the reading(quran) is not the title of any book
-
Yes it does. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same, does it?
Lets get this straight. You open a book, it says 'this al-quraan' isnt from other than Allah. And you think it points to something else? Ok well, good luck looking for it.
Funny thing you mentioned "declarations/readings" and not its singular form, 'cause this is my very position on the matter.
And it doesn't say "these declarations" nor "the readings", does it?Al-quraan itself says that in 'suhufan mutahharah' are 'kutubun qayyimah' (98/'3).
I think you get the picture...
I think i do, but its rather diffrent from yours. Of course, if im wrong, al-quraan would contradict me.
-
Yes it does. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same, does it?
Lets get this straight. You open a book, it says 'this al-quraan' isnt from other than Allah. And you think it points to something else? Ok well, good luck looking for it.
For crying out loud, you have not yet proven that "qur'an" aims at the whole book!
Funny thing you mentioned "declarations/readings" and not its singular form, 'cause this is my very position on the matter.
And it doesn't say "these declarations" nor "the readings", does it?Al-quraan itself says that in 'suhufan mutahharah' are 'kutubun qayyimah' (98/'3).
I don't get your point...
I think you get the picture...
I think i do, but its rather diffrent from yours. Of course, if im wrong, al-quraan would contradict me.
Are you talking about "al-qur'an" as the one mentioned in the book, or are you talking about the book that we traditionally refer to by that name?
-
Ahmad,
Peace bro
I almost thought I had met my superior as you knocked me down with the verifications of your child as he looked on different coloured words.
sorry bro, i was just trying to put my argument in a humorous way, lol
However, there?s one thing you didn?t take in consideration though. Remembering how Arabic was typed at the time, the words ?qur??n/qir??n? and for instance ?qar??t/qar??ah? were spelled only one letter different from each other.
even if they are the same exact letters bro, the context is the only thing that will deternmine the true meaning
And even these letters are very much similar to each other. Thus, even though I hate it when everyone seems to be desperate tracing Arabic roots to three syllable radicals, I?d say there?s substance to believe that they are of the same origin.
bro, the origin is in no way has any value/merit, here is an example bro
we have the root Ma La Ka
this word is derived from it and means King ""
this word is also derived from it and means Salve""
for God sake bro, is Slave even near King in the meaning?
of course not, hence, the moment we derive new words based on the wazns, each word becomes indpendent, with it is own identity, wazn, irab, meaning and message to the one who is hearing it, no question about this bro, I was very good in the Arabic Grammar and soon I will revive my solid knowledge back when I receive three Arabic Grammar books sent to me from Egypt
In other words, it makes sense that ?qur?n? actually means ?call/proclamation?. I don?t know where you?re heading with the talk about tracing 20 arabic words, I can?t see how it would apply to me.
I'm not saying it applies to you, it only apply to the ones who use the root to get the meaning, and I have shown you a clear example that the root method is flawed to determine the meaning
now, Quran does not mean Reading, but because it is a book and its name is is derived from the root "Qa Ra Aa", also we have no previous knowledge about this specific word "Quran" so it is logical to think that it should be read from it name, however it is already logical to read a book hence no new info is added to consider its name explicitly means "The Reading"
The Quran was called "A book" and we know this word clearly hence we know it must be for read
The Quran was called "Quran" but we never heard of that word although we know it is a book for reading, then Quran must be its name, like my name and your name exactly, sure names incline meanings, like "Mohammad" Mansour" etc etc, but when you call these named entities you don't call them by the meaning of their names rather THEIR NAMES AS THEY APPEAR exactly, therefore calling the Quran "The Reading" is very flawed idea from the first place
The thing about why someone would wanna call a book ?reading?, I have no idea. For all I care people can call it ?car wash? just as long as we know what book we?re talking about. Don?t know if you got me wrong, because I?m not the one saying that qur??n actually is the book?s title. All I?m saying is that the/this ?qur?n? does not aim at the book.
thanks bro, that is exactly my point, we know it is a book and and we know it must be for reading hence no new info will be added by calling it "The Reading" other than we are trying to be smart but ended up stupid, the Quran is a name for this book like the Injil and the Toarah and the Zabour, all names mentioned in the Quran and it makes me wonder why they don't try to find the meaning of Al Zabour that was sent to Dawoud?
and because the Quran is the name of this book we all read, then it must be aimed at the same and ver book which we are holding in our hands to read?
you see, my name ahmed bahgat is aimed at me, when you started your comment to me you called me ahmed, hence I knew you were talking to me, now when the Quran is mentioned, it is exactly the same and means Quran because it is its name
if you will just call it book, then I might ask you which book, but when you call it Quran, I will know what you are talking about exactly
The example I was trying to portrait to mquran was not one dealing with the meaning of the word ukhr?. But ok - the joke?s on me, fine. I do know however what it means and I kind of lost it translating my Swedish into non-native English. Glad you had a good laugh about it anyway!
bro, please don't get me wrong, it is a mere style, that's all, and you have my respect for sure, i'm a very tough debater indeed because I do it for years and it was mostely about religions, bro i really do it with no hard feelings unless others are delibertly disrespectful, so I'm sorry about the laugh comments,
Peace be with you
fixed a few typos as normal
-
The word "Quran" has and always will be the name/title of this book, like Ahmed confesses. That is exactly how it is referenced and recognized throughout the world. Every book on earth has a title, though each title has its own meaning. It is simply absurd to take a meaning out of a name or a title of anything and start calling it by that very meaning. The Wikipedia encyclopedia gives Quran its literal meaning as "the recitation", but that doesn't automatically become its name. On the contrary, Quran is not ONLY for chanting, singing and reciting but most importantly, to reflect upon its message, obey and act upon it. Thus, how is Quran simply called reading or recitation or chanting, beats me.
-
Quran is not ONLY for chanting, singing and reciting but most importantly, to reflect upon its message, obey and act upon it. Thus, how is Quran simply called reading or recitation or chanting, beats me.
thanks bro for this very compelling logic, see, we all learn from each other
peace
-
Quran is not ONLY for chanting, singing and reciting but most importantly, to reflect upon its message, obey and act upon it. Thus, how is Quran simply called reading or recitation or chanting, beats me.
thanks bro for this very compelling logic, see, we all learn from each other
peace
No problem mate and certainly that's what we are here for. All praises are due to Allah.
-
I see no reason why it actually would want to direct us towards the understanding of "this qur'an" being the same thing as the book in question. So why would I wanna deny something that hasn't even been established?
has it been established that it refers to some quran other than itself ?
and how does the 114 chaptered book refer to itself ?Nothing with regards to "al-qur'an" has been established for certain this far. Does this mean we can adopt any explanation until further notice?
does the '114 chaptered book'(which, u think, doesnt have a name) ever refer to itself ? if so, how ?
-
Good morning everyone!
There?s nothing implying that the ?qur?an? would mean a whole scripture. Let?s say that ?qur?an? means for instance ?chapter?, ?verse?, ?message?, ?prayer?, ?nonsense?. The assertion of self-reference in the Koran is based exclusively on the translation of ?qur??n? having the meaning of a proper name and not a meaning. If ?qur??n? means something else but the whole 114 chaptered book, the assertion would be in vain. And moreover, a statement cannot verify itself.
As Ahmad brought up the titles of ?Injil? and ?Taurat? (for Zab?r, I don?t know), they actually can be traced to a meaning through their etymological origin, even though the Koran speak of them more in the terms of established proper names. This also applies to the book that we call the Koran. It has a meaning and I would say it?s pretty safe to assume that the word can be derived from the primitive root ?qar?(?)? and not necessarily be a proper name.
When it comes to the title of the book I?m talking about, I myself use ?The Koran? aswell. The only thing is I don?t see that the context of where ?qur??n? is mentioned inside The Koran fits the description of the whole book of 114 chapters.
With regards to Saladins question, I don?t mind that it has a name nor that it doesn?t. One example as far as I know, the Torah never refers to itself as ?The Torah (ha t?r?h)? but it DOES speak of the word torah and anyone like me who is acquainted with ancient Hebrew knows the meaning of it. The same thing goes for the book that is traditionally known as ?The Qur??n/Al-Qur??n?. The book does speak of ?this book? which seems to me like a clear self reference. However, I don?t see how ?this qur??n? refers to itself as a book.
One other thing Ahmad, when I woke up this morning ? I realized that ?al bint al ukhr?? is perfectly fine to express ?the other girl? even though ?fat?t would fit the context better than ?bint?.
Kind regards,
St?phane -
As Ahmad brought up the titles of ?Injil? and ?Taurat? (for Zab?r, I don?t know), they actually can be traced to a meaning through their etymological origin, even though the Koran speak of them more in the terms of established proper names. This also applies to the book that we call the Koran. It has a meaning and I would say it?s pretty safe to assume that the word can be derived from the primitive root ?qar?(?)? and not necessarily be a proper name.
Peace mate
yes bro, this is a very good question, I actually never heard of a meaning to "Al -Injil neither Al-Tawrah", but i guess how inporatnt this issue is to me will be the bottom line, and because I know what a kitab means as well I know that the Quran is a name, this matter has no value to me indeed, I just wanted to see what my other brothers and sisters has to say regarding this confusing matter that they brought to themselves by themselves
I also agree that Allah may have a liberary of books by Him up there but do I really need to be concern about them in this testing life?, of course not because I will not be held accountable to something that I never receieved neither studied, I agree that Allah mentioned that He has another book up there, but as I explained to another brother before consider that book the whole law made by God to mange all what we see and what we can't see, a small section of that book up there was sent to us, consider as a state law within a fideral law, and that is what we will be held accountable for, so when Allah mention book(s) that He has it is a mere statement of a fact that we should know and possibly reflect upon it,
we can see this clearl;y in the Quran, the word Quran was mentioned about 69 times and each one refers to this book we have in out hand, it never meant anything else, also the word Kitab was mentioned about 232 times at least 100 times was explicit to the Quran as well and example of the two words in one verse as follow"Ta Sin! These are the verses of the Quran and a manifest Book "
(1)
-> Obvioulsy kitab in this verse means the Quran, but please think about this bit "These are the verses of the Quran ", clearly shows that it is a name for this book.
another verse that talks about a book that Allah have is this
"And there is no animal in the earth but on Allah is the sustenance of it, and He knows its resting place and its depository all (things) are in a manifest book. "(6)
-> There is no doubt that the kitab mentioned in 116 is another book other than the Quran this book has nothing to do with giving account and Allah is telling us about it as a fact that we should know
The word Kitab in the Quran used to aim at many different things and in each verse we can easily pinpoint what kitab it is talkng about so there is no need to be confused neither to cause confusion
When it comes to the title of the book I?m talking about, I myself use ?The Koran? aswell. The only thing is I don?t see that the context of where ?qur??n? is mentioned inside The Koran fits the description of the whole book of 114 chapters.
bro I scanned quickly about 60 locations where the woprd Quran was used and surely refers to "The content of this book", reagardless it was completely revealed or yet to be finsihed at that time
can you please psot a few examples of the verses that puzzles you?
The book does speak of ?this book? which seems to me like a clear self reference. However, I don?t see how ?this qur??n? refers to itself as a book.
I hope 271 I posted will help in understanding this matter. clear that it says "The Verses of the Quran" then followed by "A Manfaist Book"
One other thing Ahmad, when I woke up this morning ? I realized that ?al bint al ukhr?? is perfectly fine to express ?the other girl? even though ?fat?t would fit the context better than ?bint?.
I might misunderstaood you bro, in either case I'm sorry
Peace
-
I might misunderstaood you bro, in either case I'm sorry
No problem, we can always sort things out.
With reference to 271?
First of all it doesn't say "these", but "that". Tilka.
Next thing, there's no article to what you translate as "the verses". Not AL ?y?tu but simply ??y?tu?.
Now, since everything starting from ?al-qur??n-i? is written in genitive case ? this sentence is an id?fa. ThusSixty-nine (don?t ask me what it means), that is the signs of the calling, and of a manifest book.
If ?kit?bin mab?nin? would aim at the book ?Koran?, why doesn?t it say ?this? book mabin or ?the? book mabin? It says a manifest book which doesn?t prove anything of self-reference entitling theories.
And what so ?clearly? separates the ?a book? in 271 and 116, I haven?t yet figured out.Still, I haven?t seen one verse ?where the word Quran was used and surely refers to ?The content of this book??. Can you show me one?
And what verses that puzzles me, I?m not quite sure I understand what you?d like me to post?Regards,
S -
Peace be Upon you El Aziz,
You will never get that verse D
Lets get this straight. You open a book, it says 'this al-quraan' isnt from other than Allah. And you think it points to something else?
This proclamation was not delivered as a book. If someone writes divine messages into a physical book, then great, but the God's Word cannot fit into a physical book. It is the UNIVERSAL LAW that is proclaimed to mankind when he WAKES UP. And this, the proclamation, cannot be from other than the God.
-
Peace be Upon you El Aziz,
You will never get that verse DSay what?
This proclamation was not delivered as a book. If someone writes divine messages into a physical book, then great, but the God's Word cannot fit into a physical book. It is the UNIVERSAL LAW that is proclaimed to mankind when he WAKES UP. And this, the proclamation, cannot be from other than the God.
There you go! In a couple of places inside the Koran, it clearly says that all the ink in the world is not sufficient compared to the words of the Lord.
By saying that a specific word, sentence, book, chapter etc - is one of God's, it is inevitable that one doesn't pick out certain elements that would be of God's. In this knowledge is in my opinion not of any man's possession. This form of distraction from God is refered to as "shirk" in arabic. -
Are you refering to the title of the book or "al-qur'?n" that is being mentioned inside "The Koran"?
It's clear to me that 'al-quraan' is the name of what you call "the koran", so whenever I say 'al-quraan', please take it to mean that.
It makes the conversation a bit more difficult for the both of us, but ok. I guess I'll gonna have to ask every now and then if that's ok with you.
I think you're already aware of the fact that you and Kyle speaks of different "qur'?n"s, so why this question?
You still haven't shown the corelation between the "qur'?n" that the Koran refers to, and that it actually would be itself as a book that it speaks of.
-
It makes the conversation a bit more difficult for the both of us, but ok. I guess I'll gonna have to ask every now and then if that's ok with you.
Perhaps, but for the readers of this thread the world over , I doubt many would be confused with what I mean when I say 'al-quraan'.
You still haven't shown the corelation between the "qur'?n" that the Koran refers to, and that it actually would be itself as a book that it speaks of.
I start with myself. I open a book. This book says 'this al-quraan.....'. It also says 'we relate to you the most beautiful qasaas in this al-quraan' (12/4) and it says 'TSM, THESE are the ayaat of al-quraan, that is a kitaabun mubiin' (27/1). If you understand that to mean something else, that's fine but that's proof enough for me.
-
There you go! In a couple of places inside the Koran, it clearly says that all the ink in the world is not sufficient compared to the words of the Lord.
By saying that a specific word, sentence, book, chapter etc - is one of God's, it is inevitable that one doesn't pick out certain elements that would be of God's. In this knowledge is in my opinion not of any man's possession. This form of distraction from God is refered to as "shirk" in arabic
.Can you please explain or rephrase the underlined quote? Why is it inevitable?
-
Peace be upon yuo MQ,
WB Kyle. How do you know al-quraan wasn't delivered as a book?
Thanks bro, great to be back amongst my online spiritual family trodding the path to truth. D
Speaking of the physical book, it says of itself that the God brings the message to the heart of men. This is intuition within, not a book being delivered.
In life experience, the God reveals to me by inspiration. I have read several books that lead to righteousness, but when the truth is revealed to me, those statements in ALL of those physical books comes alive.
-
Speaking of the physical book, it says of itself that the God brings the message to the heart of men. This is intuition within, not a book being delivered
Indeed, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's also on pages (80/11-16) and in a clear book (27/1).
In life experience, the God reveals to me by inspiration. I have read several books that lead to righteousness, but when the truth is revealed to me, those statements in ALL of those physical books comes alive.
That's cool, who am I to deny your experience. I'm just looking for what al-quraan says about itself. Since you don't believe 'quraan' refers to what I call 'al-quraan', I'd just like to know how you arrived there. Thus far, I don't see the evidence for it.