You are right regarding "al-lathy". Shahru ramadan has to be definite.
It's a proper noun with a meaning. And it means (scorching heat). No need for a definite article then since it's a name of a season.

Salaam all, Timur

Grammatically speaking, you cannot tell from the phrase (shahru Ramadan) whether Ramadan is a proper noun or not, because it's a complex of "mudaf and mudaf elayhi" or, in other words (X of Y). Y can have, or have not a (al), even without being a proper noun.
For example The book of Mathematics in Arabic (the = al) will be linked to (mathematics) not to (book) = book of al mathematics (kitabu-l- hisab) i,e kitab al hisab.
A book of mathematics In Arabic (no a nor al) will appar with either word book mathematics (kitabu hisab).
Shahru ramadan will mean ( a moon of heat, summer) or if you like (the month of Ramadan).

I hope I answered your query.

Sorry Sister,

It is neither a phrase, nor meaningless, nor comparative.

It is a complete nominal sentence, and perhaps the simplest one. The First Noun, definite, nominative is the Subject of Sentence. Akbaru, indefinite, nominative is the Predicate. In the nominal sentence the predicate must match/correspond in number and gender to the subject. It has the built in pronoun of third person, masculine, singular referring back to Allah, and has no comparitive complement to consider it comparative one. The Superlative and Comparative Noun in Arabic is the same, and the context exposes it whether it is superlative or comparative.

Thanks

"Akbar" is a superlative noun, not just a noun. The noun/ adjective is "kabeer". You can say "Allahu kabeer/ God is great" and this is an equational sentence. Allahu Akbar is not a complete sentence. Literally it means God is greater...", not "God is great.
The pattern of the superlative and comparative is the same. Their usage is not. So you know that. Why, then, mix it up with an equational sentence?

What made you think verse 492 is talking about prisoners and not slaves.

I believe slavery is prohibited in the quraan. They should be freed by definition of the religion and not as a compensation for a wrong doing.
If you acquire stolen goods, you should return it. No compensation would be offered, and you may even be prosecuted.
Same thing here.
This is not about slaves, because it compensates for a crime.

In summary

1- The verse is about quwama who is quwam over whom.
2. Criteria of choosing this quwam.
3. Examples of the behaviours of two quwams.
4. Remedies when the quwam behaves beyond their obligations "ultra vires".

peace Samia, all,

I meant that nisa are not necessarily the receiver directly, i.e. it is not like person A giving money to person B. It may be, but not necessarily so, as I explained. That was my point, albeit this seems a peripheral issue.

But "spending" is a condition for quwama. If there is a spender, then there's someone who receives.
Since "nisaa" means those who are vulnerable (in anyway including not having means to gain money), then they will be the reciever. It's not a peripheral issue. It IS the issue as far as nisaa and rijaal are concerned (in as much as they are not women and men).

You said
"Setting free a mu'min is not necessarily for the sake of this person, but for the society."

Why cant it be both? I think setting such a person free will benefit that individual greatly. Note, initially you did not include the "societal" impact clause.

Verse 492 speaks of conditions of when to free a prisoner. It deals with covenants between the community of the killer and that of the victim, and whether there's peace covenant or not. In both cases, the freed prisoner should be a "mu'min", which helps understand the meaning of "mu'min" not an aggressor; someone who extends peace to others (494), and this leads to my belief that this prisoner should be one who spreads peace, not aggression. This is mainly for the society.

You then imply 434 is about keeping secrets. And how these breadwinners are apparently taking care of the house and children and working.

I prefer not to discuss even more of the verse and get more complicated and prefer to stick to the crux of the issue, i.e. is there a contradiciton or not.

By secret I mean the reason why the husband is not working and how this has an impact on her...etc
Why should she do the housework and take care of the children and become also the breadwinner? This is not an obligation and is not prescribed by God. The husband should do his share and if he doesn't then no blame on her to complain. If he helps in the house, which is the ideal situation the verse must be talking about, then she should not boast around as the bread winner. If she does, then he should advise her not to...etc through the rest of the steps up divorce or reconciliation

You said
"You mentioned that I had to use the whole statement, now let's see

(Men are guardians over women for what God favoured some of them over others).
If God favoured some men over other men, then we cannot say "all" men are guardians over "all" women. There are some men who are not favoured. What's their position vis-a-vis guardianship? What about men who are non-believers/ but criminals/ violent? What's their favour?
If the favour is over women again, what about women who spend? A mother who works and keeps her sick or unemployed son/ husband/ father, is she his guardian or he her guardian? These examples by the way are very, very common, and almost every woman finds herself in such a situation at least for sometime in her life."

I already answered these questions in reply 47 on this thread (i.e. my first reply to you on this thread).

The only one I have not covered explicitly, although alluded to on Quran434.com is that of a women who fulfills the criteria of "qawwamoun" - what is her situation?

Well, as we can clearly see in 434 the CRITERIA of being "qawwamoun" is given as

1. God preferred/bestowed on you (and this likely refers to capacity to work - we both agree on this)
   and
2. spending of their money

So, as we can see, if a woman fulfills the above two criteria, she can be regarded as "qawwamoun" (assuming the husband or males are not providing also), there could be multiple "qawwamoun" per household.

Very Good. I agree...We agree ;D

What The Quran is saying, quite ingeniously, is that it is the default duty/responsibility of the men to support/maintain due to the innate differences between men and women (i.e. pregnancy, child birth, suckling, generally physically weaker thus less job opportunities) - that is the default preference (further elaborated in 2228, 2233, 656), however note very carefully that the way it is phrased is done in such a manner as NOT to impose an absolute rule that "men are qawaamanoun over women".

What do you mean by the last sentence? It DOES say exactly that.
Why mention pregnancy and childbirth? Women still work while they are pregnant and when they have kids. If they are unable, they fall within the category of the sick, men or women, and abstain. Same rules as for fasting. Why change the same rules here?
Moreover, how many years of the age an average woman spends on pregnancy and childbirth to make it such an issue?
What about unmarried women, sterile women?

The way it is said bases it on CRITERIA. And with the usage of "SOME of THEM over OTHERS/SOME (masculine plural) - further reinforces this and compliments this idea perfectly. In fact, in hindsight, it is ingenius.

So, as we can see, with regard to our viewpoints, we have the same outcome AND the Quran itself allows for it, and there is no need whatsoever for interpreting the terms rijal/nisa as anything other than men/women for this to work.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this

The way "some of them over some" as I explained it in an earlier post (post 7 in a reply to huruf, on the issue of FDL, and according to the usage of this expression in the quraan, shows that it's a preference within ONE group, people of both genders in our verse, in opposition to the expression that shows preference between two specific groups.
The need for this interpretation of nisaa and rijaal rsides in he two examples given of two wives, where the second example of a woman whose nushuuz to be feared may lead to divorce.
To what category do these two examples belong? Rijaal or nisaa'?
If someone is quwam over the other, the logic says we should show the criteria of this quwama. The verse did that.
Now the verse is giving examples of two quwamuuns who either behaved well or badly.
These two quwamuuns are rijaal. And it happened that both of them are women.

Also I asked if that feminine plural used for the salihaat, qanitaat hafidhat, stands also for males, because if Samias understanding is followed it should stand also for males. Would that be right from the point of view of grammar?

Salaam

A few days ago I wrote a long post that would have explained this, but it was gone! Didn't have more time to rewrite it.

I just have one comment on the other part of your post before I get to this part.
When you say "men are guardians over women" What qualifications do these men have with regard ethics, moral or even dogma? What's the meaning of this guardianship if not linked to spending?

If both men and women can spend on each other, why is the quwama for men only?

Here I am not saying masculine contains feminine, but I am saying that the meaning of rijal as used in the quraan and as the root indicates, means "on foot", i.e active, seeking "bounty", and nisaa as also used in the quraan in some verses and as its root indicates, means "the late, left behind"
(verse 4127)

(And they request from you a ruling concerning nisaa. Say, "Allah gives you a ruling about them and what has been recited to you in the Book concerning
1- others of fatherless children to whom you do not give what is decreed for them - and you desire to marry them
2 - and concerning the oppressed among children
3- and that you maintain for orphans in fairness).
As you see, all these three categories fall within "nisaa'".

Then the verse narrows to take a specific case of couples, where the woman spends and the man is, for any reason, unable to work or get a job or has no money.
It's logical that the verse speaks about the person who is responsible to show them how to be rightly responsible, and what results to expect when they behave badly. In this case it is the wife.
Why only the example of couples? Because any other relation is temporarily, and not obligatory (save the parents who have alone a specific rule not linked to anything or fDDL except to them being parents). Moreover, no other relation needs to be taken to the authorities just because the needy party does not like the behavior of the one putting a roof over their head and food on their table.

The plurals you mention are true feminine. The reason is that we have an analogous verse concerning husbands who are "nashez" and how to deal with them (412).

Of course peace

Salam Sister,

The words are not interchangeable. Rasul does not mean message. Both are distinct.

(6 (69)

Why not? Actually the first verse speaks of "qawl speech".
So it fits for a message better than it does for a person.
As I said the word rasool" originally means message. It lends its name to its carrier, so when the quraan speaks of the messenger" it alludes to him with the message and for the message, not specifically as an independent person. He is the "speaking" message .

And as for the second verse (2369)

How can they know (as knowing a person first hand) both messengers (as persons)?

BTW, what is the use of knowing Muhammed as we know our sons? If we know AlKitaab as we know our sons, that will be really help to save us on each and every step we take in our life.

bravo

Exactly!

His people "qawm" knew him very well. Did it help at all?

And the messenger will say O my Lord! Lo! my own folk immobilized this Qur'an.

His uncles did know him as "they knew their sons", still they refused to believe in the message he is delivering!!

Does this also not help to understand the Object Pronoun under debate?

Salaam Mazhar

The word "rasool" is mainly "the message".
It gave its name to its carrier.
Knowing the man does not imply anything...The quraan tells us that the prophet will complain of his own people for ignoring the quraan.
Also, the people who knew the prophet since his childhood were those who disbelieved him most.

From Lisaan-ul-Arab

(the "rasool" is the message and what/ who is sent).
Also
. (rasool is so called because he has a rasool, i.e a risala )
In the quraan we have

And go, both of you, unto Pharaoh and say, ?Behold, we "bear a message (rasool)" from the Sustainer of all the worlds (2616)

Back to the main verses 620 and 2 146.
If we carefully read the context of the preceding verses, we find that the "people of the book" are arguing with what the messenger was telling them or doing, not about who the messenger was.
Knowing something as you know your sons is a comparison, parable, of recognitions and does not necessarily apply to people in this context.
I completely agree with the rendition of Shabbir, Maududi, Yousuf Ali and Asad.

Salaam Samia,

Exceptions are women/females those in the inner circle one simple exception and the expression is obviously Arabic as example below which the address is to the general public speaking to both sexes....

361 our sons and your sons and our women and your women/females

The whole verse

And if anyone should argue with thee about this after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say "Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our / nisaa' and your / nisaa', and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray humbly and ardently, and let us invoke God's curse upon those who are telling a lie."
Questions to ponder

• Who are "we" and "you"? Are they just men or men and women?
  If you say just men, does it mean that only men argue with the prophet about the truth after all the knowledge that has come unto him? And that the prophet discusses only with men but not with women? (I am OK with this if you see so...at least acknowledging that only men argue about the truth, even with the prophet ! and they will go to hell, not women yay).
  If you say it is a mixed group
• Where is "our men and your men"?
• Aren't "our women" included in us, or are they also ladies of the extended family/ tribal/ inner circle? Then who are the "women" included in "us"?

Your women/females are those ladies in your extended family/tribal circle.

Salaam nobuddy

If niss' covers "all" women, why mention them in the first place where the verse is discussing "exceptions"? If it is not about "all women", then the verse should mention who are the women that are an exception. However, I even wonder if women are concerned about other women's "zeena".
And is it an Arabic or even quraanic expression to speak about "women's women"?

However, in this aya, and unless anybody shows me how this b3D... b3D construction in this aya is not a reciprocal one, which I am sure it is, I think that in this aya de meaning is women and men, and to me it is obvious and plain, men, in general, are free of the cares and travails of pregnancy, childbirth and, if the mother sucles the baby, also of suckling.

Salaam huruf
Nice to discuss again with you!

It is reciprocal, but why should it be men versus women and not bread winners versus needy?
I think the problem is not whether it is reciprocal or not, but who are the first B3D and who are the second B3D? B3D of whom (in both cases)? The only way to understand it is if we imagine a pool of people where some are favoured over the others, not two separate groups, otherwise B3D is meaningless.

Examples of B3D with separate groups
Verse 247 to bani Israel and I favoured you above all other people (not some of you over some).
Verse 4 95 favoured those who strive hard (mujahideen) over those who remain passive (qa3ideen) (not some of ujahideen over some).

Then we have when B3D is within a pool
Verse 2 253 Those apostles we favoured some of them over some (a pool of apostles not two distinct groups)
Verse 134 Kinds of fruit, favoured some above others in by way of the food/ taste (pool of fruit no distinction)

Verse 4 34 falls within the second category where we have a pool of people where some of them were favoured over some and for what they spend. One who spends is some one who has money in the first place. This can be male or female.

I come to the second part of your argument
Not all women are married, and not all married women have children and not all women who have children keep their children in care all the time. Just like not all men are breadwinners.
Secondly, this is a statement and not an obligation, so we do not need to state "reasons" for this quwama. As it is a statement, it has to be correct. Is it a valid argument to say " all men spend on all women"?
(I use "all" because this is the logical meaning).

salaam Samia,

Thanks for the reply.

The nisa are not necessarily the receiver in this context. For example if a provider buys food, pays the electricity/gas etc the nisa are not getting any money/etc directly. One could only argue indirectly, they received something, so I do not really see this point of yours as strong or significant.

Salaam Wakas, everybody
I apologize for not visiting the thread again after posting on it.
The reason for thinking of "receiving" because there is no other reason set for this "quwama", unless you accept that the reason is being a man, which is the very point we are discussing and you cannot use it as proof of non-spending. Otherwise, what does "quwama" have to do with God's favouring one group over another?

Secondly, you said
"Nowhere in the quraan do we see a reference to the belief of the poor and needy/receiver, or how they would react, or if this reaction requires any further steps from the giver."
However, there are verses about freeing believing slaves - this mentions the belief of the receiver of freeing.
Also, there is 2273 that discusses the manner the asker/receiver goes about it.

But to be honest, even if this point of yours stood, I do not see it as strong or significant.

.

It's not enough to say "even if it stood, I do not see it as strong or significant"!! It is significant because those who spend are the mu'mins, an ethical description, those who receive are the poor.
Verse 492 Setting free a mu'min is not necessarily for the sake of this person, but for the society. You cannot set free a criminal, or just a passive person unless your understanding of the meaning of "mu'min" is someone who believes in the existance of God. This person has to return to the pool of society, so he/ she better be a good doer.
Verse 2273 Explains a further category of people who need help and may pass unnoticed. It's not the main category and it is not mentioned as often as the poor in general. These are like "voluntary workers" who do not get paid or not paid enough. Again it's for the interest of the society and not because they are poor or unable to work.
When we look at "nisaa'" in verse 434, they can not fall in the same category as people who are, or expected, to do something to the society. They are just good or bad people and it is explained why the good ones keep the secret, the bad ones go bragging. If they were men, do they need to brag about taking care of their wives? Would spending on their wives need to be a secret?

You said
"All men are guardians over all women. It should stop here, because the "criteria" for qiwama is already set being a man.Then we do not need any further criteria."

No, it cannot stop there, because if it did it would be illogical. Simply being a man does not and cannot make one qawwamun, e.g. one could have a physical or mental disability and still be a man, and these cannot be obligated to provide. Or even if a man is ill, they cannot be obligated to provide all the time no matter what.
Besides, the Arabic of Quran does not stop there. You cannot chop the statement, the statement is

"The rijal are supporters/maintainers of the nisa with what God preferred/bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money"

To find fault, you MUST find fault in the complete statement, not part of it.

Lastly, by saying - "quaanitaat devout", an even higher degree of "mu'minaat" - you are implying whatever law is discussed in 434 it applies to an even higher degree of muminaat. Does that mean it applies to a "lower" muminaat also?

As I mentioned above, their "iman" is explained They keep the secret of what they do. In spite of taking care of the house and the children they work and spend money on this house, but they do not complain. That needs real devoutness. There's no lower degree.

In any case, the crux of the discussion is this you feel that rijal/men and nisa/women in 434 would cause a contradiction, thus it must mean something else. This is a perfectly sound position, but we have to determine if there is a contradiciton or not. So, please use the whole statement, and point out what exactly is the contradiction. You may wish to use the part I quoted from quran434.com as a guide to my view

You mentioned that I had to use the whole statement, now let's see

(Men are guardians over women for what God favoured some of them over others).
If God favoured some men over other men, then we cannot say "all" men are guardians over "all" women. There are some men who are not favoured. What's their position vis-a-vis guardianship? What about men who are non-believers/ but criminals/ violent? What's their favour?
If the favour is over women again, what about women who spend? A mother who works and keeps her sick or unemployed son/ husband/ father, is she his guardian or he her guardian? These examples by the way are very, very common, and almost every woman finds herself in such a situation at least for sometime in her life.

This issue came up elsewhere, and sister Samia referred me to this thread, hence bringing it up again.

peace Samia,

Note AQ = al quran

You said
"Because this verse contains a law, and laws are for mu'men, so Allah should have addressed mu'men, as mquran mentioned, not the whole human kind."

Are you implying that whenever a law is mentioned, AQ always addresses mumin?

Salaam Wakas.
Thank you for bringing this up!

I think I did not make myself clearer and I agree with you it looks wrong. I should have explained myself better than that!
I was referring to the laws in the verse, where it referred to good "women" as mu'minaat (actually qantaat). But did not refer to "rijaal" who are the ones who should be modified as "mu'minuun", hence making any "man" guardian over "mu'minaat"! Which is more important to describe the giver or the receiver? Nowhere in the quraan do we see a reference to the belief of the poor and needy/receiver, or how they would react, or if this reaction requires any further steps from the giver. This is an important point in believing that these "mu'minaat" are of the "rijaal" who spend their money, not of the "nisaa'" who receive the money.

You said
"Some of whom? If it was men, what about the remaining men who were not favoured? Are they Qawwamoun?"

The criteria for being qawwamoun in 434 is

1. God preferred/bestowed on you
   and
2. spending of their money

So if you are a man bestowed in a position to provide and have spent of your money (for such a purpose) then you are qawwamoun.

I discussed this at quran434.com

""...bima (with what) faddalaAllahu (God preferred) baAAdahum (some of them) AAala (over/above/on) baAAdin* (others)..." *masculine
This likely refers to al rijal (the men) as indicated by keeping the same suffix reference later in the sentence, i.e. its logical and contextual flow.
See "baAAdahum AAala baAAdin" / "some of them above others" in 2253 and 1721, and also 653 "baAAdahum bi baAAdin" / "some of them with others", for a comparison.
However, there are three theoretically possible interpretations of this phrase
with what God preferred on some (men/women) over others (men/women)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men)
OR
with what God preferred on some (men) over others (men/women)

The keyword being "some". Thus, whichever way it is translated it proves the obvious, that not all men are preferred/bestowed equally, and/or not all men are preferred/bestowed more than women. Also, the term "preferred" is general, unless made specific in context, and in this case may refer to distribution of wealth, e.g. inheritance, as mentioned by similar phrasing in 432. Since spending of wealth is mentioned separately, the preference likely refers to the fact that men do not have the physical burden of pregnancy, birth and suckling, hence are in a more favourable position to work/provide, by default.
It should be noted that some traditional commentators interpret this phrasing to suggest men are preferred to women with respect to various things but this is completely disproven by the Arabic itself, as the masculine plural is used in the phrase. The masculine plural in Arabic either refers to an all male group or male+female group, NEVER all female group. To add to this point, the same phrasing is used for preferring some messengers to others and some prophets to others and yet The Quran repeatedly tells us not to make distinction among them. The best person according to The Quran is whoever is the most righteous/pious/God-conscious . It should also be kept in mind that each person will be judged according to how they conducted themselves with what they have been given . In other words, with privilege comes responsibility.
As we can see, The Quran is not stating a fixed rule, i.e. that all men are the maintainers/supporters of women, they are only so if they fulfill the criteria and it is referring to the wider duty of care/responsibility men have as mentioned above. It is conditional."

You speak of the criteria of beeing qawwamuun, which is correct, only if "rijaal" is not men and that we are talking of a pool of people of both sexes, then we take out of it the criteria. Otherwise we will have the contradiction you are not seeing All men are guardians over all women. It should stop here, because the "criteria" for qiwama is already set being a man.Then we do not need any further criteria. Unfortunately this is what is understood in the Muslim world, and even in the Shari3a law. Spending became a second degree, and if a man is unable to spend and his wife is the bread winner, his qualification as "man" is superior to her spending, which you see as the criteria.
But when we look at the whole statement as taking "people" as a pool, then it becomes clearer and the contradiction disappears
"Breadwinners are guardians over the needy/vulnerable, unemployed for what God bestowed on them (maybe the ability to work) and for their spending".
Here spending becomes really the criteria among breadwinners to be guardians. It's part of them and they are able to do it. Men, in general, are not necessarily able to spend if they are unable to work.
Then "some" comes perfectly right. This pool of people, men or women, God bestowed the ability to work on some of them (those who got the job and so become breadwinners) over some (those who are unable/ cannot work). And so the verse goes on into narrowing and no more "people" but behaviour of those "breadwinners - spenders", not merely gendered men and women.
God then gives examples of these good and bad breadwinners-spenders as two women, just as He gave us examples of two women for mu'mineen and two women for kafireen.

Interestingly, the reasoning you give is very similar, if not identical to my own, but you choose different terms for nisa/rijal.

You then go on to seemingly contradict yourself, because you first said
"Because this verse contains a law, and laws are for mu'men, so Allah should have addressed mu'men, as mquran mentioned, not the whole human kind."

Then said "Then the verse narrows now to include only mu'menaat because it is now going to discuss law."

But the actual verse of 434 does not mention muminat, this is your assumption. You will have to clarify or retract your point.
Thanks

I stand corrected as far as the usage of "mu'minaat" is concerned. It describes them as "quaanitaat devout", an even higher degree of "mu'minaat". (description of Ibrahim 16120; Mariam 6612; women better than the wives of the prophet 665). They are therefore "mu'minaat" by default.

Sister Samia may be able and like to throw light that this verb cannot be used without a preposition for something abstract. It is used without preposition only for places/physcial existing structure, location.

(2259)

(1780)

(4046)

(4154)

Salaam ths

Sorry for the late reply.
I just have one question about all these photos
Who are these people prostrating for? And where's the person, or the symbol of that person or god situated?

The answer is that they prostrate to a king or a statute representing their god situated in front of them.
So, to whom are Muslims prostrating? Is the kaaba our symbol of God, just like the cross to Christians and the Buddha to the Buddhist? What if I prostrate to another direction? Where did God say He is represented by anything or even asked us to prostrate towards the Kaaba?
In this case you cannot use the symbol of obedience (prostration) instead of the original meaning of the word which is "obedience", because "prostration" has its rules that do not fit with what God means to us.

Hi Pazuzu

You say

Has anyone EVER heard of Egypt being described as a "tribe" or a "clan"?

If you look at the original Aramaic text of Zecheriah, it says ?Mishfaht Misrim?. The word ?Mishfaht? is an Aramaic word meaning TRIBE.

Since I do not have the original text of Zecheriah, I went directly to an Aramaic online dictionary http//www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=m%27shfaht&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0
and searched for the word "Mishfaht" with all possible spellings but found nothing.
Can you please make sure of the spelling?

I also searched for the word "tribe" and found "B'SHaB,+aA"in some lexicons and "B'SHaRB'T,aA" in others; and in some it is simply " SHaB,+eA" (Arabic Sha'b)!
"Mishfaht", howevr, sounds like "safh", taking into consideration that the "S" in Arabic is an alteration of the sound "Sh" in Hebrew at least. Safh is the bottom of the mountain and could mean "valley".

Egypt shows as (B'MeTSReYN) with variation of the first B as M or L.
So even "Misrim" is not a correct spelling.

peace Samia,

Nice to see you post.

Have you ran this understanding through the occurrences within AQ and found it to hold weight?

Hello Wakas

Sorry for the belated response.
The term "torah" itself means "law" or "instructions".
In verse 6154, immediately after the verses detailing the articles of the Straight Path, we read

Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing (Our favour) to those who would do right, and explaining all things in detail...

Then, 6 155 157

And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy

Lest ye should say "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study"

Or lest ye should say "If the Book had only been sent down to us, we should have followed its guidance better than they....."

And then verse 6 158

Those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least their affair is with Allah He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.

Therefore One Book, One "religion".