The problems of the deception from the Koranic 'proper names' are just as fundamentals as they are numerous. They include such terms as
'Allah', 'Islam', 'Koran', 'Muhammad', 'Qibla', 'Zakat' and 'Salat', 'Mecca', 'Quraysh', 'Ka'aba', 'al-Masjid', 'Deen' (or Din).... just to name a few!
In Arabic there's no capital to determine a proper name from a common one. To indicate such differentiation it uses 'ism' instead. This,
in turns, came down to deliver an excessive amount of HUGE falsifications when wronly translated/understood.
This thread will cover some of the most prominent mistakes, starting with the words 'Allah' and the 'Koran' itself, which never was written
as a title (a proper name) but as a generic for religious lecturing, or reading (from the Syriac quryan, of the same meaning). Many of these
falsifications imply shirk as they are blasphemous to the One God and the spirit of His revelations. So Muslims are utterly concerned here.
1. The name 'Allah'
Allah is not a proper name but a generic for The God (a contraction for Al-Ilah) and so Muslims are committing shirk when using Allah as a
proper name, instead of a generic for 'The God'! They are, in fact, associating a virtual partner to Him, transforming Allah into an idol!
But this has already been covered quite well...
viewtopic.php?p=96081#p96081" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=96321#p96321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=96470#p96470" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=96634#p96634" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2. The Koran isn't a proper name also.
The author to whom I will rely on, called 'Brother Ayman' wrote for a Koran-only site: free-minds.org and use a deluge of Koranic verses
which many times I've shortened to its mere mention. So I'm providing a link to check them, a 3 in 1: Yusuf Ali, Picktall and Shakir.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc ... lim/quran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/name" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We see that the author is very careful not to use the word 'koran' as a proper name but as the generic for (great) reading.A proper name not authorized by The God is following conjecture and personal fantasies instead of the guidance that has come from our Lord. Once people gave them proper names not authorized by The God, they believed in a figment of their own fantasy and not the real those given control ("mala'ika") that we should all have faith in. Fantasies reflect a human being desire for things to be easy for him or her both in this world and in the hereafter. Hence, the people who fantasized proper names not authorized by The God naturally went on to fantasize an intercessional role for those given control ("mala'ika") in the hereafter.
What they believe in becomes the unreal fantasy that they imagined and not the reality. Hence, in reality they don't have faith. Finally, people inevitably end up serving the unrealities that they fantasized instead of The God as clear from verses such as 12:40: "What you serve besides The God is nothing but names that you have named you and your fathers, The God did not send down any authority for such. The judgment is or none but The God. He ordered that none be served but He. That is the true obligation, but most of humankind do not know." One of the lessons that we should learn from the example given in verses 53:19-30 is that we shouldn't give concepts proper names not authorized by The God.
The reading/("al-quran")
Since we are basing our analysis on its verses, then it is appropriate to start by asking oneself whether the proper name "Quran" is authorized by The God or not. In other words, should the word that people use to describe it be "quran/reading" or "Quran"? First, let's see if the word "quran" is used as a proper name or a common description. One of the ways to do this is to check if there is any occurrence of the word quran in the common form. As we start our analysis, we readily see that the common description "a quran" is used many times throughout the quran. For example the following verses make it clear that "quran" simply means "reading" and is not a proper name (quoting 15.1; 17.106; 39.69, etc)......
Similarly, there are many verses that use the common description to denote that what The God sent down is an Arabic reading (quoting 12.2; 20.113; 39.28, etc). There are some verses that use the word "quran" to describe other readings, which is yet another indication that it must be a common description as opposed to a proper name (13.31; 17.88). In the above verses, the word "quran" is used to describe hypothetical readings other than the ultimate reading/quran we know. Hence, we see that "quran" is used as a common description and not a proper name. There are also many instances where the reading/quran is pointed to by saying "this" ("hatha" in Arabic). The use of "this" to specify the reading/quran further confirms that reading/quran is not a proper name but is a common description. For example: 10:37. This reading/quran could not have been produced without The God, but it is to authenticate what is already present, and detailing of the book in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.
Similar to our analysis of the word "reading/quran" we find many verses where the book/"kitab" is mentioned as a common description to denote the book from The God: 2:89. ''And when a book ("kitab") came to them from The God, authenticating what is with them; while before that they were mocking those who rejected; so when what they knew came to them, they rejected it, so The God’s curse be upon the rejecters.'' (then 6.92; 7.2; 7.53, etc).
Moreover, according to the reading, The God has many books (plural) so once again we see that "the book" is a common description and not a proper name (2.285; 4.136). In fact, even human books written by the very hands of people are described as "the book" in the quran: 2:79. ''So woe to those who write the book ("al-kitab") with their hands then say: "This is from The God", that they can seek a cheap price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gained.''
All this confirms that what makes the book special is not that it is "the Book" but that it is "the book from The God". So now that we know that both "the book" and "the reading" are not proper names but common descriptions, the next logical question is: What is the relationship between "the book" and "the reading"? Once we have given up the proper names not authorized by The God, suddenly the answer is obvious. The relationship is simply that "the reading" is the reading of "the book" and the purpose of the reading of the book is to LEARN.
So, then it reaches its real Syriac root of qeryānā (quryan, QRYN) which refers to 'religious reading' or from Kyrie for Lord.
So did argue Theodor Noldeke in 1860: "Since a cultural word like "to read" can not be proto-Semitic, we may assume that it
has entered Arabia, and probably from the North... Since Syriac has, next to the verb קּרא, also the noun qeryānā, meaning both
ἀνάγνωσις ("the act of reading") and ἀνάγνωσμα ("the thing read"), and because of the above mentioned, the assumption of
probability increases, that the term Qur'an is not an internal Arabic development from the infinitive with the same meaning,
but a borrowing from the Syriac word that has been adapted according to the type fulʻān."
To be followed..........
and why, here, he gets to say "look, it's in the Quran X number of times!"