The Quran and the previous scriptures
-
Sugar Is it true that the Quran is the best scripture God sent to mankind or are we not suppose to differentiate the scriptures cause I heard someone say that we should not differentiate the scriptures like we should not differentiate the messengers.
No, it's not true. Al-quraan calls itself 'tafseelul kitaab' (10/37) which means that is the detailling of God's writ for humankind (i.e. al-kitaab)
There's no such thing in al-quraan as 'scriptures'.
-
KyleWe are told to trust what is descended upon us and that which was descended to those before us. Its not about book vs book, its about truthful statements vs false statements. We do not differentiate between truth given by one or the other. All is considered Al Kitaab.
Can you please bring evidence for this, Kyle? 'We are told to trust what is descended to those before us' is nowhere in al-quraan, if that's the source you meant by 'we are told'. As for 'all considered al-kitaab', al-quraan is al-furqaan and therefore if something which is al-haqq (ultimate truth) isn't in it, it doesn't fit in. This is if you're talking about al-quraan, of course.
-
KyleThe God has descended "the book". It does not say a "scripture" nor "quran".
The correct term here is 'al-kitaab BIL HAQQ' or 'al-kitaab with/in AL-HAQQ'. What is al-haqq? See 41/53 for the identification that al-quraan itself is al-haqq. Therefore, al-kitaab bil haqq if one actually uses al-quraan to explain itself , must refer to al-quraan.
Universal Law (al kitaab) brings us all together, the test is to see if we will start to idolize the portion that was given to us against portions given to others instead of bringing all of the pieces of the puzzle together.
Once again, no basis in al-quraan. Al-quraan has asserted itself as 'tafseelul kitaab' or the detailling of al-kitaab. Therefore, there are no 'pieces of the puzzle' idea which you speak of. Quranically, at least. I don't know if there are any sources which you refer to.
-
lol and what's wrong with calling it 'quran'? ???
Peace,
Sugar -
Sugarlol and what's wrong with calling it 'quran'?
I don't know if you're addressing myself here but I call it 'al-quraan' because it refers to itself like so. It's different from 'quranin ghairin hadha' or 'a quran other than this' (10/15). Al-quraan is from Allah. 'quran' can come from anyone.
-
Peace mquran
I basically agree perfectly with what you wrote here.
I only have one little objection and one addition.Objection
The correct term here is 'al-kitaab BIL HAQQ' or 'al-kitaab with/in AL-HAQQ'. What is al-haqq? See 41/53 for the identification that al-quraan itself is al-haqq. Therefore, al-kitaab bil haqq if one actually uses al-quraan to explain itself , must refer to al-quraan.
My reading is a little bit different here.
Since in other verses the qur'?n establishes a definatory difference between the terms al-qur'?n and al-kit?b (through the term tafs?l-ul-kit?b) I would say that the bil haqq does not refer to al-kit?b here (although that would at first be as correct) but instead refers to what is sent down (nazala).According to my understanding this all leads to
a) al-kit?b is not totally identical to al-qur'?n, because the one is the tafs?l of the other.
b)al-qur'?n is both tanz?l and tafs?l of al-kit?b
c) however, the act of tanz?l does not compromise al-haqq of al-kit?b in any way, the act itself happens within al-haqq.
(contrary to those who claim that the act of revelation in a human language makes it relative)Addition
It never calls itself the bible.
Correct. But not only does the bible not call itself bible.
The torah as an entity also does not call itself torah and the gospel does not call itself gospel.
Both terms, the one from Hebrew, the other from Greek, originally referred to very basic things.
Torah means "instruction, law" in Hebrew, Gospel isn?t even the original term, which was euangelion and which meant "good message". Gospel was invented later to somehow fit euangelion, derived from "God`s spell" (does not even have the same meaning as euangelion!).Both torah and euangelion were used in a very general way in early Judaism and Christianity and probably only in historically quite recent times applied to the books called that way now.
The current Jewish definition of Torah even still in these days contradicts the Christian definition of the same term, including things like the "oral torah" (mystical teachings of the kabbalah etc.).Now, if at-tauraat is really the biblical torah, which one is it ???
The one by Jewish definition or the one by Christian definition?
No,, probably it is the one by Sunni definition .... ha. -
LeylaMy reading is a little bit different here.
Since in other verses the qur'?n establishes a definatory difference between the terms al-qur'?n and al-kit?b (through the term tafs?l-ul-kit?b) I would say that the bil haqq does not refer to al-kit?b here (although that would at first be as correct) but instead refers to what is sent down (nazala).According to my understanding this all leads to
a) al-kit?b is not totally identical to al-qur'?n, because the one is the tafs?l of the other.
b)al-qur'?n is both tanz?l and tafs?l of al-kit?b
c) however, the act of tanz?l does not compromise al-haqq of al-kit?b in any way, the act itself happens within al-haqq.
(contrary to those who claim that the act of revelation in a human language makes it relative)Excellent point there. However, I cannot agree because this context goes on to say Muaddiqan Lim Bayna Yadayhi Mina Al-Kitbi Wa Muhayminan `Alayhi /confirming what is between his two hands from al-kitaab and a watcher over it'. To confirm and to watch over something requires something phenomenological/objective in the world and that's why al-haqq refers to al-quraan here. This is further confirmed by the fact that al-quraan is 'bayyinat min al-hudaa'/ a clarification from the guidance as 2/185 tells us.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
IF1
We are told to trust what is descended upon us and that which was descended to those before us. Its not about book vs book, its about truthful statements vs false statements. We do not differentiate between truth given by one or the other. All is considered Al Kitaab.MQ
Can you please bring evidence for this, Kyle? 'We are told to trust what is descended to those before us' is nowhere in al-quraan, if that's the source you meant by 'we are told'.(24) And those who trust with what was descended to you, and what was descended from before you, and with the end (other life) they are sure/certain .
As for 'all considered al-kitaab', al-quraan is al-furqaan and therefore if something which is al-haqq (ultimate truth) isn't in it, it doesn't fit in. This is if you're talking about al-quraan, of course.
No, I was talking about the truth, the book of life, the only book which can be read by all people at all times in any place, the Universe. When I said "all is considered Al Kitaab", I meantall of the TRUTHFUL (through verification) STATEMENTS that are made throughout the history of life. I was not referring to any book, UNLESS that book is verified through life experience as truth.
-
Well, what I mean is
It is not "al kit?b bayna yadayhi" but instead it is "lim? bayna yadayhi min al kit?b".
I would say this again stresses that the one which is, as you correctly say, phenomenological in this world is not al kit?b but what came from al-kit?b within al-haqq.
Or did I get your point wrong? -
Ah, sorry, I did get it wrong.
Just read the verse in completenss again.
But then still I don?t understand why your point contradicts mine....
Let me think for a while.idolfree1
When you read the arabic text it is not "before you" in a chronological sense, I`d say.
-
Kyle(24) And those who trust with what was descended to you, and what was descended from before you, and with the end (other life) they are sure/certain .
This is a description of 'al-muttaqeen'. Al-kitaab is guidance for 'al-muttaqeen' who believe in what is revealed to you and what is revealed before you. 'al-muttaqeen' isn't said to be the present al-muttaqeen nor are the present al-muttaqeen told to trust what came before. What is descended remains the same and so al-muttaqeen of all time would believe in it.
No, I was talking about the truth, the book of life, the only book which can be read by all people at all times in any place, the Universe. When I said "all is considered Al Kitaab", I meantall of the TRUTHFUL (through verification) STATEMENTS that are made throughout the history of life. I was not referring to any book, UNLESS that book is verified through life experience as truth.
Sorry, I understood you meant to 'divine books' on paper due to this context
We are told to trust what is descended upon us and that which was descended to those before us. Its not about book vs book, its about truthful statements vs false statements. We do not differentiate between truth given by one or the other. All is considered Al Kitaab.
Ok, I understand now, thanks. Let me ask you please.
Say you're 'reading the universe'. How do you deduce what is a 'universal law'. A law, if you agree is a statement whose truth happens if all conditions are met. How would you deduce a law?
-
No, sorry.
Still don?t see it.
Can you make me see, please?As far as I see it al-kit?b here is an objective reality of which (lim?....min) we can also witness in bayna yadayhi.
The tanz?l and tafs?l of al-kit?b, al-qur?n, then confirms what we can attest of al-kit?b in bayna yadayhi, because both go back to al-kit?b.
Al-qur'?n, one could say, sets straight for us what we see from al-kit?b bayna yadayhi, because its tanz?l happened bil-haqq.
I?d say the interaction here is comparable to the one between al-qur'?n and signs in our self and horizon. -
Leyla As far as I see it al-kit?b here is an objective reality of which (lim?....min) we can also attest in bayna yadayhi.
The tanz?l and tafs?l of al-kit?b, al-qur?n, then confirms what we can attest of al-kit?b in bayna yadayhi.
I?d say the interaction here is comparable to the one between al-qur'?n ans signs in our self and horizon.Al-kitaab cannot be an objective reality without al-quraan. This is because al-kitaab is al-hikmah, laws behind the reality of the universe. These are al-ghaib, not shahaadat.
Here's what I see from our exchange thus far
- I assert the bil-haqq 5/48 refers to al-quraan
- You assert that it refers to the inzaal due to the fact that it's 'min al-kitaab'.
- I disagree with this due to the ayat saying that al-kitaab bil haqq which confirms that which in between his two hands and is a watcher over it. This tells me that its role is like al-quraan's role of clarification. Whatever we understand of al-kitaab via al-quraan can be a watcher over our experience with al-kitaab. Hence it being tafseelul kitaab.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
KyleThe God has descended "the book". It does not say a "scripture" nor "quran".
The correct term here is 'al-kitaab BIL HAQQ' or 'al-kitaab with/in AL-HAQQ'.
Yes the book with the the truth.
What is al-haqq? See 41/53 for the identification that al-quraan itself is al-haqq.
I disagree. 41/53 shows that truth is EVERYWHERE to be verified. For example, you go to someone and tell them they should not smoke. They might disagree but... "We will show them Our signs in the horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth". If the book called "Koran" is verified as truth, this it is part of al -haqq, not al haqq itself.
Therefore, al-kitaab bil haqq if one actually uses al-quraan to explain itself , must refer to al-quraan.
The book with truth is the universe itself, there is nothing truer than objective verification of the laws in action  
Quote
Universal Law (al kitaab) brings us all together, the test is to see if we will start to idolize the portion that was given to us against portions given to others instead of bringing all of the pieces of the puzzle together.Once again, no basis in al-quraan. Al-quraan has asserted itself as 'tafseelul kitaab' or the detailling of al-kitaab. Therefore, there are no 'pieces of the puzzle' idea which you speak of. Quranically, at least. I don't know if there are any sources which you refer to.
Yes, there is basis. This is the topic of "sects", each rejoicing in the portion of "the book" they have. Each has certain 'truths" collected into a book or philosophy and automatically reject any other infomation with testing and verifying it, such as meditation, etc. Divination is used in "quran" and "bible" yet followers of both reject it completely without even testing it.
Regarding "al quran", it only means "reading/proclamation". It refers to the book called "Koran", itrefers to the book called "bible", it refers to the speech of one telling ithers dont smoke cigareetes, it refers to a father telling his son about sex, etc. All of that is "quran", but we determine if it is from the God or not by seeing if there are contradictions with al kitaab (universal law).
-
mquran I disagree with this due to the ayat saying that al-kitaab bil haqq which confirms that which in between his two hands and is a watcher over it. This tells me that its role is like al-quraan's role of clarification. Whatever we understand of al-kitaab via al-quraan can be a watcher over our experience with al-kitaab. Hence it being tafseelul kitaab.
Phew..... damn good analysis, I have to admit.
However, it still leaves questions for meThis is because al-kitaab is al-hikmah, laws behind the reality of the universe. These are al-ghaib, not shahaadat.
So the qur'?n is totally identical to the laws behind the reality of the universe, as the entity that we hold in our hands today?
In form, arabic language etc., etc..That idea seems a little bit problematic to me.
Can you elaborate, please?Until now I rather saw it as an abstraction of those laws that only refers to an identity of meaning.
-
idolfree1
According to what I see and read al-qur'?n establishes the absoluteness of certain terms through the article, al.
Thus al-haqq is not simply a truth, it is the Absolute Truth, God.So, the qur'?n does not call itself qur'?n or qur'?nun, a reading.
It calls itself al-qur'?n, the absolute reading.
It is not one amongst others, it is THE. -
LeylaSo the qur'?n is totally identical to the laws behind the reality of the universe, as the entity that we hold in our hands today?
In form, arabic language etc., etc..For example Al-quraan asserts al-fasiqoon will be destroyed. The correct meaning of this will find expression in universal laws.
That idea seems a little bit problematic to me.
Can you elaborate, please?Until now I rather saw it as an abstraction of those laws that only refers to an identity of meaning.
I don't understand the difference between 'abstraction of those laws' and what I just explained, sorry?