Previous Revelations also in Arabic Language
-
Salaam Nadeem
What you will be taught is, most probably, Modern Standard Arabic, not classical. I would say that the quran is nearer to a spoken version of MSA; i.e no strict grammatical rules as studied in the written version. This is how educated (I mean generally those who learned MSA) Arabs from different Arab countries - and thus different colloquial Arabic- communicate between them (through MSA with relaxed grammar).
You may also learn the root system which is a good help to learn the connection between otherwise alien words.
So, don't worry. Go ahead and learn it.
-
Salaam sister Samia,
The thing is, I'm not being taught anything. Instead of spanish or german, which are defaults, I've been given permission to study Classical Arabic on my own. You are the only teacher I have in arabic. I stressed to the principal that there is a difference between Classical and Modern arabic, and she said she understood that fully.
I must ask, Sis Samia, when you corrected my homework (thanks again), did you correct it according to MSA or CA?
The book I've bought, is called "arabic through the quran". The author also stresses the difference between MSA and CA. He has even discouraged the use of modern dictionaries for understanding the quran, such as Hans Wehr's.
What do you think of Aymans claims regarding the quran not being in Classical Arabic?
Nadeem
-
Peace Ayman.
I disagree with Dr. Kamal Omar's idea about al-quran being eternal. Because kitabillah/Allah's book is not al-quran. Kitabillah is al-kitaab. And al-kitab/kitabillah IS eternal.
So while you may be very knowledgeable in history, as is evident from your post, this very basic misconception(about al-quran being kitabillah) displays your ignorance of al-quran and renders your whole post pointless.
peace.
Peace all,
The real motivation of the ignorance that the article in the above link spews is defending the following illogical late Abbasid era idea (I quote from the article)
Since Allah's Book is eternal and permanent, its language is Ummul alsinah (mother of all the languages).
The idea that the great reading ("quran" is eternal and uncreated was invented during the period of decay of the Abbasid Empire. It was the main contention point between the Hanbalee sect and the Muatazila. In the late 9th century CE, after several years of back and forth fighting, the idea took hold after the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mutawakil (first Caliph to be murdered by his bodyguards) embraced the Hanbalee Ahl Al-Hadith dogma and declared the "uncreated quran" doctrine as official creed. Anti-rationalist inquisitions ensued and the decline of the Empire accelerated.
Of course in the mind of the ignorant Abbasid era anti-rationalist, if the great reading was eternal and uncreated then its language too must be eternal and uncreated. It is ironic that now this anti-rationalist Abbasid era idea is presented under a thin veil of rationalism in what seems like an attempt to repackage it for a modern audience.
In reality such preposterous idea demonstrates nothing but ignorance of the history of the language and ignorance of the great reading itself.
For example, in the great reading passage 712 we hear iblis saying "I am better than him, you created me from fire and created him from mud". Since this is part of the great reading, according to the anti-rationalist doctrine, the speech of iblis is also "eternal and uncreated". Similarly, there are many passages in the great reading that quote the rejecters, the descendants of Israel and other people. The implication of the idea of the "eternal and uncreated quran" is that their speech too is "eternal and uncreated".
The real motivation of the anti-rationalists was to make an idol out of the great reading. This is because when people idolize something, they stop thinking about it rationally.
In terms of ignorance of history, saying that Classical Arabic is "eternal and permanent" is as ridiculous as saying that Modern English is "eternal and permanent". In the same way that English descended from other languages, Classical Arabic too descended from other languages. In fact, compared to other Semitic languages, Arabic is relatively new to the scene. It descended from a much older language called Safaitic and thus the first Old Arabic inscriptions do not appear until the 1st century BCE. For several centuries, specifically until the 4th century CE, we see that inscriptions show Arabic features mixed with features from Safaitic and other Southern Semitic languages. It is not until the Namara inscription that is dated to 328CE that we see a full inscription in pure old Arabic.
But even then, Old Arabic is not like Classical Arabic. Thus, it is hard for people who are well educated in Classical Arabic to read Old Arabic. In fact, I guarantee that the author of the "previous-revelations-were-also-in-arabic-language" article cannot read this Old Arabic inscription
http//www.touregypt.net/featurestories/arabic1.jpg
Another fact that all defenders of the "uncreated and eternal quran and Arabic language" dogma are ignorant of is that the great reading is not in Classical Arabic. In fact, there are many passages in the great reading that are ungrammatical by Classical Arabic standards (For example, 2177, 4162, 569, 2219, 499, etc..). Also, it is clear that many chapters in the great reading were meant to be recited without Classical Arabic case endings and indeed they sound awkward when recited with the case endings. This includes chapters, such as Chapter 1, 55, etc.
Also, in the great reading we find many foreign words that were borrowed from foreign, even non-Semitic languages. For example, the word "dinar" was borrowed from Greek. Words like "istabraq" and "jund" were borrowed from Middle Persian. So saying that the Arabic language is "eternal and permanent" implies that those languages are "eternal and permanent" too.
Also, defenders of the "uncreated and eternal quran and Arabic language" ignore the fact that Classical Arabic is merely a theoretical dead language that was never spoken and is not spoken today anywhere. We can easily verify this by asking any Arabic speaker if they speak Classical Arabic. The answer will certainly be no. Even those who occasionally speak formal Arabic, they speak Modern Standard Arabic not Classical Arabic.
It is not surprising given such lack of common sense that the anti-rationalist dogmatic defenders of the "uncreated and eternal Arabic language" ignore that Arabic, like all man-made languages is merely one mode of communication. There are many other modes of communication that the god created in the universe ranging from how cells communicate through chemical "signals" to how genetic information is communicated through DNA. Certainly, those "languages" have been around long before Arabic and even before Homosapiens.
On a positive note, one thing that this discussion may spur is an effort to try to achieve a better understanding of the word "3arabi" as used in the great reading. There are two possibilities
- This is the name of a language.
- It is a common noun.
As of yet, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it means the name of a language.
Samia has thoughtfully proposed some possible meanings for the word "3arabi". I will also try to propose some possible meanings. In 5637 we hear the word "3uruba" used to mean something akin to "romantic" or "naturally loving". The "a3rab" are contrasted to people who live in the city. So this indicates that it could mean "people who live in nature or the untamed wilderness". Ironically, we hear in Lisan Al-3arab, the following meaning for "3arabah"
.
This means something akin to "crude talk". I think that this perhaps has its origin in "unsophisticated talk".I think that the sense that we get from all the meanings is that "3arabi" when referring to a language would be talking about an informal language. No wife will speak romantically to her husband in a business-like formal way. Similarly, people who come from the wilderness speak informally and in an unsophisticated way.
This is perfectly natural. The religious clergy usually use formal "religious" languages that are incomprehensible to common people. For example, the Catholic Church still uses Latin as its formal language. Such language would be "a3jami" to a common Catholic. Such language barrier enables the church to have more control over its followers. We know that the language of the great reading in the 6th century CE was not that used by the people of the book (see http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/language.htm ). The great reading destroyed the language barrier and empowered the common people.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Well, you asked for traces of Arabic in English, and I showed you just that.
Historical proof? I'll let you know if and when I come across it.
Peace,
Fahad, i didn't ask for traces of arabic in english. I asked for traces of arbaic in aboriginial, Americain Indian, Inca, Aztek, Toltek, African and Keltish languages. As for the enlish proofs you gave me. There is one major fault in them. Almost all science books between 800 and 1700AD were translated Muslim books who used arabic terms for things which could not be translated and is why they just kept the arabic word for it and assimilated it into the english language. English has no arabic roots, or aramaic. It has only adopted words from it, but did not originate from it.
-
Salam.
Peace,
Fahad, i didn't ask for traces of arabic in english. I asked for traces of arbaic in aboriginial, Americain Indian, Inca, Aztek, Toltek, African and Keltish languages.
Ok. I'll let you know if I come across it.
As for the enlish proofs you gave me. There is one major fault in them. Almost all science books between 800 and 1700AD were translated Muslim books who used arabic terms for things which could not be translated and is why they just kept the arabic word for it and assimilated it into the english language. English has no arabic roots, or aramaic.
I wasn't saying that english has arabic roots. I don't know about that.
The messenger sent in the language of the people also doesn't translate the terms, he explains them. That could also be the reason, at least according to the Quran, for keeping the arabic word. Remember, the book is NOT sent in the language of all people. The messengers are.
It has only adopted words from it, but did not originate from it.
I meant just that.
-
Peace Fahad,
I disagree with Dr. Kamal Omar's idea about al-quran being eternal. Because kitabillah/Allah's book is not al-quran. Kitabillah is al-kitaab. And al-kitab/kitabillah IS eternal.
So while you may be very knowledgeable in history, as is evident from your post, this very basic misconception(about al-quran being kitabillah) displays your ignorance of al-quran and renders your whole post pointless.I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that while the language of the "quran" is not eternal, the language of "al-kitab" is eternal. One is Arabic and the other is not??!
As far as I know "al-kitab" means the book and "al-quran" means the reading. The relationship between the book and the reading is an indisputable common sense matter that even young children know. Everyone who has read a book knows that the relationship is that a book is to be read. To say that the book is one part of the great reading while another part is not the book defies this common sense and is a baseless haphazard division that is not grounded in reality.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Nadeem,
VERY good post! -)
But, I'm really worried when you say that the quran is not written in Classical Arabic. I'm trying to learn classical arabic in an effort to read the quran. I've even agreed with my school so that I can take exam in it. And now, I find out, it's all in vain?
What language is the quran in, and how do I learn it?Sister Samia kindly provided the answer. I agree with her thoughtful assessment.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman.
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that while the language of the "quran" is not eternal, the language of "al-kitab" is eternal. One is Arabic and the other is not??!
Arabic is the language that provides the details of al-kitab. And al-kitab was revealed with all the prophets(2213).
As far as I know "al-kitab" means the book and "al-quran" means the reading. The relationship between the book and the reading is an indisputable common sense matter that even young children know.
Didn?t young children tell you that al-quran is a kitab? (271, 2775-76)
Everyone who has read a book knows that the relationship is that a book is to be read. To say that the book is one part of the great reading while another part is not the book defies this common sense and is a baseless haphazard division that is not grounded in reality.
If you consider the 114 chaptered book to be al-kitab, at least show a single verse where the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. Then we can know whose understanding is baseless.
-
Peace Fahad, all,
Arabic is the language that provides the details of al-kitab. And al-kitab was revealed with all the prophets(2213).
This doesn't answer the question. You seem to be claiming that only what you named Al-Kitab is eternal and uncreated and so is its Arabic language while what you named Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated (and neither is its Arabic language???). You lost me here as a result of your confusion. Please tell everyone here exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated but its Arabic language is eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated and its Arabic language is not eternal and uncreated.
Please tell us exactly which it is that you are claiming.
Didn?t young children tell you that al-quran is a kitab? (271, 2775-76)
2775 is clearly talking about "a book" that contains all hidden information. Simple minded uneducated Abassid era anti-rationalists might have been confused because they ignored the obvoius fact that there are other modes of recording information in the universe. For example, DNA can be considered a book (a record) of genetic information. Perhaps Abassid era people had ignorance about science and the history of Arabic as an excuse, on the other hand I don't understand why some people here are still confused.
People, let's progress beyond Abassid era nonsensical notions. The whole of Classical Arabic is captured in a few Classical Arabic dictionaries written with a meager bucket of ink, on the other hand the god doesn't run out of words even if the oceans were his ink. So clearly his words are not restricted to Classical Arabic or one human language or the other. His words can be seen in the whole universe, in our DNA, in atomic particles, in cosmic laws, etc.... The god tells us that the whole universe is like books in 21104.
If you consider the 114 chaptered book to be al-kitab, at least show a single verse where the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. Then we can know whose understanding is baseless.
Fahad, everyone who has read even a couple of pages of the great reading knows that right at the beginning in 22 the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. It is a book that is to be read and thus it is a reading. There is no great hidden mystery, the language is clear and we don't need to attach connotations to those words that are not there and confuse ourselves.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Nadeem
I must ask, Sis Samia, when you corrected my homework (thanks again), did you correct it according to MSA or CA?
It was according to both. MSA does not have grammar of its own, but its grammar is based on CA's.
CA contains the MSA grammar, but also other grammar linked to some expressions which are no more used in MSA (although they might be understood, but are really meaningless or outdated). Its complicated and long sentence structre, together with some unfamiliar words, makes it more difficult to understand and less fun to read.
The author also stresses the difference between MSA and CA. He has even discouraged the use of modern dictionaries for understanding the quran, such as Hans Wehr's.
Although Hans Wehr's search is root-based, but, yes, all the modern dictionaries take the meaning of words from "tafseer", without giving the origin and history of the word, or all its possible meanings in a past environment. They generally deal with the "today" usage of a word.
What do you think of Aymans claims regarding the quran not being in Classical Arabic?
I fully agree with him. The quran is definitely not in CA.
-
Arabic is the language that provides the details of al-kitab. And al-kitab was revealed with all the prophets(2213).
This doesn't answer the question. You seem to be claiming that only what you named Al-Kitab is eternal and uncreated and so is its Arabic language while what you named Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated (and neither is its Arabic language???). You lost me here as a result of your confusion. Please tell everyone here exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated but its Arabic language is eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated and its Arabic language is not eternal and uncreated.
Please tell us exactly which it is that you are claiming.
Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic. No other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic can. The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
This also answer Phoenix1's and Simple's question 'why did Allah reveal the Quran in arabic? why not any other language?'.
And al-kitab is eternal. So it was detailed for previous generations in 'lisaan arabi mubeen' as well.
-
Peace Samia, Ayman,
If al-qur'aan is not in Classical Arabic, then can we use Classical Arabic dictionaries to study its meanings ? Is it so that primarily al-qur'aan is its own dictionary and CA dictionaries are used just as secondary tools to study it ?
-
Didn?t young children tell you that al-quran is a kitab? (271, 2775-76)
2775 is clearly talking about "a book" that contains all hidden information. Simple minded uneducated Abassid era anti-rationalists might have been confused because they ignored the obvoius fact that there are other modes of recording information in the universe. For example, DNA can be considered a book (a record) of genetic information. Perhaps Abassid era people had ignorance about science and the history of Arabic as an excuse, on the other hand I don't understand why some people here are still confused.
Kitabun mubeen is al-quraan, and the verse is not talking about genetic information, but information related to guidance. DNA is not kitabun mubeen.
People, let's progress beyond Abassid era nonsensical notions.
How can people progress if they are stuck in history?!
The whole of Classical Arabic is captured in a few Classical Arabic dictionaries written with a meager bucket of ink, on the other hand the god doesn't run out of words even if the oceans were his ink. So clearly his words are not restricted to Classical Arabic or one human language or the other. His words can be seen in the whole universe, in our DNA, in atomic particles, in cosmic laws, etc.... The god tells us that the whole universe is like books in 21104.
I am not saying that God's words are limited to Arabic language.
And the universe is not like kitabun mubeen either.
-
Fahad, everyone who has read even a couple of pages of the great reading knows that right at the beginning in 22 the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. It is a book that is to be read and thus it is a reading.
2/2 zaalika al-kitab / that is the book.
Which part is referring to itself?
The book can refer to itself as "haaza/this al-quraan" or "haaza/this kitaab", but not as "zaalika/that al-kitab". So in verse 22, the book is referring to another book, and not to itself.
There is no great hidden mystery, the language is clear and we don't need to attach connotations to those words that are not there and confuse ourselves.
Right back at you.
-
Peace Fahad,
Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic. No other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic can. The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
This also answer Phoenix1's and Simple's question 'why did Allah reveal the Quran in arabic? why not any other language?'.
And al-kitab is eternal. So it was detailed for previous generations in 'lisaan arabi mubeen' as well.You are saying that "Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic." This is contradictory. This is like saying "English is not the language of this post but the details of the post are provided by English".
Also, since you are saying that al-kitab (the whole) is eternal and uncreated, then it follows that its detail (the parts) must be eternal and uncreated too. If as you say, "no other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic" then this implies that Arabic must be eternal and uncreated as well. Your logic is the same line of logic as Abassid era anti-rationalists. Your claim is the first one on the list that I had given, namely
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
Translation reflects interpretation. The interpretation of Ibn Kathir is in Arabic and yet it contains more contradictions than any English translation. Clearly this proves that Arabic is irrelevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
This very discussion that we are having proves that Arabic is irrelevant. You and I have contradicting intepretations based on the same passages of the book. I don't know about you, but I am reading the book in its original Arabic. If you too are reading the book in Arabic, then Arabic hasn't alleviated the problem of contradicting interpretations, which is the same exact problem with translations. This is why most translations are far better than Ibn Kathir's Arabic interpretation.
Kitabun mubeen is al-quraan, and the verse is not talking about genetic information, but information related to guidance. DNA is not kitabun mubeen.
2775 is talking about a book that contains a record of ALL the hidden things in the universe. This is clearly not the book that you call "al-quraan". If it were then it would have all hidden information, including our hidden thoughts such as what I am thinking I will eat for breakfast this morning.
How can people progress if they are stuck in history?!
Exactly. So please don't get stuck in promoting Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology.
I am not saying that God's words are limited to Arabic language.
Here is what you are saying "The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language." So you are essentially saying that the god's "perfect" words are limited to Arabic language but his imperfect words are not!!!!??
Since all the god's words are perfect, then according to your statement, the god's words are limited to Arabic language.
And the universe is not like kitabun mubeen either.
So what kind of book do you think the universe like? Do you think it is not like a clear book but is like a badly written book?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Fahad,
2/2 zaalika al-kitab / that is the book.
Which part is referring to itself?
The book can refer to itself as "haaza/this al-quraan" or "haaza/this kitaab", but not as "zaalika/that al-kitab". So in verse 22, the book is referring to another book, and not to itself.What other book?
This is just demonstrating that Arabic like any language can be misinterpreted and has ambiguity. Hence, your confusion. Unlike English, "thalika" doesn't always mean "that". It can mean "this" or "that". Hence, its feminine form is used in 271 to mean "this" when pointing to the signs of the great reading.
271 "...these are the signs of the reading..."
Perhaps you want to propose that it refers to other signs in other readings.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic. No other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic can. The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
This also answer Phoenix1's and Simple's question 'why did Allah reveal the Quran in arabic? why not any other language?'.
And al-kitab is eternal. So it was detailed for previous generations in 'lisaan arabi mubeen' as well.You are saying that "Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic." This is contradictory. This is like saying "English is not the language of this post but the details of the post are provided by English".
Also, since you are saying that al-kitab (the whole) is eternal and uncreated, then it follows that its detail (the parts) must be eternal and uncreated too. If as you say, "no other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic" then this implies that Arabic must be eternal and uncreated as well.
Consider this example
You want to study a subject. That subject is al-kitab. It is NOT in arabic.
Al-Quran, in lisaan arabi mubeen, is the book to study that subject.
Do you understand now?
Your logic is the same line of logic as Abassid era anti-rationalists. Your claim is the first one on the list that I had given, namely
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
Your "logic" is un-quranic. You cannot even address the verses in my original thread.
And I didn?t mean that al-kitaab is eternal like Allah is eternal.
The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
Translation reflects interpretation. The interpretation of Ibn Kathir is in Arabic and yet it contains more contradictions than any English translation. Clearly this proves that Arabic is irrelevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
This very discussion that we are having proves that Arabic is irrelevant. You and I have contradicting intepretations based on the same passages of the book. I don't know about you, but I am reading the book in its original Arabic. If you too are reading the book in Arabic, then Arabic hasn't alleviated the problem of contradicting interpretations, which is the same exact problem with translations. This is why most translations are far better than Ibn Kathir's Arabic interpretation.
Firstly, you are letting history shape your understanding of the book. Thats why the contradiction between our understanding. It is not the fault of Quran's language.
Secondly, I am talking about quranic arabic/lisaan arabi mubeen. Not 'outside' arabic. So, Quranic arabic IS relevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
Kitabun mubeen is al-quraan, and the verse is not talking about genetic information, but information related to guidance. DNA is not kitabun mubeen.
2775 is talking about a book that contains a record of ALL the hidden things in the universe. This is clearly not the book that you call "al-quraan". If it were then it would have all hidden information, including our hidden thoughts such as what I am thinking I will eat for breakfast this morning.
Ha ha! This argument is as childish as the one presented by Hadithists or Enquirers i.e ?If the Quran provides the details of everything, why does not it tell us about modern day inventions like TV, internet etc and how to create them, huh?? Do you realize that ?!
What is kitabun mubeen in 2775 is also evident from the next verse Al-Quran. Which is a book of guidance. Not genetic info or hidden info about your breakfast.
So ?al-quraan/kitabun mubeen? contains all info related to guidance.
Even if you do not accept ?kitabun mubeen? to be referring to the al-quraan, it still calls itself ?haaza kitaab? (4612). So, Al-quraan IS a kitaab.
How can people progress if they are stuck in history?!
Exactly. So please don't get stuck in promoting Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology.
You are the one stuck, Dr. You pay more attention to history than the Quran. I quote the Quran to prove my point. You quote history.
You cannot even realize that YOU are the one promoting that ?Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology?. You say al-quran is same as al-kitaab. If that?s true, then it means that al-quraan was given to previous prophets as well (2213). Do you realize this now?!
I am not saying that God's words are limited to Arabic language.
Here is what you are saying "The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language." So you are essentially saying that the god's "perfect" words are limited to Arabic language but his imperfect words are not!!!!??
Since all the god's words are perfect, then according to your statement, the god's words are limited to Arabic language.
How does that mean that God's words are limited to arabic language? God does not necessarily has to communicate in every other language.
You can try to give me an example of God?s words in other languages which detail al-kitab like al-quran can. Also back it by al-quran.
According to al-quraan, the detailing of al-kitaab is in quranic arabic
Al-quraan is detailing of al-kitaab (1037)
Arabic is detailing of al-quraan.(4144)
So, al-kitab is detailed in quranic arabic.
And the universe is not like kitabun mubeen either.
So what kind of book do you think the universe like? Do you think it is not like a clear book but is like a badly written book?
By looking at the universe, it is not mubeen/clear to me ?what Ayman are thinking he will eat for breakfast this morning.? So it is not kitabun mubeen.
Also because, kitabun mubeen is al-quraan. And the universe is not al-quraan.
-
2/2 zaalika al-kitab / that is the book.
Which part is referring to itself?
The book can refer to itself as "haaza/this al-quraan" or "haaza/this kitaab", but not as "zaalika/that al-kitab". So in verse 22, the book is referring to another book, and not to itself.
What other book?
The book of Allah/kitabillah/al-kitaab. Al-quraan is the tafseel of al-kitaab. That is why it is introducing us to al-kitaab, instead of introducing itself.
This is just demonstrating that Arabic like any language can be misinterpreted and has ambiguity. Hence, your confusion. Unlike English, "thalika" doesn't always mean "that". It can mean "this" or "that". Hence, its feminine form is used in 271 to mean "this" when pointing to the signs of the great reading.
271 "...these are the signs of the reading..."
Perhaps you want to propose that it refers to other signs in other readings.
The book always refers to itself as ?haaza al-quraan? or ?haaza kitaab?. Not a single time does it say ?haaza al-kitaab?.
?Zaalika al-kitab? cannot be referring to itself because it would mean that this same book was given to previous prophets(2213).
Or do you want to promote "Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology" ?!
More on al-kitaab here
http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/08/20/al-kitab-what-i-have-understood/