Which is the Real Quran?
-
Peace to every one here for me the discussion about whicih version is right is useless even though there r differences but i don,t think so the differences r very big n its not against the over all message of Quran i think whicih is God alone for me if there is code 19 exist or not doesn,t really matter because i belive Quran i belive its from God n i will continue to follow Quran in the mean time if some want research the code or some want to research that whicih version is right i,m not against that its ok with me peace
-
Peace Zaltan,
Practicaly, there isnt any difference between hafs and warsh versions if we take into consideration their consonants` basis, that is the text without vowel and consonant markers....toward my study its only one word difference...and it makes no significant change in meaning ...
I could not help but recall the following verse when reading your statement on this subject
"And from mankind are those who argue regarding God with no knowledge nor guidance nor enlightening Scripture." (22
Not only do you obviously not know this subject, but the aggressiveness with which you approach and attack it is quite interesting.
Layth is extremely worried about the minute differences of the variants while in the same time he is rejecting The God`s bold and glaring messages that are essential and contained in all these variants....
I suppose if you have no problem speaking about the Scripture without knoweldge, then you would also have no problem speaking about my beliefs without knowledge.
He is so much worried about the nuances and he wont stop until he found all the dots and letters of the reading that have come out directly from the Muhamad`s mouth....but he wont listen to the voice of the MESSAGE....
What voice of the message? The one that said the following
"And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for. " (1736)
Which is of is upholding without knowledge? Without verification?
I am just now reading Layth`s article on hafs and warsh differences and couldnt help but to copy and paste something that testifies to the faith he professes
You are suppose to read on a subject before you argue it, not after.
And after you now read, did you have the moral obligation to retract your statement about the differences being insignificant?
No, you jumped in for what you thought would be a kill
I quote
- Verse Count Differences.
By far this is the most serious and overlooked of the differences between the Hafs and Warsh versions affecting over 43% of the chapters in the Quran.
end of quote
the man can not stand the count of the verses to differ regardless of the fact that all the same verses are there and its only that separation points between the verses are placed differently.
Who cares about authenticity when we can all live in la-la land where differences are not differences and where research on such a subject is treated as taboo?
I care that God's enemies have managed to infiltrate the very text we thought was secure...I care to expose these people for what they have done, and to attempt to substantiate and identify the damage done (no matter how big or small).
If you can live with the knowledge of such people altering God's revealtions, then you need to ask yourself if you are any better than they are.
"So woe to those who write the Scripture with their hands then Say ?This is from God,? so that they can seek a cheap gain! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gained. " (279)
-
Salaamun alaikum Layth,
I care that God's enemies have managed to infiltrate the very text we thought was secure...I care to expose these people for what they have done, and to attempt to substantiate and identify the damage done (no matter how big or small).
In my opinion, you should care about what God's book tells you about determining which is God's book. Relying on historical texts will bring you the same results as those who did the same, Sunnis and Shias. Of course, that's your right and I respect your position.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace MQ,
In my opinion, you should care about what God's book tells you about determining which is God's book. Relying on historical texts will bring you the same results as those who did the same, Sunnis and Shias. Of course, that's your right and I respect your position.
I have already determined through the article that historical reliability alone will lead to a mish-mash of findings (so we are not in dispute on this matter).
With regards to all the variations/meanings, I have mentioned that following the 'best' of each is the most reasonable approach to take (I also do not think we are in dispute on this).
The only factor where we may not be in agreement is the mathematical aspect of the verification...This for me only helps 'point out' what may be a human error, but in no way is it on its own conclusive.
RK fell into this when he tried to force the Scripture to adhere to certain 19 counts which he knew must be there...I have found that the same tool helps determine where a problem may lie, without giving the solution in any forced mannor (i.e. do we treat the Basmalla as Hafs does in 11 or as Warsh does?...With the 'tool' of 19 we can see that Warsh is more correct in this aspect)
Some general comments I would like to make (not addressed to anyone in particlualr)
Most of the paranoia about 19 is caused by poeple not being aware how such a tool may be used and thinking they have to start re-writing the text as was done with 'NWN' or with 9128&129.
From my study, the fault lies in ignorance...Not in the tool itself.
Just looking at the denial on the exisitence of significant differences between the 10 versions of the Quran (I am not even counting RK's or any other non-Sunni versions floating around out there) shows what type of honesty levels we are dealing with here.
The Scripture is not and never has been God...If we were to remove it entirely from existence then God would continue to exists and would continue to be the King/Lord of the Worlds...People here need to ask if they have made the Scripture as God and forgotton the true Lord of heavens and earth to whom we give all submission and to whom not a leaf falls ecxcept with His knowledge...
-
Salaamun alaikum Layth,
Note Whatever discussion takes place, I am IN NO WAY accusing you of anything. You are my brother in Islaam as long as you're commited to human evolution (quran 9/11).
Layth I have already determined through the article that historical reliability alone will lead to a mish-mash of findings (so we are not in dispute on this matter).
Agreed. The problem lies in situatiing historical information.
Layth With regards to all the variations/meanings, I have mentioned that following the 'best' of each is the most reasonable approach to take (I also do not think we are in dispute on this).
Sorry, if that's the case, then we are judging the Quran, not the other way round. How would you go about determining the following
18/36 warsh - minhuma
hafs - minhaI can read the verse by itself and conclude as-saat refers the 'min' comparison, thus making the hafs correct. There's no 'huma' duality there. Would you accept this based solely on the Quran ?
This is a very dangerous route to take, Layth.
Allah has promised to protect az-zikr as you well know. Az-zikr simply means the one in eminence (not al-tazkir, which is the reminder) which is the one people know about, not Warsh.
From my study, the fault lies in ignorance...Not in the tool itself
I agree that the book is 'kitaaban mutashabihan mathany' (a book with similarities repeating and repeating - 39/23) and therefore there has to be a structure which we can come to rely on. The thing is to find a muhkam (definition) to the structure before we can come to rely on it. (i.e..a see tashbih or similarity).
Just looking at the denial on the exisitence of significant differences between the 10 versions of the Quran (I am not even counting RK's or any other non-Sunni versions floating around out there) shows what type of honesty levels we are dealing with here.
Agreed. We need to be honest with ourselves because we will face Him one day. All I'm saying is, A book like al-qur'aan couldnt have left us clueless about this.
The Scripture is not and never has been God...If we were to remove it entirely from existence then God would continue to exists and would continue to be the King/Lord of the Worlds...People here need to ask if they have made the Scripture as God and forgotton the true Lord of heavens and earth to whom we give all submission and to whom not a leaf falls ecxcept with His knowledge...
Agreed. The thing is, when we go beyond the boundaries of scripture, we will fail to find the truth. This is God's promise. This is what I worry about.
thanks and peace.
-
I see people are still getting sucked into this nonsense. First off, regarding the Tashkent Qur'an, it can never be used as an historical reference as it it was tampered with by Pisareff before it was photgraphed, therefore one can never truly be sure what it was like in it's original state. For references, read Jeffrey. The rest of the article lists variations which I've addressed in another post, no need to rehash them. As for the difference regarding Qalaa and qul, and qalaa not being grammatically correct, that's simply wrong, as qalaa doesnt not solely mean "he said" it also means to proclaim loudly, etc. I still haven't seen anything relating to real mathematics, nor do I see anyone here who would be remotely qualified to conduct a serious mathematical study. Only works published in reputable peer reviewed journals are ever taken seriously. Layth, you said that your dictionary gives the meaning of '?The camel and goat heavy with milk " to the words safa and marwa. I'd love to verify that for myself, and since I live in Nyc, I have access to pretty much every book ever published. What is the name of this Classical Arabic dictionary? God bless, and I hope you're doing great in "Arabia"
-
Peace Layth
Peace Zaltan,
Practicaly, there isnt any difference between hafs and warsh versions if we take into consideration their consonants` basis, that is the text without vowel and consonant markers....toward my study its only one word difference...and it makes no significant change in meaning ...
I could not help but recall the following verse when reading your statement on this subject
"And from mankind are those who argue regarding God with no knowledge nor guidance nor enlightening Scripture." (22
Not only do you obviously not know this subject,
I do know this subject wery well..well enough not to be duped by your alleged differences..i have carefully read both scripts many many times...and i stay with my statement they have no significant differences....considering both text with or without wowels and dots....of course if one is not nitpicking...
I have read warsh at least 20 times few years ago...and the fact that i cant even recall the differences says it all.....Reading/following both of the book offers the very SAME EXPERIENCE , MESSAGE AND THE ROAD....
All the differences that you have found are but a nitpicking....of course significance is a relative thing( and we may discuss one by one in order to show you that, witha holistic approach, there are almost no differences at all).... but as i have said in the last post under this thread the differences between hafs and warsh amount NOT EVEN to 1% of alternative readings/understandings/translations that offers each of the versions on its own....
The greatest difference between undoted texts ( i admit its not the only one and there are several more of which some ill comment here) is the mentioned huwa He that makes no change in meaning......
The others differences in the consonant`s basis are reffering to the ommiting of the waw/and(or fa/so)... mainly warsh omites waw at the beggening of the sentence....and that doesnt change the meaning at all....not even once.........and waw/and and fa/so are known to be synonyms in arabic as well in english...
You have reported the diffeences in alif at few places....they also do not change the meaning significantly and it may be argued if these alifs belong to the consonant basis or not and if all of the alifs are considered to have been writen in the beggining or not(and were understood)...there is also a d in surplus yartadid or yartadda ... no change in meaning...to conclude the topic.....there is a meem differece in 1836.... from the two gardens or from the gardens make no difference in meaning at all...Not a single case of a significant meaning change....
thinking of?Wa Alaw? vs ?Wa An Law? (7216) and ?Alim Allan? / ?Alim An Lan??(7320) as of a differences is a greatest nitpicking I have ever seen....
Alos and you rush or rush you doesnt make any difference....
here are all the words differences from your article....
272 in Hafs is ?Fadar?tum? / In Warsh it is ?FadarAtum? with an
extra ?Alif?.
2132 in Hafs is ?Waassa? / In Warsh it is ?WaAwsa? with an extra
?Alif?.
2165 in Hafs is ?Yaraa? / In Warsh it is ?Taraa? with a ?Ta? instead of a
?Ya?.
3133 in Hafs is ?Wa Sariu? / In Warsh it is ?Sariu? without the
?Waw?.
553 in Hafs is ?Wa Yaqool? / In Warsh it is
?Yaqool? without the ?Waw?.
554 in Hafs is ?Yartad? / In Warsh it is ?YartadD? with two ?Dals?.9107 in Hafs is ?Wa Alazeena? / In Warsh it is ?Alazeena?
without the ?Waw?.
1836 in Hafs is ?Minha? / In Warsh it is ?MinhuMa? with an addition
of the ?Meem?.
214 in Hafs is ?Qaal? / In Warsh it is ?Qul? without the ?Alif?.
26217 in Hafs is ?Watawakal? / In Warsh its is ?Fatawakal? with
a ?Fa? instead of a ?Waw?.
4026 in Hafs is ?Aw An? / In Warsh it is ?Wa An? without the ?Alif?.
4230 in Hafs is ?Fa Bima? / In Warsh it is ?Bima? without the ?Fa?.
4319 in Hafs is ?Ibaad? / In Warsh it is ?Inda? without the ?Alif? and with
a ?Nwn? instead of the ?Ba?.
4368 in Hafs is ?YaIbad? / In Warsh it is ?YaIbadY? with a
?Ya? at the end.
5724 in Hafs is ?Huwa Alghani? / In Warsh it is
?Alghani? without the ?Huwa?.
7216 in Hafs is ?Wa Alaw? / In Warsh it is
?Wa An Law? with an additional ?Nwn?.
7320 in Hafs is ?Alim Allan? / In Warsh it is ?Alim An Lan?
with a letter ?Nwn?.
9115 in Hafs is ?Wa La? / In Warsh itand all of them together, and each on its own, with or without other possible diferences, even when multiplied 19 times by 19, do not amount to 1% of your distortion of the message which you have done based on your utterly subjective and perverted explanations, translations and interpretations of the book....
bets wishes
-
I see people are still getting sucked into this nonsense. First off, regarding the Tashkent Qur'an, it can never be used as an historical reference as it it was tampered with by Pisareff before it was photgraphed, therefore one can never truly be sure what it was like in it's original state.
good comment.... I have some copies of the book with many pages tore up( my kids) does it mean the scripture is tampered with?
I have some copies in my house on which i have experimented and added a lot of content and I even added false verses such as there is no god but Muhamad... and if some unknown future researcher, a few ceturies later, after my departure, find these copies under the ruines of my house what would it mean?
best wishes
-
Salaam Alaikum,
M Quran, Zlatan, Cathedral thanks for the very informative nice posts. I have no knowledge about the subject so can't give my opinion.
What is Hafs or Warsh version?
I don't want to know because the Qur'an the message is uncorrupted unchanged because its the promise of God Almighty.
I am censoring myself here on what Layth said about
If we were to remove it entirely from existence then God would continue to exists and would continue to be the King/Lord of the Worlds...People here need to ask if they have made the Scripture as God and forgotton the true Lord of heavens and earth to whom we give all submission and to whom not a leaf falls ecxcept with His knowledge...
because my blunt response which ofcouse is against cult 19 will cause more furry. -
Salaamun alaikum,
Cathedral I see people are still getting sucked into this nonsense. First off, regarding the Tashkent Qur'an, it can never be used as an historical reference as it it was tampered with by Pisareff before it was photgraphed, therefore one can never truly be sure what it was like in it's original state
Agreed, Allah has protected az-zikr (the one in eminence). That's why, no matter how many manuscripts you find in some Yemeni mosque or what have you, it will not change the one commonly known to people. Rashad Khalifa tried to propagate his Quran (minus 9/128-129) but it failed. Why ? Because the one in eminence is perfectly clear.
KGB What is Hafs or Warsh version?
Please read 'which quran' article in free-minds (look at 'whats new' section)
Zlatan I have some copies in my house on which i have experimented and added a lot of content and I even added false verses such as there is no god but Muhamad... and if some unknown future researcher, a few ceturies later, after my departure, find these copies under the ruines of my house what would it mean?
lol, I will write a letter to my descendants in the future , warning them of your evil plan...hahahaha.
thanks and peace.
-
Nature, Existence and creation....All these combines as real Quran. Because we all can read those things..which give us knowledge and evidence. These are something that cant be changed no matter how hard we try. Its the Natural Law.
peace
-
As for the difference regarding Qalaa and qul, and qalaa not being grammatically correct, that's simply wrong, as qalaa doesnt not solely mean "he said" it also means to proclaim loudly, etc.
This is one of the greatest Laths arguments of significant differences...and this very well mirrors his incorect and narrow approach to the book...namely study of the sentences in isolation! ...he is well known of basing a whole doctrine on the sightest allusions of the single verse of the text....having this in mind of course that each letter make a universe difference to him ...instead the doctrines should be based only on what is clear, precise, decisive and repeated/confirmed throughout the book...this is the correct methodology for obtaining the real message...
And true when one study the word in isolation he might think its a great difference if it is said "say"(order) or "he said"(a fact).....
however, when studied in the context of the verse and particualarly in the context/light of the book as a whole it absolutely doesnt change a thing if all the previous messengers that were possibly spoken of in the verse have said the words below or it was the muhamad himself who is ordered to say these words....or he previously have said the words so now the god has quoted them
He said( or say)
"My Lord knows what is said in the heavens and in the Earth, and He is the Hearer, the Knower." 214
it absolutely make no difference see the whole passage at the begening of chapter 21
we made no difference between the messengers and there is a lesson for us in all of them....or in whatever they have said...and the message was always the same
best wishes
p.s. in other post Ill analyse the next great differece (2125)and youll see its also is not an issue if we have a correct approach and are not being nitpicky.....
-
Layth wrote in his article
there are significant differences which cannot simply
be waived away or ignored?
For example
2125 in Hafs is ?WatakhIzu? (You shall take) / In Warsh it is
?WatakhAzu? (They have taken/made).
In 2125 the subject being addressed is that of ?Maqam Ibrahim?. One version gives a
command/order, while the other states a historical fact/observation.If we have a holistical approach we simply cant make the mistake whichever of the reading we choose to folow....
throughout of the book no matter which version you read Abraham is described as a great example and a paradigm to follow or immitate...( we also have mention of those with him as an example to follow)
Do we understand the verse as order to took from the Abrahams stance/place way/attitude of serving(musalla) or that the people in the past have done so makes absolutely no difference....
we are anyway to follow his course, way or example....and thats all!
The main point is, no big or significant or specil special injuction could be extracted from any single verse or any verse of the book treated in isolation from the rest of the book and thus any reading and even the extreme ones will be rectified and dissolved by other parts of the book....
we have seen the obey the messenger case ....
When studied in isolation, could there be any more explicit proof to the Hadith and Sunna theory? hardly....but the verses or sayings of the book are simply not meant to be studied in isolation but as a new whole that is greater and quantitatively and qualitatively different from the simple compliation of them all or when studied separately
best wishes
-
Peace
3146 in Hafs is tGs% ?Qatal? (Fought) / In Warsh it is ?Qutil? (Were Killed).
In 3146 the difference is between a prophet and those with him being killed, while in the
other the difference only means that they fought by his side.heres an another insignificant difference that Layth in his narrow, unholistic, partial and isolationistic approach to the book consider significant
3146 "And many prophets had a large number of devotees fighting(or being killed) with them. They did not waver by what afflicted them in the cause of God, nor did they become weak, nor did they become discouraged; and God loves the patient ones." FM
Were they fighting or they have been killed on the Gods path doesnt matter at all....what maters is that they did not wawer upon aflictions nor become weak nor discouraged in the path of The God...
p.s. At the end of the day, and as a matter of fact, both are facts, regardless of how do we read the verse....many were fighting and many were killed as well....
best wishes
Zlatan
-
Salaamun alaikum Zlatan,
p.s. At the end of the day, and as a matter of fact, both are facts, regardless of how do we read the verse....many were fighting and many were killed as well....
Sorry, but if I was reading sun tzu's the art of war, then yeah I can say any rendition would be ok. But this ALLAH'S BOOK, so the active and passive voice must have a difference. If not, then we must be the same as sunnis because until now, they do not give the book of Allah the place it deserves.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace brothers MQ, Zlatan, Layth, all,
Sorry, but if I was reading sun tzu's the art of war, then yeah I can say any rendition would be ok. But this ALLAH'S BOOK, so the active and passive voice must have a difference. If not, then we must be the same as sunnis because until now, they do not give the book of Allah the place it deserves.
The differences in vocalization marks such as the one in 3146 are normal because vocalization marks were added to the text hundreds of years after the fact. Hence, they reflect human interpretation of the text. In the case of 3146 someone interpreted the word QTL as "fighting/killing" and someone else interpreted it as "being killed". Surely, as you noted, there is a difference in those interpretations but this difference will not be resolved by some "miraculous code".
Before anyone starts panicking, please consider how ALL the many thousands (if not millions) of differences in interpretation are resolved. They are resolved using CONTEXT. This is true for the great reading as well as any mundane Arabic text such as your Arabic newspapers, books, and manuscripts which don't have vocalization marks at all. This is also true in all languages and even English has many ambiguities that people try to resolve using context.
If we look at the context from 3143-145, we would see that "death" is the prevailing theme. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that "QuTiL" (were killed) is more correct. If one looks at 3146 in isolation then "QaTaL" (fought/killed) seems to fit better. Either way, I am sure that no one is going to hell because they misinterpreted "QTL" in 3146. Again, WITH or WITHOUT differences in vocalization marks people will CERTAINLY have different interpretations of the text so there is no need to get dramatic and make speeches about "not giving the book of Allah the place it deserves".
Brother Layth was the first one to open my eyes to the above facts when several years ago he noticed the errors in the vocalization marks in the beginning of Chapter 30, which were totally out of sync with the context, this despite 7afs and Warsh versions being in agreement. For some unknown reason he has forsaken this common sense intelligent approach and instead now he seems content with sinking deeper into the counting 19 obsession.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman, all,
AymanThe differences in vocalization marks such as the one in 3146 are normal because vocalization marks were added to the text hundreds of years after the fact. Hence, they reflect human interpretation of the text. In the case of 3146 someone interpreted the word QTL as "fighting/killing" and someone else interpreted it as "being killed". Surely, as you noted, there is a difference in those interpretations but this difference will not be resolved by some "miraculous code".
Hundreds of years ? Well Ayman, I'm afraid I don't know any such thing. All I know is, I have a book called 'al-qur'aan' and it has the i'raab, that's all.
Also, I never implied any code nor am I a supporter of any code doctrine.
If we look at the context from 3143-145, we would see that "death" is the prevailing theme. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that "QuTiL" (were killed) is more correct. If one looks at 3146 in isolation then "QaTaL" (fought/killed) seems to fit better. Either way, I am sure that no one is going to hell because they misinterpreted "QTL" in 3146. Again, WITH or WITHOUT differences in vocalization marks people will CERTAINLY have different interpretations of the text so there is no need to get dramatic and make speeches about "not giving the book of Allah the place it deserves".
I don't think ppl go to hell unless thier heart's in the wrong place and I agree, even if we agree on one 'version', there's still be interpretational differences. That wasn't my point. My point is, I look to the book to tell me if it is itself. I don't depend on history and extra-quranic criterias. I don't think this is being dramatic.
Brother Layth was the first one to open my eyes to the above facts when several years ago he noticed the errors in the vocalization marks in the beginning of Chapter 30, which were totally out of sync with the context, this despite 7afs and Warsh versions being in agreement. For some unknown reason he has forsaken this common sense intelligent approach and instead now he seems content with sinking deeper into the counting 19 obsession.
Yes, so in other words, you and Layth are telling the book that IT is out of sync with (your interpretation of) the story. I'm sorry but I cannot do that because I believe that you are relying upon traditional sources in order to attain your understanding of 'the context'.
i hope you take my disagreement in the right spirit of discussion. I am certainly grateful for your input.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace brother MQ, all,
Hundreds of years ? Well Ayman, I'm afraid I don't know any such thing. All I know is, I have a book called 'al-qur'aan' and it has the i'raab, that's all.
There are several places where I'raab doesn't fit the context. Therefore the I'raab must be wrong.
Also, I never implied any code nor am I a supporter of any code doctrine.
Understood, my comment was more of a general comment based on the theme of the article that this thread is about.
I don't think ppl go to hell unless thier heart's in the wrong place and I agree, even if we agree on one 'version', there's still be interpretational differences. That wasn't my point. My point is, I look to the book to tell me if it is itself. I don't depend on history and extra-quranic criterias. I don't think this is being dramatic.
Agreed. So please apply this approach to have the book tell you about its own I'raab.
Yes, so in other words, you and Layth are telling the book that IT is out of sync with (your interpretation of) the story. I'm sorry but I cannot do that because I believe that you are relying upon traditional sources in order to attain your understanding of 'the context'.
We are not relying on the traditional stories. In fact, the traditional stories totally agree with the I'raab.
We are relying on the internal evidence from the book. The beginning of Chapter 30 mentions two entities, the Romans (who are trinitarians) and those who had faith. There is nothing in the chapter about Persians as traditional stories contend. It is The God's law that those who have faith will eventually be victorious over the rejecters. Why would those who have faith be happy for a victory by those who are rejecters/"kafirun"? Thus, based on The God's law and the clear context in Chapter 30 and evidence from the great reading describing the Trinitarians as rejecters/"kuffar", the "tashkeel" added to the original Arabic words must be off.
So here we have an example where the "tashkeel" clearly contradicts the context and common sense. It is not surprising then that amazing hearsay stories have been manufactured to justify such illogical interpretation of chapter 30. Those are the traditional stories you refer to.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
There are several places where I'raab doesn't fit the context. Therefore the I'raab must be wrong.
To me, the i'raab doesn't fit YOUR INTERPRETATION of the context. 'fitting the context' is a meaningless verb without the fitter. In this case, the fitter is you and not al-furqaan.
Agreed. So please apply this approach to have the book tell you about its own I'raab.
I already am. i'm not dissatisfied with the i'raab.
We are not relying on the traditional stories. In fact, the traditional stories totally agree with the I'raab.
We are relying on the internal evidence from the book. The beginning of Chapter 30 mentions two entities, the Romans (who are trinitarians) and those who had faith. There is nothing in the chapter about Persians as traditional stories contend. It is The God's law that those who have faith will eventually be victorious over the rejecters. Thus, based on The God's law and the clear context in Chapter 30 and evidence from the great reading describing the Trinitarians as rejecters/"kuffar", the "tashkeel" added to the original Arabic words must be off.
So here we have an example where the "tashkeel" clearly contradicts the context and common sense. It is not surprising then that amazing hearsay stories have been manufactured to justify such illogical interpretation of chapter 30. Those are the traditional stories you refer to.
Internal evidence ?
-
where in the book does it say 'ar-rum' are 'kuffar' ?
-
where in the book does it say 'ar-rum' are trinitarians ?
thanks and peace.
-
-
Peace brother MQ,
We are not relying on the traditional stories. In fact, the traditional stories totally agree with the I'raab.
We are relying on the internal evidence from the book. The beginning of Chapter 30 mentions two entities, the Romans (who are trinitarians) and those who had faith. There is nothing in the chapter about Persians as traditional stories contend. It is The God's law that those who have faith will eventually be victorious over the rejecters. Thus, based on The God's law and the clear context in Chapter 30 and evidence from the great reading describing the Trinitarians as rejecters/"kuffar", the "tashkeel" added to the original Arabic words must be off.
So here we have an example where the "tashkeel" clearly contradicts the context and common sense. It is not surprising then that amazing hearsay stories have been manufactured to justify such illogical interpretation of chapter 30. Those are the traditional stories you refer to.
Internal evidence ?
-
where in the book does it say 'ar-rum' are 'kuffar' ?
-
where in the book does it say 'ar-rum' are trinitarians ?
One could go on with such questions
Where in the book does it say that 'ar-rum' are the Romans?
If you take 'ar-rum' to be the Romans then your questions are pointless because they were Trinitarians and continue to be so until this day. Hence, TODAY we have the ROMAN Catholic and Orthodox churches. Trinitarians are "kuffar" BY DEFINITION (see 573).
If you take 'ar-rum' to be not the Romans then your questions are fine. But then you need to first provide an alternative better interpretation of what 'ar-rum' means.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
