Hello Folks, Fawzia here! I was a Quranist for 10 months.
-
Kindly refer to reply #89. You two need to reconsider your 'old=gold' mindsets. Quran doesn't agree with it at all. That's my last reply on the matter.
-
Kindly refer to reply #89. You two need to reconsider your 'old=gold' mindsets. Quran doesn't agree with it at all. That's my last reply on the matter.
That's fine, but you haven't answered my question. You just made an unsupported statement that the Quran doesn't agree with 'it', when there is nothing in the Quran that refers specifically to choosing one variant over other, after the elapse of some 1400 years.
Rather than refer me to a book that may not be easily accessible to me, why don't you summarise how the Hafs was established as dhikr/eminent for the benefits of myself and other readers on this forum?
You haven't given me or Qstudent any logical reason to reconsider our mindsets.
I am assuming that you have studied the Quran fairly thoroughly, in Arabic, and have studied something of its historical origins. Is there any reason why you are choosing not to answer my questions. I believe they have been quite reasonable.
-
For Warsh and its history, read the book I quoted for you above by Yasir Qadhi. For oldest Quran, I don?t buy any of it since dhikr isn?t mushaf (which is the sunni term for oldest codices) . Dhikr is whatever is eminent. Masahif aren?t eminent and god knows who wrote them.
When was the Hafs variant established as dhikr/ eminent? Was it at the the time of Prophet (while he was alive) or was it some time (a few decades to a few centuries) after his death?
-
Let me tell you a problem with our debate. You don't accept Quran as evidence for its preservation. You stated this in that other thread. I on the other hand accept Quran's statements since as a source of history, Quran was obeyed by the Prophet and sahaba. I quoted you some ayaat above on the matter. 15/1 and 27/1, for example and there are others.
Let me play the role of a secular historian. As a secular historian, I believe Muhammad was a guy who authored Quran. In it, he wrote several things including the fact that Quran was preserved, how its preserved (refer to reply 89, before you ask again), in what form its preserved, etc. Then we got the sahaba who were fanatically devoted to this so-called prophet (see 33/6 as proof example). So these people carried out what they considered to be 'divine' commandments. Therefore this 7 ahruuf crap from which you got your warsh reading is false. Because IF all the readings were divine as sunnis claim, the fanaticism they displayed MUST have extended to all the 7 ahruuf. Sunnis desperately answer this disparity by claiming that 7 ahruuf were mostly abrogated. This is their hodge-podge approach to the Quran. You're using the same hodge-podge approach in your discourse.
However, as a secular historian, I would be asked, how do I know they did this? I would answer by replying ?the snooker ball? effect. In order to analyse the original position of snooker balls (post-first break, that is) , one has to see present position of the table.
Compare the historicity of the Quran with the historicity of hadith. According to hadith history itself, bukhari was busy looking for hadith circa 240-250 years after the prophet. Does this sound like the fanatical devotion of the sahaba and the tabi3een at play there? The same people who kissed the ground the Prophet walked on allowed his hadith to be fragmented so that bukhari can come by 250 years later? I don?t think so. With Quran, you will never find any kind of debate as to what Quran is being talked about. It is quite simply, dhikr. The only way such a universal accepted position this text can get if it was spread right from the beginning. You can test this with the phenomenon of the huffaz, the memorisers of Quran. The only way the huffaz can know of ?alternative? readings is by consulting hadith. Warsh is one step above but even north Africans know its not the ?Hafs?.
Hope that answers your question. -
Let me tell you a problem with our debate. You don't accept Quran as evidence for its preservation. You stated this in that other thread.
False. I believe that the Quran has been preserved, just not preserved to the very last letter. The absence of really old manuscripts which are exactly the same, letter for letter, to the present Hafs variant suggests that small errors may have creeped in over time. How am I wrong in thinking this?
-
When was the Hafs variant established as dhikr/ eminent? Was it at the the time of Prophet (while he was alive) or was it some time (a few decades to a few centuries) after his death?
Ask yourself this, when some idiot in Gitmo was accused (no proof mind you, just ACCUSED) of putting a quran in the toilet, the whole Muslim world had riots with flag-burning and what not. What kind of fanatical devotion to Quran do you think Muhammad and his companions had? You think even if Muhammad was an illiterate at first, he wouldnt have learnt literacy just to check on his companions (he didnt know who hypocrites were, 9/101). You think even if there was a LETTER missing, these guys wouldnt have quelled it? Warsh changed ACTUAL WORDS and you think these guys would be like 'yeah, no worries, its like 'i am going' and 'i am goin'.?
The preminence of 'hafs' is proof (according to Quran) of its identity. If warsh was dhikr, it would be as preeminent. Even Christian criticis of Islam (ppl like nabeel qureishi and david wood) admit this. They can only attack Quran's authenticity by going to hadith and ITS 7 ahruuf comment which acknowledges Warsh.
-
Then we got the sahaba who were fanatically devoted to this so-called prophet (see 33/6 as proof example). So these people carried out what they considered to be 'divine' commandments.
Then where is even one surviving copy of an old manuscript? I don't see how the Hafs variant can be established as the only acceptable variant without physical evidence.
-
What kind of fanatical devotion to Quran do you think Muhammad and his companions had? You think even if Muhammad was an illiterate at first, he wouldnt have learnt literacy just to check on his companions (he didnt know who hypocrites were, 9/101). You think even if there was a LETTER missing, these guys wouldnt have quelled it?
First of all, I believe that Muhammad was literate, or else how could he be a successful 'caravan merchant' if that's what he really was (I don't know).
I am not saying that the original written document had any errors, I am just considering the possibility that copies made from this original document (which we don't have ) have transcription errors, especially after decades or centuries in which many many hundreds of written copies had to be made, painstakingly, by hand, in an era with no printing press, computers, paper, or indelible ink.
-
False. I believe that the Quran has been preserved, just not preserved to the very last letter. The absence of really old manuscripts which are exactly the same, letter for letter, to the present Hafs variant suggests that small errors may have creeped in over time. How am I wrong in thinking this?
Read what i wrote again You don't accept Quran as evidence for its preservation
Here's what you statedif you want to authenticate something, you have to refer to something else, by default.
in http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.15 reply #23So you go ahead, refer to 'something else by default'. Those things also say verses have been forgotten etc, so u just stick with whatever's left, ok? Have fun.
As for the small errors, you can keep repeating like the cock at dawn but until you bring some errors, it wont be worth much.
-
Therefore this 7 ahruuf crap from which you got your warsh reading is false. Because IF all the readings were divine as sunnis claim, the fanaticism they displayed MUST have extended to all the 7 ahruuf. Sunnis desperately answer this disparity by claiming that 7 ahruuf were mostly abrogated.
I am not saying that the Warsh variant is equal to the Hafs in divinity. What I am concerned about is the presence of old copies that have parts similar to the Hafs, and some parts similar to the Warsh, and some parts like neither. I think the Hafs/ Warsh division is an artificial one, and it doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the absence of old surviving copies that are exactly like the Hafs. Why do you think that is?
-
Compare the historicity of the Quran with the historicity of hadith. According to hadith history itself, bukhari was busy looking for hadith circa 240-250 years after the prophet. Does this sound like the fanatical devotion of the sahaba and the tabi3een at play there? The same people who kissed the ground the Prophet walked on allowed his hadith to be fragmented so that bukhari can come by 250 years later? I don?t think so. With Quran, you will never find any kind of debate as to what Quran is being talked about. It is quite simply, dhikr. The only way such a universal accepted position this text can get if it was spread right from the beginning. You can test this with the phenomenon of the huffaz, the memorisers of Quran. The only way the huffaz can know of ?alternative? readings is by consulting hadith. Warsh is one step above but even north Africans know its not the ?Hafs?.
Hope that answers your question.I am not interested in the Hadiths, so that is irrelevant. As for the historicity of the Quran, I am interested in physical evidence, i.e. old manuscripts.
-
Then where is even one surviving copy of an old manuscript? I don't see how the Hafs variant can be established as the only acceptable variant without physical evidence.
I really thank God that the author of the Quran didn't think like you. Cause then all it'd take is some guy putting one extra dot somewhere (changing a 'sod' into a 'dhod' for example) and there goes the entire preservation of Quran. As I said, stick to your manuscripts, keep digging in the desert, maybe you'll find a manuscript dated even BEFORE muhammad. And while you're busy finding this holy grail of manuscripts and maybe wrestling it from Harrison Ford, I'll stick with Quran, thanks.
-
I am not interested in the Hadiths, so that is irrelevant. As for the historicity of the Quran, I am interested in physical evidence, i.e. old manuscripts.
THAT'S what you call physical EVIDENCE?????? Evidence do not speak for themselves. If you found a piece of paper lying in the desert with a bismillah and a few lines about Fatima, the daughter of the prophet, you'll probably think 'Aha, another textual variant' so as i said, have fun with that. You and secular historians can turn a blind eye to the Quran's statements about itself. You have to turn to something else, remember you said?
-
First of all, I believe that Muhammad was literate, or else how could he be a successful 'caravan merchant' if that's what he really was (I don't know).
I am not saying that the original written document had any errors, I am just considering the possibility that copies made from this original document (which we don't have ) have transcription errors, especially after decades or centuries in which many many hundreds of written copies had to be made, painstakingly, by hand, in an era with no printing press, computers, paper, or indelible ink.
How do you know he was a caravan merchant? Quran says that? which ayah please?
Yeah, before printing presses, people made mistakes by default even if they were careful, sure. Its like God fatally decreed it so, lol.
-
However, as a secular historian, I would be asked, how do I know they did this? I would answer by replying ?the snooker ball? effect. In order to analyse the original position of snooker balls (post-first break, that is) , one has to see present position of the table.
There is a little problem with your analogy. A better analogy would be DNA in cells, which are transcribed and replicated at each cell division, one nucleotide after another. The Quran has to be copied by hand and transcribed in a similar manner when writing new copies, letter by letter, word by word.
Errors are made in DNA replication, at a fairly low rate, but since there are so many bases (letters), there are many errors in total. There are some mechanisms for 'proof-reading' that reduce the number of errors, but don't eliminate them. So a few errors remain. Over each replication, they are carried forward, and they accumulate more errors, but except for a small minority of bases (letters/ words) the newest DNA thread (written Quran) is very very close to the original.
With your snooker ball problem, there is no replication, or error in the snooker ball. The snooker ball itself moves from one position to another, it isn't copied many many times, and we still have the original snooker ball at the end of the snooker ball's motion
-
I am confused, isn't the Quran authored by God and transmitted by the Prophet Muhammad?
You know what, you're not reading my posts properly. You're reading it like you treat Quran, in fragments. I wrote
Let me play the role of a secular historian. As a secular historian, I believe Muhammad was a guy who authored Quran
Please read carefully.
-
How do you know he was a caravan merchant? Quran says that? which ayah please?
Yeah, before printing presses, people made mistakes by default even if they were careful, sure. Its like God fatally decreed it so, lol.
I said I don't know, I am just supposing that he was literate since that aya (don't remember the number) is usually mistranslated as 'illiterate' instead of 'gentile'
most historical accounts of him ( I am supposing from the hadiths, but I don't believe in their authenticity) say that he was a caravan merchant.
-
THAT'S what you call physical EVIDENCE?????? Evidence do not speak for themselves. If you found a piece of paper lying in the desert with a bismillah and a few lines about Fatima, the daughter of the prophet, you'll probably think 'Aha, another textual variant' so as i said, have fun with that. You and secular historians can turn a blind eye to the Quran's statements about itself. You have to turn to something else, remember you said?
I am not referring to single pieces of paper, but actual Qurans, containing most, if not all the pages. They are there in museums