Verse Markers and Numbers
-
Peace Truth,
There are copies of the Koran without vocalisation marks and even ones missing differentiating dots.
The vocalization marks are man made additions. Hence, they are subject to error. There are MANY examples of faulty vocalization marks that don't fit the context in the great reading.
As for the dots, there are very early quranic manuscripts from the 7th century AD that are fully dotted. There are even mundane Arabic manuscripts such as letters for conducting business that are fully dotted (22AH). So unlike the present vocalization marks and verse markers, which appear a few hundred years later, the dotting was quite early.
But absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
What absence of evidence? There is plenty of evidence that early copies of the great reading didn't have verse markers or had them at different places than modern copies. Even MODERN copies have differences between them in verse markers.
The burden of proof is on those who make the extraordinary claim that verse numbers/markers are divinely inspired, this despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Remember 1736. We have to verify things. I gave you evidence that you can verify with your OWN EYES.
The verse separations could have been known even if they were not recorded, just as the proper vocalisation was known without it being explicitly written.
The rules of vocalization were first developed by Sibaweh, the Persian over 150 years after the great reading. The marks were not added until the 10th century AD.
2532 Those who reject Faith say "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.
The Koran was not written down, revealed in one hit. It was revealed gradually, and thus the units of revelation ie. ayah would have been well known.
Yes it was revealed gradually in the lifetime of the prophet. Not gradually until a few hundred years later when the verse markers were "revealed".
Calculating the number of verses -> 8142 (days) / 6234 = 1 verse every 1.3 days on average. The minimum unit of revelation appears to be 3 verses which may mean that a group of 3 verses could be expected every 4 days. Note that these are averages only and assume 23 lunar years of revelation.
This is pure conjecture. Remember 1736. We have to verify things. I gave you evidence that you can verify with your OWN EYES.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
Peace Truth,
There are copies of the Koran without vocalisation marks and even ones missing differentiating dots.
The vocalization marks are man made additions. Hence, they are subject to error. There are MANY examples of faulty vocalization marks that don't fit the context in the great reading.
You have missed the point here. I stated that there are copies of the Koran without vocalisation marks; and that this does not mean that the vocalisation was arbitrary or made up later - it means simply that they are unrecorded despite being known.
As for the dots, there are very early quranic manuscripts from the 7th century AD that are fully dotted. There are even mundane Arabic manuscripts such as letters for conducting business that are fully dotted (22AH). So unlike the present vocalization marks and verse markers, which appear a few hundred years later, the dotting was quite early.
Again the point is missed. The fact is that there are undotted early manuscripts which again does not mean that the letters were not known to those writers. It provides further evidence that not everything was recorded in the manuscripts always.
But absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
What absence of evidence? There is plenty of evidence that early copies of the great reading didn't have verse markers or had them at different places than modern copies. Even MODERN copies have differences between them in verse markers.
Again you misunderstand. You are using the absence of verse markers in selected Korans as evidence that they did not exist at all.
The Gold Koran that Layth and mz357 have given URL's to does have explicit verse markers for example.
The burden of proof is on those who make the extraordinary claim that verse numbers/markers are divinely inspired, this despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
As mentioned above the Gold Koran, an early manuscript does have the markers.
Best wishes.
-
Peace Truth,
You have missed the point here. I stated that there are copies of the Koran without vocalisation marks; and that this does not mean that the vocalisation was arbitrary or made up later - it means simply that they are unrecorded despite being known.
Vocalization marks were indeed MADE UP later. Hence, as I said they CANNOT be considered "divinely inspired" and indeed we find MANY errors in them.
Again the point is missed. The fact is that there are undotted early manuscripts which again does not mean that the letters were not known to those writers. It provides further evidence that not everything was recorded in the manuscripts always.
In those manuscripts, other methods were used to differentiate the letters. For example, the "noon" is short and slanted down.
Again you misunderstand. You are using the absence of verse markers in selected Korans as evidence that they did not exist at all.
The Gold Koran that Layth and mz357 have given URL's to does have explicit verse markers for example.
The Gold Koran was written a few hundreds of years AFTER the manuscripts that I presented. Thus, it cannot be considered "early".
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
There is a fundamental flaw in your approach which I need to point out (followed by an observation).
You seem to ignore/forget that the Scripture (according to itself) was revealed in verse form over a number of years.
Thus the question logically will never be about 'were there seperate verses' Since the answer is 'yes, there always have been'.
The question that we need to be asking is 'where were the correct positions of the verse marks before the Scripture was gathered in the form it is today'...This helps not only for us to know the true nature of the revaltion, but also in the way we study the Scripture (I pointed out the difference between Hafs and Warsh in 51 and the effects on the meaning).
Now for the 'observation'
The copies you have provided (I refer to # 1, #2/2) both have verse stop marks (trace the verses with an exisiting Quran and you will see there are marks '/' or '' to mark the stop...
As for #3 that is not only speculation (that the stop was added later) but is also a wrong asupmtion since different writing styles deal with the text differently (some use '*', some use '/' some use ',' some put above the text, some after...These are all styles that can be examined by just looking at the copies you provided).
-
Peace Layth,
There is a fundamental flaw in your approach which I need to point out (followed by an observation).
You seem to ignore/forget that the Scripture (according to itself) was revealed in verse form over a number of years.
Thus the question logically will never be about 'were there seperate verses' Since the answer is 'yes, there always have been'.
The word "verse" doesn't occur in the great reading. The word "ayat" means "sign" not "verse". Please give the passage from the scripture that tells us that it is in verse form.
On the other hand, we are told that the book is "marqum". The word "marqum" means "dotted" according to classical Arabic dictionaries. Hence, if anything there is internal evidence that the book was dotted. In fact, we can see the dotting in the ancient manuscripts that I provided.
The question that we need to be asking is 'where were the correct positions of the verse marks before the Scripture was gathered in the form it is today'...This helps not only for us to know the true nature of the revaltion, but also in the way we study the Scripture (I pointed out the difference between Hafs and Warsh in 51 and the effects on the meaning).
Where one puts a period, a comma, a question mark, a semi-column, an exclamation point, or any other punctuation does affect the meaning. This is normal. However, the great reading doesn't have any of those. We should look at those in the same way we look at vocalization marks. They are interpretive devices that can be figured out from the context. If there are two alternative interpretations, we should follow the best one.
Thus, what difference does it make to you if there are markers or not?
Now for the 'observation'
The copies you have provided (I refer to # 1, #2/2) both have verse stop marks (trace the verses with an exisiting Quran and you will see there are marks '/' or '' to mark the stop...
No they don't. You are confusing the dot of the "noon" with a verse marker. The SAME exact dot that you thought is a stop or a "/" can be found on the "noon" of "ma miN shafi3". It is the same exact shape as the dot found on "mubiN" and "tathkaruN", which you mistakenly took for verse stops.
As for #3 that is not only speculation (that the stop was added later) but is also a wrong asupmtion since different writing styles deal with the text differently (some use '*', some use '/' some use ',' some put above the text, some after...These are all styles that can be examined by just looking at the copies you provided).
If you look closely, you will see that the marks' edges were written over the text. Thus, that the stop mark was added later is clear and indisputable. The only question is how much later? Is it shortly later or a few hundred years later. One can also clearly see that the text spacing is constant throughout and that the original writer did not leave a proportional spacing for the markers. Add this to the evidence that we have of no markers and we can see that the most logical scenario is that the markers were added later.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
The word "verse" doesn't occur in the great reading. The word "ayat" means "sign" not "verse". Please give the passage from the scripture that tells us that it is in verse form.
Are we seriously having this conversation?
Do you truly not recall how the Scripture was revealed and assembled?
I will let you take your pick...37, 16101-102, 4144.
More importantly, you will surely have passed by verse 53 which says 'today, I have completed your system for you...'. That is the last verse revealed in the Quran according to its text, yet it is nestled in chapter 5 at its beginning.
Thus that the Scripture was revealed as 'verses' and then gathered and arranged by the prophet (16101-102) is a fact I find hard pressed to even argue, let alone deny.
Where one puts a period, a comma, a question mark, a semi-column, an exclamation point, or any other punctuation does affect the meaning. This is normal. However, the great reading doesn't have any of those. We should look at those in the same way we look at vocalization marks. They are interpretive devices that can be figured out from the context. If there are two alternative interpretations, we should follow the best one.
Thus, what difference does it make to you if there are markers or not?
The Scripture by design has verses (unless you are of the opinion that it was all revealed to the masses in one night and in the sequence it is in...thus the battles of Badr or Hunain or the prophet's situations with his wives all happened in about 20 seconds in that one night and were all recorded as we find them today).
It makes two differences for me
- That I know the true form of the revelation.
- That I make no errors in the interpretation based on a wrong verse stop (e.g. the verse on alcohol could be 'do not approach Salat' thus making Salat off limits to all people for all time since it can be quoted in its verse form).
No they don't. You are confusing the dot of the "noon" with a verse marker. The SAME exact dot that you thought is a stop or a "/" can be found on the "noon" of "ma miN shafi3". It is the same exact shape as the dot found on "mubiN" and "tathkaruN", which you mistakenly took for verse stops.
I am not confusing anything, I am merely reading what you have presented...Look at the Gold Quran to see how the end of a line if it has a space is marked by a '-' or another mark to fill the text. The page you have provided does the same, and the verse stops are very clear eventhough they are slightly faded
http//www.free-minds.org/ayman.jpg
-
peace to all,
I was just wondering, how would the meaning sound if there are no markers ?? What differences will be there ?
peace
-
Peace brother Layth,
Are we seriously having this conversation?
Yes we are because as you will see below there are several faults in the concept of "verses" that must be debated so that we get the correct understanding.
Do you truly not recall how the Scripture was revealed and assembled?
I will let you take your pick...37, 16101-102, 4144.
All those passages linguistically and logically speak of "aya(t)", which means "signs" NOT "verses". Linguistically, we already know for sure that "aya(t)" means sign and not verse. Logically, a sign could encompass several of what you call "verses" or there could be several "signs" in what you call a "verse". Remember, the purpose of a sign/"aya(t)" is to provide GUIDANCE. Half a sentence or a "verse" that is meaningless without what came before it doesn't provide guidance and cannot be a sign/"aya(t)".
We hear at the end of the story of Moses in 2610-67 "in this is an "ayat"/sign (singular)". Surely, The God doesn't mean that the "aya(t)" is just 2667 but it is the whole story from the beginning that provides guidance and hence is a sign/"aya(t)" (singular) despite encompassing several of what you call "verses". In fact, 2667 is meaningless on its own and hence doesn't provide any guidance.
On the other hand we have 2164 that contains several "aya(t)"/signs despite it being a single so-called "verse".
There are many similar examples and I can go on and give you many more where several so-called verses provide one "sign"/"aya(t)" and vice-versa, however, I am sure that you are familiar enough with the great reading to know what I am talking about and verify what I am saying.
More importantly, you will surely have passed by verse 53 which says 'today, I have completed your system for you...'. That is the last verse revealed in the Quran according to its text, yet it is nestled in chapter 5 at its beginning.
Here is your FM translation of 53
- Forbidden to you are those that are already dead, and running blood, and the meat of pig, and what was sacrificed to other than God, and that which has been strangled, and that which has been beaten to death, and that which has fallen from a height, and that which has been gored, and that which the wild animals have eaten from except what you managed to rescue, and what has been slaughtered on alters, and that you divide by the arrows of chance. This is all vile. Today the rejecters have given up from your system, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your system for you, and completed My blessings upon you, and I have accepted that compliance shall be the system for you. So, whoever is forced by severe hunger and not seeking sin, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
The underlined part is a complete meaningful sentence on its own and provides guidance on its own. Hence, it is a sign and as you said, the last part revealed, but it is not necessary that the part before it in 53 was revealed at the same time. It could have been revealed years or months prior to that. It is unlikely that The God would have left those who have faith to eat already dead animals and drink blood for so many years from the start of the revelation.
Thus that the Scripture was revealed as 'verses' and then gathered and arranged by the prophet (16101-102) is a fact I find hard pressed to even argue, let alone deny.
It was revealed in "signs" not "verses". As we saw above, there is no one to one relationship between "signs" and "verses".
The fact is that the purpose of "verses" is purely aesthetic and for ease of reference and memorization. Hence, one finds that verse stops are often dictated by aesthetic factors such as rhyme. One finds verses that contain meaningless half sentences where, for example, the subject of the verb is in a previous verse. For example, look at the incomplete sentences at the beginning of Chapter 55, where it is clear that they were divided into verses for no purpose other than rhyme
551.The Almighty
552. taught the reading,
553. created the human,
554. taught him how to distinguish.The verses "taught the reading" or "created the human" by themselves are not signs since they are incomplete meaningless sentences with the subject ("fa3il") missing. Similarly, 554 by itself is not a sign because we have not idea who the object is and the subject is again missing. Thus, it is clear that 551-4 together is one sign/"aya(t)" that provides meaningful guidance.
The Scripture by design has verses (unless you are of the opinion that it was all revealed to the masses in one night and in the sequence it is in...thus the battles of Badr or Hunain or the prophet's situations with his wives all happened in about 20 seconds in that one night and were all recorded as we find them today).
Since, as both you and I know, "ayat"/signs were rearranged and revealed over a period of time, this is even more evidence that they must be complete meaningful sentences that provide guidance and stand on their own and not merely rhythmical "verses". Therefore, your statement contradicts "verses" being equivalent to signs/"aya(t)".
It makes two differences for me
- That I know the true form of the revelation.
The true form of revelation is signs/"aya(t)". Signs by definition provide guidance. Half-sentences and sentences where the subject or object is missing produced by man-made divisions for the superficial purpose of rhyme are meaningless and do not provide guidance.
- That I make no errors in the interpretation based on a wrong verse stop (e.g. the verse on alcohol could be 'do not approach Salat' thus making Salat off limits to all people for all time since it can be quoted in its verse form).
If you stop reading based on verse stops then you will commit the same error. For example, 533-34, if you stop at 533 then you will apply the wrong law. Similarly, 93-4, 1110-11, etc.
Again, there are many examples where stopping at the end of the verse will give the wrong idea. There are also many examples where one must insert a full-stop in the middle of a verse to make it readable.
Your fault has its roots in what seems to be your understanding that verse stops are like full-stops of sentences that dictate when we should stop or not stop reading. Hence, in your latest article you make a big fuss about the difference between Hafs and Warsh on 51 without noticing that you actually translated both Hafs and Warsh EXACTLY the same way and without any difference in meaning due to the presence or absence of the verse marker.
I am not confusing anything, I am merely reading what you have presented...Look at the Gold Quran to see how the end of a line if it has a space is marked by a '-' or another mark to fill the text. The page you have provided does the same, and the verse stops are very clear eventhough they are slightly faded
OK, I see what you mean. There are small streaks in there. However, the fact remains that there are no such marks in the 2nd picture I provided of Chapter 114. If you disagree, you can enlarge it and post it to see for yourself.
The fact also remains that early copies of the great reading had less alleged "verse markers" and at much wider intervals as evident from the other pictures I showed you and for which you have no explanation. This evidence confirms that such "verse" markers use increased over time as people wanted to more precisely refer to a passage or for aesthetic reasons that have nothing to do with meaning as I demonstrated above.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace sister Shams,
I was just wondering, how would the meaning sound if there are no markers ?? What differences will be there ?
Verse markers have no bearing on the meaning. Hence, you find many verses that translators have further divided into sentences and you have many verses that are incomplete sentences. Thus verse markers have absolutely no bearing on the meaning. One must read logically and while keeping the context in mind in order to arrive at the correct sentence structure. Please see my reply to brother Layth above for more details.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
Since, as both you and I know, "ayat"/signs were rearranged and revealed over a period of time, this is even more evidence that they must be complete meaningful sentences that provide guidance and stand on their own and not merely rhythmical "verses". Therefore, your statement contradicts "verses" being equivalent to signs/"aya(t)".
Your entire post is becomming a 'play on words'...You admit that the Quran was revealed in verses (and rearranged), yet you want to call those verses as 'signs/ayat' and then make as if the whole affair is insignificant.
I care about 'authenticity' and 'facts'...
If the Scripture was revealed in verse form (which we know it was) then I would like to know where those verses ended and where they began...
You seem to think this is a trivial persuit, yet to a student of the Scripture nothing in the way God's words were revaled is 'trivial'.
The history of the language, the history of the revelation, the history of its progression...All these are part and parcell of the where, why, when of one of the most significant events in human history...God's communication with mankind through His prophet.
The Scripture encourages all forms of research, verification, and inquiry...Not the opposite...Never the opposite.
-
Peace brother Layth,
Your entire post is becomming a 'play on words'...
Is 2667 playing with words when it makes clear to us that 2610-67 is ONE "aya(t)" despite being several "verses"?
Are the dictionaries playing with words when they tell us that "aya(t)" means "sign" NOT "verse"?
Brother, try to address the issues raised by the parts I quoted from the great reading instead of focusing on style over substance.
You admit that the Quran was revealed in verses (and rearranged), yet you want to call those verses as 'signs/ayat' and then make as if the whole affair is insignificant.
My whole post was to demonstrate that there is a difference between "aya(t)" and the man-made separation into alleged verses.
I care about 'authenticity' and 'facts'...
Everybody cares about that. Even Sunnis never say "we care about 'fraud' and 'fiction'." But then they fail to address the facts presented by the great reading and instead focus on nice sounding slogans.
The partitioning into "verses" has ZERO effect on authenticity except for those who want to remove parts of the message such as 9128-129. I know that you are not one of those. So what is the big deal about "verses"?
If the Scripture was revealed in verse form (which we know it was) then I would like to know where those verses ended and where they began...
Verses are sometimes meaningless half sentences without a subject or an object. Since, we know that "signs" were revealed over a period, by saying that "signs" and "verses" are the same thing what you are implying is that The God revealed meaningless half sentences only to complete them a few months (or years) later. Again, you are ignoring to address the examples that I provided from the great reading that prove that several verses can constitute ONE "aya(t)" and that there could be several "aya(t)" in ONE verse.
If you want to know when a sign/"aya(t)" begins and ends then the first step is to understand that "aya(t)" means "sign", a fact that, if I didn't know you better I would have thought that you are hopelessly ignorant of. But instead, I think that you know it but for some strange reason choose to neglect it.
You seem to think this is a trivial persuit, yet to a student of the Scripture nothing in the way God's words were revaled is 'trivial'.
I referred you to The God's words that prove that several alleged verses can be ONE sign and vice versa. Instead of focusing on what "I think", please address those non-trivial words.
The history of the language, the history of the revelation, the history of its progression...All these are part and parcell of the where, why, when of one of the most significant events in human history...God's communication with mankind through His prophet.
The Scripture encourages all forms of research, verification, and inquiry...Not the opposite...Never the opposite.
So start researching by addressing 2667 and defining what an "ayat" means based on the consistent internal evidence from the great reading NOT based on the inconsistent man-made verse markers.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
