Don't measure the Quran with your Biblical methods.
Aside from the fact that there are indeed original copies in existence, you forget a very very important fact.
People have memorized the Quran by heart since its revelation. Thousands upon thousands of them. There was no variance in their recitations.
Well tell me where an original copy exist that was checked by prophet Mohammed?
Have you never heard of the qurra and there are at least 7 variant readings: Nafi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Amir, Abu Amr etc. Indeed there was nothing like a common reading until Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Mujahid, Baghda linguist fixed a single system of consonants and placed limits on the variation on vowel sounds.
May I ask you what real difference does all this make - surely the Qu'ran has content, a message so why all the fuss about what cannot be proved. Will the message of the Qu'ran you have in your hand suddenly become worthless if you cannot trace the text back to the tiniest dot?
Yes each sura that was taken down was checked by the prophet as well he dictated the order of the ayas, for instance the last verse ever revealed went into the 2nd chapter with his authoritative direction as is with every verse and as stated a complete unbound copy was trusted to hafsah his wife ...
there are no 'variant readings' there are dialects that differ which were all unified to the queryishi dialect which is the most proper Arabic, and with each copy sent there was a hafith as well to teach people the proper pronunciation..
the word سنة for instance if not properly taught can be read as sunnah or sana
one means tradition the other means year or period of time, both written the same way both found in the quran. Thus the unified style and the different hafiths distributed to teach wasn't because of alleged different reading but to properly teach how it should be read and memorized..
since you know nothing of the Quran or Arabic (my mother tongue) I'd refrain from disseminating wrong info on an Islamic board of all places.. because not only will you be found out but humiliated publicly for frank ignorance!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hmmm, I would like Mr. Hugo to show us some verses, and some of the variant readings and show us the "HUGE" difference that comes out of the different readings.
as an addendum.. no the message won't become worthless if the dots are missing.. again not only given the oral tradition of the Quran, but it is very easy for an Arabic speaker to read with or without the dots ..
anyone can recognize this no matter what style calligraphy it comes in with or without dots!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hmmm, I would like Mr. Hugo to show us some verses, and some of the variant readings and show us the "HUGE" difference that comes out of the different readings.
First of all I never said there were "HUGE" differences that come out of variant readings. But let me ask you, were there variant readings or not. Professor Esack (ISBN 978-1-85168-624-7), page 116 and 117 lists 7 such reading - is he not telling the truth?
First of all I never said there were "HUGE" differences that come out of variant readings. But let me ask you, were there variant readings or not. Professor Esack (ISBN 978-1-85168-624-7), page 116 and 117 lists 7 such reading - is he not telling the truth?
I just agreed that there are variant readings, but again like I said, try and listen to those readings and you'll find its like the difference between how a briton, an Irish, an american pronounce the word "water".
Like Gossamer pointed out before, that it's more of a tribal dialect difference.
And by the way I've so far heard almost 5 readings to be honest, and the differences are nothing... things like
Musah, Museh
This is helpful because my question is as I stated before, would the message of the Qu'ran become instantly worthless if one cannot trace it back to the tiniest dot or mark?
Like any language there are difficulties, for instance I am told the word harf can mean a coherent word, a single letter, a facet and the meaning of a word. Also to understand the words in Qu'ran you have to step back in time 1400 years to know exactly what bit meant at that time and that is why we have lexicons and look at the writing of the scholar at that time.
Can you explain then why an eminent professor with an international reputation as a Muslim scholar and a visiting professor at Harvard should say such, according to you, an outright lie plus all the other authors he cites when he explains the nature of variant reading must also be lying?
AS someone has said here, we are not talking about variants that are completely different from each other but variant because in early manuscript the Arabic script was not fully developed. No one as far as I know is claiming that the whole message changes only that it took a while to standardise the writing of Arabic.
Can you explain then why an eminent professor with an international reputation as a Muslim scholar and a visiting professor at Harvard should say such, according to you, an outright lie plus all the other authors he cites when he explains the nature of variant reading must also be lying?
AS someone has said here, we are not talking about variants that are completely different from each other but variant because in early manuscript the Arabic script was not fully developed. No one as far as I know is claiming that the whole message changes only that it took a while to standardise.
Esak isn't recognized as a Muslim scholar, unless you have a different definition of the terms than the rest of us? Bring the variant reading of the 'professor' here and we'll discuss them. As pointed above the 'bism illah ar'rahman arhaeem can be written in multitudes of ways and calligraphy and it has no bearing on the message or the prononuciation.
Go ahead since you are so scholary in the Quran ergo 'esack' I have no reservations whatsoever in showing your lies and his in one shot!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Well tell me where an original copy exist that was checked by prophet Mohammed?
Have you never heard of the qurra and there are at least 7 variant readings: Nafi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Amir, Abu Amr etc. Indeed there was nothing like a common reading until Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Mujahid, Baghda linguist fixed a single system of consonants and placed limits on the variation on vowel sounds.
May I ask you what real difference does all this make - surely the Qu'ran has content, a message so why all the fuss about what cannot be proved. Will the message of the Qu'ran you have in your hand suddenly become worthless if you cannot trace the text back to the tiniest dot?
What a joke!
Qirâ'a pl. -ât recitation, recital (especially of the Koran); reading (also, e.g., of measuring instruments); manner of recitation, punctuation and vocalization of the Koranic text.
These are not variants and only your deceitful missionary sites would have you believe this. No Muslim in history has ever defined it as a "variant".
And take your time reading it as it crushes ever single lie you use to try and make the Quran seem like it has variants. It never has and never will.
The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.[9]
Only the canonical Arabic text, as collected and compiled under the Caliph 'Uthman with the consensus of the companions (Ijma as-Sahaabah) may be recited, in one of the seven acceptable versions of the punctuation and vocalization (al-Qira'at as-Sab). These, though fixed only in the 4th century of the Hijrah, are taken to correspond to the seven Ahruf ("letters", "versions" or possibly "dialects") of the Koran which according to a hadith, the Prophet refered to as all having divine authority. In practice, only two of the seven readings have become customary: in Egypt, for example, the reading of Hafs according to the scholar Abu Bakr cAsim; and in the rest of Africa that of Nafî.[4]
The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought.[6]
It is impossible for the Quran to have been altered at all without disintegrating the religion. Allah specifically promises us that it will be preserved. And thus, if any variations were found between what was memorized and what was written, you would have immediately known.
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 07-16-2009 at 11:54 PM.
Well tell me where an original copy exist that was checked by prophet Mohammed?
the scribes copied new revelation in the presence of the Prophet. when the Qur'an was put in writing "as a single unit" [it had always been written, and would always be amended while the Prophet was alive. his death put the seal on the Qur'an]; it [and it took some convincing for Abu Bakr to agree to] it was mandated that every Ayat that was entered had to have a corresponding copy that was written not only in the presence of the Prophet but contemporaneously to it's revelation.
Have you never heard of the qurra and there are at least 7 variant readings: Nafi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Amir, Abu Amr etc. Indeed there was nothing like a common reading until Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Mujahid, Baghda linguist fixed a single system of consonants and placed limits on the variation on vowel sounds.
there were originally 10 different methods of pronunciation that were accepted during the life of the Prophet, there were 10 different dialects of Arabic. my understanding is that 7 remain with us today. in the time of Uthman, Islam was spreading and some tribe members were giving precedence to their own dialect. Uthman saw this as a problem and ordered a Qur'an with the vowel marks for the Quraysh dialect[ the dialect of the Prophet] to be the "preferred" version. the other known dialects are still allowable, but the Quraysh dialect is to be given preference.
May I ask you what real difference does all this make - surely the Qu'ran has content, a message so why all the fuss about what cannot be proved. Will the message of the Qu'ran you have in your hand suddenly become worthless if you cannot trace the text back to the tiniest dot?
Ehrman is a biblical scholar and studied under Bruce Metzger so he had the very best of teachers in terms of biblical New Testament studies so although I might or might not agree with him he is qualified to speak on NT issues.
Ibn Warraq studied in Edinburgh under Montgomery Watt a world class and outstanding teacher in Arabic studies. It follows the Ibn Warraq is qualified to speak on Islamic issues.
I am not sure what point you are making here. Is it that one has to be qualified academically to be able to say anything with authority?
Salaam
i just wanted to speak to this issue a wee bit. there is a BIG difference between Ehrman and ibn Warraq. i googled the fellow that you use this morning. for us, he is nothing but an apostate that we needn't give the time of day. NO WAY can he be considered a scholar of Islam to Mulslims [maybe to orientalists, but not us!]
where Ehrman IS different, and i am pointing this out to all, is that MOST of the points that Ehrman makes are agreed upon by Christian scholars. he himself is now an apostate [from Christianity, which might be why we like him so much!]
let me quote from Misquoting Jesus:
"What is striking. however, is that most readers - even those interested in Christianity, in the bible, in Biblical studies, both those who believe the Bible is inerrant and those who do not - know almost nothing about textual criticism. And it is not difficult to see why. Despite the fact that this has beena topic of sustained scholarship now for more than 3 hundred years, there is scarcely a single book written about if for the lay audience..."
i can explain this aspect a bit further IF someone is interested.
to sum, Mr Ehrman, while an apostate, teaches and studies and is an expert on Textual Criticism and NOT an apostate's version of Textual criticism; which would be where he differs from ibn Warraq.
i have to make the schedule for work tomorrow at this point.
wa Salaam
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
^^ Thank you both, I don't have time at all of late to belabor the issue with this guy while issuing faithful to history information so as to not deprive people of the truth. I appreciate your research...
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
What a joke!
Qirâ'a pl. -ât recitation, recital (especially of the Koran); reading (also, e.g., of measuring instruments); manner of recitation, punctuation and vocalization of the Koranic text. These are not variants and only your deceitful missionary sites would have you believe this. No Muslim in history has ever defined it as a "variant".
And take your time reading it as it crushes ever single lie you use to try and make the Quran seem like it has variants. It never has and never will.
The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.[9]
Only the canonical Arabic text, as collected and compiled under the Caliph 'Uthman with the consensus of the companions (Ijma as-Sahaabah) may be recited, in one of the seven acceptable versions of the punctuation and vocalization (al-Qira'at as-Sab). These, though fixed only in the 4th century of the Hijrah, are taken to correspond to the seven Ahruf ("letters", "versions" or possibly "dialects") of the Koran which according to a hadith, the Prophet refered to as all having divine authority. In practice, only two of the seven readings have become customary: in Egypt, for example, the reading of Hafs according to the scholar Abu Bakr cAsim; and in the rest of Africa that of Nafî.[4]
The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought.[6]
It is impossible for the Quran to have been altered at all without disintegrating the religion. Allah specifically promises us that it will be preserved. And thus, if any variations were found between what was memorized and what was written, you would have immediately known.
What "deceitful Missionary sites" are you talking about, what you have written here more or less corresponds to what I said in my post and I quoted a Muslim Scholar by name, his book and even the page numbers.
Even here you talk about 'differences' and 'significance' but Skye has denied all this so you cannot agree even among yourselves.
What "deceitful Missionary sites" are you talking about, what you have written here more or less corresponds to what I said in my post and I quoted a Muslim Scholar by name, his book and even the page numbers.
Even here you talk about 'differences' and 'significance' but Skye has denied all this so you cannot agree even among yourselves.
Address what is written in my post and stop bouncing around. You'd also be wise to drop your constant appeals to authority (the scholar says so!). Moreover, I don't see where Skye has disagreed with me but even if she did, it doesn't matter. As you can see from my post, you're assertions are dust desperate attempts at discrediting an established aspect of the Quran.
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 07-17-2009 at 07:17 PM.
As stated and I don't wish to belabor this.. if your scholar with page numbers had something so ground breaking that should shake the rest of us to the core why don't you write it out here so we can examine it closer? are you afraid that it will be ripped into?
if you'd bother with recommended reading (A history of Quranic text from revelation to compilation) you wouldn't be so desperate for straw man on every post.. Or are you afraid to dispel the myth that has been spoon fed you for so long, the one that makes your god lose in a wrestling match and immolate himself on the cross?
your logic or lack thereof incites pity and ignites my anger over time wasted to something that could be easily remedied with proper knowledge..
Like someone who insists to treat his encephalopathy with herbal remedies citing age old wisdom from his forefathers of yore which can be taken and dumped in the trash in face of sound incontrovertible science!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Yeah address the stuff that is presented to you rather then talking around the topic. Otherwise its preety much a waste of time.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks