the reading(quran) is not the title of any book
-
Saladin, mquran, anyone reading this post;
- The word "qur'an" means a recitation or something being called out. Thus there's nothing aiming in the direction of the book being "al-qur'an" in this context. "Why not?" is simply not enough substance to me.
Ahmed answered this before too .but no one else commented on it
- The Quran means "reading"
Wrong again, the Qira'a means Reading and the Quran word is NEVER EVER used in the arabic language to express the meaning of reading
Quran is a name to a book that incline it should be read and that is A LOGICAL INCLINATION OF UNDERSTANDING NOT A TRUE MEANING, THE WORD QURAN HAS NO MEANING BUT A NAME OF A SCRIPTURE
peace
That the qur?an wouldn?t be anything but the name of a book is stupid. The root qara? appears in both Aramaic and Hebrew language long before the qur?an was supposedly written.
how cannot one research/ponder over the Quran ?
I?m not talking about the qur?an such as the title of a book. When something is read/called out/proclaimed to you, you have the option of verify the information that you?re being given or you just believe it without doing any background check. This is what the verse means as far as I can see.
My reason is this
But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say "Bring us a reading other than this (biquraanin ghairi hadhaa), or change this," Say "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it I follow naught but what is revealed unto me if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (10/15)
Now, this verse obviously speaks of something else but what has already been typed down. It actually encourages one to follow what is inspired to one self. Could that be the qur?an? Give it a good thought, will you?
and also
This Qur'an (hadhaa AL-QURAAN) is not such as can be produced by other than God....
(10/37)Notice that despite already being called 'hadhaa', the word is still 'AL-quraan', so literally 'this THE quraan'.
I wouldn?t jump to such grammatically inaccurate assertions. This is how the Arabic language uses demonstrative pronouns. Let me give you an example
?sa?alatn? 'l bint `an al bint al okhr? - The girl asked us about the other girl? It uses AL bint for both of the girls. Does that mean they?re the same person? No way, Jos -
Now, this verse obviously speaks of something else but what has already been typed down. It actually encourages one to follow what is inspired to one self. Could that be the quran? Give it a good thought, will you
It's not someTHING other than this
It's a QURAAN other than this. What is 'this' , 'hadhaa'? 10/37 tells u what it is.
I wouldnt jump to such grammatically inaccurate assertions. This is how the Arabic language uses demonstrative pronouns. Let me give you an example
saalatn? 'l bint `an al bint al okhr? - The girl asked us about the other girl It uses AL bint for both of the girls. Does that mean theyre the same person? No way, Jos?!Poor example showing lack of understanding in my point.
I'm trying to tell you, that 'hadha' is already demonstrative, the 'al' is unnecessary unless it was pointing to something specific.
-
how cannot one research/ponder over the Quran ?
I?m not talking about the qur?an such as the title of a book. When something is read/called out/proclaimed to you, you have the option of verify the information that you?re being given or you just believe it without doing any background check. This is what the verse means as far as I can see.
salam.
i see. what i was trying to show is that that which is being "read/called out/"(quran) refers to the 114 chapters . if u believe what u believe ,then Quran/"reading/calling out" is not just about any reading at all , but a specefic one , i.e the 114 chapters . -
Peace,
salam.
i see. what i was trying to show is that that which is being "read/called out/"(quran) refers to the 114 chapters . if u believe what u believe ,then Quran/"reading/calling out" is not just about any reading at all , but a specefic one , i.e the 114 chapters .I heard you the first time. Still, what you haven't yet been able to give any substance for is that the word "qur'an" inside "the koran" actually would refer to the book of this matter.
-
I heard you the first time. Still, what you haven't yet been able to give any substance for is that the word "qur'an" inside "the koran" actually would refer to the book of this matter
Lets get this straight. YOU open a book which keeps saying 'this this this' and you can't accept that it refers to itself?
-
Now, this verse obviously speaks of something else but what has already been typed down. It actually encourages one to follow what is inspired to one self. Could that be the qur?an? Give it a good thought, will you?
It's not someTHING other than this )
It's a QURAAN other than this. What is 'this' , 'hadhaa'? 10/37 tells u what it is.
The qur'an in 1015 can be seen as the call of the verse. The encouragment, so to speak. There's nothing really leading us towards the direction of the book itself.
The same goes for verse number 37, it is to be read in the context of other verses. That is what THIS reading means. Still nothing pointing to the title of a book.
To read is not only to transfer letters into words, but also to anounce them, speak them and proclaim. This is the meaning of the koranic "qara'", just like any other elder semitic scripture.I'm trying to tell you, that 'hadha' is already demonstrative, the 'al' is unnecessary unless it was pointing to something specific.
The AL is always there after a demonstrative and a demonstrative pronoun always points to something specific. So what's the point I missed?
-
I heard you the first time. Still, what you haven't yet been able to give any substance for is that the word "qur'an" inside "the koran" actually would refer to the book of this matter
Lets get this straight. YOU open a book which keeps saying 'this this this' and you can't accept that it refers to itself?
"Qur'an" still doesn't mean "book".
-
Peace,
salam.
i see. what i was trying to show is that that which is being "read/called out/"(quran) refers to the 114 chapters . if u believe what u believe ,then Quran/"reading/calling out" is not just about any reading at all , but a specefic one , i.e the 114 chapters .I heard you the first time. Still, what you haven't yet been able to give any substance for is that the word "qur'an" inside "the koran" actually would refer to the book of this matter.
whew! i have explained my position in my earlier posts in the debate . u have yet to show WHY the "al quraan" should not refer to the 114 chapters .
-
I heard you the first time. Still, what you haven't yet been able to give any substance for is that the word "qur'an" inside "the koran" actually would refer to the book of this matter
Lets get this straight. YOU open a book which keeps saying 'this this this' and you can't accept that it refers to itself?
"Qur'an" still doesn't mean "book".
nor did we say that it does .
-
I heard you the first time. Still, what you haven't yet been able to give any substance for is that the word "qur'an" inside "the koran" actually would refer to the book of this matter
Lets get this straight. YOU open a book which keeps saying 'this this this' and you can't accept that it refers to itself?
"Qur'an" still doesn't mean "book".
nor did we say that it does .
I thought mq posted on his own
-
I heard you the first time. Still, what you haven't yet been able to give any substance for is that the word "qur'an" inside "the koran" actually would refer to the book of this matter.
whew! i have explained my position in my earlier posts in the debate . u have yet to show WHY the "al quraan" should not refer to the 114 chapters .
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?
-
I heard you the first time. Still, what you haven't yet been able to give any substance for is that the word "qur'an" inside "the koran" actually would refer to the book of this matter.
whew! i have explained my position in my earlier posts in the debate . u have yet to show WHY the "al quraan" should not refer to the 114 chapters .
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 ? -
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?
-
- The word "qur'an" means a recitation or something being called out. Thus there's nothing aiming in the direction of the book being "al-qur'an" in this context. "Why not?" is simply not enough substance to me.
Ahmed answered this before too .but no one else commented on it
- The Quran means "reading"
Wrong again, the Qira'a means Reading and the Quran word is NEVER EVER used in the arabic language to express the meaning of reading
Quran is a name to a book that incline it should be read and that is A LOGICAL INCLINATION OF UNDERSTANDING NOT A TRUE MEANING, THE WORD QURAN HAS NO MEANING BUT A NAME OF A SCRIPTURE
peace
That the qur?an wouldn?t be anything but the name of a book is stupid. The root qara? appears in both Aramaic and Hebrew language long before the qur?an was supposedly written.
Hi
well if I take another WELL ESTABLIDHED and WELL FOUNDED arabic word that means nothing but Reading and use it to interpet the scripture name I will be FAR MORE DUMBER
here it is so you may learn something bro
it happens to be that there is only one word in arabic that means Reading
Reading in Engllish = "" in Arabic
now here is my next question,
does "" look Exactly the SAME as ""
I have just asked my very young son the same question "he does not speak arabic though" and he said the blue shape and the red shape can Not match, you know he plays that matching shapes game a lot, children do have expreince in matching shapes perfectly, did you play that game when you are a child bro?, I did, and apparantly I'm addiected to it and still playing it with my son lol
here is another question mate,
why on earth someone names a book a name means Reading?
well, let me ask my daughter this question this time
hey daughter, can you please tell me what humans should do with any book?
she said this exactly bro they should read it dad
I asked her, is anything else possible they can do with it
she said, yep they can make it "Karatees" lol
so calling a book a "Reading" is far more stupid bro
and here is my last question bro
assume we need to derive 20 arabic words from a one 3 letters root,
why we need to do that?, sure it must be to create new words,
then why we need to create new words bro?, well to create new meanings, can you guess of any other reason for creating new words? you need to think hard for this one bro, I could not find any myself
so we ended up with 20 words with different meaning,
here is the question bro, why on earth I did it from the first place if for every word I use I will use the meaning of the root?, see, I got you here bro, lol
so after the new words are driven, each one is dealt indpendently from the root
Hence this root method is damn inaccurate, confusing, funny sometimes, and is a novice method to learn the true arabic, possibly for kids it is ok
I wouldn?t jump to such grammatically inaccurate assertions. This is how the Arabic language uses demonstrative pronouns. Let me give you an example
?sa?alatn? 'l bint `an al bint al okhr? - The girl asked us about the other girl? It uses AL bint for both of the girls. Does that mean they?re the same person? No way, Jos?!lol , nice try bro, but you added the word "Okhra" which mean "Another", thanks for the laugh mate
cheers
-
"Qur'an" still doesn't mean "book".
But the book you're holding contains declarations/readings.
i thought mq posted on his own
This is not a wrestling match, im afraid. I support Saladin's position because it's the truth, not because it proves you wrong.
-
Ahmad,
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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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!
-
"Qur'an" still doesn't mean "book".
But the book you're holding contains declarations/readings.
Yes it does. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same, does 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?I think you get the picture...
-
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