The Quran and the previous scriptures
-
Is it true that the Quran is the best scripture God sent to mankind or are we not suppose to differentiate the scriptures cause I heard someone say that we should not differentiate the scriptures like we should not differentiate the messengers.
???Peace,
Sugar -
Peace be upon you Sugar,
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.
-
Peace,
even though in principle i agree with idolfree, i would like to add (concerning the scriptures of jews, christians and muslims)
no distinction between messengers is clear
but as far as i remember there is a verse in quran stating that quran abrogates previous scriptures
also, the fact that quran is still available in the original language and not translations / and testaments chosen by men clearly makes it a better source (IMO)
lk
-
Salaam Sugar,
Perhaps this ayat is what you're looking for?
And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute.
=adley=
-
Peace be upon you,
Lets discuss 548 closer
(54 And We descended to you The Book with the truth..
The God has descended "the book". It does not say a "scripture" nor "quran".
...confirming to what (is) between his hands from The Book
Universal Law, which can be witnesed at any time , by any person, in any place in the world, confirms any TRUE teachings that are between the hands of man.
and guarding/protecting on it, so judge/rule between them with what God descended and do not follow their self attractions for desires about what came to you from the truth, to each from you We made/put God's decreed way of life/method/law and order , and a clear/easy/plain way , and if God wanted/willed, He would have made you one nation/generation, and but to test you in what He gave you, so race/surpass (to) the goodnesses/generosity (good deeds), to God (is) your return altogether, so He informs you with what you were in it differing/disagreeing (P).
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.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
It never fails to amaze me how blatant the double standards are when it comes to the bible compared to other issues.
Supposing I came along and said 'look, the Quran mentions 'salaat' and in the world we see Sunnis and Shias (people who call themselves 'muslim) doing what they call the salaat, therefore the Quran must be referring to that'. That's what's commonly accepted'. Many in the forum I guess would be shocked, because that's clearly not how one determines the identity of the signified according to Al-Quraan and they would be right.
Yet the same thing goes on for the bible all the time.
Lets consider the bible It never calls itself the bible. It never proposes itself to the reader as it doesn't know itself. It never proposes a methodology of authentication. It's description in al-quraan (as at-tauraat and al-injeel) clearly contradicts the characteristics of the book we find in the world as 'the bible'. It's ideology, despite al-quraan's assertion that all messengers preached the same message, is different from al-quraan.
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.
-
Sugar Is it true that the Quran is the best scripture God sent to mankind or are we not suppose to differentiate the scriptures cause I heard someone say that we should not differentiate the scriptures like we should not differentiate the messengers.
No, it's not true. Al-quraan calls itself 'tafseelul kitaab' (10/37) which means that is the detailling of God's writ for humankind (i.e. al-kitaab)
There's no such thing in al-quraan as 'scriptures'.
-
KyleWe 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.
Can you please bring evidence for this, Kyle? 'We are told to trust what is descended to those before us' is nowhere in al-quraan, if that's the source you meant by 'we are told'. As for 'all considered al-kitaab', al-quraan is al-furqaan and therefore if something which is al-haqq (ultimate truth) isn't in it, it doesn't fit in. This is if you're talking about al-quraan, of course.
-
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'. What is al-haqq? See 41/53 for the identification that al-quraan itself is al-haqq. Therefore, al-kitaab bil haqq if one actually uses al-quraan to explain itself , must refer to al-quraan.
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.
-
lol and what's wrong with calling it 'quran'? ???
Peace,
Sugar -
Sugarlol and what's wrong with calling it 'quran'?
I don't know if you're addressing myself here but I call it 'al-quraan' because it refers to itself like so. It's different from 'quranin ghairin hadha' or 'a quran other than this' (10/15). Al-quraan is from Allah. 'quran' can come from anyone.
-
Peace mquran
I basically agree perfectly with what you wrote here.
I only have one little objection and one addition.Objection
The correct term here is 'al-kitaab BIL HAQQ' or 'al-kitaab with/in AL-HAQQ'. What is al-haqq? See 41/53 for the identification that al-quraan itself is al-haqq. Therefore, al-kitaab bil haqq if one actually uses al-quraan to explain itself , must refer to al-quraan.
My reading is a little bit different here.
Since in other verses the qur'?n establishes a definatory difference between the terms al-qur'?n and al-kit?b (through the term tafs?l-ul-kit?b) I would say that the bil haqq does not refer to al-kit?b here (although that would at first be as correct) but instead refers to what is sent down (nazala).According to my understanding this all leads to
a) al-kit?b is not totally identical to al-qur'?n, because the one is the tafs?l of the other.
b)al-qur'?n is both tanz?l and tafs?l of al-kit?b
c) however, the act of tanz?l does not compromise al-haqq of al-kit?b in any way, the act itself happens within al-haqq.
(contrary to those who claim that the act of revelation in a human language makes it relative)Addition
It never calls itself the bible.
Correct. But not only does the bible not call itself bible.
The torah as an entity also does not call itself torah and the gospel does not call itself gospel.
Both terms, the one from Hebrew, the other from Greek, originally referred to very basic things.
Torah means "instruction, law" in Hebrew, Gospel isn?t even the original term, which was euangelion and which meant "good message". Gospel was invented later to somehow fit euangelion, derived from "God`s spell" (does not even have the same meaning as euangelion!).Both torah and euangelion were used in a very general way in early Judaism and Christianity and probably only in historically quite recent times applied to the books called that way now.
The current Jewish definition of Torah even still in these days contradicts the Christian definition of the same term, including things like the "oral torah" (mystical teachings of the kabbalah etc.).Now, if at-tauraat is really the biblical torah, which one is it ???
The one by Jewish definition or the one by Christian definition?
No,, probably it is the one by Sunni definition .... ha. -
LeylaMy reading is a little bit different here.
Since in other verses the qur'?n establishes a definatory difference between the terms al-qur'?n and al-kit?b (through the term tafs?l-ul-kit?b) I would say that the bil haqq does not refer to al-kit?b here (although that would at first be as correct) but instead refers to what is sent down (nazala).According to my understanding this all leads to
a) al-kit?b is not totally identical to al-qur'?n, because the one is the tafs?l of the other.
b)al-qur'?n is both tanz?l and tafs?l of al-kit?b
c) however, the act of tanz?l does not compromise al-haqq of al-kit?b in any way, the act itself happens within al-haqq.
(contrary to those who claim that the act of revelation in a human language makes it relative)Excellent point there. However, I cannot agree because this context goes on to say Muaddiqan Lim Bayna Yadayhi Mina Al-Kitbi Wa Muhayminan `Alayhi /confirming what is between his two hands from al-kitaab and a watcher over it'. 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. This is further confirmed by the fact that al-quraan is 'bayyinat min al-hudaa'/ a clarification from the guidance as 2/185 tells us.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
IF1
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.MQ
Can you please bring evidence for this, Kyle? 'We are told to trust what is descended to those before us' is nowhere in al-quraan, if that's the source you meant by 'we are told'.(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 .
As for 'all considered al-kitaab', al-quraan is al-furqaan and therefore if something which is al-haqq (ultimate truth) isn't in it, it doesn't fit in. This is if you're talking about al-quraan, of course.
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.
-
Well, what I mean is
It is not "al kit?b bayna yadayhi" but instead it is "lim? bayna yadayhi min al kit?b".
I would say this again stresses that the one which is, as you correctly say, phenomenological in this world is not al kit?b but what came from al-kit?b within al-haqq.
Or did I get your point wrong? -
Ah, sorry, I did get it wrong.
Just read the verse in completenss again.
But then still I don?t understand why your point contradicts mine....
Let me think for a while.idolfree1
When you read the arabic text it is not "before you" in a chronological sense, I`d say.
-
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?