Grammatical Errors in the Arabic Quran
-
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
-
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?
What I believe is that the Muslims iconisation of the Quran, that is their treatment of it as a divine text, has led to an extreme scrutiny of the Quranic text over centuries. Muslim countries actually have government bureaus to monitor issues like that. This is all part of the dhikr phenomenon. My falsification test is that if there was 'another quran' as it were, then it would have the same prominence as so-called Hafs. But there isn't. Even Warsh cannot penetrate that level and the latest one. RK's version (sans 9128-129) couldn't either. This is what Quran means by 'ahl adh-dhikr', ask them.
Human beings are not perfect at what they do
But can they do one thing at least perfectly? I?ve scored 100 percent on tests before so while I AM not perfect, I have PERFORMED perfectly. The probability is there. Why do you automatically reject that probability. Does that show bias on your part? And since you're an imperfect human being, that bias must be flawed as well. Your logic crumbles on top of itself, im sorry to say.
So I think that small errors may have crept in.
There is no conspiracy theory.
Let's agree to disagree
Peace
Sarah
This isn?t about agreement. Your agreement won?t affect me in the least. This is a discussion. I?m saying that you have sentenced the text to being flawed with zero evidence. That is all.
-
But can they do one thing at least perfectly? I?ve scored 100 percent on tests before so while I AM not perfect, I have PERFORMED perfectly. The probability is there. Why do you automatically reject that probability. Does that show bias on your part? And since you're an imperfect human being, that bias must be flawed as well. Your logic crumbles on top of itself, im sorry to say.
on a short test, it is easy to score a 100%, since you dont' have to write the exact same words and letters. with any large body of text, it is possible, but extrememly unlikely.
even if you consider human dna replication machinery, which is almost near exact, errors do creep in, albeit at a small rate, even after proofreading by DNA enzymes. http//www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3.rhtmlBefore I digress further, I am just trying to point out that your argument would fall flat in its face if there is a change of even just one letter in these 1400 years in the entire text.
There is evidence that there is.
-
This isn?t about agreement. Your agreement won?t affect me in the least. This is a discussion. I?m saying that you have sentenced the text to being flawed with zero evidence. That is all.
Just because you don't accept some evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-
What I believe is that the Muslims iconisation of the Quran, that is their treatment of it as a divine text, has led to an extreme scrutiny of the Quranic text over centuries. Muslim countries actually have government bureaus to monitor issues like that. This is all part of the dhikr phenomenon. My falsification test is that if there was 'another quran' as it were, then it would have the same prominence as so-called Hafs. But there isn't. Even Warsh cannot penetrate that level and the latest one. RK's version (sans 9128-129) couldn't either. This is what Quran means by 'ahl adh-dhikr', ask them.
If I were to use your earlier argument, about believing the characters of the people in these 'government bureaus,' without any evidence, I could ask you as to how you can believe them without knowing them. I won't since I dont' believe there is some conspiracy theory with some weird group deliberately trying to propagate a fake variant of the Quran known nowadays as the Warsh.
"Secondly, it is possible that one variant went through more rigorous proofreading than the other, simply because teh people in charge were more punctilious about these matters.
'Prominence' (I think you meant popularity or widespread use, correct me if I am wrong) is hardly a test of authenticity. History is written by the winners, since they have more power, it isn't necessarily written by the majority. Similarly, just because one version is more popular than the other doesn't mean it is correct. If that were true, then the 'God alone' movement would be in teh majority, and not the tradition Sunni and Shia ones.
-
In my home, there are 14 Qurans, all Hafs. I guess that?s proof that there?s no such thing as Warsh.
Hardly, do you know of the flying spaghetti monster joke atheists use to prove that there is no god?
I don't have to prove that Warsh doesn't exist, I only have to show that one, just one, exists in print, in common use.At home, there is one, a Yusuf Ali translation, that was sent as a gift by a friend of my dad's when he just moved into his new job at a new city.
Your 14 Hafs do not prove anything, they only suggest that either that variant is more popular, or that you got them from the same publisher or something like that.
-
on a short test, it is easy to score a 100%, since you dont' have to write the exact same words and letters. with any large body of text, it is possible, but extrememly unlikely.
even if you consider human dna replication machinery, which is almost near exact, errors do creep in, albeit at a small rate, even after proofreading by DNA enzymes. http//www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3.rhtmlWho said it was a short test?
Sorry, this DNA stuff has zero relevance to me.
Before I digress further, I am just trying to point out that your argument would fall flat in its face if there is a change of even just one letter in these 1400 years in the entire text.
What do you mean ?the entire text? exactly? Are you saying if you took one of the two Hafs in your house (which is your statistical sample) modified it a little, that constitutes a change in ?the entire text? ?
There is evidence that there is.
Great. May I see it or would I have to go to another museum in the recesses of Timbuktoo to find it?