Grammatical Errors in the Arabic Quran
-
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.
-
(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?Right, except in this 'college application', the people who are 'recommending' you are people whom you never met, who wrote and propagate a version of the Quran which never and can never supercede the authorised dhikr version (what Traditional Islam calls 'Hafs'. In effect, you're asking your worst enemy to write your letter of recommendation. Brilliant move. I suggest you read 'Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran' by Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi who will tell you just how unsound the transmission of the Quran is (one hadith for example, says there are lost verses). Trust his sources and your letter of recommendation will be perfect.
-
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.
Lol, common use? I think you don't know the situation very well. Warsh has never been in 'common use'. Even the author of 'whichquran' knows this but refuses to factor this into his argument. Look, let me change a few words too and get THAT version published. That'll help you strengthen the argument that the Quran is corrupted. That's exactly what the Warsh guy did, after all and you bought THAT.
-
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.
Neither was I. I?m referring to the people who conceived of this ?warsh? notion. Presumably you didn?t meet these people either.
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.
In my home, there are 14 Qurans, all Hafs. I guess that?s proof that there?s no such thing as Warsh.
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.
Yeah, lets consult all known ?scholars? of the field except the author of the Quran himself. Lets forget him. He doesn?t know what he?s on about. He never thought that there?d be so-called ?scribal errors? thus compromising the integrity of the text.
-
Neither was I. I?m referring to the people who conceived of this ?warsh? notion. Presumably you didn?t meet these people either.
I have one question for you, just one.
Do you believe that the 'authorised dhikr version'/ hafs
is the exact same as the original Quran,
word for word
letter for letter?If it isn't, then code 19 does not work.
Peace,
Sarah
-
I have one question for you, just one.
Do you believe that the 'authorised dhikr version'/ hafs
is the exact same as the original Quran,
word for word
letter for letter?Yes I do. I call it the snooker effect. If indeed dhikr has been comprised, its level of pervasiveness would never come close to what it is today. Muhammad hit the snooker ball in that time to effect the situation we see today. The author of the Quran points us to this as well by calling adh-dhikr as ?marfu3ah? (raised high , i.e. the most prominent) in 8011-16
My control group is the hadith literature. The level of difference in hadith shows that its canonisation was never under control the way Quran?s was.
If it isn't, then code 19 does not work.
Peace,
Sarah
I totally reject code 19.
-
Yes I do. I call it the snooker effect. If indeed dhikr has been comprised, its level of pervasiveness would never come close to what it is today. Muhammad hit the snooker ball in that time to effect the situation we see today. The author of the Quran points us to this as well by calling adh-dhikr as ?marfu3ah? (raised high , i.e. the most prominent) in 8011-16
control the way Quran?s was.So you believe that, in the 1400 years since the original Quran was written down, that people who worked to make copies of the Quran, by hand, with a lot of painstaking effort, with good intentions, never made a single mistake, not even with a single letter, or number (which were added later to the Quran, btw) through normal human error, despite their best attempts to proofread, that did not get caught, but instead got transcribed?
Human beings are not perfect at what they do.
So I think that small errors may have crept in.
There is no conspiracy theory.
Let's agree to disagree
Peace
Sarah