Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. General Issues / Questions
  3. Questions/Comments on the Quran
  4. the reading(quran) is not the title of any book

the reading(quran) is not the title of any book

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Questions/Comments on the Quran
301 Posts 13 Posters 10.7k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    Fahad1
    wrote on last edited by
    #175

    Not at all. The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

    words of man ? ! try this arrow

    "There was a fundamental crisis in mathematics about a hundred years ago, a basic disturbance that affected all of logic till it was repaired. Logicians realized that for centuries they had left out the concept of "Self-reference." For centuries, Aristotle?s rule of the "Excluded middle" had been used. This rule is a proposition that states, "Every proposition is either true or false." Somebody was smart enough to question that very proposition. What if that proposition that states that every proposition is either true or false is false? People had overlooked that for centuries. Not so the Koran. If the Koran is what it claims to be then it should be aware of self-reference, as applied to its own statements."
    click here
    Koran and Self-Reference

    (for discussion with the author, visit http//rationalreality.forumsplace.com/message42.html )
    .

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • U Offline
      U Offline
      unknownuser
      wrote on last edited by
      #176

      Hello All

      Please read the following and I will keep adding to it

      The inimitability of the Quran
      The inimitability of the Quran is not limited to its content. In fact, the Holy Book of Islam is held by the Muslim scholars to be inimitable not only in its content but also in its language. The Quran, it has been constantly maintained, embodies linguistic and literary beauty which exceeds anything of human origin. This is borne out by the fact that no-one has ever been able to compose anything remotely resembling it in its linguistic, literary, or conceptual elegance. This point is repeatedly emphasized in the Holy Book itself. Thus the Quran says

      "If the whole of mankind and the jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed each other up."

      (8

      The inimitable nature of the Quran was recognized by generation after generation of scholars. Al-Tabari (d. 923) dealt with this subject in his voluminous study of the Holy Book.

      Al-Zamakhshari elaborated on this theme in his famous al-Kashshaf, as did Baydawi in his Tafsir. AlBaqillam, a prominent scholar, wrote a book which he devoted entirely to this subject and to which he gave the title I'jaz al-Quran (The Inimitability of the Quran). Here he wrote

      The Quran is so wonderfully arranged and so marvellously composed, and so exalted is its literary excellence that it is beyond what any mere creature could attain.

      Al-Jawziyya, also a noted scholar, added that

      Whoever knows Arabic and is acquainted with lexicography, grammar, rhetoric, and Arabic poetry and prose recognizes ipso facto the supremacy of the Quran

      Ibn Khaldun also dealt with certain aspects of the style of the Quran

      The inimitability of the Quran consists in the fact that its language indicates all the requirements of the situation referred to, whether they are stated or understood. This represents the highest degree of speech. In addition, the Quran is perfect in the choice of words and excellence of arrangement.

      The inimitability as well as the linguistic significance of the Quran can be better understood within its pre-Islamic context and according to the role language played during that period. Furthermore, the linguistic significance of the Quran can also be better understood within that same context. The linguistic aspect of the Holy Book was brilliantly used by the Prophet in challenging and eventually prevailing upon his fellow Arabs who held in high esteem those who were eloquent and articulate. The eloquence of the Quran clearly impressed and overwhelmed them. This explains why the Quran has been referred to as 'Muhammad's miracle', or. as the 'miracle of Islam'. The use of the power of the Quran as a means of persuasion was admitted by the Prophet himself and was mentioned repeatedly in the Quran mostly in the form of a challenge to the disbelievers to produce something similar. On the need and justification for the Prophet to use a book such as the Quran, Ibn Qutayba wrote

      God offered the Quran as the Prophet's sign in the same way as He offered signs for all the other prophets. He sent the things most appropriate to the time in which they were sent. Thus Moses had the power to divide the sea with his hand and rod, and to let the rock burst forth with water in the desert, and all his other signs in a time of magic. And Jesus had the power to bring the dead back to life, to make birds out of clay, to cure those who had been blind from birth and the leprous, and all his other signs in a time of medicine. And Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him salvation, had the book and all his other signs in a time of eloquence.

      Footnotes
      A number of excellent works were devoted entirely to this aspect of tne Quran, e.g., al-Suyiti, al Itqan, and al-Baqillani, I'jaz al-Quran, Beirut, 1979.

      Abu Ja far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Quran.

      Mahmud b. Umar al-Zamakhashari (d. 1143).

      Nasr al-Din al-Baidawi (d. 1286)

      Al Baqillan, Op. Cit.. pp 45 ff

      Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Kitab al-Fawai'id al-mushawwig ila ?ulum al-Quran wa'ilm al-bayan, Cairo, 1909, pp. 7, 246.

      Ibn Khaldun, Op. Cit., vol. 3, 338

      Ibn Qutayba, Kitab Ta'wil mushkil al-Quran, Cairo, 1954, p. 10.

      Ibn Khaldun, Op. Cit., vol. 3, 1266

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • U Offline
        U Offline
        unknownuser
        wrote on last edited by
        #177

        Hello, just a small bit of info

        Those are the known Arabs who took the Quran challenge only to fail misreably

        Ibn al-Mukaffa

        Musaylimah

        Abul Ala al Marri

        Yahya b. al Hakam al Ghazal

        Sayyid Ali Muhammad

        Ibn al Rawandi

        Bassar bin Burd

        Sahib Ibn Abbad

        Abul Atahiya

        I may post a lil info regarding each one failed try.

        Peace

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • E Offline
          E Offline
          el-Aziz
          wrote on last edited by
          #178

          Not at all. The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

          words of man ? ! try this arrow

          ............................

          Would you mind putting it in your own words instead? You have already refered to the article in question and I have already read it. Please show me what relevance this has to what I just stated about the Koran being the word of man and not of God?s.

          Regards,
          S

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • E Offline
            E Offline
            el-Aziz
            wrote on last edited by
            #179

            Frid Danish,

            Peace el-Aziz,

            My translation at first sight would read something like ?and the messenger says ?my Lord, my people has forsaken this call/proclamation??. There?s nothing really implying that it would refer to the book where this scenario is being painted.

            I believe that no doubt the messenger called/proclaimed to his people all that was commanded of him. But his call/proclamation was written down in a book form to be remembered for generations to take heed on. Once in a book form, in cannot be a "call or a proclamation" by verbal speech, but by reading. Keeping in mind that every book on earth has a recognition by its title, hence, this very book being an Arabic one, was given the same title of Quran in Arabic, which you see it as a call/proclamation. It is not necessary for any book to testify and authenticate its' title/name within its own contents. Besides, I sincerely doubt that anyone on earth has either come across or changed the name/title of this book, other than what IT IS.....The Quran.

            ?and I don?t believe that this refers to something that has occured but is actually happening.
            I don?t mind a book having a title to be recognized by, but I?m confident that ?qur??n? inside the Koran does not refer to the book itself, but the call or proclamation that is to be remembered with the help of this book. The call does not fit in any book, but the whatever book (such as the Koran) may very well speak of the call, not actually reproducing it or giving account for it in words that can be typed with ink.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              Fahad1
              wrote on last edited by
              #180

              Not at all. The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

              words of man ? ! try this arrow

              ............................

              Would you mind putting it in your own words instead?

              why do i need to put it in my own words ?! the author has written and explained in better words than i can explain in my words . why do u need my words ? what if i say the exact thing that the article says ?!

              You have already refered to the article in question and I have already read it. Please show me what relevance this has to what I just stated about the Koran being the word of man and not of God?s.

              you wrote

              The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

              i was just providing you that guarantee ,that the Koran is something other than words of men . something that it claims to be .

              however i think that this discussion about "word of god or man" should be continued on seperate thread .

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • E Offline
                E Offline
                el-Aziz
                wrote on last edited by
                #181

                Not at all. The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

                words of man ? ! try this arrow

                ............................

                Would you mind putting it in your own words instead?

                why do i need to put it in my own words ?! the author has written and explained in better words than i can explain in my words . why do u need my words ? what if i say the exact thing that the article says ?!

                You have already refered to the article in question and I have already read it. Please show me what relevance this has to what I just stated about the Koran being the word of man and not of God?s.

                you wrote

                The words of the Koran are the words of man. They are written by men thus there's nothing that can guarantee them being other than that.

                i was just providing you that guarantee ,that the Koran is something other than words of men . something that it claims to be .

                however i think that this discussion about "word of god or man" should be continued on seperate thread .

                Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?

                And still, what you quoted a couple of posts ago doesn't really guarantee no words of God and not of man, does it?

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  Fahad1
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #182

                  Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?

                  when did i say that Koran contains all of God's words ?!

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • E Offline
                    E Offline
                    el-Aziz
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #183

                    Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?

                    when did i say that Koran contains all of God's words ?!

                    You didn't say all. Nor did I. What I said was to express the words of God. Not a couple of them, not a book, not a newspaper. No word that can be typed is sufficient to express something on behalf of the Lord. Neither do I think that the Koran is an exception by mentioning some of them. Period.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      Fahad1
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #184

                      Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?

                      when did i say that Koran contains all of God's words ?!

                      You didn't say all. Nor did I. What I said was to express the words of God. Not a couple of them, not a book, not a newspaper. No word that can be typed is sufficient to express something on behalf of the Lord.

                      and where did u get that idea from ?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • E Offline
                        E Offline
                        el-Aziz
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #185

                        Well, the Koran says that all the ink in the world wouldn't be sufficient to express the words of God. How does that fit your "guarantee" of the Koran being God's very own words and not of man?

                        when did i say that Koran contains all of God's words ?!

                        You didn't say all. Nor did I. What I said was to express the words of God. Not a couple of them, not a book, not a newspaper. No word that can be typed is sufficient to express something on behalf of the Lord.

                        and where did u get that idea from ?

                        Well, since I didn't find it in the Encyclopedia Britannica under "idea", I had to do some thinking and reflectioning on my own.
                        A long shot, I admit - but I can assure you it was worth it! 😉

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • F Offline
                          F Offline
                          Fahad1
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #186

                          i dont agree with your idea .

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • U Offline
                            U Offline
                            unknownuser
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #187

                            An example of Musaylimah the liar

                            During the time of Prophet Muhammad there arose a man called Musaylimah who started claiming the Prophethood. So, he also started saying "revelatory pronouncements". His revelatory pronouncements resembled

                            The form of these sayings correspond to a large extent with that of the earliest surahs, and they are in part prefaced by strange oaths, just like the surahs. It is however questionable whether Musaylimah was in fact the source of any of these sayings. Perhaps they were all invented at a later date and ascribed to him as a clumsy imitator of Muhammad. One of the sayings is modelled in a particularly obvious fashion on the mode of expression of the Quran. it runs

                            "The elephant. What is the elephant? And who shall tell you what is the elephant? He has a ropy tail and a long trunk. this is a trifle of our Lord's creations."

                            lol lol lol lol lol lol

                            Concerning the style of his speech

                            He followed the kahin style of rhymed prose, and of the pronouncing of oaths. One such, swearing by mountain goat, the black smooth-skinned wolf and dark night are suggestive of animals symbolic of the pagan gods.

                            And

                            When Musaylimah met the Prophetess Sajah they parleyed in rhymed prose, Musaylimah being credited with the use of "Islamic" turns of phrase such as 'Alay-na min salawati ma'shari abrar, ... yaqumuna 'l-layla wa-yasumuna 'l-nahar, li-rabbi-kumu'l-kubbar, rabbi 'l-ghuyumi wa 'l-amtar (Upon us are the blessings from a company of dutful men ... The night they spend in vigil; during the day they fast for your great Lord, Lord of the cloud and rains).

                            Al-Baqillan?, who systematically analyzed the poetry of Musaylimah (apart from Imru' al-Qais and others) has been quoted

                            The pieces reported to have been composed by Musaylimah are so ridiculously poor in style that nobody could seriously compare them with the Quran.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • U Offline
                              U Offline
                              unknownuser
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #188

                              Peace be upon you Ahmed,

                              Thanks for sharing that story, but what does it support?

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • U Offline
                                U Offline
                                unknownuser
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #189

                                Peace be upon you,

                                Can we serve the God without "Koran" as a partner?

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • E Offline
                                  E Offline
                                  el-Aziz
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #190

                                  i dont agree with your idea .

                                  Can I ask you (and I'm not being ironic)...have you been doing any thinking of your own, or are you controlled by common interpretations of books as the Koran?

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • U Offline
                                    U Offline
                                    unknownuser
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #191

                                    Peace be upon you Ahmed,

                                    Thanks for sharing that story, but what does it support?

                                    Peace mate

                                    it supports 1788

                                    ie. if the Quran is human words as some confused muslims/non muslims think then the challenge 1788 should have been met at least once in 1400 years

                                    so I'm showing the others who know nothing about the arabic language, how the Quran can not be inimitaded using its original langauge and by top arabic language experts

                                    HENCE IT IS THE EXACT WORDS OF ALLAH AND CAN NOT BE HUMAN AS THE QURAN STATED IN 1788

                                    I still have a few trial by aome arabic language talents and their failure to create somthing like the Arabic Quran

                                    all those following ideas based on the English Quran are most liely flawed 100%

                                    peace

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • F Offline
                                      F Offline
                                      Fahad1
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #192

                                      i dont agree with your idea .

                                      Can I ask you (and I'm not being ironic)...have you been doing any thinking of your own, or are you controlled by common interpretations of books as the Koran?

                                      in the light of the Koran . without it , i was blind .

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • E Offline
                                        E Offline
                                        el-Aziz
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #193

                                        Peace be upon you Ahmed,

                                        Thanks for sharing that story, but what does it support?

                                        Peace mate

                                        it supports 1788

                                        ie. if the Quran is human words as some confused muslims/non muslims think then the challenge 1788 should have been met at least once in 1400 years

                                        so I'm showing the others who know nothing about the arabic language, how the Quran can not be inimitaded using its original langauge and by top arabic language experts

                                        HENCE IT IS THE EXACT WORDS OF ALLAH AND CAN NOT BE HUMAN AS THE QURAN STATED IN 1788

                                        I still have a few trial by aome arabic language talents and their failure to create somthing like the Arabic Quran

                                        all those following ideas based on the English Quran are most liely flawed 100%

                                        peace

                                        I really don't get it. What is it in your opinion that proves that this supposedly impossible challenge is the word of God and nothing else?

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • E Offline
                                          E Offline
                                          el-Aziz
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #194

                                          i dont agree with your idea .

                                          Can I ask you (and I'm not being ironic)...have you been doing any thinking of your own, or are you controlled by common interpretations of books as the Koran?

                                          in the light of the Koran . without it , i was blind .

                                          You know what defines a blind person? One that cannot see. One that has lost his eye sight.
                                          So here's my question, are you blind or seeing as as you say you cannot see using your very own eyes, the ones that were given to you by God?

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users