Which is the Real Quran?
-
Peace Layth,
I agree, if we are looking for an analysis of a different version. As I stated earlier i am analysing a specific version as it exists.
this also answers the very important question WHY can not we bring a sura SIMILAR to the Quran?
it must have many properties combined together, to make this task impossible if we really believe in
224so it means that a curious mind will ask which properties makes it impossible?
For me personally, where i repeat again, its only my personal view, i see that there are many properties which are TOGETHER make a production of a sura like it an IMPOSSIBLE task.
these properties can be summerized as
- a linguistical consistency with ellegancy in expression + Qafya
- a mathematical configuration which can be alone an extremey difficult task to immitate
- a repetition property many narrations in the quran are repeated either in identical way (there are 95 identical verses i the quran btw )and verses which are similarly built but not 100% the same.. there are complete narrations which are narrated with more than one style, this interferes with previously mentioned properties and makes the picture clearer for me
- a symmetry which was discovered between words like dunia, akhira, shayateen malaika, yawm, shahr, sana, etc....
The list is only a compact example, there are many many other properties which i am aware of and which i am not aware of.
Best regards,
sabo -
Salaam sabo n all,
...i see that there are many properties which are TOGETHER make a production of a sura like it an IMPOSSIBLE task.
Out of curiousity, what difference does any of this make... really. ? I mean, is this all to prove that quran is from God? or some version isn't?.. or... ?
Please, anyone who can clarify for me briefly, I would appreciate it. )
Peace!
-
while I applaud the effort and indepth research by brother Layth and others on this thread, here's my point of view on the whole situation, if i may
We all know that God has said that he will preserve the koran and that none can alter his words.
18.27 And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him.
Judging and believing in that alone, it seems to me that the semantic differences which we are investigating must be invalid and insignificant or (with all highly due respect to those working on it) wrong. i.e. the differences in the 2 different versions which exist must be making no alteration to God's word or its meaning. I mean, if the versions which exist are indeed an ALTERATION of the original koran, then the religion would fail because God has said that none can alter his words. The fact that these 2 versions exist..its only becoz God has allowed it too, and they cannont be alterations of the original koran. To me it means that either "version" is correct or theyr not different and there's something we're overlooking.
Basically point im making is that I wouldnt go to the extent of saying that there's 2 different versions of the koran, or implying that the semantic differences between the versions make a difference to Gods words or their meaning, as that would go against surah 1827 above, which is God's own word, unarguable.
Just my humble point of view.
-
Peace samquex n all,
And thanks for posting your view, in a lot of ways we share the same ideas. )
I mean, if the versions which exist are indeed an ALTERATION of the original koran, then the religion would fail...
Would it? idea
Here's an example to clarify my questions even further, let us say a 'book' came from God, literally fell from the sky and onto you hands. You (anyone) have NO doubt whatsoever that it's from God. Up to this point... does it mean anything?...
-
Salaam,
I'm not here very often but alot of things does certainly happens.
Have now everyone became 19 followers!!!???
sis Majidah
-
Peace Zenje,
Out of curiousity, what difference does any of this make... really. I mean, is this all to prove that quran is from God? or some version isn't?.. or...
Please, anyone who can clarify for me briefly, I would appreciate it.
For myself, I am interested to know what the original form of the revelation was (to the letter)...
I believe that there are enough proofs within the Quran itself so that this is not a futile excersize.
The next logical step once this is all sorted out would be to unify the Quran into one text...same number of words, letters, verse stops, etc..
As things stand now they are totally unacceptable.
-
Sister SwedenMajidah not everyone. Me, Idolfree, MQuran I can say are still not the followers of number 19.
Salaam to you,
Nice to hear because even if I have friends who are 19 followers I have never really believed in that.
I think it's dangerous to play with numbers and it can be a trick from shaitan to let people go astray by focus on wrong things.Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace,
What is a 19 follower?! I haven't personally come across people that FOLLOW a number! Personally I see a lot of signs and significance in the number 19 within Quran but I can't see how one can follow a number in a spiritual/religous sense!
Can you please explain further about '19 followers'? A more specific definition please. There are many people that see mathematical patterns in the Quran involving the Initialed surahs based on the number 19 but thats all.
Would anyone who has witnessed a sign involving 19 (me and many others) but do not worship 19 be classed as 19 followers?
Nural
-
Peace Sabo,
Tell me, what is your take on the following...
- 29 Suras are initialed
- 29 Suras do not have the word 'Allah' in them.
The total = 58
However, the two set's are interlocked by Sura 68 (which is both initialed, and does not have the word 'Allah' in it) making the total of Suras 57...
Exactly half of the Scripture.
i.e. Half is interlocked, Half is similar.
-
As things stand now they are totally unacceptable.
Peace Layth
Your article was an eye-opener. I never realised that there were so many different versions of the Quran in circulation. I checked some of what you had said in 'Ulum ul Quran' (a sunni book about books other than the Quran) and it confirmed some of what you said (of course they never admitted the differences amounted to anything).
One of my first thoughts was - what chaos there must have been during and immediately after Muhammad. I mean, they lost the Quran! The Quran, from my understading, certainly intimates that people who must have been close to Muhammad (or otherwise how could they have spoken to him) were resentful of the Quran. Most of the early caliphs were assasinated as well. Didn't you mention in your article a quote along the lines of 'shall we take away this Quran?'. Perhaps this was more than a rhetorical question.
But secondly your method of attempting to find the 'original Quran' (according to you) appeared to be reminiscent of the hadith collectors, in the sense that you were attempting to produce a chain of narrators in order to find it.
A VERY important question we should be asking ourselves is how can one believe in one verse of the Quran/'Quran', if one believes it might not have been from God? I personally have yet to draw any concusion about the alledged loss of the Quran although I do want to get my hands on the different versions and compare. Furthermore, I have yet to find any contradictions in the Quran that I read or false statements. If the Quran was altered, how could they have done so without introducing flaws into it?
Roshan
-
Peace Roshan,
One of my first thoughts was - what chaos there must have been during and immediately after Muhammad. I mean, they lost the Quran! The Quran, from my understading, certainly intimates that people who must have been close to Muhammad (or otherwise how could they have spoken to him) were resentful of the Quran. Most of the early caliphs were assasinated as well. Didn't you mention in your article a quote along the lines of 'shall we take away this Quran?'. Perhaps this was more than a rhetorical question.
I never considered the question as more than rhetorical...But you make a valid point.
But secondly your method of attempting to find the 'original Quran' (according to you) appeared to be reminiscent of the hadith collectors, in the sense that you were attempting to produce a chain of narrators in order to find it.
LOL...For once I cannot argue. )
The problem that has arisin is clear and you have identified it...The question 'which one' cannot be answered historically since the chaos exists as far back as you can go...And to trust the narrators is merely to follow in the footsteps of the Hadith.
A VERY important question we should be asking ourselves is how can one believe in one verse of the Quran/'Quran', if one believes it might not have been from God? I personally have yet to draw any concusion about the alledged loss of the Quran although I do want to get my hands on the different versions and compare. Furthermore, I have yet to find any contradictions in the Quran that I read or false statements. If the Quran was altered, how could they have done so without introducing flaws into it?
It depends how much it was 'altered'...If it was a letter here or there, then you may not find any major contradictions...However, I could remove an entire chapter or verses from the original and you would not be able to tell.
I see deduction as more of an unoticable danger than addition.
-
Peace Sabo,
Tell me, what is your take on the following...
- 29 Suras are initialed
- 29 Suras do not have the word 'Allah' in them.
The total = 58
However, the two set's are interlocked by Sura 68 (which is both initialed, and does not have the word 'Allah' in it) making the total of Suras 57...
Exactly half of the Scripture.
i.e. Half is interlocked, Half is similar.
Praise be to God!!!!
I was always wondering and asking why 29 suras initialed. And why 29 suras don't have the word "Allah" inside them. This is a very good observation indeed and if it shows something to me, then it shows that this scripture is amazing either by structure or by contents.
I am sorry for those who consider this as "number worship". If they had the statistical knowledge to understand the significance of these structures they wouldn't have said that. Studying the structure of the starts for example doesn't mean that one is a "stars worshipper".
Thanks Layth for sharing this observation and maybe there is something more behind that.
if you see my post about the structure of the Quran, you will see now that the picture is being more clear
57 suras homogenous verify here
their total sum is 6234
57 suras heterogenous verify here their total sum is 6555additionally what is amazing is
the sum of sura numbers in the homogenous section = 3303 = the sum of verse numbers in the heterogenous section!!! (who understands statistics will know how small is the probability that this number is just obtained by a roll of dice, i.e. luck)Best regards,
sabo -
I really didn't like this article much. First of all it focuses
too much on the differences between Hafs/Warsh. Ok, yes,
these are not identical versions; but even academical non-muslims
researchers acknowledge that these characteristics have more
or less no implications for the final understanding.
One should also not refer to anti-islamic propaganda sites to
prove otherwise.Beside, writing was invented as an aid to store the oral
saying for reading/communicating/transferring for others/
in the future. Even in english today we have differences
depending upon the culture/society you are expressing
yourself to, such as "color" or "colour", "are" or "r" etc.
The hafs/warsh differences are not identical but follow
the same analogy.
Who decides the "official" writing ? Today, in some countries
this is decided by agencies appointed by governments, however
1000+ years ago there were no such central authorities.Using large amount of energy on such minor details is therefore
quite pointless. (Unless you of course need to satisfy some
other structure, such as a mathematical based on, but before
you can do that, you need to prove that such a structure exist,
which to me still remains an open issue. Otherwise, by fixing
text one can always create a pattern by hand.) -
Salaamun alaikum,
This is a very interesting thread. So far, not once have we seen Al-Qur'aan itself tell us on how to decide which is the true version. I wonder what value we really give Al-Qur'aan if we prefer words of historians and muhaditheen and artificial multiples over the principles which Al-Qur'aan itself sets for us ?
thanks and peace.
-
Peace everyone,
Using large amount of energy on such minor details is therefore
quite pointless. (Unless you of course need to satisfy some
other structure, such as a mathematical based on, but before
you can do that, you need to prove that such a structure exist,
which to me still remains an open issue. Otherwise, by fixing
text one can always create a pattern by hand.)
Bravo! And welcome to the forum.So far, not once have we seen Al-Qur'aan itself tell us on how to decide which is the true version.
Good point. I was trying to go even further than that, but was unsuccessful... I guess when I'm ready, I'll start another thread. -
Salaamun alaikum Zenje,
Good point. I was trying to go even further than that, but was unsuccessful... I guess when I'm ready, I'll start another thread.
To my mind, this 'historical' approach business has no Quranic basis. I think the approach of 'finding', i.e everyone finds Al-Qur'aan for himself, whether in a bookshop, through a friend or whatever, this is right approach to take. Al-Qur'aan must be a guide to understanding ur world and urself, rather than have a historical background which is subject to manipulation.
