Previous Revelations also in Arabic Language
-
Peace Fahad, all,
Arabic is the language that provides the details of al-kitab. And al-kitab was revealed with all the prophets(2213).
This doesn't answer the question. You seem to be claiming that only what you named Al-Kitab is eternal and uncreated and so is its Arabic language while what you named Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated (and neither is its Arabic language???). You lost me here as a result of your confusion. Please tell everyone here exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated but its Arabic language is eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated and its Arabic language is not eternal and uncreated.
Please tell us exactly which it is that you are claiming.
Didn?t young children tell you that al-quran is a kitab? (271, 2775-76)
2775 is clearly talking about "a book" that contains all hidden information. Simple minded uneducated Abassid era anti-rationalists might have been confused because they ignored the obvoius fact that there are other modes of recording information in the universe. For example, DNA can be considered a book (a record) of genetic information. Perhaps Abassid era people had ignorance about science and the history of Arabic as an excuse, on the other hand I don't understand why some people here are still confused.
People, let's progress beyond Abassid era nonsensical notions. The whole of Classical Arabic is captured in a few Classical Arabic dictionaries written with a meager bucket of ink, on the other hand the god doesn't run out of words even if the oceans were his ink. So clearly his words are not restricted to Classical Arabic or one human language or the other. His words can be seen in the whole universe, in our DNA, in atomic particles, in cosmic laws, etc.... The god tells us that the whole universe is like books in 21104.
If you consider the 114 chaptered book to be al-kitab, at least show a single verse where the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. Then we can know whose understanding is baseless.
Fahad, everyone who has read even a couple of pages of the great reading knows that right at the beginning in 22 the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. It is a book that is to be read and thus it is a reading. There is no great hidden mystery, the language is clear and we don't need to attach connotations to those words that are not there and confuse ourselves.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Nadeem
I must ask, Sis Samia, when you corrected my homework (thanks again), did you correct it according to MSA or CA?
It was according to both. MSA does not have grammar of its own, but its grammar is based on CA's.
CA contains the MSA grammar, but also other grammar linked to some expressions which are no more used in MSA (although they might be understood, but are really meaningless or outdated). Its complicated and long sentence structre, together with some unfamiliar words, makes it more difficult to understand and less fun to read.
The author also stresses the difference between MSA and CA. He has even discouraged the use of modern dictionaries for understanding the quran, such as Hans Wehr's.
Although Hans Wehr's search is root-based, but, yes, all the modern dictionaries take the meaning of words from "tafseer", without giving the origin and history of the word, or all its possible meanings in a past environment. They generally deal with the "today" usage of a word.
What do you think of Aymans claims regarding the quran not being in Classical Arabic?
I fully agree with him. The quran is definitely not in CA.
-
Arabic is the language that provides the details of al-kitab. And al-kitab was revealed with all the prophets(2213).
This doesn't answer the question. You seem to be claiming that only what you named Al-Kitab is eternal and uncreated and so is its Arabic language while what you named Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated (and neither is its Arabic language???). You lost me here as a result of your confusion. Please tell everyone here exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated but its Arabic language is eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated and its Arabic language is not eternal and uncreated.
Please tell us exactly which it is that you are claiming.
Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic. No other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic can. The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
This also answer Phoenix1's and Simple's question 'why did Allah reveal the Quran in arabic? why not any other language?'.
And al-kitab is eternal. So it was detailed for previous generations in 'lisaan arabi mubeen' as well.
-
Peace Samia, Ayman,
If al-qur'aan is not in Classical Arabic, then can we use Classical Arabic dictionaries to study its meanings ? Is it so that primarily al-qur'aan is its own dictionary and CA dictionaries are used just as secondary tools to study it ?
-
Didn?t young children tell you that al-quran is a kitab? (271, 2775-76)
2775 is clearly talking about "a book" that contains all hidden information. Simple minded uneducated Abassid era anti-rationalists might have been confused because they ignored the obvoius fact that there are other modes of recording information in the universe. For example, DNA can be considered a book (a record) of genetic information. Perhaps Abassid era people had ignorance about science and the history of Arabic as an excuse, on the other hand I don't understand why some people here are still confused.
Kitabun mubeen is al-quraan, and the verse is not talking about genetic information, but information related to guidance. DNA is not kitabun mubeen.
People, let's progress beyond Abassid era nonsensical notions.
How can people progress if they are stuck in history?!
The whole of Classical Arabic is captured in a few Classical Arabic dictionaries written with a meager bucket of ink, on the other hand the god doesn't run out of words even if the oceans were his ink. So clearly his words are not restricted to Classical Arabic or one human language or the other. His words can be seen in the whole universe, in our DNA, in atomic particles, in cosmic laws, etc.... The god tells us that the whole universe is like books in 21104.
I am not saying that God's words are limited to Arabic language.
And the universe is not like kitabun mubeen either.
-
Fahad, everyone who has read even a couple of pages of the great reading knows that right at the beginning in 22 the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. It is a book that is to be read and thus it is a reading.
2/2 zaalika al-kitab / that is the book.
Which part is referring to itself?
The book can refer to itself as "haaza/this al-quraan" or "haaza/this kitaab", but not as "zaalika/that al-kitab". So in verse 22, the book is referring to another book, and not to itself.
There is no great hidden mystery, the language is clear and we don't need to attach connotations to those words that are not there and confuse ourselves.
Right back at you.
-
Peace Fahad,
Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic. No other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic can. The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
This also answer Phoenix1's and Simple's question 'why did Allah reveal the Quran in arabic? why not any other language?'.
And al-kitab is eternal. So it was detailed for previous generations in 'lisaan arabi mubeen' as well.You are saying that "Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic." This is contradictory. This is like saying "English is not the language of this post but the details of the post are provided by English".
Also, since you are saying that al-kitab (the whole) is eternal and uncreated, then it follows that its detail (the parts) must be eternal and uncreated too. If as you say, "no other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic" then this implies that Arabic must be eternal and uncreated as well. Your logic is the same line of logic as Abassid era anti-rationalists. Your claim is the first one on the list that I had given, namely
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
Translation reflects interpretation. The interpretation of Ibn Kathir is in Arabic and yet it contains more contradictions than any English translation. Clearly this proves that Arabic is irrelevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
This very discussion that we are having proves that Arabic is irrelevant. You and I have contradicting intepretations based on the same passages of the book. I don't know about you, but I am reading the book in its original Arabic. If you too are reading the book in Arabic, then Arabic hasn't alleviated the problem of contradicting interpretations, which is the same exact problem with translations. This is why most translations are far better than Ibn Kathir's Arabic interpretation.
Kitabun mubeen is al-quraan, and the verse is not talking about genetic information, but information related to guidance. DNA is not kitabun mubeen.
2775 is talking about a book that contains a record of ALL the hidden things in the universe. This is clearly not the book that you call "al-quraan". If it were then it would have all hidden information, including our hidden thoughts such as what I am thinking I will eat for breakfast this morning.
How can people progress if they are stuck in history?!
Exactly. So please don't get stuck in promoting Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology.
I am not saying that God's words are limited to Arabic language.
Here is what you are saying "The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language." So you are essentially saying that the god's "perfect" words are limited to Arabic language but his imperfect words are not!!!!??
Since all the god's words are perfect, then according to your statement, the god's words are limited to Arabic language.
And the universe is not like kitabun mubeen either.
So what kind of book do you think the universe like? Do you think it is not like a clear book but is like a badly written book?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Fahad,
2/2 zaalika al-kitab / that is the book.
Which part is referring to itself?
The book can refer to itself as "haaza/this al-quraan" or "haaza/this kitaab", but not as "zaalika/that al-kitab". So in verse 22, the book is referring to another book, and not to itself.What other book?
This is just demonstrating that Arabic like any language can be misinterpreted and has ambiguity. Hence, your confusion. Unlike English, "thalika" doesn't always mean "that". It can mean "this" or "that". Hence, its feminine form is used in 271 to mean "this" when pointing to the signs of the great reading.
271 "...these are the signs of the reading..."
Perhaps you want to propose that it refers to other signs in other readings.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic. No other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic can. The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
This also answer Phoenix1's and Simple's question 'why did Allah reveal the Quran in arabic? why not any other language?'.
And al-kitab is eternal. So it was detailed for previous generations in 'lisaan arabi mubeen' as well.You are saying that "Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic." This is contradictory. This is like saying "English is not the language of this post but the details of the post are provided by English".
Also, since you are saying that al-kitab (the whole) is eternal and uncreated, then it follows that its detail (the parts) must be eternal and uncreated too. If as you say, "no other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic" then this implies that Arabic must be eternal and uncreated as well.
Consider this example
You want to study a subject. That subject is al-kitab. It is NOT in arabic.
Al-Quran, in lisaan arabi mubeen, is the book to study that subject.
Do you understand now?
Your logic is the same line of logic as Abassid era anti-rationalists. Your claim is the first one on the list that I had given, namely
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
Your "logic" is un-quranic. You cannot even address the verses in my original thread.
And I didn?t mean that al-kitaab is eternal like Allah is eternal.
The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
Translation reflects interpretation. The interpretation of Ibn Kathir is in Arabic and yet it contains more contradictions than any English translation. Clearly this proves that Arabic is irrelevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
This very discussion that we are having proves that Arabic is irrelevant. You and I have contradicting intepretations based on the same passages of the book. I don't know about you, but I am reading the book in its original Arabic. If you too are reading the book in Arabic, then Arabic hasn't alleviated the problem of contradicting interpretations, which is the same exact problem with translations. This is why most translations are far better than Ibn Kathir's Arabic interpretation.
Firstly, you are letting history shape your understanding of the book. Thats why the contradiction between our understanding. It is not the fault of Quran's language.
Secondly, I am talking about quranic arabic/lisaan arabi mubeen. Not 'outside' arabic. So, Quranic arabic IS relevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
Kitabun mubeen is al-quraan, and the verse is not talking about genetic information, but information related to guidance. DNA is not kitabun mubeen.
2775 is talking about a book that contains a record of ALL the hidden things in the universe. This is clearly not the book that you call "al-quraan". If it were then it would have all hidden information, including our hidden thoughts such as what I am thinking I will eat for breakfast this morning.
Ha ha! This argument is as childish as the one presented by Hadithists or Enquirers i.e ?If the Quran provides the details of everything, why does not it tell us about modern day inventions like TV, internet etc and how to create them, huh?? Do you realize that ?!
What is kitabun mubeen in 2775 is also evident from the next verse Al-Quran. Which is a book of guidance. Not genetic info or hidden info about your breakfast.
So ?al-quraan/kitabun mubeen? contains all info related to guidance.
Even if you do not accept ?kitabun mubeen? to be referring to the al-quraan, it still calls itself ?haaza kitaab? (4612). So, Al-quraan IS a kitaab.
How can people progress if they are stuck in history?!
Exactly. So please don't get stuck in promoting Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology.
You are the one stuck, Dr. You pay more attention to history than the Quran. I quote the Quran to prove my point. You quote history.
You cannot even realize that YOU are the one promoting that ?Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology?. You say al-quran is same as al-kitaab. If that?s true, then it means that al-quraan was given to previous prophets as well (2213). Do you realize this now?!
I am not saying that God's words are limited to Arabic language.
Here is what you are saying "The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language." So you are essentially saying that the god's "perfect" words are limited to Arabic language but his imperfect words are not!!!!??
Since all the god's words are perfect, then according to your statement, the god's words are limited to Arabic language.
How does that mean that God's words are limited to arabic language? God does not necessarily has to communicate in every other language.
You can try to give me an example of God?s words in other languages which detail al-kitab like al-quran can. Also back it by al-quran.
According to al-quraan, the detailing of al-kitaab is in quranic arabic
Al-quraan is detailing of al-kitaab (1037)
Arabic is detailing of al-quraan.(4144)
So, al-kitab is detailed in quranic arabic.
And the universe is not like kitabun mubeen either.
So what kind of book do you think the universe like? Do you think it is not like a clear book but is like a badly written book?
By looking at the universe, it is not mubeen/clear to me ?what Ayman are thinking he will eat for breakfast this morning.? So it is not kitabun mubeen.
Also because, kitabun mubeen is al-quraan. And the universe is not al-quraan.
-
2/2 zaalika al-kitab / that is the book.
Which part is referring to itself?
The book can refer to itself as "haaza/this al-quraan" or "haaza/this kitaab", but not as "zaalika/that al-kitab". So in verse 22, the book is referring to another book, and not to itself.
What other book?
The book of Allah/kitabillah/al-kitaab. Al-quraan is the tafseel of al-kitaab. That is why it is introducing us to al-kitaab, instead of introducing itself.
This is just demonstrating that Arabic like any language can be misinterpreted and has ambiguity. Hence, your confusion. Unlike English, "thalika" doesn't always mean "that". It can mean "this" or "that". Hence, its feminine form is used in 271 to mean "this" when pointing to the signs of the great reading.
271 "...these are the signs of the reading..."
Perhaps you want to propose that it refers to other signs in other readings.
The book always refers to itself as ?haaza al-quraan? or ?haaza kitaab?. Not a single time does it say ?haaza al-kitaab?.
?Zaalika al-kitab? cannot be referring to itself because it would mean that this same book was given to previous prophets(2213).
Or do you want to promote "Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology" ?!
More on al-kitaab here
http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/08/20/al-kitab-what-i-have-understood/ -
Peace Fahad,
You want to study a subject. That subject is al-kitab. It is NOT in arabic.
Al-Quran, in lisaan arabi mubeen, is the book to study that subject.
Do you understand now?Yes, I understand why you are confused. You don't seem to know what "al-kitab" means in Arabic. Hence, you just use the word but you don't know what it means. The word "al-kitab" in "lisan arabi mubin" simply means "the book". Here is what you are saying
"You want to study a subject. That subject is the book. It is NOT in arabic. The reading, in a clarifying Arabic language, is the book to study that subject."
Since in the first part you say the subject is "the book", so if we substitute "the book" in place of "the subject" in the second part, here is what we get"You want to study a subject. That subject is the book. It is NOT in arabic. The reading, in a clarifying Arabic language, is the book to study that book."
Do you now see why you are so confused? I hope that you can see that what you are essentially saying is illogical.
Your "logic" is un-quranic. You cannot even address the verses in my original thread.
If you can show us a single passage of the great reading that tells us "al-kitab khaled wa ghyr makhlook" (the book is eternal and uncreated) then we can decide if your logic is quranic. What you have shown is nothing but your personal subjective interpretation of the passages based on conjecture not reality. As for something being "un-quranic", those who follow Hadiths equally claim that rejecting Hadiths is "un-quranic". It is when they are faced with logic that their illogical beliefs are exposed. By the way, there are many Hadiths that claim exactly what you are claiming, namely that the book is "eternal and uncreated". Perhaps you want us to believe in those too. As you see above, you have no logic, "quranic" or otherwise.
And I didn?t mean that al-kitaab is eternal like Allah is eternal.
So what did you mean? Eternal is eternal and logically there is no difference. What you are implying is that there an "eternal" and a "less eternal". This is again not logical. It is like saying "infinity" and "less infinity".
Firstly, you are letting history shape your understanding of the book. Thats why the contradiction between our understanding. It is not the fault of Quran's language.
Does this mean that you think that you have a perfect understanding of the book?
Secondly, I am talking about quranic arabic/lisaan arabi mubeen. Not 'outside' arabic. So, Quranic arabic IS relevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
People can write things using the language of the great reading that contain contradictions and are illogical. In fact, it is done all the time. Here is an example that you can make up in 5 seconds
"itha althubab khar fi alta3am fakuluhu hani'a".
Translation When the flies fall in the food, you shall eat it cheerfully.In the above illogical statement, I used pure "quranic Arabic" so all the words and their usage is based on the language of the great reading and thus can be found in its passages
"itha" 4102, etc...
"althubab" 2273
"khar" 2231, 7143, etc...
"fi" 215, etc...
"alta3am" 393, 575, 218, etc...
"fakuluhu hani'a" 44So, this is indisputable proof that "Quranic arabic" IS IRRELEVANT to whether something contains contradictions or not.
Ha ha! This argument is as childish as the one presented by Hadithists or Enquirers i.e ?If the Quran provides the details of everything, why does not it tell us about modern day inventions like TV, internet etc and how to create them, huh?? Do you realize that ?!
What is kitabun mubeen in 2775 is also evident from the next verse Al-Quran. Which is a book of guidance. Not genetic info or hidden info about your breakfast.
So ?al-quraan/kitabun mubeen? contains all info related to guidance.2775 doesn't talk about guidance or even humans. It is talking about a book that has every hidden thing in the heavens and the earth. Is genetic info and what I am thinking hidden from you? yes, then it is in that book, no exceptions.
Even if you do not accept ?kitabun mubeen? to be referring to the al-quraan, it still calls itself ?haaza kitaab? (4612). So, Al-quraan IS a kitaab.
Yes. Any reading is the reading of a book. You have to read from a record (i.e. a book).
You are the one stuck, Dr. You pay more attention to history than the Quran. I quote the Quran to prove my point. You quote history.
You haven't shown a single passage that says "al-kitab khaled wa ghyr makhlook" (the book is eternal and uncreated). All you have done is quote what you think a certain passage is saying according to your personal subjective interpretation that is not grounded in reality.
You cannot even realize that YOU are the one promoting that ?Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology?. You say al-quran is same as al-kitaab. If that?s true, then it means that al-quraan was given to previous prophets as well (2213). Do you realize this now?!
Passages such as 2285 clearly show the word books in the plural. So it is not a single book given to previous messengers as you imagine. Moreover, if a previous book was read then this can indeed be considered a "reading".
How does that mean that God's words are limited to arabic language? God does not necessarily has to communicate in every other language.
You can try to give me an example of God?s words in other languages which detail al-kitab like al-quran can. Also back it by al-quran.Again, you are repeating the same illogical proposition that the god doesn't use words in other languages. I already showed you the passage about the oceans and the trees of the world not being enough to write the god's words, while we know that the whole of Arabic vocabulary can be easily written with a measly bucket of ink and a few pens made of maybe half a branch of a tree. So the fact that the god's words are in all sorts of other languages and are not limited to Arabic is confirmed by common sense and 3127.
According to al-quraan, the detailing of al-kitaab is in quranic arabic
Al-quraan is detailing of al-kitaab (1037)See all the occurrences of the word "tafseel" and its derivatives that you translate as "detail". You will see that it can actually have other meanings such as "separate" and "judge" according to "quranic Arabic". Your translating it as "detail" is your interpretation which relfects your understanding which could be right or wrong.
Arabic is detailing of al-quraan.(4144)
So, al-kitab is detailed in quranic arabic.In 4144, the people are asking for the reading to be separated/detailed as Arabic and foreign. The response to the people's request doesn't say that it is impossible for it to be seperated/detailed into foreign and it has to be Arabic. The response implies that the language doesn't matter and that it is a guidance to those who have faith regardless of the language.
By looking at the universe, it is not mubeen/clear to me ?what Ayman are thinking he will eat for breakfast this morning.? So it is not kitabun mubeen.
Also because, kitabun mubeen is al-quraan. And the universe is not al-quraan.Do you think that the god can create only one thing that is "mubeen"?
Also, don't you know that everything in this book will be shown clearly to everybody on the day of the account, even your deepest inner thoughts. Or don't you think that the god knows them and records them?
?Zaalika al-kitab? cannot be referring to itself because it would mean that this same book was given to previous prophets(2213).
So what is it referring to?
Again, you are evading addressing the clear evidence in 271.
271 "...these are the signs of the reading..."
271 "...tilka ayat alquran..."In case you didn't know that Arabic has gender specific pointing devices, the word "tilka" is the feminine equivalent of "zaalika". So according to your logic the "tilka" in 271 is pointing to other signs of another reading.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Ayman.
You want to study a subject. That subject is al-kitab. It is NOT in arabic.
Al-Quran, in lisaan arabi mubeen, is the book to study that subject.
Do you understand now?Yes, I understand why you are confused. You don't seem to know what "al-kitab" means in Arabic. Hence, you just use the word but you don't know what it means. The word "al-kitab" in "lisan arabi mubin" simply means "the book". Here is what you are saying
"You want to study a subject. That subject is the book. It is NOT in arabic. The reading, in a clarifying Arabic language, is the book to study that subject."
Since in the first part you say the subject is "the book", so if we substitute "the book" in place of "the subject" in the second part, here is what we get"You want to study a subject. That subject is the book. It is NOT in arabic. The reading, in a clarifying Arabic language, is the book to study that book."
Do you now see why you are so confused? I hope that you can see that what you are essentially saying is illogical.
Hehe. Ayman, your posts have nothing to do with logic. You shouldn't be using the word.
You can't wait to translate the concepts, just like bro Simple. You don't care how the verses explain the concepts.
Al-quran is a book. When I am talking about it, I can call it 'the book'. It does not mean that it is the same book as the one introduced in 22. Like if I am talking about the Harry Potter book, I can call it "the book". It does not mean that I am referring to al-kitab in 22. I have to give these examples as if I am explaining to a child!
Your "logic" is un-quranic.
If you can show us a single passage of the great reading that tells us "al-kitab khaled wa ghyr makhlook" (the book is eternal and uncreated) then we can decide if your logic is quranic.
I am not saying that al-kitaab is is uncreated. Everything is created by Allah.
And if only you can show us a single passage of al-quraan that says "haaza al-kitaab"? Then we can decide if 22 is referring to the same book, like "haaza kitab" does.
You cannot even address the verses in my original thread.
What you have shown is nothing but your personal subjective interpretation of the passages based on conjecture not reality.
This is only an excuse for not addressing the verses in my original post.
As for something being "un-quranic", those who follow Hadiths equally claim that rejecting Hadiths is "un-quranic".
Just because their claim is wrong does not mean that my claim is wrong too. Your posts have no link with logic or the Quran. Address my original post and disprove it if you can.
It is when they are faced with logic that their illogical beliefs are exposed.
I have yet to face any logic from you.
By the way, there are many Hadiths that claim exactly what you are claiming, namely that the book is "eternal and uncreated".
BS. I am not claiming that al-kitaab is uncreated.
Perhaps you want us to believe in those too. As you see above, you have no logic, "quranic" or otherwise.
No. YOU want us to believe in that, Dr. But it is too complex for you to realize.
And I didn?t mean that al-kitaab is eternal like Allah is eternal.
So what did you mean? Eternal is eternal and logically there is no difference. What you are implying is that there an "eternal" and a "less eternal". This is again not logical. It is like saying "infinity" and "less infinity".
Firstly, by 'eternal', I meant older than humanity'. Not as old as God.
Secondly, "eternal" does not have to be "uncreated" as well. For example, the people in verse 413 will be eternal in jannat. It does not mean that they were uncreated. So they are "eternal" as well as created. Or what you would call "less eternal".
This is only displaying your ignorance of al-quraan, and your relying heavily on dictionaries.
Like I said, your posts have nothing to do with logic or al-quraan.
Firstly, you are letting history shape your understanding of the book. Thats why the contradiction between our understanding. It is not the fault of Quran's language.
Does this mean that you think that you have a perfect understanding of the book?
Not at all. But to show that my understanding of this topic is incorrect, you will have to address the verses in my original post.
Secondly, I am talking about quranic arabic/lisaan arabi mubeen. Not 'outside' arabic. So, Quranic arabic IS relevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
People can write things using the language of the great reading that contain contradictions and are illogical. In fact, it is done all the time. Here is an example that you can make up in 5 seconds
"itha althubab khar fi alta3am fakuluhu hani'a".
Translation When the flies fall in the food, you shall eat it cheerfully.In the above illogical statement, I used pure "quranic Arabic" so all the words and their usage is based on the language of the great reading and thus can be found in its passages
"itha" 4102, etc...
"althubab" 2273
"khar" 2231, 7143, etc...
"fi" 215, etc...
"alta3am" 393, 575, 218, etc...
"fakuluhu hani'a" 44So, this is indisputable proof that "Quranic arabic" IS IRRELEVANT to whether something contains contradictions or not.
L-O-L! Again you are displaying your ignorance of al-quraan and logic. This is what I had said
The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
HOW does that "thing" you wrote provide tafseel of kitabillah?! Think, Ayman. There is nothing even remotely logical about your posts.
Ha ha! This argument is as childish as the one presented by Hadithists or Enquirers i.e ?If the Quran provides the details of everything, why does not it tell us about modern day inventions like TV, internet etc and how to create them, huh?? Do you realize that ?!
What is kitabun mubeen in 2775 is also evident from the next verse Al-Quran. Which is a book of guidance. Not genetic info or hidden info about your breakfast.
So ?al-quraan/kitabun mubeen? contains all info related to guidance.2775 doesn't talk about guidance or even humans. It is talking about a book that has every hidden thing in the heavens and the earth. Is genetic info and what I am thinking hidden from you? yes, then it is in that book, no exceptions.
Al-quraan is a book of guidance, you can see the verses following 2775.
The "universe" and "kitab mubeen" do not even occur together anywhere in the quraan. And when the info is in kitab mubeen, it is no longer hidden. And if the universe is the kitab mubeen that contains all hidden info then it should be clear to me what you think you are gonna eat for breakfast, like you said.
You have to use such childish arguments, the same line of thinking as the hadithists.
Even if you do not accept ?kitabun mubeen? to be referring to the al-quraan, it still calls itself ?haaza kitaab? (4612). So, Al-quraan IS a kitaab.
Yes. Any reading is the reading of a book. You have to read from a record (i.e. a book).
No, al-quraan is not the reading of a book, it is a book itself.
"Haaza al-quraan", "haaza kitaab". It does not get simpler than that.
You are the one stuck, Dr. You pay more attention to history than the Quran. I quote the Quran to prove my point. You quote history.
You haven't shown a single passage that says "al-kitab khaled wa ghyr makhlook" (the book is eternal and uncreated).
This is what I am saying Al-kitaab is older than humanity. Al-kitaab is NOT uncreated.
By the way, you haven't yet shown a single passage that says "haaza al-kitaab". Why?
All you have done is quote what you think a certain passage is saying according to your personal subjective interpretation that is not grounded in reality.
Why not address my original post and show everyone where and how I am wrong?!
You are just not capable of addressing the verses, right?
You cannot even realize that YOU are the one promoting that ?Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology?. You say al-quran is same as al-kitaab. If that?s true, then it means that al-quraan was given to previous prophets as well (2213). Do you realize this now?!
Passages such as 2285 clearly show the word books in the plural. So it is not a single book given to previous messengers as you imagine.
Al-kitaab IS a single kitaab revealed with all prophets, as verse 2213 "imagines".
And again, this displays your ignorance of al-quraan. The "kutub/books" are the chapters inside a book. Read this http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/what-are-the-books-of-allah/
And the passage we were talking about, verse 2213, clearly shows the word "al-kitab" in singular. So al-kitaab was singular, prophets were plural. And you are saying that the contents of al-quraan and al-kitaab are the same and the only difference is that one is in writing and the other in reading. So you are promoting the ?Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology?. Can you still not realize this?
Moreover, if a previous book was read then this can indeed be considered a "reading".
Of course the "previous book" was "read". But if that is what "al-quraan" means, then why doesn't the word "al-quraan" occur with previous messengers and previous generations as well?! Why not even once?! Were their books not for reading? Think about it, Ayman.
And you better study the occurrences of "al-kitaab" before debating about the topic.
I will reply to the rest of your post later, inshaallah.
Salam.
-
Salaam Fahad
First i want to make a slight correction which I do not know if it would help in refining your understanding of what you want to say.
"Eternal" is not an attribute to people in paradise. I think you mean "immortal ". Eternal is .The quran never said about people of paradise that they are " eternal"
Now to your subject
I am also of the understanding that al-kitaab and al-quraan are differntd parts of what we call in Arabic "al-muShaf "; but I think that you have not refined your research on this, or in othere words there are still areas that need more clarification. For example what is the diffrence between the two vis-a vis the content? What is kitaab mubeen? or al-kitaab bil Haq? Are these all synonymous to al-kitaab?
You also say that al-kitaab was revealed to previous messengers, and again I agree with that; but why do you insist that it isTHE SAME BOOK? What do you mean by that? Also, what is this book that was revealed to previous messengers and to Muhammad?
-
Salaam Fahad
First i want to make a slight correction which I do not know if it would help in refining your understanding of what you want to say.
"Eternal" is not an attribute to people in paradise. I think you mean "immortal ". Eternal is .The quran never said about people of paradise that they are " eternal"
Salam Samia.
I was only replying to Ayman about "eternal" and he was using that word for it.
Now to your subject
I am also of the understanding that al-kitaab and al-quraan are differntd parts of what we call in Arabic "al-muShaf "; but I think that you have not refined your research on this, or in othere words there are still areas that need more clarification. For example what is the diffrence between the two vis-a vis the content? What is kitaab mubeen? or al-kitaab bil Haq? Are these all synonymous to al-kitaab?
You also say that al-kitaab was revealed to previous messengers, and again I agree with that; but why do you insist that it isTHE SAME BOOK? What do you mean by that? Also, what is this book that was revealed to previous messengers and to Muhammad?
Can we discuss "al-kitaab" here http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7069.0 ?
Thanks.
-
peace Fahad,
The basis for your argument is that arabic is the only language that can clearly express mesages. I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I have to say that it's wrong. But I don't know if I properly understand your position, so please answer these questionsDo you think that the message of the quran can be explained clearly in English?
And do you think that arabic cannot be misunderstood or corrupted?
EDIT
*fahad, no need of replying to this again, unless you want to -
Do you think that the message of the quran can be explained clearly in English?
It can be explained/clarified, but it cannot be translated perfectly.
And do you think that arabic cannot be misunderstood or corrupted?
Yes it can be, and thats where we can use the Quran to confirm the arabic language.(4612)