books that Allah have, but we are not going to give account against Umma al Kitab that Allah has (because we have no idea about it neither we saw it) rather against the three books Allah sent to us which we have in our hands
-> Regarding 434 it clearly confirms what I said on 1339, i.e. the Quran is a small part of a master book (Umma al Kitab) that Allah have up there, Inaho is referring to al Quran and Fi means IN , i.e. the Quran is in the master book (Umma al Kitab) that Allah has, now we need to know nothing about the master book other than the Quran is a part from it that we only need in this life to prosper, that other parts may be the rest of whole laws of the heaven and earth
Al Kitab given to Moses (253, 287) and the descendents of Abraham (454), and Jesus (1930); there is no doubt in it (22); it is recited by the Jews (244) and the Nazarenes (2113); authenticated by a messenger or God (2101); has a people (ahl al Kitab 2105, 2109); it is the truth (2144); it is well known (2146) BUT a messenger was sent to teach al Kitab and what was not known (2151); the pious believe in it (2177); sent down with the Prophets (2212) so they may judge between the people in what they were disputing; separate from al Furqan, al Torah and al Injeel (33-4, 349); part Umm al Kitab, part allegory (37); revealed to Muhammad (37); much of it was hidden by ahl al Kitab (515); taught to Jesus (5110); fully details all things (5154); detailed/expounded by al Quran (1037); conferred upon the progeny of Lot (2927); part of al Kitab was inspired to Muhammad (3531); sent down in one night (443)
al Quran considered Kitab (a book) but never al Kitab (413); sent down during Ramadan (2185); could not have been produced without God (1037); authenticates that which is already present (1037); details/expounds of al Kitab (1037); guides to that which is upright (179); something is cited in it (1741); it is a healing and mercy to the believers (1782); neither the humans nor the jinn can create Qur'an like it (178; was not sent down all at once (2532, 7623); it is easy to learn (5417, 5422); marked by God (551)
Al Torah a guidance and a light (543); authenticated by Jesus (546); no indication as to which prophet it was given, but it is possessed by the Jews (543); it is revealed (544)
Al Injeel given to Jesus (546); a guidance and a light (546); it has a people (ahl al Injeel - 547)Now, seeing as there are manifest differences in how al Kitab and al Qur'an are described in the Qur'an, and the fact that in no part of the Qur'an does it say that the two are one and the same, or even that one is part of the other. And nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that Huna Umma al Kitab refers to anything that is actually in al Qur'an, but rather that which is in al Kitab. I must admit that I am still a bit confused on how these all can be put together, but for me it is now clear that al Kitab and al Qur'an are not identical, and therefore that which is said about al Kitab (such as 37) cannot automatically be applied to al Qur'an. Al Kitab is al Kitab, and al Qur'an is Al Qur'an.
I?m really sorry bro I have to skip the above as it is way to much argument and it took me long time so far to read the verses you mentioned and put my comment, I think I need not to say more and I hope I explained as much as I can
Peace be with you
-
-
Peace danish and all. I sympathise with your analysis danish. But i take consolation that although the quran can be used to cause harm,some muslims take some benefit from it. Taking a metaphorical and/or mystic approach to its words can help some people. But i do agree that the logic in saying the quran is infallible is circular and plainly not true. The verses you highlighted are a sample of the inconsistencies,if we were to be truely open-minded we would discover many others. It seems we have to resort to limbo-dancing and mental gymnastics to make the quran free from inconsistencies. I feel that people are scared that if they found the quran to be truth mixed with error that their faith and/or morals would collapse.I feel we are clinging to the quran too blindly.(how can the quran be perfect when only god is supposed to be perfect according to the quran?). I have let go of my previous belief that the quran was infallible and i feel my knowledge and morals are much improved as a direct result. Knowledge and morals can be found in the quran,torah,bible,bhagvad gita,canon pali,the sun newspaper,reuters etc.. and more importantly in life-experience. However this knowledge has to be verified(rational) and should cause a decrease in human suffering. Niestchze said; 'what is the point of knowledge which brings no human benefit'? The qurans usefulness to any person can be gauged by the readers behaviour changing for the better.
Peace all. -
Peace Ahmed,
I do see you point, and I will admit it as a possibility until I am able to put some more time into studying the matter. However, I do have a question regarding your interpretation.
According to your logic regarding al Kitab, In 37 we see that only part of the Qur'an is what has been named Umm al Kitab. The rest is something else. Right? Therefore everything we find in the Qur'an is not in the Umm al Kitab which undoubtedly is with God. Now, Umm al Kitab is undoubtedly with God (1339), so therefore part of what we find in the Qur'an is undoubtedly with God. What about the rest of the Qur'an, the part that isn't Umm al Kitab, which according to 37 exists? BTW, do we even have proof that Umm al Kitab refers to a book, or is it just a set of laws or ideas?
Now, looking at 1037, we see there a relationship between the Qur'an and another book. It just says al Kitab, so according to your logic, it could mean any book. Now, I admit you know more arabic than I do, so I ask you about this verse. When it says tfsiil al kitab (which I have seen translated as exposition of the book or detail of the book) does this mean
a) the Qur'an is a word-for-word transcription or literal translation into arabic of this book
b) the Qur'an is a word-for-word transcription or literal translation into arabic of part of this book
c) the Qur'an is a resume of the book, that is it explains to us the main points in a way we can understand
d) the Qur'an is more detailed than the book, in that is explains concepts from the book in more detail than the book itself does, by giving examples etc. that don't exist in the book, but help us understand the book better
e) a combination of the above. if so, how?
f) none of the above... if so, what?Also, in 8521-22, where we see that the Qur'an is in a well-preserved tablet, is there actually any indication of where this purpoted tablet is? I ask this because I would like to know if a figurative meaning of tablet would be more appropriate here, something akin to the english expression "set in stone". That is to say that that the Qur'an is not actually on a stone tablet somewhere in heaven as the Sunnis claim, but rather that it is a book set in stone, in that it unchanging, matching with the concept of God guarding the Qur'an. Because honestly I am having trouble finding anywhere in Qur'an that says that there is an actual copy of anything with God, except for Umm al Kitab (1339), and it's not even certain that Umm al Kitab is an actual book, rather than just an immutable set of laws - the rules that God set up when he formed the universe which have been created and since they just exist without having to be put down in some kind of physical book.
-
Peace Ahmed,
I do see you point, and I will admit it as a possibility until I am able to put some more time into studying the matter. However, I do have a question regarding your interpretation.
Thank you bro, please do spend a lot of time studying the Quran this is what all humans must do and Alhamdulellah I spent years and years doing as such and I admit there was a few things that I was confused about when I was young but I was never confused about, Kitab, Al Kitab, Haza Al Kitab, Umma Al Kitab, Tilk Ayaat, Furqn, Zikr, Sohof, Quran, Torah, Ingil, and Zaboor, CLEAR AS LIGHT FOR ANY NATIVE ARABIC SPEAKER BRO
According to your logic regarding al Kitab, In 37 we see that only part of the Qur'an is what has been named Umm al Kitab.
not really bro this part (Muhkamat verses) has been named Umma Al Kitab, this part (Muhkamat verses) IS ONLY DESCRIBED AS UMMA AL KITAB, i.e. those Muhkamat verses are the foundation (the base) of the Quran that no one can dispute
The rest is something else. Right?
right but that rest is very rare, I myself seen Mutashabihat verse that are less than 20 verses out of the whole Quran, they might be more but as far as I know it is very rare and its only objective is to test the believers and the unbelievers and see what they will do regarding the Mutashabihat verses, 37 tells us that the unbelievers whose hearts is full of perversity will try to seek the meaning of these Mutashabihat verses to cause discord, while the believers who has great knowledge about Allah will not chase the meaning of these Mutashabihat verses and accept it for granted as the words of Allah exactly as the Muhkamat verses, I have written a comment about 37 in details if you would like to read it
everything we find in the Qur'an is not in the Umm al Kitab which undoubtedly is with God. Now,
sorry bro, what you said above is not accurate, the quran consist from two types of verses
-
Muhkamat verses (the far majority) and only described as Umma Al Kitab, i.e. Umma Al Quran, i.e. a metaphor that these Muhkamat verse are the foundation (the base) of the Quran
-
Mushabihat verses (the minority) and ARE NOT DESCRIBED AS Umma Al Kitab, i.r. they are not the foundation of the Quran, they were only there to test all the humans including the believers
now the whole quran (Muhkamat and Mutshabihat) is recorded in the master copy Allah have upthere, that master copy was also described as Umma Al Kitab (the master copy of the books), (the mother of all books), like when Saddam said (the mother of all wars) , the other Umma Al Kitab in 37 was talking about the Muhkamat verses (Huna) and it means (the Mother of all verses), this mother (Umma) thingy is known in the Arabic culture as a common metaphor to describe a thing that should be a master or dominant or big, or important, all these sort of descriptions
Umm al Kitab is undoubtedly with God (1339),
Not really, The master book(s) that Allah has up there is described as Umma Al Kitab, it is a name in any way, that is why I reject it in my previous comment
so therefore part of what we find in the Qur'an is undoubtedly with God.
no bro, the whole Quran (muhkamat and mutashabihat) are in the master copy of all books that Allah has up there
What about the rest of the Qur'an, the part that isn't Umm al Kitab, which according to 37 exists? BTW, do we even have proof that Umm al Kitab refers to a book, or is it just a set of laws or ideas?
I stated that both parts are in the master book(s) that Allah has up there and is described as Umma al kitab, as I explained before, ?Umma Al Something? is nothing but a common expression to highlight a strong position
Now, looking at 1037, we see there a relationship between the Qur'an and another book. It just says al Kitab, so according to your logic, it could mean any book. Now, I admit you know more arabic than I do, so I ask you about this verse. When it says tfsiil al kitab (which I have seen translated as exposition of the book or detail of the book) does this mean
a) the Qur'an is a word-for-word transcription or literal translation into arabic of this book
b) the Qur'an is a word-for-word transcription or literal translation into arabic of part of this book
c) the Qur'an is a resume of the book, that is it explains to us the main points in a way we can understand
d) the Qur'an is more detailed than the book, in that is explains concepts from the book in more detail than the book itself does, by giving examples etc. that don't exist in the book, but help us understand the book better
e) a combination of the above. if so, how?
f) none of the above... if so, what?ok bro, I actually made a comment about 1037 before on FM, I could noot find it though, so let me bring it here again
This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.
(37)
-> The verse is telling us clearly that , i.e. ?This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah;?, can you see how Haza came before Quran?, this confirm to you that Haza is nothing but pointing a finger, so Allah is pointing a finger to the Quran in our hands as an expression of strong statement. The verse starts a new sentence after that , i.e. ?on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it? , this bit can also be understood as a confirmation to what is between Allah?s hands (the master copy), then the verse finishes with the third and last sentence , i.e. ? and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.?, i.e. the explanation of the book means the explanation of the Quran that was mentioned in the first sentence, this rims with the many times that Allah told us that He is in charge in explaining the Quran, i.e. the Kitab mentioned in the third sentence is 100% the Quran mentioned in the first sentence in the verse, why Allah tells us that an explanation of a book will happen while we don?t have that book? Unless it is about a book that He sent to us which is the Quran, now let me put your points and answer it one after the other
a) the Qur'an is a word-for-word transcription or literal translation into arabic of this book
The whole Quran is a part of the master copy Allah has and explanation of the book in 1037 means the explanation of the Quran
b) the Qur'an is a word-for-word transcription or literal translation into Arabic of part of this book
yes ( but regarding literal translation, I don?t know because I don?t know what language the master book Allah has is written in for Allah to translate literally word for word into Arabic)
c) the Qur'an is a resume of the book, that is it explains to us the main points in a way we can understand
you can metaphorically suggest as such as long as you believe it is the exact words of Allah (muhkamat and mutashabihat)
d) the Qur'an is more detailed than the book, in that is explains concepts from the book in more detail than the book itself does, by giving examples etc. that don't exist in the book, but help us understand the book better
No
e) a combination of the above. if so, how?
No because it can?t be the above point
f) none of the above... if so, what?
No, it can be a couple of the above
I have to take my daughter to school then head to work, I still have one paragraph to reply too which honestly I haven?t read yet but I will try to reply to it when I go to work
peace
-
-
Peace Ahmed,
I thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view, which I respect very much. It seems to me that our difference of opinion comes from the fact that you read the Qur'an in a rather literal sense, whereas I tend to look for possible symbolic or metaphoric meanings.
Personally I think that either way is acceptable, as long as you keep a consistency to your interpretations, which you seem to do. Perhaps God is recognizing our individuality by making many versions of the one path... one that is more literal and another more symbolic (and perhaps others), and has guided us to follow the one that is more appropriate for our nafs. And I think that until we admit each others' right to interpret the Qur'an in the different logical ways it can be interpreted, we will have nothing but conflict. -
Peace,
It seems to me that our difference of opinion comes from the fact that you read the Qur'an in a rather literal sense, whereas I tend to look for possible symbolic or metaphoric meanings.
Personally I think that either way is acceptable, as long as you keep a consistency to your interpretations, which you seem to do. Perhaps God is recognizing our individuality by making many versions of the one path... one that is more literal and another more symbolic (and perhaps others), and has guided us to follow the one that is more appropriate for our nafs. And I think that until we admit each others' right to interpret the Qur'an in the different logical ways it can be interpreted, we will have nothing but conflict.
By rational and logical apprehension, GOD, the Creator of our Creations, cannot possibly say one thing (as literal) to one set of individuals and at the same time another (as metaphorical) to another set of individuals, yet calling HIS ummah as ONE. This approach is not only inconsistent but contradictory and obviously creates confusion and chaos as seen. This sort of comprehension is weak, illogical and taking GOD's name in vain as being hypocrital and senseless (astagfirullah).
Reiterated several times earlier, you are inadvertently and childishly making a mockery of not only your own "holy book" but as well as of Allah. People just don't seem to realize it and continue to do so. What is wrong in saying that the Quran says this or that or the verse is saying this or that, rather than taking GOD's name in uncertain ways and making a fool out of yourselves. If discussion and understanding of the Quran is of utmost importance, then at least discuss it in such a manner as to not make a ridicule out of HIM by HIS Words, but by your own foolishness and misunderstandings.
-
Peace Ahmed,
Peace mate
Sorry for the delay, actually I forgot about it totally and danish comment reminded me that I still have a reply to you, sorry
I thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view, which I respect very much.
no worries bro, I too thank you for keeping the dialogue respectable and constructive
It seems to me that our difference of opinion comes from the fact that you read the Qur'an in a rather literal sense, whereas I tend to look for possible symbolic or metaphoric meanings.
true, however the literal understanding is the most accurate one because when Allah wants to give us a metaphor, most of the times He tells us in advance that here is a metaphor, also there is things that is clear for average humans that it has to be a metaphor and the metaphor must be clear not zillions of different metaphors for the same verse, therefore for Allah to make the whole Quran a metaphor and not telling us in advance then leaving to us to work it out, defeats the main objective of this book of guidance, it also defeat our unity and make the believers look confused, arrogant, ignorant and sure stupid as well, there is no way our Mighty God will do this to us
Personally I think that either way is acceptable,
as I said bro, there are many metaphors in the Quran that clearly say that it is a metaphor and you will see clearly that it has one metaphor explained by God in advance, some rare metaphors are also included without declaring that it is a metaphor because it is obvious that it is a metaphor, I can show many examples from the Quran,
as long as you keep a consistency to your interpretations,
exactly and to keep this consistency we should let the Quran explains itself without ignoring the historical facts associated with it during those 23 years of revelation
which you seem to do.
it took me years to learn how I do it, and there is one way to do it which is let the Quran explains itself, as well the language and history should not be ignored while understanding the Quran
Perhaps God is recognizing our individuality by making many versions of the one path... one that is more literal and another more symbolic (and perhaps others),
the difference here is this, the literal will lead to almost one conclusion, the symbolic will lead to many conclusion that may be contradictory and that is in the case if we were not told that it is a metaphor, but for the verses where we were told that it is a metaphor in advance we will see that it also lead to one symbol because it was told to us in advance that the verses are metaphors
and has guided us to follow the one that is more appropriate for our nafs.
impossible bro, there will be many contradiction this way and each one will uphold what they think is right according to their level of understanding, the only way is get around this is to take the verses literally unless it was said or understood clearly otherwise
And I think that until we admit each others' right to interpret the Qur'an in the different logical ways it can be interpreted, we will have nothing but conflict.
the Quran never gave this right actually, because the Quran is the only thing that interprets the Quran, i.e. the Quran explains itself and this should lead to the unity of the believers under one understanding not their division as we can see it clearly now even between the same sect
and that is why you said we will always have a conflict (I mean all the believers, not just me and you), the only solution is to understand the Quran as literal as possible unless it is said or understood clearly otherwise
peace be with you mate
-
Danish wrote
Step at a time and lets not get carried away with questions upon questions. My previous post has not been answered at all (rules and judges as per your alleged admissions)??? Please stick to it before we can move any further.bro you have not answered Al Salatu Al Wasta for months now, remember that one? when you said the words don't have the Al in them, well i told you mate that i expected a concession from you but you just turned a blind eye
why you think i will waste my time going through all these pages while i don't have trust in you that you are a man to accept the truth and admit it about the Al?
therefore if you are not that serious don't expect that i will be serious with you but i still respect you and like your style for sure,
let's look at what happened again
-
you raised a quran conradiction with a christian, and this does not make any sense to me
-
then you came and said that the Quran is not the words of Allah and you can refute the ones who say that it is, EASILY
now i asked you to do it with me and show me how easy it will be for you,
you failed to do this so far
you failed to prove that it is easy because you directed me to some used by date chat chat, that i'm not interested in really, i do have a life
that is my challenge to you, i don't really give a fluke if i prove to you that it is the words of Allah or not, but what i will give a fluke about is this
i will show everyone that what you said regarding ITS EASE is nothing but utter BS
this means a new start but under judges and rules we create together and agree on
i guess if it is easy as you say you should accept and not dodge, let's nominate the judges then we move on to the rules
I will select my two judges out of the following pool
- Agentxxx
- Kyle
- Savage_Carrot
- Joe
- KGB
how about the pool of your two judges?
cheers
Ahmed, no need to flutter and grunt, making a mish-mash of discussion when confronted with questions that shake you up. Your deceptive tactics to avoid rebutting is being exposed once again, in much the same manner as you did in "al salatu al wusta" topic and here in this thread as well. And this is the reason I didn't proceed any further. You don't seem to have the apptitute to debate in an ethical manner, so much for your blind beliefs and wishy-washy claims. Please get to work on the following without being hasty and getting sidetracked. Think and take all your time for my "horses are held"
Question How do YOU know that the Quran that we have today, a book that was written 1400+ years ago by "MAN", is the exact Word of GOD providing evidence from beyond what is written in the book itself? If you bring about verses from within the book itself to support your preconceived notions written by "MAN", then you will fail miserably.
Now refute these links and I shall respond
-
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5177&start=25
-
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=79504&highlight=#79504
-
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=79403&highlight=#79403
-
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=78188&highlight=#78188
-