Previous Revelations also in Arabic Language
-
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/ -
Peace Fahad,
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?Yes, I understand why you are confused. You don't seem to know what "al-kitab" means in Arabic. Hence, you just use the word but you don't know what it means. The word "al-kitab" in "lisan arabi mubin" simply means "the book". Here is what you are saying
"You want to study a subject. That subject is the book. It is NOT in arabic. The reading, in a clarifying Arabic language, is the book to study that subject."
Since in the first part you say the subject is "the book", so if we substitute "the book" in place of "the subject" in the second part, here is what we get"You want to study a subject. That subject is the book. It is NOT in arabic. The reading, in a clarifying Arabic language, is the book to study that book."
Do you now see why you are so confused? I hope that you can see that what you are essentially saying is illogical.
Your "logic" is un-quranic. You cannot even address the verses in my original thread.
If you can show us a single passage of the great reading that tells us "al-kitab khaled wa ghyr makhlook" (the book is eternal and uncreated) then we can decide if your logic is quranic. What you have shown is nothing but your personal subjective interpretation of the passages based on conjecture not reality. As for something being "un-quranic", those who follow Hadiths equally claim that rejecting Hadiths is "un-quranic". It is when they are faced with logic that their illogical beliefs are exposed. By the way, there are many Hadiths that claim exactly what you are claiming, namely that the book is "eternal and uncreated". Perhaps you want us to believe in those too. As you see above, you have no logic, "quranic" or otherwise.
And I didn?t mean that al-kitaab is eternal like Allah is eternal.
So what did you mean? Eternal is eternal and logically there is no difference. What you are implying is that there an "eternal" and a "less eternal". This is again not logical. It is like saying "infinity" and "less infinity".
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.
Does this mean that you think that you have a perfect understanding of the book?
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.
People can write things using the language of the great reading that contain contradictions and are illogical. In fact, it is done all the time. Here is an example that you can make up in 5 seconds
"itha althubab khar fi alta3am fakuluhu hani'a".
Translation When the flies fall in the food, you shall eat it cheerfully.In the above illogical statement, I used pure "quranic Arabic" so all the words and their usage is based on the language of the great reading and thus can be found in its passages
"itha" 4102, etc...
"althubab" 2273
"khar" 2231, 7143, etc...
"fi" 215, etc...
"alta3am" 393, 575, 218, etc...
"fakuluhu hani'a" 44So, this is indisputable proof that "Quranic arabic" IS IRRELEVANT to whether something contains contradictions or not.
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.2775 doesn't talk about guidance or even humans. It is talking about a book that has every hidden thing in the heavens and the earth. Is genetic info and what I am thinking hidden from you? yes, then it is in that book, no exceptions.
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.
Yes. Any reading is the reading of a book. You have to read from a record (i.e. a book).
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 haven't shown a single passage that says "al-kitab khaled wa ghyr makhlook" (the book is eternal and uncreated). All you have done is quote what you think a certain passage is saying according to your personal subjective interpretation that is not grounded in reality.
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?!
Passages such as 2285 clearly show the word books in the plural. So it is not a single book given to previous messengers as you imagine. Moreover, if a previous book was read then this can indeed be considered a "reading".
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.Again, you are repeating the same illogical proposition that the god doesn't use words in other languages. I already showed you the passage about the oceans and the trees of the world not being enough to write the god's words, while we know that the whole of Arabic vocabulary can be easily written with a measly bucket of ink and a few pens made of maybe half a branch of a tree. So the fact that the god's words are in all sorts of other languages and are not limited to Arabic is confirmed by common sense and 3127.
According to al-quraan, the detailing of al-kitaab is in quranic arabic
Al-quraan is detailing of al-kitaab (1037)See all the occurrences of the word "tafseel" and its derivatives that you translate as "detail". You will see that it can actually have other meanings such as "separate" and "judge" according to "quranic Arabic". Your translating it as "detail" is your interpretation which relfects your understanding which could be right or wrong.
Arabic is detailing of al-quraan.(4144)
So, al-kitab is detailed in quranic arabic.In 4144, the people are asking for the reading to be separated/detailed as Arabic and foreign. The response to the people's request doesn't say that it is impossible for it to be seperated/detailed into foreign and it has to be Arabic. The response implies that the language doesn't matter and that it is a guidance to those who have faith regardless of the language.
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.Do you think that the god can create only one thing that is "mubeen"?
Also, don't you know that everything in this book will be shown clearly to everybody on the day of the account, even your deepest inner thoughts. Or don't you think that the god knows them and records them?
?Zaalika al-kitab? cannot be referring to itself because it would mean that this same book was given to previous prophets(2213).
So what is it referring to?
Again, you are evading addressing the clear evidence in 271.
271 "...these are the signs of the reading..."
271 "...tilka ayat alquran..."In case you didn't know that Arabic has gender specific pointing devices, the word "tilka" is the feminine equivalent of "zaalika". So according to your logic the "tilka" in 271 is pointing to other signs of another reading.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Ayman.
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?Yes, I understand why you are confused. You don't seem to know what "al-kitab" means in Arabic. Hence, you just use the word but you don't know what it means. The word "al-kitab" in "lisan arabi mubin" simply means "the book". Here is what you are saying
"You want to study a subject. That subject is the book. It is NOT in arabic. The reading, in a clarifying Arabic language, is the book to study that subject."
Since in the first part you say the subject is "the book", so if we substitute "the book" in place of "the subject" in the second part, here is what we get"You want to study a subject. That subject is the book. It is NOT in arabic. The reading, in a clarifying Arabic language, is the book to study that book."
Do you now see why you are so confused? I hope that you can see that what you are essentially saying is illogical.
Hehe. Ayman, your posts have nothing to do with logic. You shouldn't be using the word.
You can't wait to translate the concepts, just like bro Simple. You don't care how the verses explain the concepts.
Al-quran is a book. When I am talking about it, I can call it 'the book'. It does not mean that it is the same book as the one introduced in 22. Like if I am talking about the Harry Potter book, I can call it "the book". It does not mean that I am referring to al-kitab in 22. I have to give these examples as if I am explaining to a child!
Your "logic" is un-quranic.
If you can show us a single passage of the great reading that tells us "al-kitab khaled wa ghyr makhlook" (the book is eternal and uncreated) then we can decide if your logic is quranic.
I am not saying that al-kitaab is is uncreated. Everything is created by Allah.
And if only you can show us a single passage of al-quraan that says "haaza al-kitaab"? Then we can decide if 22 is referring to the same book, like "haaza kitab" does.
You cannot even address the verses in my original thread.
What you have shown is nothing but your personal subjective interpretation of the passages based on conjecture not reality.
This is only an excuse for not addressing the verses in my original post.
As for something being "un-quranic", those who follow Hadiths equally claim that rejecting Hadiths is "un-quranic".
Just because their claim is wrong does not mean that my claim is wrong too. Your posts have no link with logic or the Quran. Address my original post and disprove it if you can.
It is when they are faced with logic that their illogical beliefs are exposed.
I have yet to face any logic from you.
By the way, there are many Hadiths that claim exactly what you are claiming, namely that the book is "eternal and uncreated".
BS. I am not claiming that al-kitaab is uncreated.
Perhaps you want us to believe in those too. As you see above, you have no logic, "quranic" or otherwise.
No. YOU want us to believe in that, Dr. But it is too complex for you to realize.
And I didn?t mean that al-kitaab is eternal like Allah is eternal.
So what did you mean? Eternal is eternal and logically there is no difference. What you are implying is that there an "eternal" and a "less eternal". This is again not logical. It is like saying "infinity" and "less infinity".
Firstly, by 'eternal', I meant older than humanity'. Not as old as God.
Secondly, "eternal" does not have to be "uncreated" as well. For example, the people in verse 413 will be eternal in jannat. It does not mean that they were uncreated. So they are "eternal" as well as created. Or what you would call "less eternal".
This is only displaying your ignorance of al-quraan, and your relying heavily on dictionaries.
Like I said, your posts have nothing to do with logic or al-quraan.
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.
Does this mean that you think that you have a perfect understanding of the book?
Not at all. But to show that my understanding of this topic is incorrect, you will have to address the verses in my original post.
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.
People can write things using the language of the great reading that contain contradictions and are illogical. In fact, it is done all the time. Here is an example that you can make up in 5 seconds
"itha althubab khar fi alta3am fakuluhu hani'a".
Translation When the flies fall in the food, you shall eat it cheerfully.In the above illogical statement, I used pure "quranic Arabic" so all the words and their usage is based on the language of the great reading and thus can be found in its passages
"itha" 4102, etc...
"althubab" 2273
"khar" 2231, 7143, etc...
"fi" 215, etc...
"alta3am" 393, 575, 218, etc...
"fakuluhu hani'a" 44So, this is indisputable proof that "Quranic arabic" IS IRRELEVANT to whether something contains contradictions or not.
L-O-L! Again you are displaying your ignorance of al-quraan and logic. This is what I had said
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.
HOW does that "thing" you wrote provide tafseel of kitabillah?! Think, Ayman. There is nothing even remotely logical about your posts.
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.2775 doesn't talk about guidance or even humans. It is talking about a book that has every hidden thing in the heavens and the earth. Is genetic info and what I am thinking hidden from you? yes, then it is in that book, no exceptions.
Al-quraan is a book of guidance, you can see the verses following 2775.
The "universe" and "kitab mubeen" do not even occur together anywhere in the quraan. And when the info is in kitab mubeen, it is no longer hidden. And if the universe is the kitab mubeen that contains all hidden info then it should be clear to me what you think you are gonna eat for breakfast, like you said.
You have to use such childish arguments, the same line of thinking as the hadithists.
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.
Yes. Any reading is the reading of a book. You have to read from a record (i.e. a book).
No, al-quraan is not the reading of a book, it is a book itself.
"Haaza al-quraan", "haaza kitaab". It does not get simpler than that.
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 haven't shown a single passage that says "al-kitab khaled wa ghyr makhlook" (the book is eternal and uncreated).
This is what I am saying Al-kitaab is older than humanity. Al-kitaab is NOT uncreated.
By the way, you haven't yet shown a single passage that says "haaza al-kitaab". Why?
All you have done is quote what you think a certain passage is saying according to your personal subjective interpretation that is not grounded in reality.
Why not address my original post and show everyone where and how I am wrong?!
You are just not capable of addressing the verses, right?
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?!
Passages such as 2285 clearly show the word books in the plural. So it is not a single book given to previous messengers as you imagine.
Al-kitaab IS a single kitaab revealed with all prophets, as verse 2213 "imagines".
And again, this displays your ignorance of al-quraan. The "kutub/books" are the chapters inside a book. Read this http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/what-are-the-books-of-allah/
And the passage we were talking about, verse 2213, clearly shows the word "al-kitab" in singular. So al-kitaab was singular, prophets were plural. And you are saying that the contents of al-quraan and al-kitaab are the same and the only difference is that one is in writing and the other in reading. So you are promoting the ?Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology?. Can you still not realize this?
Moreover, if a previous book was read then this can indeed be considered a "reading".
Of course the "previous book" was "read". But if that is what "al-quraan" means, then why doesn't the word "al-quraan" occur with previous messengers and previous generations as well?! Why not even once?! Were their books not for reading? Think about it, Ayman.
And you better study the occurrences of "al-kitaab" before debating about the topic.
I will reply to the rest of your post later, inshaallah.
Salam.