This is going to be a bit difficult to try to explain to you but I will try. The demonstratives in Arabic in short are dhalika, hadhaa and dhaa. Variations of these based on tense and gender are u'laa, haa-ulaa', hadhaan, tilka, hadhihi and dhee.

As you can see what all of the first three have in common is 'dhaa.' This is the root of these demonstratives. We find in the Quran also dhaalikum, dhalikumaa and even dhalikunna.

I will explain why. the lika or dhalika is from laka (to/for you). The haa on the front of hadhaa is what is called haa at-tanbih. or the haa of attention. In Arabic there really is no difference between this and that. Even in English the two can sometimes be interchangeable. When you take a Modern Arabic class you learn that hadhaa means this and dhalika means that, but this is a ridiculous oversimplification. Especially when you start reading older texts and read the Quran seriously.

In short hadhaa can mean this or that, and dhalika can also mean this or that. Hadhaa is typically used for closer obects in Modern Arabic but you will see the rule broken in the Quran and in older texts. So 'dhaa' means 'what is in sight.' So, 'the book in sight' is dhaal-kitaabu. 'hadhaa' means 'Lo! what is in sight' so 'hadhaal-kitaab' 'Lo!The book in sight.' and dhalika is more like 'what is in your sight.' Again all of this is very literal, but helps to communicate the lack of any real difference between dhalika and hadhaa. This is beyond your basic Arabic, so if you can't see what I mean you don't have to argue me down. Just consider me crazy. It wouldn't be the first time.

Godbless,
Anwar

The article 'al' in context can imply 'this, that and the'. I'll just give an example. Say we are talking about the Quran and its use of kitaab and quran , You tell me 'The book clearly uses them differently' If the book was in our presence, your use of 'the' could imply 'this' or 'that' depending on the distance of the book from us (If it's far you meant 'that', if it's close you meant 'this&#039. If the book is only present in our minds while having this conversation you meant 'the specific book that you and I are discussing.' I hope you see what I mean.

Allah says "Dthalikal Kitaab" or "Dthalika Al Kitaab". Dthalika is used for THAT not 'Al'.

And "Haadhal Quraan" or "Haadha Al Quraan". Haadha is used for THIS not 'Al'.

Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Aalameen.

May Allah guide us all towards His path.

Khan

Kitab = book, writing, decree, law

Quran = Reading, Recitation, Study.

The article 'al' in context can imply 'this, that and the'. I'll just give an example. Say we are talking about the Quran and its use of kitaab and quran , You tell me 'The book clearly uses them differently' If the book was in our presence, your use of 'the' could imply 'this' or 'that' depending on the distance of the book from us (If it's far you meant 'that', if it's close you meant 'this&#039. If the book is only present in our minds while having this conversation you meant 'the specific book that you and I are discussing.' I hope you see what I mean.

I take the Kitaab in Surah 2 for instance to refer to the Arabic writing system and on a grander scale any writing system. In writing things down and reading things written down we find guidance, spiritual, physical and otherwise. This just goes along with the Quran's emphasis on reading and educating oneself. But it could mean. I don't think the letters have any hidden meanings. I came upon this conclusion independently but I have also seen it in a certain tafsir, the name and author of which escapes me now that I do not possess the book anymore.

Godbless,
Anwar

Quran is the explanation, definitive of Al Kitab, kinda like a script of behavior.....Quran is just another attribute of Al Kitab

we should give all of the root mentioned in the dictionaries and not just- i think.

Salaamun Alaikum,
Dear brothers and sisters in Islam,

There is a difference between Al-Kitaab and Al-Quraan.

It can be seen from the following verses

"Thaalika AL-KITAABU laa raiyba feehi, hudan-LILMUTTAQEEN" 22

"Shahru Ramadhaanal-lazee unzila feehi AL-QURAANU hudan-LIN-NAAS" 2185

Al-Kitaab is a guidance for Muttaqeen/ pious, so not anybody can be guided by Al-kitaab!
Al-Quraan is guidance for Naas/ people, so anybody can get guidance from AL-Qiraan!

They both aren?t the same.

Another view

KTB is the root word of Al-Kitaab that means "Ordain/ destine/decree/transcribe/command/inscribe/write/record"
QRN is the root word of Al-Quraan that means "Proclaim/convey/call/reaherse/transmit/deliver/read/recite"

My understanding and my current stand is as follows

"What we go through- form" is Al-Kitaab
"What we must convey, and must try and go through" is Al-Quraan

And one thing is for sure that Al-Kitaab got the explanations for everything but only the pious can understand in detail unlike Al-Quraan which you and me , all can.

How?

We must have to look at the usage of actions/ events unfolding and the pattern of things unfolding in everyday. For example

"....... faghsilu wujoohakum wa aydiyakum ilal maraafiqi wamsahoo bi ru-oosikum wa arjulakum ilal ka'abaiyn....." 56

Most of the people to whom I met think that altering our actions by taking counsel of the learned is not mentioned. But if you were able to read it (Al-Quraan), you will get the explanation. But if you look at the actions or events (Al-Kitaab) you will not get the explanation unless you are pious enough.

This is just my personal understanding. All suggestions or comments are most welcome.

May Allah guide us all towards the Truth?

Regards,

Thanks for comprehending ...........

hmm

hypno

ApplePie stated

Your honesty is most refreshing.

Thank you for being so candid?and telling us your thoughts?

Glad to hear it, and you're quite welcome.

May you find the truth through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

I'm sure there's good intention in your wishes, but I fear you've missed the point altogether. Nevertheless, thanks for the good vibes.

Albion stated

The truth is in us all.

Exactamundo!!

This is something Muslims don?t understand because...

That's where you'll lose me everytime. When we learn to cease generalizing via our self-imposed preconceptions, we can communicate. Until then, it's just a shouting match disguised as dialogue.

Seperation is a deluded choice, an illusion. We are one. The Muslims you're bashing are part of you. The Christians I bashed are part of me. We're all the same. We cannot seperate, no matter how much the mind insists on it.

Peace,
Tay

321 If they debate with you, then Say "I have surrendered myself to God, as well as those who follow me." And say to those who have received the Scripture and the Gentiles "Have you surrendered?" If they have surrendered then they are guided, and if they turn away, then you are only to deliver, and God is watcher over the servants.

361 Whoever debates with you in this after the knowledge has come to you, then Say "Let us call our children and your children, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then, let us call out, and we shall make God's curse upon the liars."

682 And his people debated with him. He said "Do you debate with me regarding God, when He has guided me? I do not fear that which you have set up except if my Lord wishes it so; my Lord encompasses all things with knowledge; will you not remember?"

4215 And those who debate about God, after they had been answered, their argument is nullified at their Lord. They have incurred a wrath, and will have a severe retribution.

So O believers, just deliver the message, make The God's curse upon the liars, do not fear that which the disbelievers set up, and wait peacefully for the Last Day.

There is no escaping it, not only Muslims but all of us have this inner knowing of the New Covenant and what is right and wrong, that was giving to us all when Jesus brought in the New Covenant..

So because of the Covenant within us, Muslims will always have the doubt in the back of their mind when they read verses in the quran that contradict or violate the New Covenant.

Jer 3133 After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts

The New Covenant is always their... The Ego will try to ignore it but it will never go away

Your honesty is most refreshing.

Thank you for being so candid?and telling us your thoughts?

May you find the truth through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Take care?

You may be right. Either way, it's doesn't matter in the big picture. That's what I've been losing sight of. One can be a nuclear physicist and still have no inner peace. The mind is a machine. The soul is the essence. Strengthening the machine does nothing for the essence.

Peace,
Tay

ApplePie is no linguistic expert. He really has no knowledge of arabic. He cannot tell tenses, active/passive participles, etc. I'm not even sure if he replied to Ayman's question about basic arabic yet on another thread. lol

Joe

You happened to catch me in an epiphanic moment. Grab a tissue cuz I have a confession...I admire and respect you. Really. No b.s. And I apologize for my antics. They've been mostly knee-jerk reactions. Perhaps it's the leo in me. I don't know. But what I do know are my own strengths and weaknesses. Linguistics and methodical research is not my cup of tea. It never was, and I don't think it ever will be.

Nevertheless, the reason I'm typing this is because I genuinely want to compliment you on your efforts. At the same time, I find it very sad. Not in the sense that you are sad, but this dialogue is sad. This back and forth debating has done nothing for me. I don't know about you, since I can't. But for me, it's been an utter waste of energy.

The way I see it, neither one of us can know for sure who's right and who's wrong. I mean in the sense of the big picture. No one can really know unless they've left this plane of existence and returned to talk about it. And even if they talk about it, only they know for sure. We don't know if they're telling the truth, and even if we believe something to be truth, it's still just knowledge, and knowledge is simply a compilation of expressions. The real truth should be felt.

So what's the point of all this debating? Is it to sharpen our own views? Is it to tow our own party lines? Is it to get closer to God? I don't know. I don't know why I debate. I thought I did. I thought I knew something. Turns out, the words typed on the screen are nothing more than my mind regurgitating what it believes to be something it can work with. And yet I see this. I am seperately observing what my mind has been doing. And it has not been doing anything to strengthen my self, only to feed itself. I hope this is understandable, because it is becoming crystal clear to me as I type.

So, I'm off for now. I'm sorry if I've offended you or anyone else. It wasn't me, it was my mind. wink
And I thank you for the dialogue throughout. Although I feel it was wasteful in the sense of time and energy, I am grateful as it has allowed me to objectively view my own antics. I'm sure you're a good person Apple Pie and I wish you the best.

As for me, I'm done with debating and comparing and analyzing. It's been a few years now, and it really has done me no good. It's just confused me more than anything. It's time for me to return to the source. I'll be working on observing my inner chatter in an effort to strengthen my soul- too much mental noise is no good, I think.

May peace be upon you,
Tay

Thanks for your response?

Quote
This would be as many as needed to show the context and meaning of your assertion.

That wasn't so hard, was it? I'll put together a new effort addressing your proprietary definition.

Putting your ?proof-texts? into their intended context is not hard at all?

You should try it sometime? wink

Quote
Apparently, breaking with Islamic tradition is difficult, and you thought that positing 4.157 completely out of its context?.was somehow going to ?prove? your point.

Well?it didn?t

Actually it did. I provided the portion and you failed to refute it without expanding. Now that you've admitted you used the wrong word, we can try it again.

4.157 is a dead ayah.

?Bal? erases it and replaces it with 4.158 & 4.159?

Period.

End of story.

Just face this undeniable fact of life.

Time to start standing up for what you believe in, instead of repeatedly running away from the word ?bal??

Let?s see if you run away yet again?.lol?. lol

Quote
Perhaps?instead of name calling?you could actually start studying the mother-tongue that you are basing your eternal souls towards?.instead of defacing it out of its intended context...and pouring new meanings into the out-of-context-text?

I'm just playing by your rules Apples. Does that bother you? I told you I would do this months ago.

What rules??

You selectively read, I selectively read.

You selectively read.

We do not.

You pull things out of context, I pull things out of context.

You pull things out of context.

We do not.

You ask for portions, I provide portions. What's the problem?

There is no problem.

You keep on posting in the same out-of-context manner (albeit the Muslim way)?.and we will put in all back into full context as it was intended to be?.

No problem at all?

Thanks?

Well certainly it is said that isa has not been crucified by his enemies but one must also keep in mind before asking the wrong questions that he was also given victories by God . Humiliation was not his lot.

I certainly see no harm in the quran having Biblical material, or should I say material from the Vedas within it. The Bible is mostly material from the Vedas if you've read them.

Joe

We are all still waiting for you to show us where in the Quran it say JESUS was NEVER CRUCIFIED.

All you can produce are verses that says the Jews didn't crucify Jesus... This is straight out of the Bible like 90% of Muhammads material... after he twisted and distorted most of it..

You finally answered, in response to how many ayahs in a portion

This would be as many as needed to show the context and meaning of your assertion.

That wasn't so hard, was it? I'll put together a new effort addressing your proprietary definition.

Apparently, breaking with Islamic tradition is difficult, and you thought that positing 4.157 completely out of its context?.was somehow going to ?prove? your point.

Well?it didn?t

Actually it did. I provided the portion and you failed to refute it without expanding. Now that you've admitted you used the wrong word, we can try it again.

So?now your Koran is redundant?.?

No, your rhetoric is. And your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I'd double check my position before attempting sarcasm.

Should we repeat our explanation once again?.since you seem to have failed to grasp it the first two times??

Who is this "we" you keep mentioning? By the way, you never addressed the whole choosing sides thing. At any rate, you didn't explain how you differentiate between inserted text and original text. And you only addressed this once. Are you getting sleepy?

Here's what you stated

The ?original? Arabic script was a continuous stream of letters.

There were no segregated ayahs in place.

The Arabic was divided up into ayahs at a later date?.hence, ayahs are artificial in nature.

You've provided no evidence, and no examples. Tell me where in this explanation one can find out how it is you differentiate between original text and inserted text. I hope I'm not asking for too much.

Thank you.

It?s too late to correct your one-hit wonder ayahs, now?..unless of course you want to go back and edit your initial reply in this thread?

Cop-out

Please?keep right on posting your position however you please?.plucked straight out of its intended context?and we will show you what it really means?by plugging it right back into its intended position within the text?

Please refine your use of the English language to the accepted definitions of words. You have enough on your plate redefining Arabic.

Perhaps?instead of name calling?you could actually start studying the mother-tongue that you are basing your eternal souls towards?.instead of defacing it out of its intended context...and pouring new meanings into the out-of-context-text?

I'm just playing by your rules Apples. Does that bother you? I told you I would do this months ago. You selectively read, I selectively read. You pull things out of context, I pull things out of context. You ask for portions, I provide portions. What's the problem?

Not very impressive?.by any standard?

Likewise. Kinda like looking in the mirror. wink

Peace,
Tay

Thanks for your reply?

Apple Apple Apple....

All that babbling and you still failed to tell me how many ayahs in a portion.
This is because "portion" was the vaguest possible term you could use, despite all the backpeddling and empty rheotric. Why not just swallow your pride and admit it?

How many ayahs in a ?portion???

This would be as many as needed to show the context and meaning of your assertion.

Apparently, breaking with Islamic tradition is difficult, and you thought that positing 4.157 completely out of its context?.was somehow going to ?prove? your point.

Well?it didn?t.

Please tell us about the Arabic word ?bal? juxtaposed to the end of 4.157?.

Don?t keep running away from the scriptures that you are basing your eternal soul towards. wink

Quote
Perhaps you are not cognizant of what the insertion of ayahs means.

The ?original? Arabic script was a continuous stream of letters.

There were no segregated ayahs in place.

Thanks for the lesson in redundancy.

So?now your Koran is redundant?.?

Now please tell me how you differentiate between inserted text and original text. Thanks.

Should we repeat our explanation once again?.since you seem to have failed to grasp it the first two times??

Quote
Please inform us how showing your ?proof-text? in its full intended context?.is ?sidetracking??.?

"Full context" and portion are 2 different concepts. Shall we look it up together or will leaving you the link suffice?
http//dictionary.reference.com/
Quote
Showing the full context of your posited ayahs is not evading?

Sorry, but it is. Please see above.

It?s too late to correct your one-hit wonder ayahs, now?..unless of course you want to go back and edit your initial reply in this thread?

Please?keep right on posting your position however you please?.plucked straight out of its intended context?and we will show you what it really means?by plugging it right back into its intended position within the text?

Perhaps?instead of name calling?you could actually start studying the mother-tongue that you are basing your eternal souls towards?.instead of defacing it out of its intended context...and pouring new meanings into the out-of-context-text?

Not very impressive?.by any standard?

All that babbling and you still failed to tell me how many ayahs in a portion. nope
This is because "portion" was the vaguest possible term you could use, despite all the backpeddling and empty rheotric. Why not just swallow your pride and admit it?

Perhaps you are not cognizant of what the insertion of ayahs means.

The ?original? Arabic script was a continuous stream of letters.

There were no segregated ayahs in place.

Thanks for the lesson in redundancy. Now please tell me how you differentiate between inserted text and original text. Thanks.

Please inform us how showing your ?proof-text? in its full intended context?.is ?sidetracking??.?

"Full context" and portion are 2 different concepts. Shall we look it up together or will leaving you the link suffice?
http//dictionary.reference.com/

Showing the full context of your posited ayahs is not evading?

Sorry, but it is. Please see above.

Thanks once again for confirming the authority of my references.

You're hallucinating again. Take a deep breath and read it again.

Enoch was corporeally raised to God.

Your prime example (by using ?WarafaAAnahu?) cements our position.

Thanks for evading, again. How about answering the questions I posed regarding the logical paradox of omnipresence and your faulty understanding of "raised"?

Are you now ready to address the Arabic word ?bal??.and how it negates your posited 4.157?.?

Sorry, but my "portions" were in queue before you sidetracked. Common courtesy bro.

Peace,
Tay

Thanks for your reply.

Peace Apples,

Here is the dictionary definition for portion

por?tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p?rshn, pr-)
n.
A section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole.
A part separated from a whole.

Now you stated
Quote
It clearly states ?any portion??..not a word?not an ayah?.but any portion that you think fits the criteria set forth?

Now tell me, Apples, what quantity of words constitutes a portion. You say it is not an ayah. OK. Is it 2 ayahs? 3 ayahs? How many ayahs are there in a portion?

Your intitial attempt was purposely bold in order to project your confidence in your stance. Now you're refining the attempt to include the context which you deem fit, or perhaps, the context for which you've already prepared answers. Interesting.

Perhaps the word "portion" was a bad choice. Perhaps "theme" would have been better. This would certainly strengthen your position, except for the fact that the Qu'ran already proclaims it is sent as a confirmation of the truth in the previous scripture. So if the Torah is from divine revelation, and the NT is from divine revelation, and the Qur'an is from divine revelation, doesn't it make sense that there would be plenty of recurring context? It would also make sense that there should be some original context. You seem to agree, except that anything you've found to be original, you've either brushed off as "artificially inserted", or you lump it together with the larger context, thus negating the very guidance that was offered.

So your constant badgering of readers to fulfill your redundant request and the delight you take in the fact that no one is responding to it, is nothing more than an imagined outcome and the makings of borderline lunacy. It's really quite interesting to observe, and even more interesting to watch you spin your wheels pumping out your pasted dialogue in imaginary debates.

So, when you slipped and used the word "portion" in your latest request, I took the opportunity to provide "portions" that cannot be confirmed from the Bible. Have you noticed that you cannot confirm these "portions" without grabbing the larger context? Do you know why? Because the "portions" are original, homey.

Not surprisingly?.the bulk of your reply has been reduced-down to your understanding of the word ?portion??

Since you comprehend little to nothing regarding classic Arabic; let?s review a couple of basic points so that you will not make the same lack of context mistakes in the future?

Here are some Arabic prefixed conjunctions that you need to watch for when positing things in context.

Since you are a popular English rendering power user (which completely glosses over these points)?.this may not mean much to you?but (someday) when you get serious, you may want to comprehend these basic Arabic elements

= ?wa?

?wa? definition

An inseparable prefixed conjunction; and; also; but; whilst, at; together; with; together with. Connects words and clauses as a simple coordinative ?and?. It is used as a conjunction, unrestricted conjunction, and is expressive of concomitance, particle used for swearing (by God).

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3049
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 290
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 599
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 156
Arabic English Dictionary, J.G. Hava, p. 845 - 846

Coordinative

To put in the same order, or rank; to bring into a common action, movement, or condition.

Conjunction

An uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, clauses, phrases, or words

The act or an instance of conjoining the state of being conjoined; to join together (as separate entities) for a common purpose; Combination.

Occurrence together in time or space Concurrence; the simultaneous occurrence of events or circumstances.

Concomitance

Accompaniment; an addition intended to give completeness or symmetry; compliment; an accompanying situation or occurrence.

= ?fa?

?fa? definition

A prefixed inseparable conjunction particle having conjunctive power. A particle of classification or gradation which sometimes unites single words, indicating that the objects enumerated immediately succeed or are closely behind one another; but more usually connects two clauses, showing either that the latter is immediately subsequent to the former in time, or that it is connected with it by some internal link, such as that of cause and effect. It implies a close connection between the sentences before and after it. This connection may be either definite cause and effect or a natural sequence of events signifying; And, Then; For; Therefore; So that; So; In order that; In that case; In consequence; Afterwards; At least; Lest; Because; For fear of; Truly, After, By; But; Thus; Consequently; In order to. It is also expletive, and a prefix to other particles.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, pp. 2321 ? 2323
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, pp. 290 - 291
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 414

Now?.please go back and see just how many of these concomitance and sequence markers you failed to comprehend in your ?examples??.

Here's a tidbit of info for you
any Muslim who's read the Qur'an and atleast some of the previous scripture will notice that there are many similarities.

It is rather obvious?

These same people will also recognize that the Qur'an, as explained within it's pages, was sent as a confirmation of previous scripture. No newsflash here.

Now that you feel this way?you can understand that the Koran ?confirms? that

? Jesus is God
? Jesus was Crucified
? Jesus was Resurrected
? Jesus Judges the dead

Now, on to your bickering
Quote
However, since Koranic ayahs are artificially inserted into the original Arabic in the first place, your ayah submittal is really quite pathetic?.as you conveniently stopped your quote just before the Arabic word ?bal??

hmmm... I could have sworn you recently posted that the author of the Qur'an was actually a Christian.

Indeed?

I also recall you repeatedly stating that the Qur'an is a copy of the Bible.

Second-hand copy?

But now you say there are ayahs that were artficially inserted. I presume every ayah that was "inserted" just so happens to be the same ayah that does not agree with your Bible.

Perhaps you are not cognizant of what the insertion of ayahs means.

The ?original? Arabic script was a continuous stream of letters.

There were no segregated ayahs in place.

The Arabic was divided up into ayahs at a later date?.hence, ayahs are artificial in nature.

Now?.you understand? roll

Quote
Immediately after you make the statement to ?stay focused??..you immediately go onto ayah 4.158?..not even the very ayah (4.157) that you posited as your first entry?.talk about not staying ?focused??

I can't have a debate with myself. That would be silly.

You seem to be doing a fine job of it so far?

You decided to sidetrack and here we are, sidetracked.

Please inform us how showing your ?proof-text? in its full intended context?.is ?sidetracking??.?

I would much rather you address the "portions" I pointed out but it seems you've evaded once again. This is always your m.o. and I find it curious that you're trying to pin it on me.

Showing the full context of your posited ayahs is not evading?

Quote
Secondly not only do you now start using our references (thanks for the thumbs up!)?but you move onto even more ayahs?further distancing yourself from 4.157?which you were so adamant about ?staying focused? towards?.

Please see above. You brought the word into the debate, as you always attempt to expand the context to fit your library of "ready-to-paste" articles.

Thanks once again for confirming the authority of my references.

Secondly?.thanks for showing us the Enoch ayah?.It awesomely buttressed our position?

Thanks?

Quote
Thus?.we understand that Enoch was corporeally raised to God.

Really? Raised where? God is omnipresent. Is Enoch also omnipresent, or was he exalted? Think.

Enoch was corporeally raised to God.

Your prime example (by using ?WarafaAAnahu?) cements our position.

Are you now ready to address the Arabic word ?bal??.and how it negates your posited 4.157?.?

Or do you require more time to digest what you have just learned?..?

Your call?.

Here is the dictionary definition for portion

por?tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p?rshn, pr-)
n.
A section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole.
A part separated from a whole.

Now you stated

It clearly states ?any portion??..not a word?not an ayah?.but any portion that you think fits the criteria set forth?

Now tell me, Apples, what quantity of words constitutes a portion. You say it is not an ayah. OK. Is it 2 ayahs? 3 ayahs? How many ayahs are there in a portion?

Your intitial attempt was purposely bold in order to project your confidence in your stance. Now you're refining the attempt to include the context which you deem fit, or perhaps, the context for which you've already prepared answers. Interesting.

Perhaps the word "portion" was a bad choice. Perhaps "theme" would have been better. This would certainly strengthen your position, except for the fact that the Qu'ran already proclaims it is sent as a confirmation of the truth in the previous scripture. So if the Torah is from divine revelation, and the NT is from divine revelation, and the Qur'an is from divine revelation, doesn't it make sense that there would be plenty of recurring context? It would also make sense that there should be some original context. You seem to agree, except that anything you've found to be original, you've either brushed off as "artificially inserted", or you lump it together with the larger context, thus negating the very guidance that was offered.

Here's a tidbit of info for you
any Muslim who's read the Qur'an and atleast some of the previous scripture will notice that there are many similarities. These same people will also recognize that the Qur'an, as explained within it's pages, was sent as a confirmation of previous scripture. No newsflash here.

So your constant badgering of readers to fulfill your redundant request and the delight you take in the fact that no one is responding to it, is nothing more than an imagined outcome and the makings of borderline lunacy. It's really quite interesting to observe, and even more interesting to watch you spin your wheels pumping out your pasted dialogue in imaginary debates.

So, when you slipped and used the word "portion" in your latest request, I took the opportunity to provide "portions" that cannot be confirmed from the Bible. Have you noticed that you cannot confirm these "portions" without grabbing the larger context? Do you know why? Because the "portions" are original, homey.

Now, on to your bickering

However, since Koranic ayahs are artificially inserted into the original Arabic in the first place, your ayah submittal is really quite pathetic?.as you conveniently stopped your quote just before the Arabic word ?bal??

hmmm... I could have sworn you recently posted that the author of the Qur'an was actually a Christian. I also recall you repeatedly stating that the Qur'an is a copy of the Bible. But now you say there are ayahs that were artficially inserted. I presume every ayah that was "inserted" just so happens to be the same ayah that does not agree with your Bible. nope

Immediately after you make the statement to ?stay focused??..you immediately go onto ayah 4.158?..not even the very ayah (4.157) that you posited as your first entry?.talk about not staying ?focused??

I can't have a debate with myself. That would be silly. You decided to sidetrack and here we are, sidetracked. I would much rather you address the "portions" I pointed out but it seems you've evaded once again. This is always your m.o. and I find it curious that you're trying to pin it on me.

Secondly not only do you now start using our references (thanks for the thumbs up!)?but you move onto even more ayahs?further distancing yourself from 4.157?which you were so adamant about ?staying focused? towards?.

Please see above. You brought the word into the debate, as you always attempt to expand the context to fit your library of "ready-to-paste" articles.

Thus?.we understand that Enoch was corporeally raised to God.

Really? Raised where? God is omnipresent. Is Enoch also omnipresent, or was he exalted? Think.

We have to ask; who?s side are you on?..?

Who's "we" and what sides are you talking about?

Or do you prefer playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with your scriptures?.hoping that one day you may hit the bull?s-eye??!

Very witty bravo

Peace,
Tay

Thanks for your reply?

Peace Apples,

You stated
Quote
We would ask that you give some more context to your one-hit Koranic ?proof-texts? in the future

That's fine, but if that's the case, try not to be so bold in your requests next time, per
Quote
bring forth ANY portion of your book of faith that is completely free from Jewish and Christian influence (emphasis yours)

you stated
Quote
Modern Muslims are notorious for massacring their very own scriptures?who needs an enemy when they are their own?.

You're going off on an irrelevant tangent here, try to stay focused.

You read our posts just like everyone else?

It clearly states ?any portion??..not a word?not an ayah?.but any portion that you think fits the criteria set forth?

You opted (for your first attempt), to show an out-of-context Islamic propaganda ayah that you wanted to use to promote the Islamic ?position??

However, since Koranic ayahs are artificially inserted into the original Arabic in the first place, your ayah submittal is really quite pathetic?.as you conveniently stopped your quote just before the Arabic word ?bal??

Had you shown full context, then you would have seen that ?bal? totally and completely erases and negates the entire ayah that precedes it?the very one that you (and Islam as a whole) uses to ?buttress? their lame position.

Your response to the classic definition of ?bal??..?

Zero.

Natta.

Zippo.

Why is this?..Tay?..?

You have just demonstrated that Islam is the result of the incomprehension of the classic Arabic and the taking of their scriptures out of context?.it is a way of life for the Muslim?unfortunately?

Now?look at this?.

Immediately after you make the statement to ?stay focused??..you immediately go onto ayah 4.158?..not even the very ayah (4.157) that you posited as your first entry?.talk about not staying ?focused??

It is clear that you perhaps do understand the meaning of the word ?bal??after all?

Next, you weave your path away from the ayah in question into the next ayah, which is not what you had requested. Nevertheless, I'll play along.

You quoted, and emphasized
Quote
?rafaAAa? definition

Masculine singular. He raised it; he elevated it; upraised it; uplifted it; he took it up, raised, exalted. To raise up, lift, exalt, hoist, extol, take away, trace back, honor, show regard to, advance speedily, come to an upland, arraign anyone before or introduce to (a ruler), elevate, raise in dignity, see a thing from afar, refine. It is sometimes applied to corporeal things, meaning the raising, or elevating, a thing from the resting-place thereof; it signifies the putting away or removing or turning back a thing after the coming or arriving thereof. The bring a thing near, or presenting, or offering it. He withdrew, put away, removed, did away or did away with, annulled, revoked, or remitted.

Why am I not surprised?

Let me have a crack at it

?rafaAAa? definition
Quote
Masculine singular. He raised it; he elevated it; upraised it; uplifted it; he took it up, raised, exalted. To raise up, lift, exalt, hoist, extol, take away, trace back, honor, show regard to, advance speedily, come to an upland, arraign anyone before or introduce to (a ruler), elevate, raise in dignity, see a thing from afar, refine. It is sometimes applied to corporeal things, meaning the raising, or elevating, a thing from the resting-place thereof; it signifies the putting away or removing or turning back a thing after the coming or arriving thereof. The bring a thing near, or presenting, or offering it. He withdrew, put away, removed, did away or did away with, annulled, revoked, or remitted.

Quote
?rafaAAahu? is used only this once in the entire Koran?

This is misleadingly false. In fact, when "rafaa" is used in the same context, it denotes exalting in honor.

Now?.this is fascinating?.

First of all?it is a fact that ?rafaAAahu? is used only this once in the entire Koran. This is not misleading in any way.

Secondly not only do you now start using our references (thanks for the thumbs up!)?but you move onto even more ayahs?further distancing yourself from 4.157?which you were so adamant about ?staying focused? towards?.

It is clear that you are beginning to understand the inherent weakness regarding the clich? usage of just 4.157?.are we correct?.?

4.157 is a dead ayah.

It has been replaced by 4.158 & 4.159?.

7176 Walaw shi/na larafaAAnahu biha walakinnahu akhlada ila al-ardi waittabaAAa hawahu famathaluhu kamathali alkalbi in tahmil AAalayhi yalhath aw tatruk-hu yalhath thalika mathalu alqawmi allatheena kaththaboo bi-ayatina faoqsusi alqasasa laAAallahum yatafakkaroona

If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect.

Remember the context?

7.174 And as/like that We detail/explain the evidences/verses, and maybe/perhaps they return.

7.175 And read/recite on them whom We gave/brought him Our verses/evidences, so he broke away/separated from it, so the devil followed him, so he was from the misguided.

7.176 And if We wanted/willed, We would have risen him with it, and but he perpetuate/immortalize/eternalize the earth/Planet Earth, and he followed his self attraction for desire/love and lust , so his example/proverb (is) like the example (of) the dog, if you burden/load on it, it pants , and if you leave it, it pants, that is (the) example/proverb (of) the nation those who lied/denied/falsified with Our verses/evidences , so narrate/relay the narration/information ,maybe/perhaps they think.

7.177 It became bad/evil an example/proverb (of) the nation those who lied/denied/falsified with Our verses/evidences, and were causing injustice/oppression (to) themselves.

Please tell us how many times ?mathalin? occurs in these ayahs??

= ?mathalin?

?mathalin? definition

Noun. Parable, likeness, similitude, like, reason, proverb, discourse, equivalent, comparison, sign, lesson, an example, case, state, condition, argument, match, an analogue. It comes from the root ?mathala?, which means to resemble, imitate, compare any one with, be or look like some one, bear a likeness.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, pp. 3017 - 3018
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 525 ? 526

Please also tell us how many times the quintessential ?alkitabu? occurs in these ayahs?.?

1956-57 Waothkur fee alkitabi idreesa innahu kana siddeeqan nabiyyan WarafaAAnahu makanan AAaliyyan

1956-57 Also mention in the Book the case of Idris He was a man of truth (and sincerity), (and) a prophet And We raised him to a lofty station.

The ball's in your court.

Peace,
Tay

Lol?.who do you think Idris refers to?.?

From Biblical ?alkitabu? no less?

Idris is none other than Enoch?

Look?

Waothkur fee alkitabi idreesa innahu kana siddeeqan nabiyyan

19.56 And remember/mention in The Book Enoch, that he truly was always very truthful, and a prophet.

WarafaAAnahu makanan AAaliyyan

19.57 And We raised him a high and mighty/dignified place/position.

19.58 Those are those who Allah blessed/praised on them from the prophets from Adam's descendants; and from who We carried with Noah, , and from Abraham's and Ishmael's descendants, and from who We guided and We chose/purified, if the merciful's verses/evidences are read/recited on them they fell down prostrating and weeping .

= ?idreesa?

?idreesa? definition

The prophet Enoch, so called from his great learning. It comes from the root ?darasa?, which means to study, read, read with attention, disappear (trace), efface, obliterate, teach. It, a trace or mark, and a house, or a thing, became effaced, erased, rased, or obliterated; or it (the trace, or mark, of a house; or what remained, cleaving to the ground, marking the place of the house) became covered with sand and dust blown over it by the wind or it, an abode, or place of sojourning, became effaced , erased, rased, or obliterated, and its traces or remains, became concealed, or unseen.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume three, pp. 870 - 871
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 176 - 177

As copied from the Holy Bible?

Gen 524 And Enoch walked with God. Then he was not, for God took him.

WarafaAAnahu makanan AAaliyyan

19.57 And We raised him a high and mighty/dignified place/position.

Thus?.we understand that Enoch was corporeally raised to God.

Same as Jesus.

Right from your Koran.

Straight from your very own example.

We have to ask; who?s side are you on?..?

Or do you prefer playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with your scriptures?.hoping that one day you may hit the bull?s-eye??!

Please put forth a concerted effort next time?.

Thanks?

Please stay focused. Either address the points in our discussion or don't.

Thanks,
Tay

Yes Jesus is the NEW Covenant... which replaced the OLD Covenant that was brocken.. Again straight out of the Bible

You stated

We would ask that you give some more context to your one-hit Koranic ?proof-texts? in the future

That's fine, but if that's the case, try not to be so bold in your requests next time, per

bring forth ANY portion of your book of faith that is completely free from Jewish and Christian influence (emphasis yours)

you stated

Modern Muslims are notorious for massacring their very own scriptures?who needs an enemy when they are their own?.

You're going off on an irrelevant tangent here, try to stay focused. wink

Next, you weave your path away from the ayah in question into the next ayah, which is not what you had requested. Nevertheless, I'll play along.

You quoted, and emphasized

?rafaAAa? definition

Masculine singular. He raised it; he elevated it; upraised it; uplifted it; he took it up, raised, exalted. To raise up, lift, exalt, hoist, extol, take away, trace back, honor, show regard to, advance speedily, come to an upland, arraign anyone before or introduce to (a ruler), elevate, raise in dignity, see a thing from afar, refine. It is sometimes applied to corporeal things, meaning the raising, or elevating, a thing from the resting-place thereof; it signifies the putting away or removing or turning back a thing after the coming or arriving thereof. The bring a thing near, or presenting, or offering it. He withdrew, put away, removed, did away or did away with, annulled, revoked, or remitted.

Why am I not surprised?

Let me have a crack at it

?rafaAAa? definition

Masculine singular. He raised it; he elevated it; upraised it; uplifted it; he took it up, raised, exalted. To raise up, lift, exalt, hoist, extol, take away, trace back, honor, show regard to, advance speedily, come to an upland, arraign anyone before or introduce to (a ruler), elevate, raise in dignity, see a thing from afar, refine. It is sometimes applied to corporeal things, meaning the raising, or elevating, a thing from the resting-place thereof; it signifies the putting away or removing or turning back a thing after the coming or arriving thereof. The bring a thing near, or presenting, or offering it. He withdrew, put away, removed, did away or did away with, annulled, revoked, or remitted.

?rafaAAahu? is used only this once in the entire Koran?

This is misleadingly false. In fact, when "rafaa" is used in the same context, it denotes exalting in honor.

7176 Walaw shi/na larafaAAnahu biha walakinnahu akhlada ila al-ardi waittabaAAa hawahu famathaluhu kamathali alkalbi in tahmil AAalayhi yalhath aw tatruk-hu yalhath thalika mathalu alqawmi allatheena kaththaboo bi-ayatina faoqsusi alqasasa laAAallahum yatafakkaroona

If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect.

1956-57 Waothkur fee alkitabi idreesa innahu kana siddeeqan nabiyyan WarafaAAnahu makanan AAaliyyan

1956-57 Also mention in the Book the case of Idris He was a man of truth (and sincerity), (and) a prophet And We raised him to a lofty station.

The ball's in your court.

Peace,
Tay