Hello Folks, Fawzia here! I was a Quranist for 10 months.
-
You see, the other Sarah want to find some old copy of the Quran which probably says 'i am an old quran, please trust my version' to which she'll automatically jump up and down saying 'yessss, this is the original quran'.
ad hominem attack. baseless accusation again.
-
they all have slight differences, many are much closer to Hafs, while some are closer to Warsh, some differ from both. The division into Hafs and Warsh seems arbitrary
Yeah, so you go play indiana jones with them since to you, God preserves Quran by 'old qurans' (its like 'senior citizens rule' for Quran). You can go decide which 'version' is the right 'version'.
-
hardly,
according to your logic, small change= war
how does that work?Muslims are FANATICAL about the Quran. They don't study it but to them, its divine. So IF any problems ever arose concerning the text, there is NO way it would have been simply passed over. There would have been a war which there wasnt. So you do the math.
-
Well.. afaik what we have today is known as uthmani script which is hafs, evidences can be found in galleries. A friend of mine went to a exhibition a few months back in London.
Here's a photo
there's evidence of old manuscripts, they're preserved dunno by who.
http//img33.imageshack.us/img33/9753/dsc02258k.jpg
image quality isn't good but hope that helps you
-
Yeah, so you go play indiana jones with them since to you, God preserves Quran by 'old qurans' (its like 'senior citizens rule' for Quran). You can go decide which 'version' is the right 'version'.
senior citizen rule? wow
a very simple question
why do the old copies differ from each other?
-
Well.. afaik what we have today is known as uthmani script which is hafs, evidences can be found in galleries. A friend of mine went to a exhibition a few months back in London.
Thanks Sarah
I see 8th and 9th century written in the picture. Could you please tell me how far they date back, while still being identical to each other? I am curious
-
senior citizen rule? wow
a very simple question
why do the old copies differ from each other?
Why would I care? I don't know who wrote them. Could be some devils for all I know. Why do you care about them? How do you know they are credible at all? The same way you know Muhammad was a merchant?
-
Why would I care? I don't know who wrote them. Could be some devils for all I know. Why do you care about them? How do you know they are credible at all? The same way you know Muhammad was a merchant?
because their existence suggests that the Hafs may not have been the standardised variant until a few centuries after the Prophet's death.
-
because their existence suggests that the Hafs may not have been the standardised variant until a few centuries after the Prophet's death.
'Suggests that', WHO suggests it? You? Why would I trust you? The Prophet himself mentions his own enemies so why on earth would I accept it as a textual variant? Maybe the enemies of Muhammads wrote it cuz they knew people would be like 'yesss, this is a variant, quran is not perfectly preserved'.
-
starts from 7th century afaik, i don't have much info on it sorry when i get in contact with my friend i'll let you know
Thanks Sarah. I hope you don't think I am trying to say that the present day Quran can not be trusted. I do believe in it wholly, but I am not so sure that the people who have made copies between the end of the 6th to the 7th century did it perfectly. It just seems unlikely to me, and hard for me to believe without solid proof, when I know that really old variant manuscripts exist.
My belief in the Quran isn't dependent on the Quran being preserved to the last later. If it has slight errors, I don't mind, since it's only a few human errors. If there are no errors, I am amazed by these people's dedication and grateful to God for its perfect preservation. Since God has said that "They" will preserve the Quran, but didn't say it will be preserved to the last letter, I don't know if the latter is true.
As for the picture you posted, are the 7th, 8th, 9th century and following copies identical to each other to the last letter? That would be truly amazing.
-
'Suggests that', WHO suggests it? You? Why would I trust you? The Prophet himself mentions his own enemies so why on earth would I accept it as a textual variant? Maybe the enemies of Muhammads wrote it cuz they knew people would be like 'yesss, this is a variant, quran is not perfectly preserved'.
or maybe there is no conspiracy, you have no proof to choose one variant over another, when the actual one may incorporate elements of both.
-
or maybe there is no conspiracy, you have no proof to choose one variant over another, when the actual one may incorporate elements of both.
Yeah, like i said in the beginning, to you, Quranic statements aren't proof. You said as much herehttp//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.15 in reply 23. You'd rather take the historical assumptions so you go ahead with that. Try to find which word God actually used when he already told you what to go for. And if you have time left in your life, then maybe u can spend a little actually studying its teachings. Cuz thats not what God wants us to do, waste our time debating over 'which quran' (like the author of that article) just like which hadith, instead of actual application.
-
Try to find which word God actually used when he already told you what to go for. And if you have time left in your life, then maybe u can spend a little actually studying its teachings. Cuz thats what God wants us to do, waste our time debating over 'which quran' (like the author of that article) just like which hadith, instead of actual application.
To which I'll quote 37 again.
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)I had thought, earlier, that you have some proof for the Hafs variant being the right one, or some explanation for the presence of really old variants. But you don't. My belief in the Quran, unlike yours, isn't tied to it being preserved to the last letter. I am glad if it is, but I am not troubled if it isn't. The main message is the same. And no, changing a single letter in some unambiguous place in the Quran doesn't make it fall apart.
I do apply Quranic teachings in my life to the best of my knowledge and ability, which is why, even though I could have gotten angry with you in my posts over this forum, I have answered each and every one of them with civility, even though you have made baseless accusations, made ad hominem attacks; because that is the right thing to do. To stand up firmly for one's beliefs, without being overbearing or condescending. I don't know if you care to apply Quranic teachings in your life, but I'll neither assume that you do nor that you don't, since it's not my place to judge, it's upto God alone.
Peace
Sarah
-
Good, lets leave it at that. You practise it how you see it, I'll do the same. God is probably more flexible than either of us.
-
well, definitely more than you
loli'll leave you with your childish cheap shots. hopefully they can satisfy you since providing good arguments isn't an option.