48:29 a false verse?
-
Peace Truth,
There has been for a long time attacks by orientalists on the issue of the Kufic script and what dates it relates to. The contention is that the Kufic script dates these mushafs to 790 AD or so. Obviously there is a vested interest of orientalists to move the date as far as possible from the dates of Muhammad - but I think the Kufic script issue is a good one.
I agree with you that the missionary based arguments regarding Arabic script have gone on unchallenged for too long...
They attempt to play historian to the Arabic language while the data they provide is biast towards moving the date as far forward as possible...
I have viewed the text of the Samargand/Tashkent Quran in photocopies and it direcetly relates to the Arabic language used by the Nabatean's until the 7th century A.D.
http//nabataea.net/script.gif
The claim that the text before the 8th century was 'slanted' (Ma'il) has no historic basis...
While the dates are unclear for all of these, the existence of an earlier script style is evidence that the Kufic script of the Tashkent/Topkapi mushafs may therefore not represent the earliest texts.
Not so. We need only compare to other Arabic text inscibed or written on parchment and for which we do have a date (I have some photocopies which I will try to scan and upload to show textual inscriptions dating from the 7th century A.D.).
I wonder what your feelings are on 159? What is actually protected in your opinion?
The 'Zikr' is protected, which is the message of the Quran (rather than the text word for word).
-
Peace Layth,
I have viewed the text of the Samargand/Tashkent Quran in photocopies and it direcetly relates to the Arabic language used by the Nabatean's until the 7th century A.D.
http//nabataea.net/script.gif
I can't remember if you ever saw a link I'd posted a long while ago about your Nabatean - northerly location of Muhammad theory (which I am in agreement with) from a non-muslim source that is quite detailed and like yourself places Bacca in the north (they locate it specifically around Nablus).
I've changed computer since then and lost my bookmarks - but I'll endeavour to find it again as some of the research was good regardless of its source. They were using the northerly location of Muhammad theory as a way of refuting Islam - little did they realise that they were merely finding out what is probably the truth of the matter.
While the dates are unclear for all of these, the existence of an earlier script style is evidence that the Kufic script of the Tashkent/Topkapi mushafs may therefore not represent the earliest texts.
Not so. We need only compare to other Arabic text inscibed or written on parchment and for which we do have a date (I have some photocopies which I will try to scan and upload to show textual inscriptions dating from the 7th century A.D.).
Excellent. It's sure to have broad interest but I for one would be especially interested in this.
I wonder what your feelings are on 159? What is actually protected in your opinion?
The 'Zikr' is protected, which is the message of the Quran (rather than the text word for word).
Yes, I agree. I think that what you had raised in relation to textual variants etc. (missing "Allah") on the main forum is the sort of thing orientalists use to 'discredit' the preservation of the Quran.
I understand that human copying errors or variations may have crept into the history of the mushaf but in my opinion these are altogether minor and do not change the essence of the reminder or 'zhikr' as 159 points out.
Peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
15/9 says IN(NA) -NAA NAH.NU NAZZALNAA ADH- DHIKR WA- 'IN(NA) -NAA LA- -HU LA- H.AAFIZ.ON
So we know 'az-zikr' is protected. , I would like to comment the following regarding the claim that this protection is only to the overall message and not to the word-for-word text
-
If we consider Al-Quraan to be irreproducible (see 17/88 ), then with a missing word or a replaced word, can it still retain its overall power and irreproducibility ?
-
What does it mean that the overall message is preserved ? Does this mean that ANY part of al-quraan is superflous to the message ?
-
38/1 says .S.AAD WA- AL- QUR'AAN DHE ADH- DHIKR (saad, by al-quraan, posessor of az-zikr). If az-zikr is protected and al-quraan posesses az-zikr, should that not mean that al-quraan is also protected ? If not, how can az-zikr be protected if its posessor is not.
-
'the message' is contained in words, (kalamullah). We do not get the message via non-verbal signals. This being the case , if any of kalamullah is changed (6/115 denies this), then surely the message will be changed as well.
I present these arguments in the spirit of a healthy discourse. Everyone has a right to believe in what they will.
shukran wa salam.
-
-
Peace mquran,
I understand what you are saying however an analogy may help. I do not know Arabic - but I know English and some other languages.
Now when I read the Koran in these translated languages I am not receiving every single letter and word of the Koran - that's for certain - but am I not receiving the reminder or the message nevertheless?
Is the Koran therefore inffectual in a translated language (when it loses much of the qualities of the original) ?
The message is monotheism - and that comes through and through and is what the reminder has always been about - men being reminded about the unity of the God and thereby accountability to the God.
Regards.
-
Salaamun alaikum truth,
Now when I read the Koran in these translated languages I am not receiving every single letter and word of the Koran - that's for certain - but am I not receiving the reminder or the message nevertheless?
Is the Koran therefore inffectual in a translated language (when it loses much of the qualities of the original) ?
All of us are in your position, whether Arab or non-Arab. I have Arab friends who, because of thier backgrounds, still see quranic words the way sunnis do. The key to overcoming this is to keep going back to Al-Quraan itself to keep on evolving one's views.
Now we come to the problem. How do you return to the source when you don't know which bit comes from Allah and which bit doesn't ? All you'll end up doing is floundering in guesswork. And Allah says of guesswork
But most of them follow nothing but fancy truly fancy can be of no avail against THE truth. Verily God is well aware of all that they do (10/36)
The message is monotheism - and that comes through and through and is what the reminder has always been about - men being reminded about the unity of the God and thereby accountability to the God.
If that's the case, all we'll need is sura 1. But Allah has chosen to give us 114 suras with over 600 verses because that's how He completes the message.
thanks and peace
-
Peace again mquran,
The way I see it - as long as one is aware of the God (ie. has spiritually awakened to the existence of the God) - then it is that which keeps them on the way of straightness.
Recall that Abraham found the God by intellect and inspiration combined. He did not have the Koran which did not arrive for thousands of years.
The Koran codifies into a guidebook what I see as common sense in many ways. If the Koran was suddenly taken away from us - or you were stranded on a deserted island without a Koran and access to every letter and word - would you suddenly become lost?
When the Koran says "Is God not sufficient?" it means exactly that.
God alone is sufficient to the person who has attained certainty. May the God guide us all further towards this state.
Peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum again Truth,
Recall that Abraham found the God by intellect and inspiration combined. He did not have the Koran which did not arrive for thousands of years
I agree with you that Al-Quraan isn't a must for guidance but I don't think that's the point I'm arguing at all.
The Koran codifies into a guidebook what I see as common sense in many ways. If the Koran was suddenly taken away from us - or you were stranded on a deserted island without a Koran and access to every letter and word - would you suddenly become lost?
Agreed.
Now we come to the problem, because I do not live on a desert island alone. I live in a community. This problem is encompassed by al-quraan itself. Al-Quraan acknowledges 3 kinds of ayaat/signs
- fil afaaq (in the horizons)
- fil anfus (in the souls)
- fil kitaab (in the book itself)
What you call 'common sense' are simply signs in urself as my common sense would be signs in my self. However, how do we reach an objective conclusion as to what is the ultimate truth ?
Soon will We show them our Signs in the horizons, and in their own souls, until it becomes CLEAR to them that this is the Truth. (41/53)
Clarity is what we're looking for here. Sure, go ahead and use your common sense. But like your intention to expunge 48/29, that's based on your common sense which some people may find objectionable. Al-Quraan contains 'clarifying signs'
But when Our Clear Signs (ayatun BAYYINATUN) are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say "Bring us a QURAAN other than this, or change this," Say "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it I follow naught but what is revealed unto me if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (10/15)
Further, al-quraan calls itself 'bayyinat min alhudaa' (clarifyer from the guidance)...2/185
So in summary, sure we have common sense and we don't need al-quraan to be saved, but if we are to settle the difference and live harmoniously with humankind, then al-quraan is the clarifyer on how to do that. Therefore, we need a word for word protected book because if the criteria itself is iffy (as the sunnis would have us believe), its no criteria at all.
thanks and peace.
-
I wish salvation peace and all the well being to you Truth, all
There is nothing contradicting in 4829 to the rest of the reading... you simply havent took into consideration all of the reading and because of it you have found it contradicting....
Being harsh toward disbelievers is not dissonant with the rest of the book...there are many messages similar to this ...if needed i will quote but the fact that you can not remember yourself these verses is an alarming sign that you should study the book more
Remember the story of Abraham and those with him when they have said to their people that they denounce them and that hatred and animosity will be between them until they left idolatry( cant recall verses number now)
The marks on foreheads would be better understood as marks or qualitative characteristics on their personalities or behaviour resulting from compliance to the god`s instructions ...and this is linguistically and lexicographically valid meaning....and not to speak that this is more in line with the rest of the book...
Mentioning of the example/simile how the messenger and the believers are described in the previous scriptures also make sense and is consistent with the book`s often referencing to previous scriptures.
As to the objection that simile seems very simple...
Well all of the book is very simple and this is a consistency more ....
In regards of it being without real moral lesson ....well, one of the lessons is that the coming of the mesenger was announced in previous scriptures....and if i am to spend an hour thinking of its lessons i am sure i could find a whole lot of it.. try yourself...whatever ... i think you didnt think enough.. or enough hard about it....
This is only more of consistency since many of the great reading`s stories are seemingly without lessons and require deep pondering and cross referencing...and only later, probably after we do our homework( more study or obeying to the god) we find it briliantly insightfull...
Besides your faith in the code 19 may be a seal on your heart and thus you are prevented from witnessing the moral of the story...be aware, the god wont guide you if you turn your head from His signs or take it partially...and you did take it partially if you accept the code...
About it being almost a simile of arrogance that is an insightful message in itself!!!
The same seeming arrogance may be experienced when the great reading narates about other messengers who called their people ignorants and inventors!!!....were they arrogant or simply honest about how they view their people?
The same attitude and seeming arrogance we may witness at this very forum... when the faithfull call or denounce some code 19 believers as ignorants and disbelievers many found it arogant, although it is not...
As for the enragement on the side of disbelievers... there
s nothing in it that is contradictory with the rest of the book.. the true believers enrages the true unbelievers... and this is of the gods laws and IS described throughout the great reading....best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace
I wonder what your feelings are on 159? What is actually protected in your opinion?
imho , what is protected in 159 is the messenger (from craziness or jinns)not the reminder...see the context....159 is an answer to allegations from the initial verse of the passage (156) that messenger is crazy or possesed by jinns....
claims that 15/9 speak of the god`s alleged promise of preservation of the reminder contextually doesnt make sense....its would be a claim totaly out of blue, purposeless and it wouldnt make much sense in context.....imho its only that we are used to that meaning/reading that make us see it in that sense.....
in the best case this is a promise that whatever the messenger will say(claiming it from the god- of course) will be sound and correct, that is, divinely inspired...theres nothing in it guaranting that no one will add up a letter, word or verse into the scripture after he has delivered it...
I do not find in the whole book any direct promise of the preservation, at least not in the way people often think it should be preserved(e.i. no one will be able to add or write a word or a letter into any copy of the scripture or into prevailing number of copies of the scripture)
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
-
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
Truth, you are playing very dangerous game...you are waiting for the hadith which makes the book of the god suspect?!.... you count(numerical hadith)...?!
This is almost enough of pieces to solve the puzzle....these are signs that you are infatuated or heavily influenced with man-made sources...be it neo or old Hadith and you are making them criterion over The Criterion....and it should be vice versa!
please do study the book more and stick to its precepts...
As for rhm being attributed to other than the god only in these two instances, its simply not true...remember the messenger was sent AS BUT A MERCY toward mankind...I think Jesus(and his mother?) are described in the same way...
Their mercy is not separated from the god
s, that is, it results/emanates from their sticking to the gods instructions...(the mercy is a mark on their personalities as traces of sujood)This is just like the simile of obedience to the messenger....its not the obedience to the person but to the god of whome the messenger is representative that is needed....why is that so hard to understand to one who has the hadith story behind him?
I have a feeling that many people have rejected Hadith irationaly, based solely on the authority of the numbers and a wish for modernity?
Was this case with you or you have really studied it and have found it inconsistent?
If the answer to the later is yes, then why not applie the same methodology here?
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Dear Zlatan,
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
Truth, you are playing very dangerous game...you are waiting for the hadith which makes the book of the god suspect?!.... you count(numerical hadith)...?!
The hadith is not a criterion in this matter - I indicated that there may be motivations for such hadith to be fabricated - but again like 9128-129 they may provide evidence of a smoking gun. Nothing more or less.
This is almost enough of pieces to solve the puzzle....these are signs that you are infatuated or heavily influenced with man-made sources...be it neo or old Hadith and you are making them criterion over The Criterion....and it should be vice versa!
please do study the book more and stick to its precepts...
As for rhm being attributed to other than the god only in these two instances, its simply not true...remember the messenger was sent AS BUT A MERCY toward mankind...I think Jesus(and his mother?) are described in the same way...
Zlatan you are distorting the words severely here. Muhammad is a 'rahmat' - a mercy to the world - FROM GOD. The mercy does not belong to Muhammad but to God who sends him out of His Mercy.
Only God is Merciful (in terms of 'rahim') towards things he creates - and the word 'rahim' is not used in relation to humans possessing this quality except for 9128 and 4829.
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
I hope this is clear.
Their mercy is not separated from the god
s, that is, it results/emanates from their sticking to the gods instructions...(the mercy is a mark on their personalities as traces of sujood)The verse is clear in that it says 'faces' and that it is a 'mark' resulting from 'prostrations'. Your stretching of the words to come up with 'personality' is forced.
This is just like the simile of obedience to the messenger....its not the obedience to the person but to the god of whome the messenger is representative that is needed....why is that so hard to understand to one who has the hadith story behind him?
I have a feeling that many people have rejected Hadith irationaly, based solely on the authority of the numbers and a wish for modernity?
Was this case with you or you have really studied it and have found it inconsistent?
If the answer to the later is yes, then why not applie the same methodology here?
I've never owned a book of ahadeeth - and have never 'really studied it' and nor do I care to or need to. If you feel otherwise then please tell me why you think I should be studying ahadeeth.
Regards.
-
Their mercy is not separated from the god
s, that is, it results/emanates from their sticking to the gods instructions...(the mercy is a mark on their personalities as traces of sujood)The verse is clear in that it says 'faces' and that it is a 'mark' resulting from 'prostrations'. Your stretching of the words to come up with 'personality' is forced.
Have you checked dictionaries for wujooh?.... the meaning of the word wajh and wujooh is far far from being restricted to physical faces...
if i recall well there are many meanings that fit better.... one of the meaning is "self" and thats why i have translated it as personality...
do you denie this meaning or i misunderstood you?
which of the words, exactly, you think i have streched?
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
Muhamad did posses the mercy, he possesed the great reading which is described AS the God`s MERCY at another place, so by reciting this to the people and by sticking to the merciful precepts in it he was merciful to believers.....and any people who stick to its precepts are mutually merciful, as described in 4829...
tell me are you merciful to your children?
if you say not then you are a bad parent....
do you think the messenger wasnt merciful to his followers and adherents?
how can you think in that way?best wishes, Zlatan
-
Dear Zlatan,
Peace
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
Muhamad did posses the mercy, he possesed the great reading which is described AS the God`s MERCY at another place, so by reciting this to the people and by sticking to the merciful precepts in it he was merciful to believers.....and any people who stick to its precepts are mutually merciful, as described in 4829...
Again the Koran is a mercy 12111, 1782 FROM GOD. It was by no means possessed by Muhammad but merely delivered by him.
People can be kind to one another but mercy as in 'rahim' is a totally separate concept possessed only by God. Why do I say this?
Because 'mercy' is a form of compassion, kindness, or leniency offerred by one who is in charge of justice. God suffices in this role - and is the Merciful.
tell me are you merciful to your children?
if you say not then you are a bad parent....
God is merciful to us all and we (including all my family) are accountable to Him alone.
do you think the messenger wasnt merciful to his followers and adherents?
how can you think in that way?It's not about whether the messenger was kind or not - the word is simply not used for anything other than God's mercy in all but these two verses. One of those has been demonstrated to many people's (not all) satisfaction as a false verse (912 - so there remains 4829 using this word out of the usual way - ie. the other 114 occurrences refer to God alone.
Regards.
-
Peace
Dear Zlatan,
Peace
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
Muhamad did posses the mercy, he possesed the great reading which is described AS the God`s MERCY at another place, so by reciting this to the people and by sticking to the merciful precepts in it he was merciful to believers.....and any people who stick to its precepts are mutually merciful, as described in 4829...
Again the Koran is a mercy 12111, 1782 FROM GOD. It was by no means possessed by Muhammad but merely delivered by him.
People can be kind to one another but mercy as in 'rahim' is a totally separate concept possessed only by God. Why do I say this?
Because 'mercy' is a form of compassion, kindness, or leniency offerred by one who is in charge of justice. God suffices in this role - and is the Merciful.
tell me are you merciful to your children?
if you say not then you are a bad parent....
God is merciful to us all and we (including all my family) are accountable to Him alone.
do you think the messenger wasnt merciful to his followers and adherents?
how can you think in that way?It's not about whether the messenger was kind or not - the word is simply not used for anything other than God's mercy in all but these two verses. One of those has been demonstrated to many people's (not all) satisfaction as a false verse (912 - so there remains 4829 using this word out of the usual way - ie. the other 114 occurrences refer to God alone.
Regards.
you may continue with your sophismes and apologetics, i leave you here, at least for today, since i have no strenght to write...your reasoning, better said, the lack of it , is a good demonstration of how code 19 infatuation disables functioning of the peoples
mind... and forces them to self-humiliation, one-dimensional thinking and inventing the most petty excuses in order to save the face of the code 19 idol.....i hope youll get out of the code abyss but i just can`t see how ...however the god is capable of all things....best wishes, Zlatan
-
Salaamun alaikum Truth, Zlatan,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
The word used is 'ruhama bainahum'. Lets assume that association with Allah's attribute should make one expunge the verse, ok?
Allah is al-kareem.
69/40 says 'verily these are the words of rasulun KAREEM'Allah is al-aziz.
12/30 uses the phrase 'the wife of AL-AZIZ'Allah is al-malik
12/76 uses the word 'malik' for king.Al-Qur'aan is an Allah-centred book. Allah uses knowledge of him to relate back into the world and ourselves, that we may understand the world. He explains shirik/asssociationism in his own way, not in the unquranic way Rashad Khalifa wrote about.
Truth, I respect your right to opine, but in light of Quranic analysis, I'm afraid your hypothesis fails.
thanks and peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum Truth, Zlatan,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
The word used is 'ruhama bainahum'. Lets assume that association with Allah's attribute should make one expunge the verse, ok?
Allah is al-kareem.
69/40 says 'verily these are the words of rasulun KAREEM'Allah is al-aziz.
12/30 uses the phrase 'the wife of AL-AZIZ'Allah is al-malik
12/76 uses the word 'MALIK' for king.Al-Qur'aan is an Allah-centred book. Allah uses knowledge of him to relate back into the world and ourselves, that we may understand the world. He explains shirik/asssociationism in his own way, not in the unquranic way Rashad Khalifa wrote about.
Truth, I respect your right to opine, but in light of Quranic analysis, I'm afraid your hypothesis fails.
thanks and peace
-
Salaamun alaikum Truth, Zlatan,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
The word used is 'ruhama bainahum'. Lets assume that association with Allah's attribute should make one expunge the verse, ok?
Allah is al-kareem.
69/40 says 'verily these are the words of rasulun KAREEM'Allah is al-aziz.
12/30 uses the phrase 'the wife of AL-AZIZ'Allah is al-malik
12/76 uses the word 'MALIK' for king.Al-Qur'aan is an Allah-centred book. Allah uses knowledge of him to relate back into the world and ourselves, that we may understand the world. He explains shirik/asssociationism in his own way, not in the unquranic way Rashad Khalifa wrote about.
Truth, I respect your right to opine, but in light of Quranic analysis, I'm afraid your hypothesis fails.
thanks and peace
Peace mquran,
I am aware of the other 'attributes' being used in reference to men - but the two terms Al-Rahman and Al-Rahim have been selected out as the key components of the God's exclusive Lordship.
Al-Rahman - the all-powerful and Al-Rahim the all-merciful show the two sides to absolute Lordship of the God and are within the key basmalah at the start of each surah save one.
To believe in God one must accept his absolute power of all creation and submit oneself to His laws. In doing so one comes into the sphere of the God's mercy - though the God's mercy is impossible to quanitify or encompass.
These two 'attributes' are thus the key elements - all the other ones are in effect derivations of this pair and come into the sphere of either the God's power or His mercy.
That's my understanding and I do not believe that humans have or can have the key attributes of 'Rahman' or 'Rahim'.
Peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum truth,
I am aware of the other 'attributes' being used in reference to men - but the two terms Al-Rahman and Al-Rahim have been selected out as the key components of the God's exclusive Lordship.
Al-Rahman - the all-powerful and Al-Rahim the all-merciful show the two sides to absolute Lordship of the God and are within the key basmalah at the start of each surah save one.
Ok, may I surmise then that your criteria is the 'basmala' , truth ? May I ask you for evidence stating that these are 'key components' and whose words may not be repeated elsewhere ? I'm only asking, because if you don't have such evidence, you're using a criteria besides Allah's criteria.
Also, FYI, there is a difference between 'raheem', 'ruhaama' and 'AL-raheem'. The difference is not in quality, but gradation.
Once again, our discussion is purely academic to me. I respect your right to believe however you choose.
thanks and peace.
