Quran - The reading?
-
Assalamu alaikum
I've seen some rather odd ideas and interpretations being disbursed here. I dont know how many of those will be dispelled by this posting... but perhaps we can get a constructive discussion going. the following should explain what exactly Quran means.
No one is claiming that the title of the book is the Quran, any more than the title of our God is Allah. But the primary attribute used to refer to our God is Allah, and the primary attribute used to refer to our book is the Quran. The English word reading is not equivalent to Quran, and we should use the Arabic whenever we can lest the true meanings be lost and people start inferring all sorts of bizarre conclusions based on a faulty/limited translation of the word Quran (see discussion on ayah 1015).
Also, because certain members have been casting doubt on the perfect guidance of the Quran and the fact that it can erase all differences and decide all matters... that information is included as well.
Qaaf-ra-humza
Qar-un?s basic meaning is to gather (Ibn Faris). Aqra-a-tinnaaqatu means to gather and take hold within the womb of a she-camel. Qara-a-tinnaaqatu means the she-camel became pregnant. When blood is collected within the womb, it is also referred to as qar?un. Aq-ra-atil-mar-atu refers to when blood is collected within the womb of a woman, i.e. menses. The plural of qar-un is quroo-un (222. According to Lataif-al-lugha, the word qar-un is also used when the woman?s menses have stopped.
Zajjaaj has said that the word Quran is based on this root according to the construction fu-laan. It?s essential meaning is to gather. The Quran is called the Quran because the various surahs have been gathered in it. Ibn al Athir has said that it is called the Quran because within it are gathered stories, commands, warnings, covenenants, verses and surahs, all in one collection (taj). Raghib has said that it is called the Quran because it contains the essence of all of the prior revealed books. In fact, it contains all the fruits of knowledge within it (raghib and ibn qutaiba).
7517-18. Truly we have taken the duty of its gathering and protection (just as the seed is carefully protected within the womb). So when we gather it (and implant it in your hearts), you should follow this gathered and protected revelation (Raghib and Ibn Qutaiba).
- And then, it is also our responsibility to clarify and present it.
From the above, it must follow that the Quranic verses must have been gathered, compiled, arranged, verified and preserved in a book format in the lifetime of the Prophet (saw). It cannot be true that the Prophet left it scattered, and that it was not collected and arranged until after his death. Putting aside other evidences, the very word ?Quran? provides evidence that these verses had been gathered into one work (book).
Al-Qir-atu refers to the gathering together of letters and words. Ibn Abbas has claimed that fattabi?-Quranahu means to act upon and uphold the Quran.
Some believe that qa-ra-a is derived from Hebrew and has the meaning to announce or proclaim. Based on this understanding, 961 would mean to proclaim and manifest the nourishing attribute of your creator. This is the same message that has been worded differently in 742-3. So the essential meaning of Quran can also be understood as a general proclamation.
The Quran is a book (constitution for life) within which each item is completely clear in its meaning and removes all sense of doubt and skepticism (22). Whatever Allah has revealed to the Prophet is contained, in protected form, within the Quran (619). Muslims are commanded to follow only the Quran and have been prohibited from following anything other than it. Even the Prophet was commanded to follow the Quran (10109). The Prophet used to make his decisions based on the Quran (54. Any who do not judge by the Quran are disbelievers (544). It is a complete instruction from Allah and no one has the right or ability to add or subtract from it (6116, 634). It is a confirmation of previous revelations (54. It contains no contradictions (482), and all differences can be solved through it (4210). Whatever is said in it, Allah himself has clarified it (7519). This is why it has been referred to as the book that explains everything (1689). These clarifications can be attained by gathering all the verses pertaining to a particular topic (tasreef-ul-ayaat, 1741, 6106). The messenger of Allah remedied all differences and disagreements with the aid of the Quran (1664). He would also advise them based on the teachings of the Quran (5045), which is an independent shining light of guidance (515) that has been revealed to illuminate the path that we must follow (6122). That is why we have been commanded to reflect upon and study the Quran (4724). It is easy to gain guidance from the Quran (5417). However, in order to achieve this, one must clear their hearts minds of any impurities (5679). Trying to mix unQuranic ideas and philosophies with the Quran is shirk (4221). However, this is very hard to do for some people particularly when they fall prey to following other than Allah (4012, 3945, 1746). When anyone presents the Quranic message to these people, they attack him and defy the message (2272). And they declare that no one should listen to that person and create obstacles so that others cannot listen to the message either (4126). In this way they remain separate from the Quranic teachings and they prevent others from understanding it too (626).
Nothing is similar to the Quran (694). The Prophet?s opponents wanted him to make some changes in the Quran, but neither did he do it nor could he do it (1015).
The secret to the success of the believers in the first century A.H. was their understanding and learning of the Quran (4343). But the following generations, because they left the Quran, became dejected and despised, and this is exactly the complaint that the Prophet will make against such deviated Muslims (2530). He makes this complaint because the ?deen? that was to be followed was contained within the Quran, and by leaving the Quran they also left the deen. Even today, however, we can regain the ?deen? by understanding that it can be regained through our understanding and learning the Quran. That is why Allah himself has put so much importance on the Quran, that he personally has vowed to protect it (159).
-
I would like to add to the information
From Lane
= Qaf-Ra-Alif = compilation, collection, reading, recitation, explanation, study, investigation.
occurrences
http//www.openburhan.com/data/b.x.513.htmI am not saying al quran = the reading, in its entirety. Of course it has a deeper meaning but I prefer to translate it as best I can, thus I sometimes use this translation.
Wakas
-
salam wakas,
point well taken... it seems you have at least a realistic view and approach to thinking about it. but just take a look at the topic on "the meaning of 1015" and see what happens to people who take the meaning "the reading" to extremes.
wassalam
-
Pease Shuaib, all,
I've seen some rather odd ideas and interpretations being disbursed here.
Claiming that the plural of "quran" is "menses" or that "quran" has to do with "menses" is indeed odd. Hence, you can count your interpretation amongst the "odd ideas". At least other people tried to think for themselves and didn't blindly repeat someone else's clearly false understanding.
No one is claiming that the title of the book is the Quran,
If the above are not empty words then why do you capitalize the Q in "quran" and don't translate it?
any more than the title of our God is Allah.
But the title/name of The God is indeed Allah/Al-Ilah. We are told that those are titles/names of The God but were given license to translate them in 17110.
But the primary attribute used to refer to our God is Allah, and the primary attribute used to refer to our book is the Quran.
The primary purpose and attribute of any book is that it is READ. Hence, you are refuting your own argument.
Qar-un?s basic meaning is to gather (Ibn Faris).
I am afraid that Ibn Faris that you are blindly following is mistaken. For example, the meaning of "gather" would render verses such as 7517 nonsensical because "for Us is its gathering and its gathering" is redundant nonsense. Hence, it is no wonder that your sources flip flop and change their mind below.
Aqra-a-tinnaaqatu means to gather and take hold within the womb of a she-camel. Qara-a-tinnaaqatu means the she-camel became pregnant. When blood is collected within the womb, it is also referred to as qar?un. Aq-ra-atil-mar-atu refers to when blood is collected within the womb of a woman, i.e. menses. The plural of qar-un is quroo-un (222. According to Lataif-al-lugha, the word qar-un is also used when the woman?s menses have stopped.
Ibn Faris is confusing "q-r-a" with "q-r-r". For example, see 225 where "naqur" (root q-r-r) is used to mean "gather and take hold within the womb". As for the plural "qur'u" it is what is in Arabic is called "jam3 taksir". Those are types of plurals that follow odd rules. Like the "jam3 taksir" of women/"nisa'a" which has nothing to do with "nsy" (forget), "qur'u"/menses has nothing to do with "quran" (notice the common ending of hamza in both "Jam3 taksir"). This is elementary and Arabic speakers know that.
Zajjaaj has said that the word Quran is based on this root according to the construction fu-laan. It?s essential meaning is to gather. The Quran is called the Quran because the various surahs have been gathered in it. Ibn al Athir has said that it is called the Quran because within it are gathered stories, commands, warnings, covenenants, verses and surahs, all in one collection (taj).
I am afraid that Zajjaaj and Ibn al Athir don't fare any better than the illogical Ibn Faris. Like you, they don't validate what Ibn Faris said against the context of the great reading (for example 7517) and simply blindly repeat the falsehood of Ibn Faris while decorating it a little more.
Raghib has said that it is called the Quran because it contains the essence of all of the prior revealed books. In fact, it contains all the fruits of knowledge within it (raghib and ibn qutaiba).
Although the above sounds nice and tempting, it is completely baseless form a linguistic standpoint.
7517-18. Truly we have taken the duty of its gathering and protection (just as the seed is carefully protected within the womb). So when we gather it (and implant it in your hearts), you should follow this gathered and protected revelation (Raghib and Ibn Qutaiba).
- And then, it is also our responsibility to clarify and present it.
As one can clearly see, now Shuaib's sources flip-flop and change the original meaning of "gathering" that they kept feeding us and now suddenly they change their mind and the meaning is "protection".
From the above, it must follow that the Quranic verses must have been gathered, compiled, arranged, verified and preserved in a book format in the lifetime of the Prophet (saw). It cannot be true that the Prophet left it scattered, and that it was not collected and arranged until after his death. Putting aside other evidences, the very word ?Quran? provides evidence that these verses had been gathered into one work (book).
The words "jam3"/gather and "kitab"/book are already evidence of the great reading being in book format. From all its occurrences throughout the book, the word "quran" simply means "reading".
Al-Qir-atu refers to the gathering together of letters and words. Ibn Abbas has claimed that fattabi?-Quranahu means to act upon and uphold the Quran.
Acting upon its "gathering" or its "protection" is nonsense. Acting upon its "reading" is what one does when he reads it and as a result follows it.
Some believe that qa-ra-a is derived from Hebrew and has the meaning to announce or proclaim. Based on this understanding, 961 would mean to proclaim and manifest the nourishing attribute of your creator. This is the same message that has been worded differently in 742-3. So the essential meaning of Quran can also be understood as a general proclamation.
No it is not a general proclamation and the language of the great reading is Arabic NOT Hebrew. 961 can be understood in light of 961-5 and the reference to teaching by the PEN and learning. Do we learn by "proclaiming" or by READING what is written with the PEN?
The Quran is a book (constitution for life) within which each item is completely clear in its meaning and removes all sense of doubt and skepticism (22). Whatever Allah has revealed to the Prophet is contained, in protected form, within the Quran (619). Muslims are commanded to follow only the Quran and have been prohibited from following anything other than it. Even the Prophet was commanded to follow the Quran (10109). The Prophet used to make his decisions based on the Quran (54. Any who do not judge by the Quran are disbelievers (544). It is a complete instruction from Allah and no one has the right or ability to add or subtract from it (6116, 634). It is a confirmation of previous revelations (54. It contains no contradictions (482), and all differences can be solved through it (4210). Whatever is said in it, Allah himself has clarified it (7519). This is why it has been referred to as the book that explains everything (1689). These clarifications can be attained by gathering all the verses pertaining to a particular topic (tasreef-ul-ayaat, 1741, 6106). The messenger of Allah remedied all differences and disagreements with the aid of the Quran (1664). He would also advise them based on the teachings of the Quran (5045), which is an independent shining light of guidance (515) that has been revealed to illuminate the path that we must follow (6122). That is why we have been commanded to reflect upon and study the Quran (4724). It is easy to gain guidance from the Quran (5417). However, in order to achieve this, one must clear their hearts minds of any impurities (5679). Trying to mix unQuranic ideas and philosophies with the Quran is shirk (4221). However, this is very hard to do for some people particularly when they fall prey to following other than Allah (4012, 3945, 1746). When anyone presents the Quranic message to these people, they attack him and defy the message (2272). And they declare that no one should listen to that person and create obstacles so that others cannot listen to the message either (4126). In this way they remain separate from the Quranic teachings and they prevent others from understanding it too (626).
The above is just lip service. It you really think that "these clarifications can be attained by gathering all the verses pertaining to a particular topic", then why didn't you gather all the verses pertaining to the word "quran" and clarified the meaning for us? Instead, you rely on blindly following Mr. Ibn Faris and the like.
Nothing is similar to the Quran (694).
Verse 694 doesn't say what you are saying. You are now making up a bogus meaning. Besides, I recall that only The God has nothing similar to Him ("lays kamithlihi shayaa").
The Prophet?s opponents wanted him to make some changes in the Quran, but neither did he do it nor could he do it (1015).
The secret to the success of the believers in the first century A.H. was their understanding and learning of the Quran (4343). But the following generations, because they left the Quran, became dejected and despised, and this is exactly the complaint that the Prophet will make against such deviated Muslims (2530). He makes this complaint because the ?deen? that was to be followed was contained within the Quran, and by leaving the Quran they also left the deen. Even today, however, we can regain the ?deen? by understanding that it can be regained through our understanding and learning the Quran. That is why Allah himself has put so much importance on the Quran, that he personally has vowed to protect it (159).
Those who have faith are successful all the time NOT just in the first century of the Caliph Omar established era. Those who have faith do not follow Ibn Faris blindly and they strive for the TRUTH, including the meaning of "quran"/reading and "deen"/obligation. They don't hide the truth behind invented proper names.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Salams ayman,
Thanks for your response. It was an interesting one, let me just summarize what you basically did.
- You questioned my facts (not refuted, but just basically said I don?t believe your facts, claiming that I was ?blindly? following those facts).
- You failed to provide any facts of your own.
- Gave plenty of opinions.
I don?t know about you, but I don?t think that sort of behavior leads to anything constructive.
My other concern is that it appears that when it suits your needs, you refer to lexicons, and when it suits your needs you reject them and denounce anyone who refers to them as a blind follower. Some might call this, oh say? HYPOCRASY? When you want, you make extensive linguistic research into a word? and when someone else does the same thing but comes up with a conclusion you don?t like, you label them a blind follower of the lexicons. This is not constructive behavior either.
Claiming that the plural of "quran" is "menses" or that "quran" has to do with "menses" is indeed odd.
Now this is bizarre? sometimes you strike me as someone fluent in Arabic, and at other times you make comments like these. Firstly, the word Qar?un is NOT the plural of Quran, it is the masdar. Secondly, did you ever bother to check the reference 2228??? Let me guess, instead of waiting for 3 menstrual cycles, divorced women wait for 3 Qurans huh? As far as your apparent shock at this interpretation, have you bothered to do the research on the word qa-ra-a? The linguistic evidence shows that it has been used in this regard, every lexicon should show you that.
But the title/name of The God is indeed Allah/Al-Ilah. We are told that those are titles/names of The God but were given license to translate them in 17110.
The ?book? whatever you want to call it, has been referred to as AL-Quran. AL, as you know in Arabic, defines a specific article or name or title. Not only that, how many books were revealed in Arabic that were called Quran (122). Know of any others??? So to call this book, ?the Quran,? is not so far-fetched.
I am afraid that Ibn Faris that you are blindly following is mistaken. For example, the meaning of "gather" would render verses such as 7517 nonsensical because "for Us is its gathering and its gathering" is redundant nonsense. Hence, it is no wonder that your sources flip flop and change their mind below.
Since when is quoting sources BLIND FOLLOWING. You have done the same (quote lexicographers) when it benefits your cause, but you?re not a BLIND follower? Secondly, if you had the sense to look up the words you would realize that there IS a difference between jama?a and qa?ra?a. In jama?a the separate objects are gathered, but in qa?ra?a when the separate objects are gathered something new is created.
Not only that, but the depth of the meaning of qa?ra?a goes farther than just gathering? it is a well recognized meaning that it can mean to proclaim as well.
Ibn Faris is confusing "q-r-a" with "q-r-r". For example, see 225 where "naqur" (root q-r-r) is used to mean "gather and take hold within the womb". As for the plural "qur'u" it is what is in Arabic is called "jam3 taksir". Those are types of plurals that follow odd rules. Like the "jam3 taksir" of women/"nisa'a" which has nothing to do with "nsy" (forget), "qur'u"/menses has nothing to do with "quran" (notice the common ending of hamza in both "Jam3 taksir"). This is elementary and Arabic speakers know that.
Well here is where you truly show a lack of knowledge of the Arabic language. There is no way a lexicographer could confuse Qa-ra-ra with QUROO?, there is only one ra? in quroo? and 2 in qa-ra-ra? even basic Arabic students know plurals never drop a consonant like you suggest. Therefore quroo? could NEVER be derived from qa-ra-ra.
As far as your example of nisa?, if only you paid more attention to your own words. Allow me to demonstrate.
N(i)S(a)A? -- from na-sa-a?
Q(u)R(o)O? ? from qa-ra-a?I am well aware of the rules regarding vowels in Arabic, but apparently you are oblivious to the fact that hamza is a consonant and you can't drop a ra' just because its convenient to your cause.
Although the above sounds nice and tempting, it is completely baseless form a linguistic standpoint.
Interesting point, considering you have not presented any linguistic evidence to support yourself.
As one can clearly see, now Shuaib's sources flip-flop and change the original meaning of "gathering" that they kept feeding us and now suddenly they change their mind and the meaning is "protection".
?Flip flop? may have worked for the Bush campaign, but it ain?t gonna work for you. If it?s different sources, it?s not flip flopping, it?s a variety of interpretations. Some lexicographers add to the gathering meaning of Quran by saying that it?s not just simple gathering, but gathering and protection as the seed is protected in the womb. That?s their interpretation, through their own linguistic research, and that?s what I quoted.
the word "quran" simply means "reading".
Amazing how you arrive at this conclusion? pray tell what evidence do you have, that all these lexicographers and linguistic scientists are don?t have? Of course they can be wrong, they?re only human? but your OPINION does not carry any weight.
Acting upon its "gathering" or its "protection" is nonsense. Acting upon its "reading" is what one does when he reads it and as a result follows it. (In reference to 7517)
Actually I was just quoting the source? my actual interpretation of 7517 is different. But there?s already too much in this reply for me to add yet another thing for you to respond to.
No it is not a general proclamation and the language of the great reading is Arabic NOT Hebrew. 961 can be understood in light of 961-5 and the reference to teaching by the PEN and learning. Do we learn by "proclaiming" or by READING what is written with the PEN?
Well if you want exlude this understanding I can?t stop you. But there is a definite relationship between Hebrew and Arabic, and that is why reputed Arabic scholars have occasionally referred to Hebrew usages. But it?s not critical for you to accept this. I am just quoting the sources.
BOTTOM LINE?
The linguistic evidence through the lexicographers and linguistic usages I quoted, points strongly to the meaning of GATHER for qa-ra'a, and that is the meaning that has been shown to be the PRIMARY meaning... not reading. Now, of course since the book called the Quran is a BOOK, of course it is read by us...
But you cannot use the fact that the Quran is a book, as evidence that the term Quran means reading.
Someone might randomly argue that Quran means revelation since it is revelation, or Quran means guidance since it is guidance, etc etc... but the real meaning of the Quran is clear because of ARABY MUBEEN. And ARABY MUBEEN is the language itself... and it is THAT evidence that I have quoted. For the most part, I've excluded my own opinions... AND I do not selectively quote evidence that I like and hide the rest as you are doing.
wassalam
-
Peace Shuaib,
Thanks for your response. It was an interesting one, let me just summarize what you basically did.
You are welcome. A summary is a good idea, hence please summarize for us what you think "quran" means and focus on the issue instead of on "what I did". Don't waste the reader's time with long winding copied and pasted text and then not tell us what YOU think "quran" means. Just fill the blank below
"quran" = ________________
See how I like to make things easier for you )
- You questioned my facts (not refuted, but just basically said I don?t believe your facts, claiming that I was ?blindly? following those facts).
But none of what you gave are "your facts". You simply blindly copied and pasted other people's OPINION (not "facts") without making any effort in "gathering all the verses pertaining to the word "quran"" as you said we should do and I agree with.
- You failed to provide any facts of your own.
The great reading provides facts. I don't provide facts so you give me too much credit brother. I simply point everybody's attention to the facts in the great reading. I also point people's attention to the fact that you failed to say what YOU think the word "quran" means.
Again, what do you think the word "quran" means in English?
- Gave plenty of opinions.
An intelligent opinion is better than blindly copying a long winding speech where after reading it, we get the feeling that the verb "qara'a" may mean "to gather" or something but no one gets any answer to what YOU think the noun "quran" means.
My interpretation of the word "quran" to mean reading is based on its use in the great reading and intelligent (as opposed to blind) use of Lexicons. This means knowing the limitations of Lexicons and how to use them.
I don?t know about you, but I don?t think that sort of behavior leads to anything constructive.
The most constructive thing you can do is give a straight answer of what YOU think the word "quran" means and do "tasrif" to see if the meaning fits in the great reading.
"quran" = ?
My other concern is that it appears that when it suits your needs, you refer to lexicons, and when it suits your needs you reject them and denounce anyone who refers to them as a blind follower. Some might call this, oh say? HYPOCRASY? When you want, you make extensive linguistic research into a word? and when someone else does the same thing but comes up with a conclusion you don?t like, you label them a blind follower of the lexicons. This is not constructive behavior either.
Lexicons should be questioned because they are not infallible. There are MANY errors and inconsistencies in Lexicons. As I said on another thread, one shouldn't expect to be spoon-fed the answer by a Lexicon.
Hypocrites say something and then do something else. You claim to use "tasrif" (repetition of concepts in the great reading) to understand the great reading but instead of doing what you said, you appeal to the authority of guys like Ibn Faris, Ibn Abbas, etc. and ignore to bring any verse from the great reading. I pointed this fact to you in my previous post and instead of easily proving me wrong by doing "tasrif" and "gathering all the verses pertaining to the word "quran"", you proved me correct and failed to do it again.
This is your golden opportunity to prove me wrong. Gather all the verses pertaining to the word "quran" and bring them here and tell us based on them what the word "quran" means.
Claiming that the plural of "quran" is "menses" or that "quran" has to do with "menses" is indeed odd.
Now this is bizarre? sometimes you strike me as someone fluent in Arabic, and at other times you make comments like these. Firstly, the word Qar?un is NOT the plural of Quran, it is the masdar. Secondly, did you ever bother to check the reference 2228??? Let me guess, instead of waiting for 3 menstrual cycles, divorced women wait for 3 Qurans huh? As far as your apparent shock at this interpretation, have you bothered to do the research on the word qa-ra-a? The linguistic evidence shows that it has been used in this regard, every lexicon should show you that.
This interpretation is indeed shocking because it is nonsense. What is more shocking is that you keep repeating it. I did check 2228 and I checked the Lexicons and concluded that the plural "quru'a" in 2228 is most likely to be unrelated to Q-R-'A. Here is what is found under the root Q-R-W
Here is what another Lexicon said
(ُ
The word "qrw" signifies a "7awdh"/sink/basin/bowl where liquid is gathered.
Interestingly, "7awdh" also means pelvis. The pelvis creates the basin of the lower abdominal cavity. The closely related word "7aydh" is used to mean menses. Hence, "quru'a"/menses in 2228 is likely to be the plural of "qrw" and of course its root Q-R-W is an entirely different root than Q-R-'A.
But the title/name of The God is indeed Allah/Al-Ilah. We are told that those are titles/names of The God but were given license to translate them in 17110.
The ?book? whatever you want to call it, has been referred to as AL-Quran. AL, as you know in Arabic, defines a specific article or name or title.
The simple fact (and it is not mine ) ) is that the definite article is inconsequential as far as whether a word is a proper name or title or not. Shuaib doesn't have an AL and yet it is a proper name. Let's take another example from any verse throughout the great reading. Since we were just looking at 2228, let look there. The word "AL-mutalaqat" clearly is not the name of some specific divorcees but any common divorcee. Also, we read "al-ma3ruf" a little further and that is not a proper name or title of anything. There are literally thousands upon thousands of examples of AL being used without the word being a proper name or title. This is elementary so all you are doing by proposing such odd ideas is demonstrating either lack pf patience in studying or unfamiliarity of Arabic and in fact other languages, since the same is true in other languages. I have a feeling that it is probably lack of patience because you seem knowledgeable in Arabic.
Not only that, how many books were revealed in Arabic that were called Quran (122). Know of any others??? So to call this book, ?the Quran,? is not so far-fetched.
1331 clearly talks about "a quran/reading" that is DIFFERENT than the one we have and that is used to move mountains, etc. This is indisputable. I don't know how you can't see that a hypothetical reading that is used to move mountains is definitely OTHER than the great reading that we have.
I am afraid that Ibn Faris that you are blindly following is mistaken. For example, the meaning of "gather" would render verses such as 7517 nonsensical because "for Us is its gathering and its gathering" is redundant nonsense. Hence, it is no wonder that your sources flip flop and change their mind below.
Since when is quoting sources BLIND FOLLOWING.
It is when YOU don't tell us what "quran" means and you fail to see it (failing to see = blind). Moreover, you accept their hypothesis without addressing the glaring contradictions created by verses such as 7517.
You have done the same (quote lexicographers) when it benefits your cause, but you?re not a BLIND follower? Secondly, if you had the sense to look up the words you would realize that there IS a difference between jama?a and qa?ra?a. In jama?a the separate objects are gathered, but in qa?ra?a when the separate objects are gathered something new is created.
Do your "tasrif" and you will see that this is not a meaning of "qara'a" supported by the context in the great reading. Besides it doesn't solve the redundancy issue because saying To Us is "its gathering of separate objects"/ja3uhu and "its gathering of separate objects and creating something new" is also redundant and "gathering" is unnecessarily repeated, especially since the redundancy could have been easily resolved by using the word for the added idea of creating, which is "khalq".
Not only that, but the depth of the meaning of qa?ra?a goes farther than just gathering? it is a well recognized meaning that it can mean to proclaim as well.
"Well recognized" and yet so far YOU haven't told us what "quran" means.
Ibn Faris is confusing "q-r-a" with "q-r-r". For example, see 225 where "naqur" (root q-r-r) is used to mean "gather and take hold within the womb". As for the plural "qur'u" it is what is in Arabic is called "jam3 taksir". Those are types of plurals that follow odd rules. Like the "jam3 taksir" of women/"nisa'a" which has nothing to do with "nsy" (forget), "qur'u"/menses has nothing to do with "quran" (notice the common ending of hamza in both "Jam3 taksir"). This is elementary and Arabic speakers know that.
Well here is where you truly show a lack of knowledge of the Arabic language. There is no way a lexicographer could confuse Qa-ra-ra with QUROO?, there is only one ra? in quroo? and 2 in qa-ra-ra? even basic Arabic students know plurals never drop a consonant like you suggest. Therefore quroo? could NEVER be derived from qa-ra-ra.
I NEVER said that QUROO'/menses is derived from q-r-r. All I said was that Ibn Faris confused the meaning of "q-r-'a" with the meaning of "q-r-r". According to 225, it is "q-r-r" that means "gather and take hold within the womb" NOT "q-r-'a" as he proposed.
As far as your example of nisa?, if only you paid more attention to your own words. Allow me to demonstrate.
N(i)S(a)A? -- from na-sa-a?
Q(u)R(o)O? ? from qa-ra-a?I am well aware of the rules regarding vowels in Arabic, but apparently you are oblivious to the fact that hamza is a consonant and you can't drop a ra' just because its convenient to your cause.
Firstly, N(i)S(a)A? is NOT from na-sa-a?, it is from N-S-W.
Similarly, Q(u)R(o)O? is NOT from qa-ra-a?, it is from Q-R-W.
As we saw above, the meaning of "qrw" is "7awdh" and related to it is "7aydh", which means menses.
As one can clearly see, now Shuaib's sources flip-flop and change the original meaning of "gathering" that they kept feeding us and now suddenly they change their mind and the meaning is "protection".
?Flip flop? may have worked for the Bush campaign, but it ain?t gonna work for you. If it?s different sources, it?s not flip flopping, it?s a variety of interpretations. Some lexicographers add to the gathering meaning of Quran by saying that it?s not just simple gathering, but gathering and protection as the seed is protected in the womb. That?s their interpretation, through their own linguistic research, and that?s what I quoted.
So tell us what do YOU think it means?
(a) "gathering"
(b)"gathering and protection"
(c) "gathering and creating something new"
(d) ...the word "quran" simply means "reading".
Amazing how you arrive at this conclusion? pray tell what evidence do you have, that all these lexicographers and linguistic scientists are don?t have? Of course they can be wrong, they?re only human? but your OPINION does not carry any weight.
Simple, I arrived at this conclusion because I did what you yourself said we should do and I gathered all the verses pertaining to the word "quran" and I found that the word "reading" does fit in the context and is in line with the dictionary meaning. Here is an example from the dictionary
." "
Acting upon its "gathering" or its "protection" is nonsense. Acting upon its "reading" is what one does when he reads it and as a result follows it. (In reference to 7517)
Actually I was just quoting the source? my actual interpretation of 7517 is different. But there?s already too much in this reply for me to add yet another thing for you to respond to.
Addressing 7517 would have been more beneficial than all the noise you are making. This discussion is about the great reading so that should take priority. You clearly don't have your priorities straight or are just giving an excuse.
No it is not a general proclamation and the language of the great reading is Arabic NOT Hebrew. 961 can be understood in light of 961-5 and the reference to teaching by the PEN and learning. Do we learn by "proclaiming" or by READING what is written with the PEN?
Well if you want exlude this understanding I can?t stop you. But there is a definite relationship between Hebrew and Arabic, and that is why reputed Arabic scholars have occasionally referred to Hebrew usages. But it?s not critical for you to accept this. I am just quoting the sources.
Of course, I will exclude your source's nonsensical interpretation of 961. It is the responsibility of the person doing the quoting to be critical of the information he is providing and not blindly quote it. Otherwise, I might as well be having this discussion directly with your source and eliminate the middleman.
BOTTOM LINE?
The linguistic evidence through the lexicographers and linguistic usages I quoted, points strongly to the meaning of GATHER for qa-ra'a, and that is the meaning that has been shown to be the PRIMARY meaning... not reading. Now, of course since the book called the Quran is a BOOK, of course it is read by us...
But you cannot use the fact that the Quran is a book, as evidence that the term Quran means reading.
You said what qa-ra'a means but once again you say nothing about "quran".
The BOTTOM LINE is that YOU DIDN'T TELL US WHAT "QURAN" MEANS.
Someone might randomly argue that Quran means revelation since it is revelation, or Quran means guidance since it is guidance, etc etc... but the real meaning of the Quran is clear because of ARABY MUBEEN. And ARABY MUBEEN is the language itself... and it is THAT evidence that I have quoted. For the most part, I've excluded my own opinions... AND I do not selectively quote evidence that I like and hide the rest as you are doing.
You can't escape your opinion or responsibility. Your opinion to blindly accept what others say is also an OPINION and that is a fact.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
salam br ayman,
well I am glad to see you in lighter spirits. Honestly, I would like to continue our discussions with less biting words. All that does is inflame the reader. I apologize for any harsh words I may have said in the past. I truly have learned a lot from you, and you do inspire me to learn even more. So let's have some fruitful discussions.
"quran" = ________________
See how I like to make things easier for you
You go on to mention this a number of times, that I did not mention what the term Quran meant. Just make sure to double-check your posts to make sure you aren?t making a mistake, like saying I didn?t say something I already said
The Quran is called the Quran because the various surahs have been gathered in it. Ibn al Athir has said that it is called the Quran because within it are gathered stories, commands, warnings, covenenants, verses and surahs, all in one collection (taj). Raghib has said that it is called the Quran because it contains the essence of all of the prior revealed books. In fact, it contains all the fruits of knowledge within it (raghib and ibn qutaiba).
In a nutshell, this is what I believe Quran means.
But none of what you gave are "your facts". You simply blindly copied and pasted other people's OPINION (not "facts") without making any effort in "gathering all the verses pertaining to the word "quran"" as you said we should do and I agree with.
What would be ?my facts,? bro? OBVIOUSLY I copied basically what the respectable sources of info say, and let people draw their own conclusions. That should be obvious. It?s not blind following to provide others with information that you and I have in the lexicons.
My interpretation of the word "quran" to mean reading is based on its use in the great reading and intelligent (as opposed to blind) use of Lexicons. This means knowing the limitations of Lexicons and how to use them.
Here?s where you?re exaggerating. Your interpretation of the word Quran is based on a simple theory which you have stated over and over. Since the Quran is a book, and a book is to be read, therefore Quran means the reading. This is a very inaccurate way of determining the meaning of the Quran, and NOT the way root meanings are determined in Arabic.
You claim to use "tasrif" (repetition of concepts in the great reading) to understand the great reading but instead of doing what you said, you appeal to the authority of guys like Ibn Faris, Ibn Abbas, etc. and ignore to bring any verse from the great reading. I pointed this fact to you in my previous post and instead of easily proving me wrong by doing "tasrif" and "gathering all the verses pertaining to the word "quran"", you proved me correct and failed to do it again.
No, actually I claim only to provide lexicographal information. Tasreef is an important way of learning what the Quran means, and so is the knowledge of the ARABY MUBEEN.
This is your golden opportunity to prove me wrong. Gather all the verses pertaining to the word "quran" and bring them here and tell us based on them what the word "quran" means.
Bro, actually the golden opportunity is yours? if I am not doing this, and you apparently have some magic bullet hidden, then give it to us for goodness sakes! Shoot down the lexicographers with some tasreef ul ayaat.
1331 clearly talks about "a quran/reading" that is DIFFERENT than the one we have and that is used to move mountains, etc.
Bro, this is a very bizarre interpretation. That is not what the verse is saying, and in fact the verse is in response to the the requests of kuffaar for miracles, to which the Quran responds that they would not believe even with miracles 6111,1514-15, 1790-93. It is clear from these verses (and it makes sense) that kufaar?s response to the Quran that was brought to them was ?If this is REALLY from God, and God is all powerful, then show us his miracles.? 1331 is saying EVEN IF there was a Quran such as this, they would not believe. It does not say that there IS a Quran such as this. Through the book, there is only one Quran mentioned, the one given to the prophet Muhammad (saw).
You are actually deriving a meaning that is the EXACT opposite... you are claiming that there IS a Quran that can perform miracles and move mountains!
I NEVER said that QUROO'/menses is derived from q-r-r. All I said was that Ibn Faris confused the meaning of "q-r-'a" with the meaning of "q-r-r". According to 225, it is "q-r-r" that means "gather and take hold within the womb" NOT "q-r-'a" as he proposed.
I understand your point now. It is an interesting theory, I admit. However, as you must know in Arabic it is very common to find roots that are almost the same having related meanings. This is not unusual, and it does not mean that somehow there was a mistake in the lexicons. This is the nature of the Arabic language and roots.
BUT, firstly I am sure you know that it?s not just ibn faris, every lexicographer that I have found has recorded this meaning (qa-ra-a menses). HOWEVER, the one thing you overlook is that they also have recorded qar?un which is a masdar, no mistake of it being based on on the root qa-ra-a?. The meaning of quroo? was derived from qar?un, and not vice versa.
The most obvious point against your argument (linguistically) is that there are a whole host of derived words from the root (qa-ra-a) that relate the essential meaning to gather.
So far you have been claiming qa-ra-a specifically means to read? well the linguistic evidence you need to prove your point is OTHER words derived from the same root which relate back to reading. Can you do that? Indeed no lexicographer in the 4 lexicons I have access to have done that? they have explained qa-ra-a with the basic meaning to gather? and all the words derived from that root relate back to the basic meaning to gather, NOT READING.
This is the way roots have been determined throughout the Arabic language. You can?t make an exception to yourself just because it is convenient for your interpretation. Gather all the words derived from qa-ra-a and THEN deduce for us, that the root means reading.
Moreover, you accept their hypothesis without addressing the glaring contradictions created by verses such as 7517.
Merely stating something is contradictory does not make it so. Please refrain from random labeling.. if you truly think it?s contradictory, it should be easy for you to show. Though I disagree with their interpretation of 7517, it is not at all ?contradictory.? In fact, in your first post you just claimed it was redundant? now magically you changed the redundancy into contradictory? what will you call it next? Labels are so empty.
So tell us what do YOU think it means?
(a) "gathering"
(b)"gathering and protection"
(c) "gathering and creating something new"Bro all of the above? you should know very well the depth of any Arabic root. It is such that the meaning cannot be captured with just a single English word. THAT is part of the secret of why even if the oceans were ink it would run out, when interpreting the Quran.
Addressing 7517 would have been more beneficial than all the noise you are making. This discussion is about the great reading so that should take priority. You clearly don't have your priorities straight or are just giving an excuse.
Perhaps? so here is my interpretation of 751-25. I include the verses before and after because the context is critical in understanding the points I am going to make.
This surah starts by discussing the day of judgement(1-14), and that man will be evidence against himself on that day, i.e. his past actions. He may try to put up excuses (7515), but he should not try to talk his way out of it (16), because it is up to Allah to collect and gather (his deeds) (17), and once He has gathered it (the deeds of the person) then the person must abide by it (the results of his actions) (18 ), and we will expound and make clear what these actions were (19). People love this short life and forget about the hereafter, on which some people will be happy and some people will be sad (20-25).
So in this section, I don?t believe that the book Quran is being discussed at all. The word Quran is simply being used in the meaning of compilation (compilation of someone's life deeds, which is understood from the context, day of judgement). I know you believe that jama-a AND qa-ra-a would be redundant but it is not. Jama-a means just to put several distinct objects together? like a bunch of people in a room.. but Quraan is a true compilation, where the individual items are now not individual but encompassed in the compilation. This is a fine linguistic point and is part of the power of the Arabic language.
If you wish to try to create a new root meaning (new since no other past lexicographer has claimed what you claim), then by all means provide us something like that. If it uses Quranic evidence, even better. But just taking one usage of one word and then excluding all other possible meanings of the root and merely tossing aside the mountain of past linguistic work... that's an easy exit, a shortcut. What you ought to do is provide a TRUE root meaning, using all the various uses/derivations of the root qa-ra-a to substantiate your claim linguistically.
Wassalam
-
Peace brother Shuaib ,
You go on to mention this a number of times, that I did not mention what the term Quran meant. Just make sure to double-check your posts to make sure you aren?t making a mistake, like saying I didn?t say something I already said
The Quran is called the Quran because the various surahs have been gathered in it. Ibn al Athir has said that it is called the Quran because within it are gathered stories, commands, warnings, covenenants, verses and surahs, all in one collection (taj). Raghib has said that it is called the Quran because it contains the essence of all of the prior revealed books. In fact, it contains all the fruits of knowledge within it (raghib and ibn qutaiba).
In a nutshell, this is what I believe Quran means.
This is not "in a nutshell". You are once again evading to answer a simple direct question and instead beating around the bush. "The Quran is called the Quran" is illogical and doesn't tell us anything. I think that you mean to say "is called the gathering" or something but you seem to be hesitant to openly say it.
Just to be sure that there is no misunderstanding, please fill in the blank "The Quran is called the ___________ because the various chapters have been gathered in it".
I don't want to hear about what Ibn al Athir, Raghib, Ibn Qutaiba or any other guy said. Everything else you say is dependent on your answer to this clear direct question. Hence, until you give a straight answer, then everything else you say is a waste and it is hard to see how the discussion can progress.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
salam ayman,
You are once again evading to answer a simple direct question and instead beating around the bush.
nice to see you again too
"The Quran is called the Quran" is illogical and doesn't tell us anything.
Actually my statement was "The Quran is called the Quran BECAUSE." Don't leave out such an important word. For example, Free-Minds forum is called Free-minds forum BECAUSE... it allows free expression of thoughts and ideas. This is not illogical... its just a different way of speaking. Are you that intolerant? I'm sure you understood perfectly well what was being said, so it's not that you misunderstood... you are simply being intolerant.
I know it's in your advantage to try and make me look silly, but please show some more tolerance.
Just to be sure that there is no misunderstanding, please fill in the blank "The Quran is called the ___________ because the various chapters have been gathered in it".
Bro, what else could I possibly insert in the blank in your above sentence other than Quran?? Even if i took the meaning of Quran to be "the great reading," it would be nonsense to say "The Quran is called the great reading..." because it's NOT called the great reading, it's called the Quran. If it pleases you, you could change the sentence to, the book revealed to Muhammad (saw) is called the Quran BECAUSE etc etc etc. Perhaps you should look at your own fill-in-the-blank before you ask others to do it.
Hence, until you give a straight answer, then everything else you say is a waste and it is hard to see how the discussion can progress.
Well ask a straight question then bro. What you want was not a definition, but a single-word translation of the word "Quran." First of all, being so pushy for a single-word translation is pointless... English words cannot compare to the depth of Arabic words. I have already, however, explained in a paragraph what I believe the term QURAN means.
I'll try to make it even more succinct, if that's what you really want.
The term Quran means a compilation.. in this case a compilation of the various ayahs/signs/guidance/noor that was revealed to the Prophet (saw) and a compilation (and hence confirmation) of all previous revelations.
I'm sure you have some insightful points to make, look forward to hearing them.
wassalam
-
Peace Shuaib,
The term Quran means a compilation.. in this case a compilation of the various ayahs/signs/guidance/noor that was revealed to the Prophet (saw) and a compilation (and hence confirmation) of all previous revelations.
Thank you brother. It is fine for you to interpret "quran" to mean compilation. However, if this is your interpretation then to avoid misunderstanding when you discuss this subject in an English language forum, please use "compilation" or "quran/compilation" so that people know what you mean because others understand "quran" differently.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Peace brother MQ,
I think the book's name is 'al-quraan' and we should call it 'al-quraan'. Can anyone tell me why this is wrong?
It is wrong because as you saw on this thread, people here interpret the Arabic word "quran" differently. Some interpret it to mean "reading", others interpret it to mean "compilation". What everybody here agrees on (and I hope you will too) is that it is not a meaningless label. If it has a meaning then it must be translated. Also, because people have different understanding of what that meaning is, translation is essential to improve our understanding of its meaning.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Brother Right Hand,
Shouldn't the sentence above read 'salaamun alaikum brother AYMAN' ? This is how far you plan to take this translation initiative. D
Allah specifically calls the book 'al-quraan'. Allah specifically calls people who follow Ibrahim's way of life as 'al-muslimeen'.
I am against this translation initiative because
-
no 2 languages map IN THE EXACT way to the world. There's no way the word 'worship' in English or even 'IBADAH' in modern Arabic can map directly to the conceptual field of 'ibada' of Quranic Arabic. Why ? Because the Quran explains its own concepts via contexts and in other languages, the context is a free-for-all.
-
I am a non-arabic speaker and first studied the interpretation of the meanings of the Quran. When I started learning Arabic, i was amazed at how there was a conceptual network built in the Arabic language. This network would not be able to be displayed in a translated language. However, if we kept the word at least, we can then impregnate our perception of the word with our own understanding.
For example, the word 'taqwaa'. In some context, its translated as 'being mindful', other contexts as 'preserve'. If we kept the word itself and then showed its usage via context, people can pick up the word and use it in thier daily lives.
If English speakers now know 'karma', 'guru' and 'yin-yang', why not Quranic Arabic? Cultural positioning determines osmosis of language.
-
-
Peace brother MQ,
Salaamun alaikum Brother Right Hand,
Shouldn't the sentence above read 'salaamun alaikum brother AYMAN' ? This is how far you plan to take this translation initiative. D
Thank you brother MQ for using my name as an example.
It is actually a perfect example of why we should translate the Arabic word "quran". As you clearly pointed out, Ayman is a meaningless label because I am not really a "right hand" and I know some people named Ayman who are lefties. Because it is a false meaningless label, you are right it should not be translated.
Allah specifically calls the book 'al-quraan'. Allah specifically calls people who follow Ibrahim's way of life as 'al-muslimeen'.
But unlike my name, those are NOT false meaningless labels. Those words mean something. The words "quran" and "al-muslimeen" mean something and they are the truth. If you know the meaning then you should be able to translate them.
I am against this translation initiative because
- no 2 languages map IN THE EXACT way to the world. There's no way the word 'worship' in English or even 'IBADAH' in modern Arabic can map directly to the conceptual field of 'ibada' of Quranic Arabic. Why ? Because the Quran explains its own concepts via contexts and in other languages, the context is a free-for-all.
The word "worship" is another perfect example of why we SHOULD translate Arabic words. Had we kept it as "3ibadah" then there is no way for people to know what we mean. Most translators translate it as "worship", while some translate it as "serve". We know now that the best meaning is "serve". If people didn't translate it, then there is no chance to improve the understanding of those who in their mind the meaning is wrong. Remember, when you translate something, it reflects your understanding in the context.
- I am a non-arabic speaker and first studied the interpretation of the meanings of the Quran. When I started learning Arabic, i was amazed at how there was a conceptual network built in the Arabic language. This network would not be able to be displayed in a translated language. However, if we kept the word at least, we can then impregnate our perception of the word with our own understanding.
When skilled Arabic speakers read the great reading in Arabic they get different understanding too and we can see that Sunnis who ONLY speak Arabic and no other language still have free-for-all false and nonsensical interepretations. Hence, this has nothing to do with Arabic being somehow special or having a "conceptual network". I can tell you that like ANY human language Arabic has oddities. In fact, many sentences in the great reading are considered ungrammatical by Arabic grammar standards. However, when The God uses a human Arabic language, He uses it in a clarifying way and buidls those "semantic networks". Thus He turns an average inconsistent human language into a highly consistent message. The best translation takes account of that.
For example, the word 'taqwaa'. In some context, its translated as 'being mindful', other contexts as 'preserve'. If we kept the word itself and then showed its usage via context, people can pick up the word and use it in thier daily lives.
Again your example illustrates what I am talking about. "Being mindful" is a correct translation but "preserve" is wrong and as far as I know doesn't fit any context. I could be wrong and you could be right but we can't improve our understanding until we know what others mean through translation. If you simply told me "taqwa" means "taqwa" without translating it then I would have told you "OK whatever" and there is no chance of catching the mistake that "preserve" is wrong and that "being mindful" is correct.
If English speakers now know 'karma', 'guru' and 'yin-yang', why not Quranic Arabic? Cultural positioning determines osmosis of language.
I can tell you that people do not know what those concepts REALLY in TRUTH mean in their original language. You can't afford not to know what words REALLY mean in the great reading.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Ayman,
In fact, many sentences in the great reading are considered ungrammatical by Arabic grammar standards. However, when The God uses a human Arabic language, He uses it in a clarifying way and buidls those "semantic networks". Thus He turns an average inconsistent human language into a highly consistent message. The best translation takes account of that.
My sentiments exactly. This makes alot of sense.
Joe
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
Thanks for taking my 'right hand' point' )
But unlike my name, those are NOT false meaningless labels. Those words mean something. The words "quran" and "al-muslimeen" mean something and they are the truth. If you know the meaning then you should be able to translate them.
Therein lies the problem, brother. 'al-muslimeen' is 'al-muslimeen' with all its spider-web of conceptual links (like millatu ibrahim, qaumi musa etc) is so BECAUSE its in the book.
Lets say you translate 'al-muslimeen' as 'the submitters'. You will never find the same conceptual links.
The word "worship" is another perfect example of why we SHOULD translate Arabic words. Had we kept it as "3ibadah" then there is no way for people to know what we mean. Most translators translate it as "worship", while some translate it as "serve". We know now that the best meaning is "serve". If people didn't translate it, then there is no chance to improve the understanding of those who in their mind the meaning is wrong. Remember, when you translate something, it reflects your understanding in the context.
The word 'serve' OR 'worship' comes from a socio-linguistic entity, brother. The meaning we percieve from these 2 words comes from a tradition in itself and this tradition carries its own baggage.
Alternatively, al-quraan has its own SET context. You can know exactly what Allah means to say once you establish the principles of knowing. Ibada is clearly not simply worship OR serve. 24/55 shows ibada's meaning to be result-oriented as well.
When skilled Arabic speakers read the great reading in Arabic they get different understanding too and we can see that Sunnis who ONLY speak Arabic and no other language still have free-for-all false and nonsensical interepretations. Hence, this has nothing to do with Arabic being somehow special or having a "conceptual network". I can tell you that like ANY human language Arabic has oddities. In fact, many sentences in the great reading are considered ungrammatical by Arabic grammar standards. However, when The God uses a human Arabic language, He uses it in a clarifying way and buidls those "semantic networks". Thus He turns an average inconsistent human language into a highly consistent message. The best translation takes account of that.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I didn't mean ARABIC has a conceptual network. I said QURANIC ARABIC has a set conceptual network, i.e the Quranic text itself.
As for sentences containing grammatical errors, the language itself to me was set by the book, so there's no way it can happen.
I can tell you that people do not know what those concepts REALLY in TRUTH mean in their original language. You can't afford not to know what words REALLY mean in the great reading.
Imho, you won't know the meaning until you actualise it in the world. No translation can help that.
I've appreciated this discussion but I see we cling to different principles. Whatever the case, I respect your view.
-
Peace all,
I believe the Quran may mean "The Reading" or "The Great Reading" or "The Final Revelation" or "The Scripture" or "Allah's Book" or whatever one may consort to its applicability, the fact of the matter remains that its TITLE/NAME given is Quran or Koran and that is how this book is addressed, nothing can change its identity for what it is called. The keyword is "identity", hence the name/title. Understanding the identity and giving it a meaning(s) is another issue.
