Hello Folks, Fawzia here! I was a Quranist for 10 months.
-
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.
-
So if the Q doesn?t ban it, that automatically makes the Q not divinely inspired? Well that?s your perogative to choose but if you want to parade your logic around here, you may need some rhetorical bullet-proof vests. So far, your logic can be at best called ?subjective?.
As I said before, my objection to the Quran itself has to do with multiple more stuff than simply the "cousin marriage" thing. I did say that I am going to narrate them all gradually. However, I can't do all that in a single thread or at the same time. I like everyone else, have many things to do in my daily life, but surely I will make a list of stuff I object to gradually.
Yeah, sure my logic is subjective, so is everyone else's whenit comes to something like the Quran or any other holy book. Its not mathematics. A Muslim guy who adores the Quran & someone like Sebastian Faulks who finds it devoid of ethical innovation or originality, or an atheist like Sam Harris, who finds it among the mot violent of religious books(he claims to have read the religious texts of all faiths) all are entitled to their own opinions-there's no way to decide that only one opinion is correct, as I said, coz this isn't mathematics & no one can be declared right or wrong.
Cousin marriages btw, although certainly not my only or even primary objection to the Quran, were an important issue for me, coz it was one of the very first stuff which made me notice that if a book claims to be from the Creator, it should have such knowledge & declare it out loud, however a book by human hads would reflect the prejudices, hangups & prevailing customs of its time, & not banning repeated cousin weddings, but banning marriages to milk sisters should more of a primitive society reflecting their beliefs.
I will surely post my other objections later.
Wow, desperation to salvage faith by calling hadith fabricated! Hey , since you were a ?Quranist? for 10 months, you must have known the Quranist argumentation against hadith and even accepted it for those 10 months. Now suddenly we?re ?desperate? . So this means that you believe the hadith-believers are correct. I therefore CHALLENGE you to defend THEIR position. We can then see how much of a ?Quranist? you were.
Who said ?morally acceptable? translations are correct? I guess you must have been the most ill-informed ?Quranist? on earth. Of course with your POOR attitude to scholarship, I can?t expect anything else. You think learning the Arabic language is beneath you yet you don?t mind thinking that Quranists are trying to pander to other (read Western) moral standards. Is this a RATIONAL act on your part? Is it RATIONAL to refuse to verify information because it?s not worth your time yet venture to call other people ?desperate?? I don?t think it?s rational. I think it?s ARROGANCE based on SELF-HATE. It probably came from your angst-driven rant about the Iranian revolution. Rejecting Quran, burning it, putting it in the toilet or whatever you like is your perogative but if you want to pass your rejection off as ?rational?, you?ve got a looooooooong way.Hey, I wasn't at all the one who began this sort of rude name calling!
Look at the post of someone else here, who began by being extremely rude to me This is abdul quran's looong post, claiming how incredible stupid I am, for rejecting even the Quran,
Dear Fawzia,
On behalf of all the Quranists, I'd like to nominate you for 'Quranist of the Year' award for your outstanding scholarship and awareness of Quranist issues and methodology on reading the Quran. Wow, I must say, I've never encountered your kind of brilliance and objectivity before. Tell me, are you married? If not, I'd like to propose marriage to you. I'm sure all our kids will be 'Super-Quranists' thanks to your genes.
Let me quote to you some what you said so we can understand your brilliance.
Wow Fawzia, youre so intelligent. May I inquire , are you a professor of logic at Harvard or Oxford? If so, Id love to visit you some time. Im pretty sure youll win this Quranist of the Year award. There is only one another nominee Geert Wilders (but I wouldnt like to propose to him).
I am a newbie here, I didn't say anything rude at all at first, simply gave my reasons for apostasy & rejecting even Quranist Islam. I am being taunted for my lack of intelligence there & scolded for lacking adequate knowledge-none of you guys wanted to object to his extreme rudeness to a newbie.
Yet, if I reply in a similar vein, due to others rudeness-I get more rudeness. )
Rejecting the Quran didn't come due to the Iranian Islamic Revolution, although I did veer extremely close to apostasy, as I have frankly stated, due to Iranian conditions. I did try to stay Muslim, albeit a Quranist Muslim. I however, felt that the Quran too has enough primitive or objectionable material.
As far as learning Arabic is concerned, yes I don't have the time right now to learn it. Other than reading the Quran, not much practical use comes out of learning that language-which is a sorry but true fact. As far as learning it to read the Quran is concerned, when we google Free minds & come to the Home page itself, I encounter an "invitation" to people of all religions-Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc to check out the Quran, God's final word(supposedly).
My Quranist cousin says that the Quran is the "condensed essence of all previous religions". Did she study Hebrew & Aramaic for Judaism & Christianity, Sanskrit for Hinduism, Pali & Prakrit for Buddhism etc? Certainly not.
If Allah claims to be for all the world, & if the Quran claims to be so easy to understand-both of which are claimed, it should be just as easy to understand through translations & I have read plenty.
If you were a Quranist, you?d never think junking hadith is a ?desperate? act. Quranists know the overwhelming evidence against acceptance of hadith. I don?t believe you, not that it matters.
When Wakas posts his article , I?m waiting to see your masterful logic and scholarly comments.Sure, you don't believe me. ) I am an extremely fair complexioned Iranian with hazel eyes, & while its obvious that I am not black(I'd have loved to be black btw, I like the balcks I know a lot) I can reasonably pass off as a both an European or from the mid East or Sauth Asia.
I never hide it from any Muslim that I have left the faith. I have been called everything from an evangelical Christian to a Jew to a Hindu to whatnot in response.
If they don't believe me when they see me(they are more likely to believe when I am with my family & siblings, than when I am out shopping with friends), how can I believe any Muslim to believe me online? ;D
Muslims I know find it impossible to accept that someone has chosen to leave their religion, out of absolute free choice & after reading the texts or even after reading the Quran- they either try to believe that the person wasn't Muslim in the first place, or else it must have been the trauma of some Islamist Revolution, someone might have had a truamatic childhood etc!
Yeah, hadith rejection does come from the fact that they were written many years later, but I have noticed that may Quranists reject them simply ased on the objectionable stuff they contain. Muhammad's multiple marriages, child bride, marriages to his daughter in law, violence on other faiths & the numerous misogynistic hadiths are where rejection springs from. Had Muhammad been presented as a Buddha or Jesus like guy, I wonder whether there would be this strong a need to reject his life stories, not that it matters for me too.
I have found enough in the Quran to reject it as well.
-
The "Islamic" revolution has succeeded in making Islam the enemy of the people. People now associete Islam with the goverment that opresses them, tells them how to dress, etc.
Yeah sure, any Muslim who rejects the Quran is either lying & was never Muslim in the first place, or the rejection was based on Islamist movements in their country or(if its a woman) evil patriarchal practices in their so called Muslim family which has nothing to do with the Quran! yeah
Sure, the beginning of my apostasy was indeed the conditions in Iran, but I did make a thorough study of the Quran as well. As I said, aI don't have Ayaan Hirsi like stories to narrate, my family was extremely enlightened.
I'm sure Muslims will continue to deny that any non oppressed once Muslim female actually studied the Quran & rejected it based on its own merits & demerits! D