The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

[The Cat]

The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names. Part 1: Allah & Koran'
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
viewtopic.php?p=96321#p96321
viewtopic.php?p=96470#p96470
viewtopic.php?p=96634#p96634

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/

http://www.free-minds.org/name

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.

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.
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..........

[AhmedBahgat]

Haha Pussy cat

I have slam dunked that manipulated manipulative freak called Ayman on the freak minders web site over 3 years ago or so

Just go and tell him to translated the following word for you, then after he does, both of yous should dismiss their bum arses, here is the word, bum:

Qira'ah

قراءة

[crazymonkie_]

Finding someone who doesn't think that Quranic Arabic came from Syriac/Nabatean? Absolutely priceless.

[The Cat]

Finding someone who doesn't think that Quranic Arabic came from Syriac/Nabatean? Absolutely priceless.

There are some people like AB who thinks that Arabic was invented somewhere down the seventh heaven...

[AhmedBahgat]

Finding someone who doesn't think that Quranic Arabic came from Syriac/Nabatean? Absolutely priceless.

There are some people like AB who thinks that Arabic was invented somewhere down the seventh heaven...

Pussy cat

The freak minders are simply a bunch of kafirs and manipulators, their sect leader (Layth) alleged on his we site that Meccah is a place for idol worshipping, this was in a big article about 5 parts, I totally demolished his crap ad exposed him

Read this and educate yourself:

http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?n ... topic&t=30

[The Cat]

Haha Pussy cat
I have slam dunked that manipulated manipulative freak called Ayman on the freak minders web site over 3 years ago or so

Well you certainly aren't disproving the bulk of his affirmation: that koran shouldn't be translated with a capital letter as indicating a proper
name while it's not the -original- intent. Since you do not challenge this, we must understand that you acknowledge his main point: ''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.''

That's precisely what is underlined in 20.113, 43.3 and 39.28: the Muslims holy book is just -a- koran written in Arabic, not The One and Only
Koran. Your holy book acknowledges many others on par with itself. So, according to its former intention, it should be translated as a common
noun and NOT as a proper name. It is a koran, not The Koran! 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....'' Muslims like you are just plainly idolizing a proper name.

here is the word, bum: Qira'ah قراءة

The very fact that there was no hamza in the Classical Arabic of the Koran debunks your statement. It had to be added so to fit the -later-
Arabic Qira'ah. So... NO... Arabic wasn't invented somewhere down the seventh heaven. It has a historical context, mainly Aramaic. See?
Qira'ah itself has been borrowed from Syriac, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza

Hamza is not one of the 28 "full" letters, and owes its existence to historical orthographical inconsistencies in early Islamic times. In the Phoenician and Aramaic alphabets, from which the Arabic alphabet is descended, the glottal stop was expressed by ʼāleph, continued by Arabic ʼalif.... To indicate that a glottal stop, and not a mere vowel, was intended, hamza was added diacritically to alif.

It's not only 'Koran' that isn't Arabic, the very name of surah (chapter) for example is coming from the Hebrew 'Shura' (שׁוּרָה), meaning a
serial, a row or line. Shura 'ya'shar = straight row or sure series.

[AhmedBahgat]

Haha Pussy cat
I have slam dunked that manipulated manipulative freak called Ayman on the freak minders web site over 3 years ago or so

Well you certainly aren't disproving the bulk of his affirmation: that koran shouldn't be translated with a capital letter as indicating a proper
name while it's not the -original- intent. Since you do not challenge this, we must understand that you acknowledge his main point: ''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.''

That's precisely what is underlined in 20.113, 43.3 and 39.28: the Muslims holy book is just -a- koran written in Arabic, not The One and Only
Koran. Your holy book acknowledges many others on par with itself. So, according to its former intention, it should be translated as a common
noun and NOT as a proper name. It is a koran, not The Koran! 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....'' Muslims like you are just plainly idolizing a proper name.

here is the word, bum: Qira'ah قراءة

The very fact that there was no hamza in the Classical Arabic of the Koran debunks your statement. It had to be added so to fit the -later-
Arabic Qira'ah. So... NO... Arabic wasn't invented somewhere down the seventh heaven. It has a historical context, mainly Aramaic. See?
Qira'ah itself has been borrowed from Syriac, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza

Hamza is not one of the 28 "full" letters, and owes its existence to historical orthographical inconsistencies in early Islamic times. In the Phoenician and Aramaic alphabets, from which the Arabic alphabet is descended, the glottal stop was expressed by ʼāleph, continued by Arabic ʼalif.... To indicate that a glottal stop, and not a mere vowel, was intended, hamza was added diacritically to alif.

It's not only 'Koran' that isn't Arabic, the very name of surah (chapter) for example is coming from the Hebrew 'Shura' (שׁוּרָה), meaning a
serial, a row or line. Shura 'ya'shar = straight row or sure series.

What an ignornat bum

How come there was no hamzah and the Quran is full of hamzas?

even the word Quran you dumb has a hamzah, this is how it should be written:

قرءان




Another slam, hey

[The Cat]

Pussy cat
The freak minders are simply a bunch of kafirs and manipulators, their sect leader alleged (Layth) on his we site that Meccah is a place for idol worshipping, this was in a big article about 5 parts, I totally demolished his crap ad exposed him

Read this and educate yourself:
http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?n ... topic&t=30

Thanks but I can't get to it since I'm not a member. Anyway we may talk about it when comes the later topic of Mecca,
which in 48.24 isn't a proper name also, but the Arabic Mkk (destruction), wrongly translated by -NOT- translating it !

---
About the hamza, you're only showing your own ignorance of the Classical Arabic in which the koran was first written.

[AhmedBahgat]

The very fact that there was no hamza in the Classical Arabic of the Koran debunks your statement. It had to be added so to fit the -later-
Arabic Qira'ah. So... NO... Arabic wasn't invented somewhere down the seventh heaven. It has a historical context, mainly Aramaic. See?
Qira'ah itself has been borrowed from Syriac, not the other way around.

Here is an image from my software Access Quran showing the total number of the letter Hamzah in the Quran to be : 2691



And here is an example from the Quran showing a clear Arabic word that can never exist without the Hamzah:


2:228 والمطلقات يتربصن بانفسهن ثلاثه قروء ولا يحل لهن ان يكتمن ما خلق الله في ارحامهن ان كن يؤمن بالله واليوم الاخر وبعولتهن احق بردهن في ذلك ان ارادوا اصلاحا ولهن مثل الذي عليهن بالمعروف وللرجال عليهن درجه والله عزيز حكيم
And the divorced women should wait for three periods; and it is not lawful for them that they conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the last day. And their husbands have right to take them back in that period if they want reconciliation. And for them (the wives) is similar rights to what is expected of them. And for the men, they have a degree over them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 2:228]

-> See dumby, قروء , i.e. periods

And this should take us to slam dunk #78

# 78

[AhmedBahgat]

Pussy cat
The freak minders are simply a bunch of kafirs and manipulators, their sect leader alleged (Layth) on his we site that Meccah is a place for idol worshipping, this was in a big article about 5 parts, I totally demolished his crap ad exposed him

Read this and educate yourself:
http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?n ... topic&t=30

Thanks but I can't get to it since I'm not a member.

I will check the permission and see if that forum is available for public, it should be

[AhmedBahgat]

Mister confused Pussy Cat

all public should be able to read my forum, it is open for public since day 1, so go and read it and see for yourself why those punks of freak minders banned me after demolishing the joker of their cult leader Layth

[AhmedBahgat]

About the hamza, you're only showing your own ignorance of the Classical Arabic in which the koran was first written.

Stop ranting like a whore, SHOW US A FULL QURAN WRITTEN IN CLASSICAL ARABIC TO PROVE YOUR LIE

Put up or shut up, whore

[AhmedBahgat]

And btw Pussy Cat, you may take my slam dunk #78 to master Ayman of the freak minders and seek his deluded help

[The Cat]

About the hamza, you're only showing your own ignorance of the Classical Arabic in which the koran was first written.

Stop ranting like a whore, SHOW US A FULL QURAN WRITTEN IN CLASSICAL ARABIC TO PROVE YOUR LIE
Put up or shut up, whore

Help yourself and search for the Topkapi codex, or the Samarkand Codex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic

Classical Arabic (CA), also known as Qur'anic or Koranic Arabic, is the form of the Arabic language used in literary texts from Umayyad and Abbasid times (7th to 9th centuries). It is based on the Medieval dialects of Arab tribes..... Classical Arabic has its origins in the central and northern parts of the Arabian Peninsula, and is distinct from Old South Arabian languages that were spoken in the southern parts of the peninsula, modern day Yemen. Classical Arabic is the only surviving descendant of the Old North Arabian languages. The oldest inscription so far discovered in Classical Arabic goes back to 328 CE and is known as the Namārah inscription, written in the Nabataean alphabet and named after the place where it was found in southern Syria in April 1901.

With the spread of Islam, Classical Arabic became a prominent language of scholarship and religious devotion as the language of the Qur'an (at times even spreading faster than the religion). Its relation to modern dialects is somewhat analogous to the relationship of Latin and the Romance languages or Middle Chinese and the modern Chinese languages.... Classical Arabic is one of the Semitic languages, and therefore has many similarities in conjugation and pronunciation to Hebrew, Akkadian, Aramaic, and Amharic.

But all your skating around only emphasizes that you conceded the bulk of the argumentation, which is that the koran should be
properly understood as a common noun and NOT as a proper name, which leads Muslims like you to idolize and shirk your way to hell.

[AhmedBahgat]

Hey Pussy cat, here is another clear Arabic word that could have never existed without the Hamza:

5:54 يأيها الذين امنوا من يرتد منكم عن دينه فسوف ياتي الله بقوم يحبهم ويحبونه اذلة علي المؤمنين اعزة علي الكافرين يجاهدون في سبيل الله ولا يخافون لومة لائم ذلك فضل الله يؤتيه من يشاء والله واسع عليم

See bummy: لائم, La'em, i.e. Someone who blames, and this is a very common classical Arabic word. LOL

[AhmedBahgat]

Pussy cat, let me totally demolish your lies:

This is another very common CLASSICAL Arabic word that would have never existed without the Hamzah:

لئن , La'en, i.e. If, which appeared in the Quran 61 times, here is two of them in one verse:

2:145 ولئن اتيت الذين اوتوا الكتاب بكل ايه ما تبعوا قبلتك وما انت بتابع قبلتهم وما بعضهم بتابع قبله بعض ولئن اتبعت اهواءهم من بعد ما جاءك من العلم انك اذا لمن الظالمين

[AhmedBahgat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic

what the hell was that, you stupid?

But the image has the diacritical marks !!

The hamzah is not a diacritical mark, you stupid

dismiss yourself

[The Cat]

what the hell was that, you stupid?
But the image has the diacritical marks !!

The hamzah is not a diacritical mark, you stupid
dismiss yourself

Read again.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza
Hamza is not one of the 28 "full" letters, and owes its existence to historical orthographical inconsistencies in early Islamic times. In the Phoenician and Aramaic alphabets, from which the Arabic alphabet is descended, the glottal stop was expressed by ʼāleph, continued by Arabic ʼalif. However, alif was used to express both a glottal stop, and a long vowel. To indicate that a glottal stop, and not a mere vowel, was intended, hamza was added diacritically to alif. In modern orthography, under certain circumstances, hamza may also appear on the line, as if it were a full letter, independent of an alif. The hamza can be written alone or with a carrier, in which case it becomes a diacritic:
Alone: ء ;
Combined with a letter:
أ and إ (above and under an ʼalif)
ؤ (above a wāw)
ئ (above a dotless yāʼ, also called yāʼ hamza)

What an ignornat bum

Thanks for playing... on your way to hell...

[crazymonkie_]

*grabs popcorn*

The funniest part is that A_B is using GOOGLE TRANSLATOR. This is a translator that uses MODERN words and phrases. Hence why he thinks he's justified in adding "planets" to his translation and why, here, he gets to say "look, it's in the Quran X number of times!"

Well- so what? We're talking about the pre-history of Classical Arabic. All languages have a history- in this case from Aramaic to Syriac or Nabatean to written Classical Arabic. To understand this, however, you have to look past the religious texts and hagiographical histories of Abbasid Islam, reading (gasp) linguistic studies of Ummayad inscriptions- including about the Dome of the Rock and how the meaning was radically changed about 100 years after it was first put up.

But the odds that it will happen? Zero. A_B fears too much. He won't try to see just how big a world is out there, how little Islam really counts for, how little depth it has (no, the *amount* of writing counts for little- what matters is the *quality*, and Islam has little quality; what little it has, was "borrowed.")

[The Cat]

*grabs popcorn*

The funniest part is that A_B is using GOOGLE TRANSLATOR. This is a translator that uses MODERN words and phrases. Hence why he thinks he's justified in adding "planets" to his translation and why, here, he gets to say "look, it's in the Quran X number of times!"

Well- so what? We're talking about the pre-history of Classical Arabic. All languages have a history- in this case from Aramaic to Syriac or Nabatean to written Classical Arabic. To understand this, however, you have to look past the religious texts and hagiographical histories of Abbasid Islam, reading (gasp) linguistic studies of Ummayad inscriptions- including about the Dome of the Rock and how the meaning was radically changed about 100 years after it was first put up.

But the odds that it will happen? Zero. A_B fears too much. He won't try to see just how big a world is out there, how little Islam really counts for, how little depth it has (no, the *amount* of writing counts for little- what matters is the *quality*, and Islam has little quality; what little it has, was "borrowed.")

His mind is on a leash and he barks like a toothless chihuahua, but I kind of like him anyway. Like so many Muslims, he simply can't think
outside of the box he's trapped in! That's the prize of idolatry, for he's truly idolizing his own muzzle. Right here he's not concerned at all
by the shirk of expressing the word koran as a proper name, rather is he concerned about his 'hamza' leash being broken. That's hell to me.

Still his link doesn't work (for me at least). But he thinks that since he can link to it, others should too. That's him alright: All hat, no cattle!
http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?n ... topic&t=30