Grammatical Errors in the Arabic Quran
-
salaam brother
can you provide evidence that
Quran has been fully preserved as it was revealed to Muhammad and no letter of the Quran has been changed?
regards
there is no way to prove that. The only way that can be believed in a general way, is if there are no known errors in the Quran that we have today; but we do, because of human error, and because of the long time period since the time of the revelation of the Quran and today.
-
Is God's promise to preserve the Quran is not enough evidence, what else is for you?
)How do you know that the promise of Quranic preservation is not a human innovation added to that Quran?
I don't, but I believe, on faith, that the gist of the Quranic message has been preserved, even if not the exact words and letters. -
The god uses the human tongue/language of the messenger to deliver the message. This human tongue, as with all human languages, has inherent oddities, ambiguities and inconsistencies. There are no grammatical errors in the great reading. There are errors in the formalized and rigid Classical Arabic grammar because it doesn't reflect the real informal vernacular language spoken in mundane every day street and home settings by the people of the messenger.
Peace,
Ayman
Salam Ayman,
I never thought about that. Thanks for that insightful post.
And thanks for this article about how the Quranic initials could possibly be slang. (no. 10 in the article)
http//www.19.org/index.php?aid=283
As a Bangla speaker, I meet a lot of people who think that Bangla has many errors as it doesn't match Sanskrit. What they don't realise is that Sanskrit was the written language used by the priest class, and was not used by the general people, who used to speak in different vernaculars.
peace
yesSarah
-
there is no way to prove that. The only way that can be believed in a general way, is if there are no known errors in the Quran that we have today; but we do, because of human error, and because of the long time period since the time of the revelation of the Quran and today.
Can you describe how one detects an 'error' ?
-
Can you describe how one detects an 'error' ?
oh, I wasn't referring to that in my post. I was just saying that you don't have to prove that something is not correct, you only have to show an example that something is wrong in order to prove your point.
As for detecting 'errors' I agree with Ayman that the Quran was revealed in the vernacular Arabic of that day and not in Classical Arabic, and would not call them grammatical errors, since the rules of grammar describe and not dictate, the language.
-
As for detecting 'errors' I agree with Ayman that the Quran was revealed in the vernacular Arabic of that day and not in Classical Arabic, and would not call them grammatical errors, since the rules of grammar describe and not dictate, the language.
Salam, sarah, all
errors in the quran we have in our hands todays, are not grammatical ones only.
There are many differences between the seven versions of the ''mus7af" , specially in the 2 major versions, "hafs" and "warsh" .
How can you explain these differences, ?
what is that has been preserved by gods' promise the "mushaf" the book or the "dhikr" ? i really need to know
Thank you
-
Salam, sarah, all
errors in the quran we have in our hands todays, are not grammatical ones only.
There are many differences between the seven versions of the ''mus7af" , specially in the 2 major versions, "hafs" and "warsh" .
How can you explain these differences, ?
what is that has been preserved by gods' promise the "mushaf" the book or the "dhikr" ? i really need to know
Thank you
Of course there are transcription errors in the present day Quran, hence my focus on the preservation of the main Quranic message, and not the exact words and characters
Please see http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg223880#msg223880 -
Sarah, lets say I copied the 'Hafs' Quran word for word except I made a few word changes here and there. Does that mean the Quran is corrupted?
RK published a Quran which lacks 9128-129. Does THAT mean the Quran is corrupted?
They found the san'a manuscripts with significant changes to the Quran and that's oldest known Quranic text. Does THAT mean the quran is corrupted?
What if the Warsh writer, RK, the San'a manuscript writer were all nefarious individuals who corrupted the quran on purpose to cast doubt? I dont know them, i never met them. All I know is, even this person who wrote the 'whichquran' pdf says the vast majority of the Quran's on earth are of the 'hafs' variety yet it doesnt strike him that THAT is a significant statement in itself.
Its funny how in the question of authenticity of Quranic text, we go to everything EXCEPT the quran itself.
-
Sarah, lets say I copied the 'Hafs' Quran word for word except I made a few word changes here and there. Does that mean the Quran is corrupted?
If your definition of corruption includes a few changes in words, letters and numbers, then yes.
In my opinion, corruption would mean large changes, like addition of entire passages, or deletions of sets of verses.
In other words, changes that would drastically change the meaning of the Quranic verses to the point that we don't know what is right or wrong.But from my definition, my answer would be no.
-
RK published a Quran which lacks 9128-129. Does THAT mean the Quran is corrupted?
I don't understand. He deleted two lines, and we all know that, so it's a question of whether you think those are fake verses (cause you believe RK is right)
or whether you think the deletion is an innovation (cause you don't believe him).What's corruption got to do anything with it?
-
They found the san'a manuscripts with significant changes to the Quran and that's oldest known Quranic text. Does THAT mean the quran is corrupted?
What are you comparing the San'a to? Which Quran?
What if an older known Quranic text is discovered at a later date? How would you change your mind about the correctness of today's printed Quran in response to that? -
Its funny how in the question of authenticity of Quranic text, we go to everything EXCEPT the quran itself.
uh?
if you want to authenticate something, you have to refer to something else, by default.
If I asked you, "Are you a liar?" should I take your word for it, or listen to what other people, who know you well, say about you? -
What if the Warsh writer, RK, the San'a manuscript writer were all nefarious individuals who corrupted the quran on purpose to cast doubt? I dont know them, i never met them. All I know is, even this person who wrote the 'whichquran' pdf says the vast majority of the Quran's on earth are of the 'hafs' variety yet it doesnt strike him that THAT is a significant statement in itself.
It is not a particularly significant statement, it is a statement of fact. You can verify it easily by finding some printed Qurans in common use, published by different publishing houses, distributed in different countries, and finding out which version is being copied. It seems like a simple question of statistics.
-
uh?
if you want to authenticate something, you have to refer to something else, by default.
If I asked you, "Are you a liar?" should I take your word for it, or listen to what other people, who know you well, say about you?Does the quran recommend this? 1736
-
uh?
if you want to authenticate something, you have to refer to something else, by default.
If I asked you, "Are you a liar?" should I take your word for it, or listen to what other people, who know you well, say about you?And you know that these 'other people' know me well, do you? You have actually gazed into their hearts and discerned their intent?
If you claim I'm not objective, fine. But how do you claim these other people (who btw, contradict me) are objective?
-
It is not a particularly significant statement, it is a statement of fact. You can verify it easily by finding some printed Qurans in common use, published by different publishing houses, distributed in different countries, and finding out which version is being copied. It seems like a simple question of statistics.
Actually, I have. And as the author of 'whichquran' says, the overwhelming majority of what claims to be 'the Quran' is what is known as the 'hafs' by Traditionalists. Have you performed this test yourself?
-
Does the quran recommend this? 1736
(36) And never concern thyself with anything of which thou hast no knowledge anything??, etc. This would seem to relate to groundless assertions about events or people (and hence to slander or false testimony), to statements based on guesswork unsupported by evidence, or to interfering in social situations which one is unable to evaluate correctly.] verily, hearing and sight and heart - all of them - will be called to account for it !
http//www.wikimir.com/message-of-quran-by-muhammad-asad-017
I wasn't referring to hearsay. When we apply to college, for instance, we have to submit recommendation letters from two high school teachers who know us well. I can't tell the committee what I am like, only they can. Of course, I can write a personal essay that tells them about myself, but it will be supplemented by the recommendation letters from other 'people who know me well.'
Right?Peace
Sarah
-
And you know that these 'other people' know me well, do you? You have actually gazed into their hearts and discerned their intent?
If you claim I'm not objective, fine. But how do you claim these other people (who btw, contradict me) are objective?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg224171#msg224171
I was not referring to people on this forum, because, after all, we really do not know each other well. It's an online forum after all.
I am not saying that anyone here is objective. I have looked at a few Qurans, and looked at the numbering for 280 (this I know, for a fact, varies from the Hafs and Warsh version according to that article). At home, one of the Qurans is numbered like the Warsh, and the other two, like the Hafs. So, to me, it is proof that there is more than one variant in common use.Which one is the true version? I don't think that there is a way to find that out in a way that will be believed, since there will be assumptions made by the researcher that we may not all agree on, which is, in my view, completely fine.
-
Actually, I have. And as the author of 'whichquran' says, the overwhelming majority of what claims to be 'the Quran' is what is known as the 'hafs' by Traditionalists. Have you performed this test yourself?
I do not care. Why do I have to perform this test when I don't care what the distribution is? All I know is that there is more than one variant in common use, and therefore, there might have been transcription errors, and this implies that the Hafs variant is not definitive.