The Quran and the previous scriptures
-
Kyle(24) And those who trust with what was descended to you, and what was descended from before you, and with the end (other life) they are sure/certain .
This is a description of 'al-muttaqeen'. Al-kitaab is guidance for 'al-muttaqeen' who believe in what is revealed to you and what is revealed before you. 'al-muttaqeen' isn't said to be the present al-muttaqeen nor are the present al-muttaqeen told to trust what came before. What is descended remains the same and so al-muttaqeen of all time would believe in it.
No, I was talking about the truth, the book of life, the only book which can be read by all people at all times in any place, the Universe. When I said "all is considered Al Kitaab", I meantall of the TRUTHFUL (through verification) STATEMENTS that are made throughout the history of life. I was not referring to any book, UNLESS that book is verified through life experience as truth.
Sorry, I understood you meant to 'divine books' on paper due to this context
We are told to trust what is descended upon us and that which was descended to those before us. Its not about book vs book, its about truthful statements vs false statements. We do not differentiate between truth given by one or the other. All is considered Al Kitaab.
Ok, I understand now, thanks. Let me ask you please.
Say you're 'reading the universe'. How do you deduce what is a 'universal law'. A law, if you agree is a statement whose truth happens if all conditions are met. How would you deduce a law?
-
No, sorry.
Still don?t see it.
Can you make me see, please?As far as I see it al-kit?b here is an objective reality of which (lim?....min) we can also witness in bayna yadayhi.
The tanz?l and tafs?l of al-kit?b, al-qur?n, then confirms what we can attest of al-kit?b in bayna yadayhi, because both go back to al-kit?b.
Al-qur'?n, one could say, sets straight for us what we see from al-kit?b bayna yadayhi, because its tanz?l happened bil-haqq.
I?d say the interaction here is comparable to the one between al-qur'?n and signs in our self and horizon. -
Leyla As far as I see it al-kit?b here is an objective reality of which (lim?....min) we can also attest in bayna yadayhi.
The tanz?l and tafs?l of al-kit?b, al-qur?n, then confirms what we can attest of al-kit?b in bayna yadayhi.
I?d say the interaction here is comparable to the one between al-qur'?n ans signs in our self and horizon.Al-kitaab cannot be an objective reality without al-quraan. This is because al-kitaab is al-hikmah, laws behind the reality of the universe. These are al-ghaib, not shahaadat.
Here's what I see from our exchange thus far
- I assert the bil-haqq 5/48 refers to al-quraan
- You assert that it refers to the inzaal due to the fact that it's 'min al-kitaab'.
- I disagree with this due to the ayat saying that al-kitaab bil haqq which confirms that which in between his two hands and is a watcher over it. This tells me that its role is like al-quraan's role of clarification. Whatever we understand of al-kitaab via al-quraan can be a watcher over our experience with al-kitaab. Hence it being tafseelul kitaab.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
KyleThe God has descended "the book". It does not say a "scripture" nor "quran".
The correct term here is 'al-kitaab BIL HAQQ' or 'al-kitaab with/in AL-HAQQ'.
Yes the book with the the truth.
What is al-haqq? See 41/53 for the identification that al-quraan itself is al-haqq.
I disagree. 41/53 shows that truth is EVERYWHERE to be verified. For example, you go to someone and tell them they should not smoke. They might disagree but... "We will show them Our signs in the horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth". If the book called "Koran" is verified as truth, this it is part of al -haqq, not al haqq itself.
Therefore, al-kitaab bil haqq if one actually uses al-quraan to explain itself , must refer to al-quraan.
The book with truth is the universe itself, there is nothing truer than objective verification of the laws in action  
Quote
Universal Law (al kitaab) brings us all together, the test is to see if we will start to idolize the portion that was given to us against portions given to others instead of bringing all of the pieces of the puzzle together.Once again, no basis in al-quraan. Al-quraan has asserted itself as 'tafseelul kitaab' or the detailling of al-kitaab. Therefore, there are no 'pieces of the puzzle' idea which you speak of. Quranically, at least. I don't know if there are any sources which you refer to.
Yes, there is basis. This is the topic of "sects", each rejoicing in the portion of "the book" they have. Each has certain 'truths" collected into a book or philosophy and automatically reject any other infomation with testing and verifying it, such as meditation, etc. Divination is used in "quran" and "bible" yet followers of both reject it completely without even testing it.
Regarding "al quran", it only means "reading/proclamation". It refers to the book called "Koran", itrefers to the book called "bible", it refers to the speech of one telling ithers dont smoke cigareetes, it refers to a father telling his son about sex, etc. All of that is "quran", but we determine if it is from the God or not by seeing if there are contradictions with al kitaab (universal law).
-
mquran I disagree with this due to the ayat saying that al-kitaab bil haqq which confirms that which in between his two hands and is a watcher over it. This tells me that its role is like al-quraan's role of clarification. Whatever we understand of al-kitaab via al-quraan can be a watcher over our experience with al-kitaab. Hence it being tafseelul kitaab.
Phew..... damn good analysis, I have to admit.
However, it still leaves questions for meThis is because al-kitaab is al-hikmah, laws behind the reality of the universe. These are al-ghaib, not shahaadat.
So the qur'?n is totally identical to the laws behind the reality of the universe, as the entity that we hold in our hands today?
In form, arabic language etc., etc..That idea seems a little bit problematic to me.
Can you elaborate, please?Until now I rather saw it as an abstraction of those laws that only refers to an identity of meaning.
-
idolfree1
According to what I see and read al-qur'?n establishes the absoluteness of certain terms through the article, al.
Thus al-haqq is not simply a truth, it is the Absolute Truth, God.So, the qur'?n does not call itself qur'?n or qur'?nun, a reading.
It calls itself al-qur'?n, the absolute reading.
It is not one amongst others, it is THE. -
LeylaSo the qur'?n is totally identical to the laws behind the reality of the universe, as the entity that we hold in our hands today?
In form, arabic language etc., etc..For example Al-quraan asserts al-fasiqoon will be destroyed. The correct meaning of this will find expression in universal laws.
That idea seems a little bit problematic to me.
Can you elaborate, please?Until now I rather saw it as an abstraction of those laws that only refers to an identity of meaning.
I don't understand the difference between 'abstraction of those laws' and what I just explained, sorry?
-
Yet it's undisputedly accepted as a previous scripture.
I urge forum members who believe that at-tauraat and al-injeel are 'the bible' and that 'the bible' is a 'previous scripture' to check al-quraan if it's your criteria and see if it fits.
what makes you think that it aint one of the previous distorted scriptures?
Peace,
Sugar -
Peace be upon you MQ,
To confirm and to watch over something requires something phenomenological/objective in the world and that's why al-haqq refers to al-quraan here.
Yes, universal law IS objective, thats how we have chemistry, physics, biology, etc.
-
mquran I don't understand the difference between 'abstraction of those laws' and what I just explained, sorry?
Right, there is none.
However, there is a difference between "abstraction of those laws" and "identical to those laws", wouldn?t you say so?
When you say that al-kit?b is identical to al-qur'?n then this poses a problem.
Assertion that al-fasiq?n will be destroyed is not identical to al-fasiq?n being destroyed.
In essence, yes. But not in form.
In being, yes. But not in existence.So, when you say al-kit?b and al-qur'?n are one in essence, I agree perfectly.
But I don?t see them being one as entities, as existences.
Or? -
Peace,
Bible is not the injeel and taurah. We are still collecting all the gospels and jewish scriptures to get a whole picture. The bible is only 1 little part of the whole, and then still we have to find out what parts can be corrupted and which not.
-
Leyla However, there is a difference between "abstraction of those laws" and "identical to those laws", wouldn?t you say so?
When you say that al-kit?b is identical to al-qur'?n then this poses a problem.
Assertion that al-fasiq?n will be destroyed is not identical to al-fasiq?n being destroyed.
In essence, yes. But not in form.
In being, yes. But not in existence.So, when you say al-kit?b and al-qur'?n are one in essence, I agree perfectly.
But I don?t see them being one as entities, as existences.I see what you mean be abstraction now and I do agree with you. However, I do suggest the word 'induction' (taking from something specific (ayaatun muhkamaat in this case) and finding its general clarification in al-quraan's ayaatun bayyinatun).
-
Peace be upon you Leyla,
idolfree1
When you read the arabic text it is not "before you" in a chronological sense, I`d say.Please elaborate for me. If you dont mind, use the arabic and translation together so I can get the complete picture.
-
idolfree1
The word that?s translated here as "before" is "min qablika".
The line is "walladh?na yu'min?na bim? 'unzila ilayka wa ma unzila min qablika".Well, min means from, then comes the word "qabl" with the ending "ika" which signifies something that belongs to you.
Qabl is interesting here. It refers to something that is phenomenologically in front of you, this can, but does not necessarily need to, refer to something before you in a chronological sense, I opine.
You will know the word "qiblah", which refers to your direction, that which is in front of you when you are in a certain position.
This comes from the same root.
The "qiblah" is not something that you have passed already. Rather it is the opposit. It is what you face.
You may also know the word "qab?l" which means "accepted", you take it as directly in front of you, you don?t push it far away.
Same root again. -
Peace be upon you MQ,
Quote
Kyle(24) And those who trust with what was descended to you, and what was descended from before you, and with the end (other life) they are sure/certain .This is a description of 'al-muttaqeen'. Al-kitaab is guidance for 'al-muttaqeen' who believe in what is revealed to you and what is revealed before you. 'al-muttaqeen' isn't said to be the present al-muttaqeen nor are the present al-muttaqeen told to trust what came before. What is descended remains the same and so al-muttaqeen of all time would believe in it.
And what is more steady and consistent than the objective universal laws? It is the very same sun that shines on every single person on this forum and every single person to have lived on this earth. The very same air. Everything the same. No change will you find in it  
Quote
No, I was talking about the truth, the book of life, the only book which can be read by all people at all times in any place, the Universe. When I said "all is considered Al Kitaab", I meantall of the TRUTHFUL (through verification) STATEMENTS that are made throughout the history of life. I was not referring to any book, UNLESS that book is verified through life experience as truth.Sorry, I understood you meant to 'divine books' on paper due to this context
We are told to trust what is descended upon us and that which was descended to those before us. Its not about book vs book, its about truthful statements vs false statements. We do not differentiate between truth given by one or the other. All is considered Al Kitaab.
Ok, I understand now, thanks. Let me ask you please.
Say you're 'reading the universe'. How do you deduce what is a 'universal law'. A law, if you agree is a statement whose truth happens if all conditions are met. How would you deduce a law?
We deduce a law by persistant observation, same way the laws of chemistry. physics, biololgy, etc were deduced. In this time of Television, radio, etc it is a difficult task. But the basics behind it is "measurment". Thats why there is talk of "weight of a mustard seed" etc. You try one way, it doesnt work, you try another you get closer, yuo try another you get further, so you move back the other way and get closer, fianlly you get there, and then you continue to follow that path to make sure you are really there. It is teh same proceedure used by our example Ibrahim, when he looked at the star he said "this is my Lord", but when it disappeared "I do not like those that disappear", then the same for teh moon , then sun, finally stating "You (my) nation, that I am innocent/renouncing from what you associate."
Ibrahim went after that which is consistent, that which lasts. All day long 1+1 will equal 2. Not Physical books that come and go. Books are written to prevent us from going all the way back to the beginning. Imagine if all the Physics books and teachers were gone, how we would have to start from the beginning. But the standard of physics is not the books or teachers but the universal laws that the teachers learned from and wrote the books according to.
-
We deduce a law by persistant observation, same way the laws of chemistry. physics, biololgy, etc were deduced. In this time of Television, radio, etc it is a difficult task. But the basics behind it is "measurment". Thats why there is talk of "weight of a mustard seed" etc. You try one way, it doesnt work, you try another you get closer, yuo try another you get further, so you move back the other way and get closer, fianlly you get there, and then you continue to follow that path to make sure you are really there. It is teh same proceedure used by our example Ibrahim, when he looked at the star he said "this is my Lord", but when it disappeared "I do not like those that disappear", then the same for teh moon , then sun, finally stating "You (my) nation, that I am innocent/renouncing from what you associate."
Ibrahim went after that which is consistent, that which lasts. All day long 1+1 will equal 2. Not Physical books that come and go. Books are written to prevent us from going all the way back to the beginning. Imagine if all the Physics books and teachers were gone, how we would have to start from the beginning. But the standard of physics is not the books or teachers but the universal laws that the teachers learned from and wrote the books according to.Ok, I take your point. Let me pose an example if you wish to go along
During the Hobbesian period of political thought, it was thought that the White Man was superior to the Afro-man. The reason for this is that by observation, the White Man had colonised and enslaved the Black-man. No less than certain American presidents thought that the Afroman was only 3/5'ths human.
Consider this example above to be a hypothetical one for now (to avoid pedantic and distracting conversations about it). What can we deduce from the above
-
The formulation of natural universal law is limited by mankind's capacity to observe, namely the space-time limitation.
-
Mankind has always a tendency to be biased in his observation.
The afro-man could easily say, this is the universal law that the chosen ones of God have to suffer before achieving heavenly bliss. How are we to contradict him?
-
-
Peace be upon you Leyla,
According to what I see and read al-qur'?n establishes the absoluteness of certain terms through the article, al.
Thus al-haqq is not simply a truth, it is the Absolute Truth, God.So, the qur'?n does not call itself qur'?n or qur'?nun, a reading.
It calls itself al-qur'?n, the absolute reading.
It is not one amongst others, it is THE.Yes, THE TRUTH (al haqq).
Mankind was once ONE community. We all come from ONE GOD, who is at the core of our being.
There is only one verse, the UNI(one) VERSE.
We are putting the pieces of the puzzle back together, that which the God commands to be joined. But right now we see things in pieces. So what looks like seperate truths, and seperate readings, are really ONE, therefore AL. All things come from "BE" and it becomes.
-
Peace be upon you Leyla,
The word that?s translated here as "before" is "min qablika".
The line is "walladh?na yu'min?na bim? 'unzila ilayka wa ma unzila min qablika".Well, min means from, then comes the word "qabl" with the ending "ika" which signifies something that belongs to you.
Qabl is interesting here. It refers to something that is phenomenologically in front of you, this can, but does not necessarily need to, refer to something before you in a chronological sense, I opine.
You will know the word "qiblah", which refers to your direction, that which is in front of you when you are in a certain position.
This comes from the same root.
The "qiblah" is not something that you have passed already. Rather it is the opposit. It is what you face.
You may also know the word "qab?l" which means "accepted", you take it as directly in front of you, you don?t push it far away.
Same root again.Thank you for your patience and detailed explanation. But it leaves further question. It seems redundant to say "that which was revealed to you and that which is "in front" of you , because that which is revealed to you would be in front of you.
So I still think of it as that which was descended upon you (which you have there by default) and that which was descended before you (which you ALSO have right there to compare one to the recent confirmation). Please give me your thoughts.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
Ok, I take your point. Let me pose an example if you wish to go along
Always willing with the sincere seekers brother!
During the Hobbesian period of political thought, it was thought that the White Man was superior to the Afro-man. The reason for this is that by observation, the White Man had colonised and enslaved the Black-man. No less than certain American presidents thought that the Afroman was only 3/5'ths human.
Consider this example above to be a hypothetical one for now (to avoid pedantic and distracting conversations about it). What can we deduce from the above
-
The formulation of natural universal law is limited by mankind's capacity to observe, namely the space-time limitation.
-
Mankind has always a tendency to be biased in his observation.
The afro-man could easily say, this is the universal law that the chosen ones of God have to suffer before achieving heavenly bliss. How are we to contradict him?
The easy answer would be to compare that observation to Ibrahim calling the star "My Lord".
But certainly not all Africans had that view, there were others, who went deeper inside of thier being and rebelled agains the "masses".
The main point I want to stress is that TRUTH is never arrived at by following emotions. One must have what the ancients called a "stable heart", meaning they are not moved by emotion, they command the energies (e-motion).
The idea that the African was less than the European was a mental strategy to give Europeans a belief (thought + energy) in which to get behind and allow themselves to enslave another human being.
-