the reading(quran) is not the title of any book
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
I start with myself. I open a book.
Already we are limiting an uncountable number of people. There are people alive today who do not have that same "book", as well as people before this "book" was written who cannot follow this method you are using as your evidence.
Also, is this the same method the companions of that author used? Did they have that book to open?
This book says 'this al-quraan.....'.
When this verse was intuited, what book was around that one could open? The universe WAS here however, as it is here for ALL PEOPLE at ALL TIME, in ALL LOCATIONS.
It also says 'we relate to you the most beautiful qasaas in this al-quraan' (12/4)
Yes, Life contains uncountable stories that serve as examples for us to learn from. The story of Musa, Noah, etc etc happen all the time, not just in the past in the middle east.
and it says 'TSM, THESE are the ayaat of al-quraan, that is a kitaabun mubiin' (27/1).
Once we understand what TSM is, then we can discuss further. I have no knowledge of those "statements". However, when they were being INtuited by the author, there was no book for it to mean they are verses of the book.
-
mquran,
I?ll rephrase;
By saying that whatever is from God and selecting that object specifically, you are ascribing divine attributes to this whatever it may be.Next, you keep translating incorrectly. It does not say THESE in 271, it says THIS.
You cannot translate "hadhaa l-qur'?n" with ?this AL qur??n (or whatever being put as the translation for qur'?n, if any)?. It has to be ?This qur??n?. Or would you translate ?ha?ihi s-safHa? with ?this AL page? or ?this the page??
When it comes to your proofs, what are they based on? If you want to show me a proof, then it?s gonna have to be based on logic of the language and context - not already established personal reflections.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
Quote
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 deliveredIndeed, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's also on pages (80/11-16)
Yes, Laws are written down, but we can never collect all of the God's Universal Law into a book. Truthful statements are indeed written by scribes, and indeed it is wise to follow wise statements after they have been verified as truth. But we have no authority to say that "this reading" refers to the book called "Koran".
We read the same thing the prophtes read, that is the Universal Law.
and in a clear book (27/1).
The universe is clear for EVERYONE, a book called Koran is not even available for any human before it is written, nor people in certain areas of the world today.
Quote
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.
I arrived at the book called "Koran" because I blindly believed in a man named "Muhammad" and an Arabic religion named "Islam", but as I study further, I realize that what the "Koran" speaks of is a humans attempt to help focus people on Divine Universal Law, just like all "religions" originally atempted until people come and corrupt them.
DO not take this to mean that I think the book called "Koran" is wortheless, it is not worthles, but indeed very powerful when it is purified. As well as other written books. In fact This book called "Koran" says that we should believe in that which came to us and those before us. It says to hear ALL opinions and follow the best (which would be the ones we verify as truth).
-
Ill rephrase;
By saying that whatever is from God and selecting that object specifically, you are ascribing divine attributes to this whatever it may be.Ok understood. So when Allah says Wa AL-QURAAN AL-HAKEEM, is Allah Himself comitting shirk ? Al-hakeem is Allah Himself, don't forget.
Next, you keep translating incorrectly. It does not say THESE in 271, it says THIS
Keep translating incorrectly? Tilka can be either 'this' or 'these'. If you notice, 'ayaat' is in plural.
You cannot translate "hadhaa l-qur'?n" with this AL qur?n. It has to be This qur?n. Or would you translate ha?ihi s-safHa with this AL page or this the page?
Sorry, I'm not an adherent of your modern standard Arabic and its rules. Al-quraan is what confirms the Arabic language for me (46/12). What may sound funny in english is of no consequence to me if al-quraan has already set its own rules about the matter. 'Hadha' has been used with non-specified objects and specified objects. You're telling me both are the same 'this book' and 'this OUR book' ? Hadha al-quraan shows specification and al-quraan's description of itself adds weight to this argument.
When it comes to your proofs, what are they based on? If you want to show me a proof, then its gonna have to be based on logic of the language and context - not already established personal reflections.
It was based on language and context but you brought some artificial linguistic rule to verify it. The problem is, I don't subscribe to those rules. As I said above, lisaanun arabiyan is confirmed by al-quraan for me and so in its own context, it makes perfect sense.
Did the book or cd where you learnt Arabic come down from the sky? If not, the authors 'personal reflection' was involved in it.
-
This book says 'this al-quraan.....'.
When this verse was intuited, what book was around that one could open? The universe WAS here however, as it is here for ALL PEOPLE at ALL TIME, in ALL LOCATIONS.
and it says 'TSM, THESE are the ayaat of al-quraan, that is a kitaabun mubiin' (27/1).
Once we understand what TSM is, then we can discuss further. I have no knowledge of those "statements". However, when they were being INtuited by the author, there was no book for it to mean they are verses of the book.
salam .
i had answered to this before too . hereeven back when Quran was not completed , "THIS" could refer to the kitab that was being compiled , being written down ,or being recited to the nabi by gabriel . even if it was a single page , it was a kitab .
idolfree1 write If that was the case, then why do we see instance of AL kitaab. Certinaly one page compared to a group of pages is not the same thing. Only one of them can be THE Kitaab.
So if we are reading about kitaab and there is no completed book, then your understanding has a serious flaw.
The argument of refering to it as such while it was not finished yet has really no merit
for example if it took me 5 years to write a book, during all these years I can refer to it as a book, why not?
idolfree1 wrote I doubt you would look at a your first page and say this is "THE book"(al kitaab). You would say "part of my book" , not THE book. How can you look at something unfinished in say "in it is guidance , sure without doubt". If I stop you right then and there, and wanted to get THE BOOK, could I do it?
Saladin wrote how would "part of my book" sound after the book will be complete . the complete book refering to itself as "part of the book" ?!
most books carry an introduction to themselves by the author in the opening pages . this is not an unusual thing . and when the author is giving the introduction like "this book is designed to help those who ...." , he uses the word "book", NOT "this part of the book" or "this page" .
that is exactly what the Quran does in surah baqarah when it says "zalika al kitab la raib feeh...(this is the book(written one) wherein there is no doubt...)" .
so i repeat , how would "part of my book/page" sound after the book will be complete . the complete book refering to itself as "part of the book" ?!
this just shows how little sense this arguement of yours makes , just like most your others .
EDITED
-
Peace be upon you Saladin,
Yes you responded, but there was no evidence in your response. Either quran=page, or quran=book. Pick one.
-
Yes you responded, but there was no evidence in your response. Either quran=page, or quran=book. Pick one.
Al-quraan doesn't mean the book or the page. It means the declaration,recitation. It describes itself AS a book when it says 'this book' and 'this our book' (please see my response to stephane) above.
-
I?ll rephrase;
By saying that whatever is from God and selecting that object specifically, you are ascribing divine attributes to this whatever it may be.Ok understood. So when Allah says Wa AL-QURAAN AL-HAKEEM, is Allah Himself comitting shirk ? Al-hakeem is Allah Himself, don't forget.
God is wise and the wisdom itself, yes. ?The call of the wise? makes perfect sense to me. And still has no one been able to prove that it refers to a book of 114 chapters. Doesn?t seem like no shirk to me.
Keep translating incorrectly? Tilka can be either 'this' or 'these'. If you notice, 'ayaat' is in plural.
Sorry, I'm not an adherent of your modern standard Arabic and its rules. Al-quraan is what confirms the Arabic language for me (46/12). What may sound funny in english is of no consequence to me if al-quraan has already set its own rules about the matter. 'Hadha' has been used with non-specified objects and specified objects. You're telling me both are the same 'this book' and 'this OUR book' ? Hadha al-quraan shows specification and al-quraan's description of itself adds weight to this argument.
Funny you?d mention MY standard Arabic. Even if we used your neo-arabic where ?tilka? means ?these?, it wouldn?t make sense. As you might have noticed ?this?? is expressed by ?ha??/h??ihi AL??. Or ?that?? by saying ???lika/tilka AL??. And as you know, there?s no such article preceding ??y?t?. So the ?tilka? can?t either way aim at the ??y?t?.
In the case that you refered to, 692, it is not to express ?this book? but ?this book?. The same thing goes for 4529 where it means ?this our book?. You might have noticed that Arabic seldom uses ?to be? where we normally would put it. So your examples are not applicable on the matter. You?d gonna have to give give me an example where ?h???/h??ihi? is preceding AL and the whatever?When it comes to your proofs, what are they based on? If you want to show me a proof, then it?s gonna have to be based on logic of the language and context - not already established personal reflections.
It was based on language and context but you brought some artificial linguistic rule to verify it. The problem is, I don't subscribe to those rules. As I said above, lisaanun arabiyan is confirmed by al-quraan for me and so in its own context, it makes perfect sense.
Did the book or cd where you learnt Arabic come down from the sky? If not, the authors 'personal reflection' was involved in it.
First of all, you clearly do not know the grammatical rules of either classic Arabic nor the quraishi one in the Koran. The verifications I?ve given you are based upon the understanding of its consequent use of the language inside the Koran, but you fail on showing me reference points. You confuse them all of the time.
As you say that the Arabic language is confirmed by itself inside the Koran and this makes sense to you ? how is it then that you are not able to give an accurate account of them?
As for my Arabic learning process, it didn?t involve very much personal reflection, no. In order to make my self understood, I had to stick to the rules already established as a result of etymological evolution. -
Al-quraan doesn't mean the book or the page. It means the declaration,recitation. It describes itself AS a book when it says 'this book' and 'this our book' (please see my response to stephane) above.
"This our book" would read "this book of ours" if translated that way. However, "h??? kit?bun?" means "this is our book".
-
God is wise and the wisdom itself, yes. The call of the wise makes perfect sense to me. And still has no one been able to prove that it refers to a book of 114 chapters. Doesnt seem like no shirk to me.
God IS wisDOM ? So Allah is also al-hikmah ? And since al-hikmah is al-kitaab , Allah is al-kitaab as well ??!!
Al-quraan al-hakeem is 'THE CALL of the wise' ?
Ok, my apologies but I think I understand now why you can't get what I'm saying. I've certainly been wasting my time here.
Funny youd mention MY standard Arabic. Even if we used your neo-arabic where tilka means these, it wouldnt make sense. As you might have noticed this is expressed by ha??/h??ihi AL. Or that by saying ??lika/tilka AL. And as you know, theres no such article preceding ?y?t. So the tilka cant either way aim at the ?y?t
False due to misunderstanding of what I was saying. Firstly, I was responding to you when you inconsequentialised the 'al' in 'hadha al-quraan'. This act of yours showed that you missed out on the variant forms coming AFTER hadha. Tilka has been shown to denote singularity OR plurality. Ayaat doesn't need an 'al' there because it was you who falsely established the grammatical law to begin with.
In the case that you refered to, 692, it is not to express this book but this book. The same thing goes for 4529 where it means this our book. You might have noticed that Arabic seldom uses to be where we normally would put it. So your examples are not applicable on the matter. Youd gonna have to give give me an example where h???/h??ihi is preceding AL and the whatever
Eh? The example was to show 'hadha' use without the 'al' to show you that 'al' is significant. You've missed the point completely yet again.
First of all, you clearly do not know the grammatical rules of either classic Arabic nor the quraishi one in the Koran. The verifications Ive given you are based upon the understanding of its consequent use of the language inside the Koran, but you fail on showing me reference points. You confuse them all of the time.
As you say that the Arabic language is confirmed by itself inside the Koran and this makes sense to you how is it then that you are not able to give an accurate account of them?It's difficult for me to find your statement credible when you think 'al-quraan' is 'the call'. I'm beginning to see the strategies you employ in language and I'm sorry but I can't agree with them.
As for 'giving an accurate account', I've had no problems explaining my views in my world. Is there no possibility that you have a comprehension problem?
As for my Arabic learning process, it didnt involve very much personal reflection, no. In order to make my self understood, I had to stick to the rules already established as a result of etymological evolution.
Where did you learn these rules from? Do you consider these books to be infallible, always correct like Allah?
Does your 'el-aziz' handle come from your Arabic learning ? Rather strange considering how strongly you're against shirk.
-
God is wise and the wisdom itself, yes. ?The call of the wise? makes perfect sense to me. And still has no one been able to prove that it refers to a book of 114 chapters. Doesn?t seem like no shirk to me.
God IS wisDOM ? So Allah is also al-hikmah ? And since al-hikmah is al-kitaab , Allah is al-kitaab as well ??!!
Al-quraan al-hakeem is 'THE CALL of the wise' ?
Ok, my apologies but I think I understand now why you can't get what I'm saying. I've certainly been wasting my time here.This is what it means. Where are you trying to go with this nonsense!?
"Al qur'?n al hak?m" means "the wise qur'?n/call/whatever". Period.Funny you?d mention MY standard Arabic. Even if we used your neo-arabic where ?tilka? means ?these?, it wouldn?t make sense. As you might have noticed ?this?? is expressed by ?ha??/h??ihi AL??. Or ?that?? by saying ???lika/tilka AL??. And as you know, there?s no such article preceding ??y?t?. So the ?tilka? can?t either way aim at the ??y?t
False due to misunderstanding of what I was saying. Firstly, I was responding to you when you inconsequentialised the 'al' in 'hadha al-quraan'. This act of yours showed that you missed out on the variant forms coming AFTER hadha. Tilka has been shown to denote singularity OR plurality. Ayaat doesn't need an 'al' there because it was you who falsely established the grammatical law to begin with.
There is no way you can prove that "tilka" is an alternative plural form. Give me subsancial proofs or leave it, ok?
As for the word h???, you believe that what is translated to as "this..." in English can be expressed in Arabic with both h??? with and without the AL. This is not correct. If it would be, you would have given me such an accurate translation. But you can't.In the case that you refered to, 692, it is not to express ?this book? but ?this book?. The same thing goes for 4529 where it means ?this our book?. You might have noticed that Arabic seldom uses ?to be? where we normally would put it. So your examples are not applicable on the matter. You?d gonna have to give give me an example where ?h???/h??ihi? is preceding AL and the whatever?
Eh? The example was to show 'hadha' use without the 'al' to show you that 'al' is significant. You've missed the point completely yet again.
No, you have completely misunderstood the use of "h???". I'm sorry to say but there's not much of a chance that someone who knows arabic can agree with you.
First of all, you clearly do not know the grammatical rules of either classic Arabic nor the quraishi one in the Koran. The verifications I?ve given you are based upon the understanding of its consequent use of the language inside the Koran, but you fail on showing me reference points. You confuse them all of the time.
As you say that the Arabic language is confirmed by itself inside the Koran and this makes sense to you ? how is it then that you are not able to give an accurate account of them?It's difficult for me to find your statement credible when you think 'al-quraan' is 'the call'. I'm beginning to see the strategies you employ in language and I'm sorry but I can't agree with them.
Call or proclamation, yes. Either way, the subject of this thread is that "al-qur'?n" inside the Koran is not the reference to the title of the book. So it doesn't really matter does it? Especially since I'm still waiting for you to unveil the secrets of the "Koran=al-qur'?n" assertion.
As for my Arabic learning process, it didn?t involve very much personal reflection, no. In order to make my self understood, I had to stick to the rules already established as a result of etymological evolution.
Where did you learn these rules from? Do you consider these books to be infallible, always correct like Allah?
Does your 'el-aziz' handle come from your Arabic learning ? Rather strange considering how strongly you're against shirk.
El-Aziz was just a name that I picked 'cause it sounds cool. It has nothing to do with our discussion. Nothing shirky about that.
As for the rules that applies to either modern or elder Arabic, they are results of how people has tended to speak and write. These rules have been gathered in books. And there's no book that is infallible like God, simply not comparable. Don't be stupid! -
This is what it means. Where are you trying to go with this nonsense!?
"Al qur'?n al hak?m" means "the wise qur'?n/call/whatever". Period.Nonsense ? It's you who said 'the call of the wise' above. Would you like to retract that statement or...?
As for 'the wise call' , I'm afraid this further confirms to me that I can't trust what you say about Arabic for the following reasons
-
Al-quraan calls itself names without the 'al' as well like 'qur'aanan arabiiyan' (41/3)
-
Al-quraan uses the word 'da'a' and 'nid'aa' for 'call'. So I'm afraid your lexicography falls short here.
There is no way you can prove that "tilka" is an alternative plural form. Give me subsancial proofs or leave it, ok?
As i've told you, 'ayaat' is in plural and tilkaa refers to 'ayaat'. I take al-quraan to be the confirmer of the Arabic language and so tilkaa can be plural for me. As for 'leave it', you might want to check the colour of your name in the mainpage. If it's blue, it means that you're not a moderator. Of course you can denounce all you want.
As for the word h???, you believe that what is translated to as "this..." in English can be expressed in Arabic with both h??? with and without the AL. This is not correct. If it would be, you would have given me such an accurate translation. But you can't.
So al-quraan's criteria is its suitability in ENGLISH D
Oh wow, this is most unusual !
So 'qatala Daud Jaluut' must be wrong too because in english it means 'He killed David Goliath'. Someone killed a chap named David Goliath!
No, you have completely misunderstood the use of "h???". I'm sorry to say but there's not much of a chance that someone who knows arabic can agree with you
Your 'insight' into the unseen has failed this time, im afraid. I have discussed my views with some Arab academics and it seems they are not so dogmatic. They've actually showed me problems that Arabic grammar hasn't been able to solve.
Call or proclamation, yes. Either way, the subject of this thread is that "al-qur'?n" inside the Koran is not the reference to the title of the book. So it doesn't really matter does it? Especially since I'm still waiting for you to unveil the secrets of the "Koran=al-qur'?n" assertion.
How can it not matter when you've asserted that I don't know Arabic (the assertion itself is not the issue but you as the asserter must be questioned) ? Your assertion must show that you know Arabic. And since you claim to know, saying 'al-quraan = the call' must be testworthy and it wasn't. God is 'wisdom' has also failed the test.
As for 'unveiling the secrets', its a matter of criteria. My criteria is al-quraan and it's yielded its results to me. Whether you believe in it or not, it's of no consequence to me whatsoever.
El-Aziz was just a name that I picked 'cause it sounds cool. It has nothing to do with our discussion.
As for the rules that applies to either modern or elder Arabic, they are results of how people has tended to speak and write. These rules have been gathered in books. And there's no book that is infallible like God, simply not comparable. Don't be stupid!Thanks for the insult.
El-aziz is also the name of Allah. Since you've mentioned shirk and you obviously know Arabic, I'd expect you to not use a name like that.
Since the books of grammar and lexicography are fallible as you've shown, then how they be trusted?
-
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
Kyle, would you mind telling us what you interpret the word 'al-quraan' as please?
The proclamation. It is The Book(universal Law) that is to be proclaimed to mankind.
-
The proclamation. It is The Book(universal Law) that is to be proclaimed to mankind
But it's doesn't call itself 'al-kitaab'/the book. It calls itself 'tafseel al-kitaab'/the detailing/parsing of al-kitaab (10/37).
And how is this proclamation made ? Do you read from something or is there something cosmic to proclaim?
-
I?ll rephrase;
By saying that whatever is from God and selecting that object specifically, you are ascribing divine attributes to this whatever it may be.Ok understood. So when Allah says Wa AL-QURAAN AL-HAKEEM, is Allah Himself comitting shirk ? Al-hakeem is Allah Himself, don't forget.
very good point bro
Next, you keep translating incorrectly. It does not say THESE in 271, it says THIS
Keep translating incorrectly? Tilka can be either 'this' or 'these'. If you notice, 'ayaat' is in plural.
of course bro, you are 100% right in here
You cannot translate "hadhaa l-qur'?n" with ?this AL qur??n?. It has to be ?This qur??n?. Or would you translate ?ha?ihi s-safHa? with ?this AL page? or ?this the page??
Sorry, I'm not an adherent of your modern standard Arabic and its rules. Al-quraan is what confirms the Arabic language for me (46/12). What may sound funny in english is of no consequence to me if al-quraan has already set its own rules about the matter. 'Hadha' has been used with non-specified objects and specified objects. You're telling me both are the same 'this book' and 'this OUR book' ? Hadha al-quraan shows specification and al-quraan's description of itself adds weight to this argument.
hey mate in either cases it id right, with or without the Al, The Al is called "Al Tarif" and can be added or removed from any word
When it comes to your proofs, what are they based on? If you want to show me a proof, then it?s gonna have to be based on logic of the language and context - not already established personal reflections.
It was based on language and context but you brought some artificial linguistic rule to verify it. The problem is, I don't subscribe to those rules. As I said above, lisaanun arabiyan is confirmed by al-quraan for me and so in its own context, it makes perfect sense.
about 63 contexts in the Quran where it referes to itself as Quran
peace
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
But it's doesn't call itself 'al-kitaab'/the book. It calls itself 'tafseel al-kitaab'/the detailing/parsing of al-kitaab (10/37).
The details make up the Whole, we cannot proclaim the whole at once.
And how is this proclamation made ? Do you read from something or is there something cosmic to proclaim?
To tell someone that smoking is incorrect is proclaiming the book. To tell someone to feed the poor is proclaiming the book. But these are details of the WHOLE system.
-
mquran,
I think it?s rather my English that fell short. In Swedish it could be ?kall?, maybe that?s why I came up with that translation. Proclamation sounds a bit stiff, though. I think you can come up with a translation somewhere in between. As for ?da?a? and ?nid???, they speak of physical calls.
The Koran never gives itself names, does not entitle itself. No.
In 413, ?qur??nan? is an adjective and not a proper name. Thus ?a book, with its signs designed by an Arabic proclamation? or something like that.
The word ?h???? can be used in various ways. Though, believing that ?h??? al qur??n? and ?h??? qur??n? is the same thing shows a lack of knowledge of Arabic grammar.
As you say that ?tilka? can refer to a plural, it has no support what so ever in Arabic language. There are already plural forms that are ?h??l? or ??l??ika?. What tilka feels like to you has support only inside your mind and many an islamic scholar.As for the secrets, you have not yet been able to prove for sure that the ?qur??n? inside the Koran actually aims at the title of this very book. It never says ?h??? al kit?bu alla?? ismuhu al qur??n?. Never.
El-Aziz is not a name of God, no. Inside the Koran, the author(s) has put attributes to describe God. That is not the same thing as names.
Listen, a language is a language. Nothing more. It evolves. Things that used to be incorrect start to adapt to modern grammatical rules as time passes by. All languages do the same thing. Let me know if you?re coming anywhere with these questions, ok?
-
about 63 contexts in the Quran where it referes to itself as Quran
Even though I think we've reached that point quite some time ago, it's just about crunch time right now.
For what you just stated I would like only ONE among these 63 contexts where the Koran is mentioning these things together
- The title "qur'?n"
- the title clearly refering to the whole book in question.
Can you do that, can you post such a verse here?