Grammatical Errors in the Arabic Quran
-
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?
-
Just because you don't accept some evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just because something exists doesn't mean it is what you say it is.
-
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.
You could indeed. And my answer would be their ?variant? (as you call it) fits the description given by the text itself. Furthermore, if they all conspired to change it, judging from their agreement level on hadith, the changes would never attain unanimity
"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.
So this so-called variant went through such a high level of proof reading that everywhere except a tiny enclave in North Africa which somehow proof reading never took place. Not sound reasoning, sorry.
'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.
Apologies but I?m not discussing your opinion on what a ?test of authenticity? is. You may have your own as I may have mine. That?s our prerogative. I am discussing the author?s test of authenticity. His test I do care about because my engagement with his text presupposes that I must be engaging with HIS text and not some false version.
The Sunnis and Shias ideology is very much in opposition with Quran. Their most fundamental principle, freedom of religion which they deny to others is diametrically opposed to Quran?s own. Yet, despite their most complex system to deny the Quran it?s rightful place as sole arbiter, they can never change it. That is the effect of dhikr/eminent one.
-
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.Going by your ?test of authenticty?, God would have be like a security guard, waiting to nail with a bolt of lightning anyone who dares change a letter in the hafs. It doesn?t work like that. ?Common use? here shows you?re not well acquainted with the situation. That?s my humble opinion, sorry.
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.
More popular is synonymous with with ?more eminent?. That?s all I care about. And why on earth would I get 14 Hafs from the same publisher? I have 14 different translations and sizes.
-
hey, we at least agree on something. (other than God alone, I hope)
handshakeHeh, this is one game where you won't find much agreement in the course of your discussion. Quranism is like the wild west. Anyone can say anything simply because there is (quite rightly, in my view) a total lack of authority.
What is important is that our salvations do not depend on your agreement. That you disagree with me doesn't entail that I call you the K word. Even if you never encountered Quran in your life, it wouldn't matter as long as you were a good person.
-
Heh, this is one game where you won't find much agreement in the course of your discussion. Quranism is like the wild west. Anyone can say anything simply because there is (quite rightly, in my view) a total lack of authority.
What is important is that our salvations do not depend on your agreement. That you disagree with me doesn't entail that I call you the K word. Even if you never encountered Quran in your life, it wouldn't matter as long as you were a good person.
Why are you even connecting salvation with agreement? Before, I used to care about the nitty gritty details about Quranic preservation, code 19, and stuff like that, but now I don't. It's simply because of 37
"3 7
He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ - as well as others that are allegorical.* Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ** which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out confusion,*** and seeking its final meaning ; but none save God knows its final meaning.**** Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say
"We believe in it; the whole is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.
*The above passage may be regarded as a key to the understanding of the Qur'an. Tabari identifies the ayat muhkamat ("messages that are clear in and by themselves" with what the philologists and jurists describe as nass - namely, ordinances or statements which are self-evident (zahir) by virtue of their wording (cf. Lisan at-'Arab, art. nass). Consequently, Tabari regards as ayat muhkamat only those statements or ordinances of the Qur'an which do not admit of more than one interpretation (which does not, of course, preclude differences of opinion regarding the implications of a particular ayah muhkamah). In my opinion, however, it would be too dogmatic to regard any passage of the Qur'an which does not conform to the above definition as mutashabih ("allegorical" for there are many statements in the Qur'an which are liable to more than one interpretation but are, nevertheless, not allegorical - just as there are many expressions and passages which, despite their allegorical formulation, reveal to the searching intellect only one possible meaning. For this reason, the ayat mutashabihat may be defined as those passages of the Qur'an which are expressed in a figurative manner, with a meaning that is metaphorically implied but not directly, in so many words, stated. The ayat muhkamat are described as the "essence of the divine writ" (umm al-kitab) because they comprise the fundamental principles underlying its message and, in particular, its ethical and social teachings and it is only on the basis of these clearly enunciated principles that the allegorical passages can be correctly interpreted. (For a more detailed discussion of symbolism and allegory in the Qur'an. see Appendix 1.)
**Lit., "that of it".
***The "confusion" referred to here is a consequence of interpreting allegorical passages in an "arbitrary manner" (Zamakhshari).
****According to most of the early commentators, this refers to the interpretation of allegorical passages which deal with metaphysical subjects - for instance, God's attributes, the ultimate meaning of time and eternity, the resurrection of the dead, the Day of Judgment, paradise and hell, the nature of the beings or forces described as angels, and so forth - all of which fall within the category of al-ghayb, i.e., that sector of reality which is beyond the reach of human perception and imagination and cannot, therefore, be conveyed to man in other than allegorical terms. This view of the classical commentators, however, does not seem to take into account the many Qur'anic passages which do not deal with metaphysical subjects and yet are, undoubtedly, allegorical in intent and expression. To my mind, one cannot arrive at a correct understanding of the above passage without paying due attention to the nature and function of allegory as such. A true allegory - in contrast with a mere pictorial paraphrase of something that could equally well be stated in direct terms - is always meant to express in a figurative manner something which, because of its complexity, cannot be adequately expressed in direct terms or propositions and, because of this very complexity, can be grasped only intuitively, as a general mental image, and not as a series of detailed "statements" and this seems to be the meaning of the phrase, "none save God knows its final meaning".
http//www.geocities.com/masad02/003
In my opinion, only a few things are important, believing in God alone, not committing shirk, being honest, helping others.
(I am done discussing this, since I don't see it as being important. Whether or not there are textual variants is not something that is important to me. If there are, I accept that humans are imperfect. If there aren't , then wow wow
I don't believe that my salvation is dependent on accepting or rejecting either of the above possibilities)As for calling me a K word (Kafir) I hadn't even suspected you of that, prior to you calling me that.
And yes, being a good person who doesnt' commit shirk is what's paramount.
I'll leave proof of Quranic preservation to God, and not worry about it.
Peace
-
Why are you even connecting salvation with agreement? Before, I used to care about the nitty gritty details about Quranic preservation, code 19, and stuff like that, but now I don't. It's simply because of 37
Good for you.
"3 7
He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ - as well as others that are allegorical.* Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ** which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out confusion,*** and seeking its final meaning ; but none save God knows its final meaning.**** Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say
"We believe in it; the whole is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.
*The above passage may be regarded as a key to the understanding of the Qur'an. Tabari identifies the ayat muhkamat ("messages that are clear in and by themselves" with what the philologists and jurists describe as nass - namely, ordinances or statements which are self-evident (zahir) by virtue of their wording (cf. Lisan at-'Arab, art. nass). Consequently, Tabari regards as ayat muhkamat only those statements or ordinances of the Qur'an which do not admit of more than one interpretation (which does not, of course, preclude differences of opinion regarding the implications of a particular ayah muhkamah). In my opinion, however, it would be too dogmatic to regard any passage of the Qur'an which does not conform to the above definition as mutashabih ("allegorical" for there are many statements in the Qur'an which are liable to more than one interpretation but are, nevertheless, not allegorical - just as there are many expressions and passages which, despite their allegorical formulation, reveal to the searching intellect only one possible meaning. For this reason, the ayat mutashabihat may be defined as those passages of the Qur'an which are expressed in a figurative manner, with a meaning that is metaphorically implied but not directly, in so many words, stated. The ayat muhkamat are described as the "essence of the divine writ" (umm al-kitab) because they comprise the fundamental principles underlying its message and, in particular, its ethical and social teachings and it is only on the basis of these clearly enunciated principles that the allegorical passages can be correctly interpreted. (For a more detailed discussion of symbolism and allegory in the Qur'an. see Appendix 1.)
**Lit., "that of it".
***The "confusion" referred to here is a consequence of interpreting allegorical passages in an "arbitrary manner" (Zamakhshari).
****According to most of the early commentators, this refers to the interpretation of allegorical passages which deal with metaphysical subjects - for instance, God's attributes, the ultimate meaning of time and eternity, the resurrection of the dead, the Day of Judgment, paradise and hell, the nature of the beings or forces described as angels, and so forth - all of which fall within the category of al-ghayb, i.e., that sector of reality which is beyond the reach of human perception and imagination and cannot, therefore, be conveyed to man in other than allegorical terms. This view of the classical commentators, however, does not seem to take into account the many Qur'anic passages which do not deal with metaphysical subjects and yet are, undoubtedly, allegorical in intent and expression. To my mind, one cannot arrive at a correct understanding of the above passage without paying due attention to the nature and function of allegory as such. A true allegory - in contrast with a mere pictorial paraphrase of something that could equally well be stated in direct terms - is always meant to express in a figurative manner something which, because of its complexity, cannot be adequately expressed in direct terms or propositions and, because of this very complexity, can be grasped only intuitively, as a general mental image, and not as a series of detailed "statements" and this seems to be the meaning of the phrase, "none save God knows its final meaning".
http//www.geocities.com/masad02/003Disagreed. Al-kitaab is not al-quraan. 37 is about al-kitab, al-quran is nowhere mentioned. Al-quran is ?fee umm al-kitaab? (in ?the mother of al-kitab?), its not al-kitab or umm al-kitab themselves.
In my opinion, only a few things are important, believing in God alone, not committing shirk, being honest, helping others.
(I am done discussing this, since I don't see it as being important. Whether or not there are textual variants is not something that is important to me. If there are, I accept that humans are imperfect. If there aren't , then wow wow
I don't believe that my salvation is dependent on accepting or rejecting either of the above possibilities)
As for calling me a K word (Kafir) I hadn't even suspected you of that, prior to you calling me that.
And yes, being a good person who doesnt' commit shirk is what's paramount.
I'll leave proof of Quranic preservation to God, and not worry about it.Agreed. Our salvation , as per Quran itself, lies in whether we believe, perform righteous deeds and mutually support each other with truth and patience (1031-3).