Which is the Real Quran?
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
Before I proceed, I'd like to remind us again of the purpose of this discussion which is, whether or not the i'raab is divinely ordained. Let me just point out that without the i'raab, you can either read it 'the romans were defeated' or 'the romans defeated (another party)'. These are two diametrically opposed outcomes. Since al-qur'aan is 'bayyinat min al-huda', clarification from the guidance' (2/185), I cannot possibly agree with your thinking.
Let me set an analogy for you. Lets take an equation =
20 + x + y + z + ..... = 100
Let 20 = 'quranic text'.
What you're saying is, '20 isnt 20 but could be something else'. So '20' becomes a variable.
Lets see what other variables you have there
-
that ar-rum are romans.
-
that romans are trinitarians
-
that the 'physical evidence' of churches geographically corresponds to the geography of sura 30 (which btw, mentions no place name).
-
that the word is 'ghalibat' instead of 'ghulibat' (this is a variable as well, because it depends on the 3 variables above).
you wroteMuch of the book is addressed and talks about the people of the book, people who idolize Jesus (trinitarians), and Jews. The great reading speaks critically of those people. Hence, normally some of them would have been enemies of those who have faith and conflicts would have resulted.
Agreed. But there is nowhere in al-qur'aan which states that ar-rum are trinitarians. You have 2 variables here, one which assumes the word is ghalibat and 2, that ar-rum are romans.
Even some understanding of "ar-rum" is certainly better than your no understanding of "ar-rum". If you disagree then please tell us your understanding of what "ar-rum" means and why they can't be the romans.
Your conclusion is wrong by my reading. I don't have a conclusion of my own yet and will wait for Allah to guide me on the matter. But that doesn't make your conclusion right.
How do you know that "arabiyun" means this language codified and named Classical Arabic?
The Arabic meaning of the word "ar-rum" is romans and you can check that in ALL Arabic dictionaries. So according to your own criteria, "ar-rum" means romans.
Well, some people say the Quran is of some syriac language as well. I don't buy this at all.
To me, the matter is simple. We use the communication system and apply it to the book. The proof then is the 'haqqness' of the result, i.e. how far the result matches real events (41/53). To me, matching ar-rum to romans isn't 'signs in horizons' , actual happening events. And for you to say 'physical evidence' is unacceptable to me because its laden with interpretational gaps. Sura 30 mentions NO absolute location.
You can't know the context except through reading in 'lisanun arabiyun mubin', which as we saw in Arabic "ar-rum" means romans exactly like "ghalab" means defeat. So instead of criticizing please tell us what "ar-rum" means from the context.
Are you saying that unless I have an answer of my own, your is automatically valid? Rather funny criteria of truth, if I may say so )
As for verifying back into your "nafs" that is what everybody does. At the end, our selves are responsible for our understanding
Well, that's why I wished you peace. This discussion will not reach a concilation because we ascribe to different epistemologies.
All we need to link "romans" to chapter 30 is the word "ar-rum", which in "lisan 3arabi mubin" means romans.
Tell me, would you accept that 'makkah' and 'bakkah' is the sunni city in saudi arabia where billions of sunnis have been for 'hajj' ? Lisanun arabiyun mubiin (which you claim comes from dictionaries) say so.
Now if you want to argue that the romans were not trinitarians then this is a different matter. All I can tell you is to obey signs such as 4081-85 and see the traces left by the romans and decide for yourself if they were trinitarians or monotheists. This is better than making no effort and instead being content with just criticising.
Is that what the verse says ? Go look at them and figure out if they were trinitarians or monothiests ? I dont think so ) The verse asked us to consider thier end, not their religion. This is all interpretation of signs, not signs itself.
The physical evidence that romans were trinitarians is conclusive and not subject to interpretations. Just go to any of the traces that they left in the land and see for yourself as we are commanded in the great reading.
'not subject to interpretations'....where have I heard that kind of phraseology before? Are you going to report me to the quranic-archeological council or something D
As for the great reading's method, it is based on continuous betterment of our understanding. The "quranic" method doesn't tell us to endlessly criticise while making no effort to bring a better understanding. Hence, I encourage you to bring forth a better interpretation of "ar-rum" than "romans". If you do then I am all for changing my mind as I have done many times before. For now, "ar-rum" understanding as "romans" is at least better than your ZERO understanding of what "ar-rum" means.
While making no effort ? That's funny, I don't recall telling you I've made no effort. If you think a shaky understanding is better than none, then I wish you peace and hope your application of the ayat will bring you benefit ).
thank you for a most stimulating discussion.
-
-
Peace MQ,
Let me just point out that without the i'raab, you can either read it 'the romans were defeated' or 'the romans defeated (another party)'.
Excuse me my intrusion, I'd like to know How do you read the sentence above according al-i3rab?
- were defeated
or - defeated (another party)
Thanks in advance.
- were defeated
-
Peace MQ,
Before I proceed, I'd like to remind us again of the purpose of this discussion which is, whether or not the i'raab is divinely ordained. Let me just point out that without the i'raab, you can either read it 'the romans were defeated' or 'the romans defeated (another party)'. These are two diametrically opposed outcomes. Since al-qur'aan is 'bayyinat min al-huda', clarification from the guidance' (2/185), I cannot possibly agree with your thinking.
First, you don't seem to understand what i3rab is or its purpose. You are confusing the very basics of i3rab and vocalization marks. One can do i3rab without vocalization marks, hence for example, you can have mu'mnun and mu'mnin, which take the correct i3rab without any vocalization marks.
Your inability to figure out who "defeated" or "was defeated" without the interpretive device of vocalization marks is rooted in your lack of understanding of the term "ar-rum" which is the main subject of the verses and thus provides the CONTEXT. Hence, unable to understand the CONTEXT, you have to rely on the vocalization marks.
On the other hand, people who know the CONTEXT can easily figure the meaning from the CONTEXT without ANY need for vocalization marks. You seem unaware of the fact that the vast majority of Arabic (and Classical Arabic) texts are WITHOUT vocalization marks, yet we are able to EASILY read them and deduce who "did something" or "got something done to him" from the CONTEXT.
You need the vocalization marks because you don't know what "ar-rum" are and hence you don't know the context. Otherwise, the context makes it pretty clear that those who had faith were happy for the defeat of the romans.
Let me set an analogy for you. Lets take an equation =
20 + x + y + z + ..... = 100
Let 20 = 'quranic text'.
What you're saying is, '20 isnt 20 but could be something else'. So '20' becomes a variable.
False analogy. We are only talking about TWO alternative interpretations.
Lets see what other variables you have there
- that ar-rum are romans.
This is not a variable. This is a value assigned to "ar-rum". You on the other hand, did not assign any value to "ar-rum" so "ar-rum" is a variable for you but not for me. For you it is as if "ar-rum" = x.
- that romans are trinitarians
That romans are trinitarians is verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt using our eyes and mind as The God ordered us (see 1736). On the other hand, you have not provided any evidence that "ar-rum" are not the romans.
- that the 'physical evidence' of churches geographically corresponds to the geography of sura 30 (which btw, mentions no place name).
This has nothing to do with geography. Romans everywhere were trinitarians. This became their official STATE religion after the Nicene.
- that the word is 'ghalibat' instead of 'ghulibat' (this is a variable as well, because it depends on the 3 variables above).
No it depends on the context. You can call it a binary variable because it can only take two values. The context is given by the word "ar-rum". Since, you don't understand "ar-rum", you naturally can't figure out the context and thus are forced to rely on the vocalization marks.
Agreed. But there is nowhere in al-qur'aan which states that ar-rum are trinitarians. You have 2 variables here, one which assumes the word is ghalibat and 2, that ar-rum are romans.
If the "ar-rum" are romans then this provides the context for everything else.
Even some understanding of "ar-rum" is certainly better than your no understanding of "ar-rum". If you disagree then please tell us your understanding of what "ar-rum" means and why they can't be the romans.
Your conclusion is wrong by my reading. I don't have a conclusion of my own yet and will wait for Allah to guide me on the matter. But that doesn't make your conclusion right.
It is your right to reject or accept anything you want. I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here to disspel the myth that vocalization marks are divine inspiration for the readers of this forum. Your inability to make a conclusion despite having faith that vocalization marks are divine proves my point.
In this case, I was able to make a conclusion without vocalization marks based on the "'bayyinat min al-huda', clarification from the guidance' (2/185)", while you were not "guided" to a conclusion. The obstacle is that you take vocalization marks to be divine.
How do you know that "arabiyun" means this language codified and named Classical Arabic?
The Arabic meaning of the word "ar-rum" is romans and you can check that in ALL Arabic dictionaries. So according to your own criteria, "ar-rum" means romans.
Well, some people say the Quran is of some syriac language as well. I don't buy this at all.
To me, the matter is simple. We use the communication system and apply it to the book. The proof then is the 'haqqness' of the result, i.e. how far the result matches real events (41/53). To me, matching ar-rum to romans isn't 'signs in horizons' , actual happening events. And for you to say 'physical evidence' is unacceptable to me because its laden with interpretational gaps. Sura 30 mentions NO absolute location.
This doesn't answer the question.
How do you know that "arabiyun" means this language codified and named Classical Arabic?
How do you know the right "communication system"?
Do signs in the horizons (outside us) cannot be physical signs?
You can't know the context except through reading in 'lisanun arabiyun mubin', which as we saw in Arabic "ar-rum" means romans exactly like "ghalab" means defeat. So instead of criticizing please tell us what "ar-rum" means from the context.
Are you saying that unless I have an answer of my own, your is automatically valid? Rather funny criteria of truth, if I may say so )
No, I am saying that without vocalization marks, I was able to get an answer while you are stuck despite having absolute faith in the vocalization marks. This proves that vocalization marks are not part of the "'bayyinat min al-huda', clarification from the guidance' (2/185)". Remember what you said, this discussion is not about "ar-rum". It is about vocalization marks.
As for verifying back into your "nafs" that is what everybody does. At the end, our selves are responsible for our understanding
Well, that's why I wished you peace. This discussion will not reach a concilation because we ascribe to different epistemologies.
It may not reach a conciliation but at least I demonstrated that the vocalization marks are irrelevant as far as reaching a conclusion about the meaning and CONTEXT is all that matters.
All we need to link "romans" to chapter 30 is the word "ar-rum", which in "lisan 3arabi mubin" means romans.
Tell me, would you accept that 'makkah' and 'bakkah' is the sunni city in saudi arabia where billions of sunnis have been for 'hajj' ? Lisanun arabiyun mubiin (which you claim comes from dictionaries) say so.
No.
Arabic dictionaries say that "makkah" primarily means "destruction/wearing down". This common noun fits the context of 4824.
- And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
On the other hand, you just created a problem for yourself because if you look at "makkah" in 4824 you will see that it is "makkatA" with a "fat-ha" when it should have taken a "kasra". According to rules of i3rab, the "fat-ha" is used instead of kasra in the case of proper names of places. Thus the vocalization marks that you have faith in actually CONFIRM the falsehood that 'makkah' "is the sunni city in saudi arabia where billions of sunnis have been for 'hajj'".
Is that what the verse says ? Go look at them and figure out if they were trinitarians or monothiests ? I dont think so ) The verse asked us to consider thier end, not their religion. This is all interpretation of signs, not signs itself.
If you read carefully, you will see that the signs tell us to consider the end of the REJECTERS who only have faith when they see the end coming. Turn the page and read also a little further in Chapter 30 (309-10) and see that it is not a coincidence that those signs come RIGHT AFTER the signs about "ar-rum". The God knew that you and I would be having this discussion. 309 will help you understand who "ar-rum" are and understand the CONTEXT.
'not subject to interpretations'....where have I heard that kind of phraseology before? Are you going to report me to the quranic-archeological council or something D
You don't have to listen to me and you are free to make fun, but please read a little further and listen to 309 to figure out who "ar-rum" are.
While making no effort ? That's funny, I don't recall telling you I've made no effort.
Actions speak louder than words.
If you think a shaky understanding is better than none, then I wish you peace and hope your application of the ayat will bring you benefit ).
A shaky understanding is at least a start that has a chance of improvement. To use your mathematical analogy, an improvement of 1% on something is a little but is better than a 100% improvement on zero, which is still zero.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
mquran wrote
While making no effort ? That's funny, I don't recall telling you I've made no effort.Ayman
Actions speak louder than words.So because I don't want to share my understanding, its considered I've not done any work on the subject? No wonder you think ar-rum are romans
I must say, I never had you pegged for ad homoniem attacks , Ayman Soon you'll start telling me my diet is the reason I cannot see what you see. You're already telling me its conclusive and there's no room for interpretation.
The above is a sign that the discussion will continue to be fruitless. I pray you find peace following the action which follow your understanding. There is no point attempting to concile because we use different criterias.
This is the last you'll hear from me on the subject.
peace be upon you.
-
The verse numbering etc. is really just a man-made tool to make easy reference to a text. This has gone on for ages. There really is nothing 'divine' about verse and chapter numbering at all, why would there be? If anyone still sticks to this submission.org theory that numbers have some mystical signficance then you really are reading too much into that.
The bsm-allah is also found in early Arab codices as preliminaries to portions of Biblical texts too. There is a copy of this online if anyone wishes to see it - the book of Hebrews begins with the bsm-allah. It is not numbered. It is just a prologue to the reading of the portion thereafter.
Remember that the earliest copies of alkoran are very likely to have been unvowelled. This is because vocalizations at that early stage in Semetic languages were not used. The differences that Layth (Lion) points to between hafs and warsh are mainly to do with different vowelling, but this was not relevant in early Arabic which resembled Aramaic.
Take a look at my avatar on the left there. shock It is in Aramaic and most likely the early Arabic script developed from this.
Can you make out what it says? roll
-
Peace all
heres something interesting that might be related to the topic
The paomnnehil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. >The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Perety amzanig huh?
copy and paste from
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30525&highlight=#30525
-
Salaamun alaikum Zlatan, all.
To me, if the Quran spells something differently, there's a reason for it. If it changes syntax, there's a reason for it. Even the arrangement of the suras itself has an arrangement.
If what is important is only the 'overall' message, then suras 103 and 112 is enough. God is one, believe in Him and do good. Al-Qur'aan however details the entire existence and process of humankind. And as such, its power of language is to be taken seriously, not approximately. Sunnis have been very approximate in thier use of the Quran and look whats happened to them.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace,
My question is in relation to the divergent total count of 6214 verses officially vs. the actual count of 6213 which you stated for the Warsh version. Where is the actual discrepancy?
The reason I ask is that 6213 is a multiple of 19 by itself without addition of any basmalahs. It would be interesting to know where and why there is such a discrepancy of one.
I received a responce from them as follows
Dear brother Layth,
Wa alaykum ssalam wa rahmatullah
What you mentioned in your letter, beign the result of your manual counting of the verses of the Glorious Quran (Warsh recitation) is correct. However, the statement at the back of the edition you referred to is, likewise, faultless. We would like to refer you to the same report of the Academic Committee (Page b) which states unequivocally that the verse number nine of Surat al-Mulk ends with word "Kabir" and not the word "nadhir" occuring in a preceding sentence. This makes the total number of verses in surat al-Mulk thirty, but would have been thirty one, had the verse been made to end with the first senence in it. Putting the number at thrity as the Committee has righlty done is in line with a Prophetic hadith wherein the Messenger of Allah (salallahu alai wa ssalam said, "There is a chapter in the Qur'an consisting of thirty verses, which intercedes for its reciter, until he is forgiven. i.e. Tabaraka ladhi bi yadihi l mulk .."
Based on this, the total number of the verses will be, as you have mentioned, 6213. However, the other opinion making the number 6214 , as held by some scholars, cannot be totally ruled out.Academic Affairs Dept.
King Fahd Qur'an Printing Complex,
P.O.Box 6262
Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Tel. +966-4-8615600
Email [email protected]
www.qurancomplex.org -
Hafs,warsh,etc are all one Qur'an. Anyone who knows anything about the different qiraat would realize this. All have the same surahs, verses in the same order, and the surahs are in the same order. Anyone who knows old Arabic literature will also know it was very common to give the same sermon, verse, etc but modify it slightly. The idea of slightly varying the same material was a major component of old Arabic literature. The question posed is aimed at people who really do not know anything about the textual history of the Qur'an.
Khi- Salam. I think u dont know abt the differences btw hafs n warsh. While most diferences r slight there r some differences which effect the meaning considerably as well n the following article will make this clear 2 u
Is There Really a Difference?
There is a widely prevalent belief that there are no ?real? differences between the two versions of Hafs & Warsh and that they are simply slight vocal variations (a letter here, a letter there) which do not have any impact on the meaning of the Quran. The truth of the matter however is that there are significant differences which cannot simply be waved 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.
3146 in Hafs is ?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.
Verse counts for Hafs are 6236, while Warsh records 6214 (other versions record 6616, 6217, 6204, and 6226).
According to ?Daleel Al-Hayran Fil Kash a?n Ayaay Al-Quran?
Muslims claim to know the time, place, and occasion that each verse was revealed in?Yet between Hafs and Warsh they seem not to know even how many verses were originally revealed!
The question that presents itself is ?Which did Gabriel reveal??
For consistency, and unless otherwise stated, I am comparing between the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Quran as published by the King Fahad Quran Complex in Medina. The measurable differences between the Hafs and Warsh will be classified as follows-
Dots/Vowel Differences.
-
Word/Letter Differences.
-
Verse Count Differences.
I will only deal with the ?significant? differences that are found as a full textual comparison is beyond the scope of this paper. For a full list of the textual and vocal differences, the book ?The 10 Sanctioned Recitations?
provides complete side-by-side comparisons for each Sura/Chapter. AL-Qiraat Al-Ashr Al-Mutawatira, by Sheikh Mohammed Rajih (Published by Dar Al-Mahajir) -
Dots/Vowel Differences.
Although it is debatable as to when the dots and vowel marks were actually utilized, there is a marked differences between the Hafs and Warsh in this area with quite a few ?Y? and ?T? or other dot/vowel changes as can be seen in the examples below
14 in Hafs version is read as ?MaAliki? (Possessor/Owner) / In Warsh it is ?Maliki? (King).
2125 in Hafs is ?WatakhIzu? (You shall take) / In Warsh it is ?WatakhAzu? (They have taken/made).
2140 in Hafs is ?Taquluna? (You Say) / In Warsh it is ?Yaquluna? (They Say).
2259 in Hafs ?NunshiZuh? (We grow them) / In Warsh it is ?NunshiRuha? (We spread them).
381 in Hafs is ?AtayTukum? (I have given) / In Warsh it is ?AtayNakum? (We have given).
3146 in Hafs is ?Qatal? (Fought) / In Warsh it is ?Qutil? (Were Killed). Note that this difference significantly changes the meaning.
696 in Hafs is ?Wa Jaal? (Made) / In Warsh it is ?Wa JaAl? (Makes).
757 in Hafs is ?Bushra? (Good News) / In Warsh it is ?Nushra? (To Disperse). This is also a significant difference.
7144 in Hafs is ?BirisalAti? (My Messages) / In Warsh it is ?Birisalati? (My Message).
937 in Hafs is ?YuDhalu? (Misguided by) / In Warsh it is ?YaDhilu? (Misguide With).
102 in Hafs is ?LasAhir? (Magician) / In Warsh it is ?Lasihr? (Magic).
1033 (also 1096) in Hafs is ?Kalimat? (Word) / In Warsh it is "KalimAt? (Words). -
Word/Letter Differences.
Looking through the two versions, the effects are mostly evident in the letters ?Alif? and ?Waw?, with some of the differences shown as follows
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? (THEY see)/ In Warsh it is ?Taraa? (YOU see) 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? (from it, singular)) / In Warsh it is ?MinhuMa? (from it, plural) with an addition
of the ?Meem?.
214 in Hafs is ?Qaal? (past tense) / In Warsh it is ?Qul? (present tense) 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? (OR according to) / In Warsh it is ?Wa An? (AND according to) without the ?Alif?.
4230 in Hafs is ?Fa Bima? / In Warsh it is ?Bima? without the ?Fa?.
4319 in Hafs is ?Ibaad? (slave) / In Warsh it is ?Inda? (at) without the ?Alif? and with a ?Nwn? instead of the ?Ba?. This is a major difference in meaning.
4368 in Hafs is ?YaIbad? (O servants) / In Warsh it is ?YaIbadY? (O MY servants) 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?.
9115 in Hafs is ?Wa La? / In Warsh it is ?Fa La? with a ?Fa? instead of a ?Waw?. -
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.
The most obvious difference in the verse count occurs in the ?Basmalla? which is treated as a
verse 11 in the Hafs version and where it is unnumbered in the Warsh version.
of 7 27
However, as shown in the table that follows, the location of verses marks varies in a large
number of the Suras/Chapters.
The table shown primarily relies on the verification of the verse count based on the King
Fahad Printing Press in Medina?
The total number of verses according to Hafs is 6236 (not including 112 Basmallas), while
the number of verses according to Warsh is 6214 4 (not including 113 Basmallas).
4 Although the King Fahad Print records a total of 6214 verses in Warsh, it was found that a manual
count of the printed verse stops revealed 6213 verses. A communication has been sent to the Quran
Complex for clarification, but no response has yet been provided.
Number of Verses for Hafs / Warsh
Chapter Hafs Warsh Chapter Hafs Warsh Chapter Hafs Warsh Chapter Hafs Warsh
1 7 7 30 60 59 59 24 24 88 26 26
2 286 285 31 34 33 60 13 13 89 30 32
3 200 200 32 30 30 61 14 14 90 20 20
4 176 175 33 73 73 62 11 11 91 15 15
5 120 122 34 54 54 63 11 11 92 21 21
6 165 167 35 45 46 64 18 18 93 11 11
7 206 206 36 83 82 65 12 12 94 8 8
8 75 76 37 182 182 66 12 12 95 8 8
9 129 130 38 88 86 67 30 30 96 19 20
10 109 109 39 75 72 68 52 52 97 5 5
11 123 121 40 85 84 69 52 52 98 8 8
12 111 111 41 54 53 70 44 44 99 8 9
13 43 44 42 53 50 71 28 30 100 11 11
14 52 54 43 89 89 72 28 28 101 11 10
15 99 99 44 59 56 73 20 18 102 8 8
16 128 128 45 37 36 74 56 55 103 3 3
17 111 110 46 35 34 75 40 39 104 9 9
18 110 105 47 38 39 76 31 31 105 5 5
19 98 99 48 29 29 77 50 50 106 4 5
20 135 134 49 18 18 78 40 40 107 7 6
21 112 111 50 45 45 79 46 45 108 3 3
22 78 76 51 60 60 80 42 42 109 6 6
23 118 119 52 49 47 81 29 29 110 3 3
24 64 62 53 62 61 82 19 19 111 5 5
25 77 77 54 55 55 83 36 36 112 4 4
26 227 226 55 78 77 84 25 25 113 5 5
27 93 95 56 96 99 85 22 22 114 6 6
28 88 88 57 29 28 86 17 17
29 69 69 58 22 21 87 19 19
of 8 27
The difference in verse numbering not only affects the count, but also affects the reading of
the Quran whereby the ?stop? is able to give verses different law properties once they are
made stand alone or merged as in the example that follows
Hafs O you who believe, honour your contracts. Made lawful for you are all the animals of
the livestock, except that which is being recited to you, and what you are not allowed
to hunt of the game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases. (51)
Warsh O you who believe, honour your contracts. (51)
Made lawful for you are all the animals of the livestock, except that which is being
recited to you, and what you are not allowed to hunt of the game while you are under
restriction. God decrees as He pleases. (52)
Which is the Real Quran?
God did not reveal both 6214 verses and 6236 verses (later appearing as verse stops when the
Quran was arranged)?Nor did He reveal both ?He Said? (a fact) and ?Say? (a command) for
verses such as 214.
From all this we can see that while some differences do not really effect the meanings others clearly do. So the differences have to be taken seriously and ONLY one version can be correct. The mathematical coding based on number 19 has shown that this is mostly the hafs version with the exclusion of 9128&129.
" how can you know which one is real? You can only know with the 19 code"
I'm shocked actually that people take this 19 nonsense seriously. There is nothing special about the number 19, nor is there a secret 19 code in the Qur'an. How about this though, just to be sure. I, or any number of people can send the "evidence" of this 19 code to known mathematicians at places like Caltech, mit,harvard,princeton,etc. I realize not all will answer, but some will. Let the real mathematicians decide. Btw Layth, do you have an email address someone can reach you at, besides hotmail?
Khi- Does it still seem like nonsesne 2 u? GOD Bless!
-
-
Peace,
Why does the Hafs version take precedent over Warsh and other versions available if it all?
If the Hafs version can be manipulated (edited/cropped) and suited to bring about a "mathematical miracle" such as code-19, can't the same be done to other version (s)? Has anyone even tried?
Is Quran to be understood by its message as is written down or by hidden codes such as 19, 7, 2, 666, even/odd and perhaps many more to come?
Last but not least, can man produce "miracles"?
-
If the Hafs version can be manipulated (edited/cropped) and suited to bring about a "mathematical miracle" such as code-19, can't the same be done to other version (s)? Has anyone even tried?
Khi- I think bro Bahman gave a good example of the clock gears. If some r missing or there is some rust n we remove it n then suddenly it starts working again. Same is with hafs. As soon as 9128&129 were removed an awesome mathematical pattern showed up. But it was already evident be4 with the fact of the 114 chpters n 113 bismillahs plus one additional in 2730 19 suras after chpter 9 which was the one missing the bismillah. Also see facts 43&44 in the tampering article at submission.org. All this cant be coincidence. Some ppl just cant see the miracle.
Last but not least, can man produce "miracles"?
Khi- No they cant. The mathematical pattern of the Quran was put in there by GOD not by man. GOD Bless!
-
We should no longer be bound by tradition or in falsely believing that our fathers and
ancestors were all free from error.
As for the truth, it will always be able to stand out from the falsehood?We simply must be
brave enough to look with our eyes, our hearts, and our minds...Peace Layth,
I?m with you. Traditionalists make wild claims about the authenticity of the reading then embrace blind faith when challenged or even questioned. They block any true scholastic approach to verification of their claims out of fear of I can only guess what. I look forward to a thorough investigation of the text by any and all willing to take on the task.
-
quote]Khi- Salam. I think u dont know abt the differences btw hafs n warsh. While most diferences
Wrong, I do know.
While most diferences r slight there r some differences which effect the meaning considerably as well n the following article will make this clear 2 u
I've read the article.
2125 in Hafs is ?WatakhIzu? (You shall take) / In Warsh it is ?WatakhAzu? (They have taken/made).
Again, quote the whole context, and in Arabic. It's obvious you have never actually read a Warsh text.
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.
No contradiction
3146 in Hafs is ?Qatal? (Fought) / In Warsh it is ?Qutil? (Were Killed).
They fought, and were killed, no contradiction.
4 in Hafs version is read as ?MaAliki? (Possessor/Owner) / In Warsh it is ?Maliki? (King)
No contradiction, both mean the same thing, except maaliki has an alif of emphasis.
2125 in Hafs is ?WatakhIzu? (You shall take) / In Warsh it is ?WatakhAzu? (They have taken/made).
Again, give the entire context in Arabic.
]2259 in Hafs ?NunshiZuh? (We grow them) / In Warsh it is ?NunshiRuha? (We spread them).
Read above.
n Hafs is ?AtayTukum? (I have given) / In Warsh it is ?AtayNakum? (We have given)
Zero difference, one uses singular, other uses plural of majesty, which is very common in the Qur'an. I could go on, and on.
Which is the Real Quran?
They are the same Qur'an. There is not one verse in any of the 10 readings that is not in another. There are varying verse stops, but no reading has a verse which is not in the other. .The various readings all give the same exact message, and the minor variations add meaning to each other. The verse which speaks of the "two magics/magicians" is but one example. It is not a contradiction. If we believe the story to be true, then there can be no doubt that the people believed both messengers were magicians, and both revelations were a form of magic.You will also notice that the differences between the various readings are not haphazard. The Warsh drops the wow, or uses the fa instead of wow,etc.
From all this we can see that while some differences do not really effect the meanings others clearly do. So the differences have to be taken seriously and ONLY one version can be correct.
They are not different versions, not even orientalists state that. They are clearly the same book.
The mathematical coding based on number 19 has shown that this is mostly the hafs version with the exclusion of 9128&129.
There is no 19 code. You obviously have zero mathematical training,otherwise you would never state such ignorance.
Khi- Does it still seem like nonsesne 2 u? GOD Bless!
o, it doesn't seem like it. I know it is. If there is a code, then send your proof to recognized experts in this field. I'd be happy to send the information to various scholars of mathematics. Barry Simon at Caltech has written various papers on the supposed Bible code. I'm sure he would love to verify this 19 code. To conclude, until the believers in the 19 code offer up their proof in a reputable peer reviewed journal of mathematics, the code simply does not exist, and is not to be taken seriously by anyone
-
I think the following book is worth to be read.
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation.htmPeace all
-
Shame that yet again the 'new testament' is compared as the 'corruption' standard though.
Layth has clearly shown in his article that some actual words are different, and not just the verse count. Yes they may or may not be hugely signficant but they do exist, for sure.
And this is just Hafs and Warsh. I would be interested in the al-dori and qalon versions too.
This doesnt cause a major problem to me. Humans are responsible for the text. Humans wrote it in the first place. It comes from God but humans actually wrote it down, at a time when Arabic orthography may or may not have used points.
-
Read my previous reply 2 bro LAyth
There are as I can see now large disputes regarding the Hafs n Warsh readings of the Quran. While it has undoubtedly been proven through the code-19 miracle tht Hafs is the correct reading there still continue 2 be doubts in the minds of even some Quran ?Aloners? like bro LAYTH. Although I respect him I strongly disagree with him on this issue. Even be4 the discovery of the code-19 miracle the Hafs recitation was clearly the Universally Accepted One. I myself have heard the Quran being recited on TV n radio many times in Pakistan coming from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan itself n others in none but the Hafs version. All the Qurans I looked at n read were always Hafs. Abt a decade ago or so all Qurans in the world were tested 4 similarity n the result showed a 100% similarity even of the vowel marks n these were based on the Hafs recitation. Coincidence? Therefore it is only plausible tht the Hafs is the authentic version n not other ones scattered here n there one of which is warsh. No doubt it may still be preserved in a museum 4 ppl 2 see but tht doesn?t give it authenticity. I believe it is a miracle of GOD tht He Himself authenticated the Hafs recitation through Universal Acceptance n code-19 just like the inclusion of hamzas, which is based on pronunciation, was nothing else but DIVINE INSPIRATION also indicated by code-19. Therefore the arguments tht hamzas didn?t exist in the ?original? Quran is nonsensible. GOD inspires things time by time n the code-19 miracle in Quran was also not indicated be4. Wht an amazing coincidence tht the hamzas as arranged in Hafs formed part of those superb interlocking cnts produced by RK?
Anyways in this article I want to show to ?LAYTH? and others as to why the words in the Hafs version are much more sensible and logical than those in Warsh. As for the Tashket Gold Quran it matches the Warsh recitation since it is mostly based on it. This however does not make it miraculous by any means and btw using the Gold Quran as an authority is baseless since it is not Universally Accepted neither does it confirm with code-19. If we were to apply code-19 in Tashkent we would have never found such phenomena in there. Only one version can be authentic and it has been shown that this was the Hafs. I?ll address the claims ?Layth? made in his article ?Which Quran? and comment on them one by one- Dots/Vowel Differences.
14 in Hafs version is read as ?MaAliki? (Possessor) / In Warsh it is
?Maliki? (King).
In this case there is actually not much effect on the meaning at all as a king is one who possesses or owns a land or country. Similarly GOD may be King or Possessor of the Day of Judgement.
2125 in Hafs is ?WatakhIzu? (You shall take) / In Warsh it is ?WatakhAzu? (They have taken/made).
Lets have a look at the context
We have rendered the shrine (the Ka`aba) a focal point for the people, and a safe sanctuary. You shall take Abraham's shrine as a prayer house. We commissioned Abraham and Ismail "You shall purify My house for those who visit, those who live there, and those who bow and prostrate."
In the second phrase we also see a similar tense so I say it would be more reasonable to use the same in the first. Also when GOD has said that he has made the Shrine a focal point for he people it would obviously make more sense if it is a command to make that as a prayer house and not just stating a historical fact of what people have done. So again the Hafs version beats the Warsh.2140 in Hafs is ?Taquluna? (You Say) / In Warsh it is ?Yaquluna?
(They Say).Again we have to look at the context
Do you say that Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs were Jewish or Christian? Say, "Do you know better than GOD? Who is more evil than one who conceals a testimony he has learned from GOD? GOD is never unaware of anything you do."
Lets read the previous verse
Say(Qul), "Do you argue with us about GOD, when He is our Lord and your Lord? We are responsible for our deeds, and you are responsible for your deeds. To Him alone we are devoted."
The word ?qul(say)? indicates that something is to be directed directly at the people. Therefore it would only make sense to say ?Do You Say? and not say ?Do they say? because the Prophet was to address the people which would obviously sound odd in third person. Again Warsh fails.2259 in Hafs ?NunshiZuh? (We grow them) / In Warsh it is
?NunshiRuha? (We spread them).The verse reads
Consider the one who passed by a ghost town and wondered, "How can GOD revive this after it had died?" GOD then put him to death for a hundred years, then resurrected him. He said, "How long have you stayed here?" He said, "I have been here a day, or part of the day." He said, "No! You have been here a hundred years. Yet, look at your food and drink; they did not spoil. Look at your donkey - we thus render you a lesson for the people. Now, note the bones how We grow/contruct them, then cover them with flesh." When he realized what had happened, he said, "Now I know that GOD is Omnipotent."
Here clearly GOD wants to show how the bones are reconstructed during resurrection. Spreading them doesn?t make any sense at all. Warsh is absurd here.381 in Hafs is ?AtayTukum? (I have given) / In Warsh it is
?AtayNakum? (We have given).GOD took a covenant from the prophets, saying, "I will give you the scripture and wisdom?
We know that when GOD spoke personally to Moses He also used ?I? and not ?we? and here the reference seems personal towards the Prophets too so I believe it is more likely for GOD to use ?I? here than ?We?. So Hafs is once again preferred over Warsh.3146 in Hafs is ?Qatal? (Fought) / In Warsh it is ?Qutil? (Were Killed).
Many a prophet had godly people fight along with him, without ever wavering under pressure in the cause of GOD, nor did they hesitate or become discouraged. GOD loves the steadfast.
We can notice similar incidences in sura 9 where the people fought(Qatala) and were commanded to fight against the unbelievers. This makes much more sense in the above context than to say that ?many a Propet had godly people killed along with him?. Also 3148 leaves no doubt
Consequently, GOD granted them the rewards of this world, and the better rewards of the Hereafter. GOD loves the good doers.
How could they have been granted the rewards of this world after being killed? So the Warsh fails while the Hafs is logical and sensible.696 in Hafs is ?Wa Jaal? (Made) / In Warsh it is ?Wa JaAl? (Makes).
3 AL-Qiraat Al-Ashr Al-Mutawatira, by Sheikh Mohammed Rajih (Published by Dar Al-Mahajir)
of 5 27At the crack of dawn, He causes the morning to emerge. He made the night still, and He rendered the sun and the moon to serve as calculation devices. Such is the design of the Almighty, the Omniscient.
Although the tenses in the Quran do not mean much because for GOD time is irrelevant it is more logical to use the past tense in the above as is the case in the Hafs because GOD clearly MADE the night still. He is not making it still again and again but has fixed the laws already and is now watching over everything according to my understanding.757 in Hafs is ?Bushra? (Good News) / In Warsh it is ?Nushra? (To
Disperse).He is the One who sends the wind with good omen, as a mercy from His hands. Once they gather heavy clouds, we drive them to dead lands, and send down water therefrom, to produce with it all kinds of fruits. We thus resurrect the dead, that you may take heed.
The last phrase indicates that this is good news and it is therefore more reasonable to use that as is found in the Hafs. Besides it doesn?t make sense, especially in this context, that GOD should send winds to disperse for this is more a law than a purpose so Warsh fails.7144 in Hafs is ?BirisalAti? (My Messages) / In Warsh it is
?Birisalati? (My Message).He said, "O Moses, I have chosen you, out of all the people, with My messages and by speaking to you. Therefore, take what I have given you and be appreciative."
We wrote for him on the tablets(alwaah again plural) all kinds of(kulli shayin, plural) enlightenments and details of everything(kulli shayin,plural)?
We thus see that there were many teachings and thus messages in plural makes more sense as used in Hafs.937 in Hafs is ?YuDhalu? (Misguided by) / In Warsh it is ?YaDhilu?
(Misguide With).Altering the Sacred Months is a sign of excessive disbelief; the unbelievers are misguided thereby. They alternate(yuhillonahi, present) the regular months, while preserving the number of months consecrated by GOD. They thus violate what GOD has consecrated. Their evil works are adorned in their eyes. GOD does not guide the disbelieving people.
Again I would say that the Hafs makes more sense because the unbelievers have already caused themselves to be misguided in the past. But then again since the verse also uses terms in the present the other could also apply. So here we can make no definite statement of right or wrong though both don?t effect the basic meaning of the verse in any way.102 in Hafs is ?LasAhir? (Magician) / In Warsh it is ?Lasihr?
(Magic).Is it too much of a wonder for the people that we inspired a man(person) like them? He (was inspired to say), "You shall warn the people, and give good news to those who believe that they have attained a position of prominence at their Lord." The disbelievers said, "This is a clever magician!"
The verse talks about a man, thus a person, therefore it is more logical that the last word should be ?magician? as in Hafs and not ?magic? as in Warsh.
1033 (also 1096) in Hafs is ?Kalimat? (Word) / In Warsh it is
"KalimAt? (Words).This is what your Lord's decision does to those who choose to be wicked they cannot believe.
Surely, those condemned by a decree from your Lord cannot believe.
Here ?kalimat(word)? refers to a decision/decree by GOD and it makes more sense that the singular mode be used for there needs to be only a single deciosion/decree by GOD to cause an event.- Word/Letter Differences.
Looking through the two versions, the effects are mostly evident in the letters ?Alif? and
?Waw?, with some of the differences shown as follows
272 in Hafs is ?Fadar?tum? / In Warsh it is ?FadarAtum? with an
extra ?Alif?.
No, I believe you missed out the two alif vowel marks. It is pronounced in Hafs as faddaaraatum(plural) just as in ?risaalaati? in 7144 above.
2132 in Hafs is ?Waassa? / In Warsh it is ?WaAwsa? with an extra
?Alif?.Ok but that doesn?t change the meaning. As far as the counts are concerned the Hafs was proved to be the right one.
2165 in Hafs is ?Yaraa? / In Warsh it is ?Taraa? with a ?Ta? instead of a
?Ya?.Yet, some people set up idols to rival GOD, and love them as they love GOD. Those who believe love GOD the most. If only the transgressors they could see(yara) themselves when they see(yarauna) the retribution! They will realize then that all power belongs to GOD alone, and that GOD's retribution is awesome.
From the context we can see that GOD is addressing people in the third person and not the second person. Thus the Hafs is correct.3133 in Hafs is ?Wa Sariu? / In Warsh it is ?Sariu? without the
?Waw?.This doesn?t effect the meaning at all. Yet in my opinion it is more reasonable if 3133 bears connection with the two previous verses 132 and 131 which are also preceded by ?waw? in Hafs.
553 in Hafs is ?Wa Yaqool? / In Warsh it is
?Yaqool? without the ?Waw?.Same as before.
554 in Hafs is ?Yartad? / In Warsh it is ?YartadD? with two ?Dals?.
of 6 27This is most probably a spelling mistake in Warsh since the daal pronounced twice in this case should merely carry a shadda vowel mark and not physically occur twice.
9107 in Hafs is ?Wa Alazeena? / In Warsh it is ?Alazeena?
without the ?Waw?.Same as before.
1836 in Hafs is ?Minha? / In Warsh it is ?MinhuMa? with an addition
of the ?Meem?.Although the man is told to have had two gardens in the previous verses, the very preceding verse 1835 addreses the gardens as ONE singular garden. Thus it is more reasonable that 1836 also uses the singular as in Hafs instead of the dual plural.
214 in Hafs is ?Qaal? / In Warsh it is ?Qul? without the ?Alif?.
This would destroy the well known symmetry of words that both the words ?Qul? and ?Qaalu? occur in the Quran 332 times so the Hafs is correct. Otherwise both the past and present would suit the context here.
26217 in Hafs is ?Watawakal? / In Warsh its is ?Fatawakal? with
a ?Fa? instead of a ?Waw?.Both can be considered correct although an alternation would be more relieving for pronounciation. Since the previous verse just used ?Faqul? so it would be preferable to pronounce this as ?watawakal? as in Hafs. Another example of this alternation is found in 2779 where ?Fatawakal? has been used because the previous three verses used ?waw? in ?wa innahu, wa rahma, wa huwa? so a change is preferred. Also 26217 is a continuation of the saying in 26216 whereas 2779 is a command which can be seen in result to 2778 and because of those attributes of GOD therefore/so we should fear them. Therfore in my view again the Hafs seems more correct.
4026 in Hafs is ?Aw An? / In Warsh it is ?Wa An? without the ?Alif?.
It is more reasonable to use ?or? as in Hafs since expecting that Moses could do both things would be way too much as to make sense.
4230 in Hafs is ?Fa Bima? / In Warsh it is ?Bima? without the ?Fa?.
Since anything bad that happens to us is a result of what our deeds it makes more sense to use ?Fabima? as in Hafs than only ?Bima?.
4319 in Hafs is ?Ibaad? / In Warsh it is ?Inda? without the ?Alif? and with
a ?Nwn? instead of the ?Ba?.Hafs makes more sense in this context because of the next verse which says
They even said, "If the Most Gracious willed, we would not have worshiped(?abadnaahum) them." They have no basis for such a claim; they only conjecture.
Thus in 4319 it is more reasonable that GOD wants to clarify that they the angels themselves are His worshipers/servants.4368 in Hafs is ?Ya Ibad? / In Warsh it is ?Ya IbadY? with a
?Ya? at the end.Both are correct as far as context is concerned.
5724 in Hafs is ?Huwa Alghani? / In Warsh it is
?Alghani? without the ?Huwa?.When ?Al ghani? is used with ?Al Hameed? in Quran it is always preceded with ?huwa? throughout the Quran. See 2264, 3126, 3515, 606. So why should 5724 be an exception? I again prefer the Hafs as it also lays more stress by using the pronoun after the noun.
7216 in Hafs is ?Wa Alaw? / In Warsh it is
?Wa An Law? with an additional ?Nwn?.Both are correct as far as context is concerned.
7320 in Hafs is ?Alim Allan? / In Warsh it is ?Alim An Lan?
with a letter ?Nwn?.The pronounciation maybe. The spelling is the same though, ?Alim An(alif noon) Lan?, in both but in hafs the ?laam? of ?lan? has a shadda mark on top which is not there in Warsh. This makes no difference at all.
9115 in Hafs is ?Wa La? / In Warsh it is ?Fa La? with a
?Fa? instead of a ?Waw?.Same as above. The previous verses are full of ?fa? preceded words so it would be relaxing to use ?wa? in 9115 for a change. Thus here again Hafs is preferred.
Thus we have seen that in most cases the Hafs version has been preferred over the Warsh.Also, because the Basmalla in Chapter 1 is unnumbered/unmarked as a verse, then the count
of the word ?God? (if we follow the same methodology of disregarding all the Basmallas as
Dr. Khalifa had done) automatically drops by 1 to the number 2698 which Dr. Khalifa was
searching for.This is wrong because although the Bismillah maybe unnumbered in Warsh, this version is one short of the word ?Allah? in 2284 where the last word ?Allah? is ?huwa? in Warsh. Thus the count would be 2697, not ZMN.
This also goes for the count of the word ?Raheem? whereby Dr. khalifa?s count was up by one
and was only corrected after the removal of two verses (which is not the case if applying the
same examination to a Warsh style count).We can?t count ?Raheem? in 9128 even if it were a true verse because that ?Raheem? does not refer to GOD and thus the meaning of the attribute would change. So the count would still be 113, not ZMN.
I would say that amongst the 2 versions, and although Warsh appears to be more authentic,
the answer is that neither one is conforming 100% to the data analyzed and both have been
found to be with human errors/modifications.I wonder how he can still call the Warsh version more authentic. If it were why hasn?t that been Universally Accepted? All the counts of words and the verse counts of the Hafs were confirmed by code-19 which was not the case with Warsh. Is it a coincidence that the Hafs is the version which contains a structure which divides the Quran in a way that it makes the miracle obvious while others do not? Definitely NOT! It must be Divinely inspired.
The solution of so called Muslim nations, rather than being one of research and study, has
been to flood the market with a chosen version (specifically the Hafs) and to ensure that the
sheer volume of copies will silence any knowledge to the contrary.I would call this Divine Inspiration since otherwise the code-19 miracle could never become visible. This is why I ignore all Warsh, Marsh, etc.
What is the significance of splitting the Quran into 114 Chapters?
To make the code-19 miracle become obvious, 114= 19x6
Is the ?Basmalla? part of the original revelation or an addition (like the chapter names)?
It is part of the revelation. It is not right to use the word ?orginal? though since GOD inspired many things into the written Quran over 1400 years like the hamzas, and when finally the hafs version came in written form and became Universally Accepted the miracle became obvious. This, I believe was all part of GOD?s Divine plan.
Why is there no ?Basmalla? on Chapter 9, is that conforming to the original?
Again there is no thing such as ?original? at least not for the written manuscripts of the Quran.
Is the ?Basmalla? to be treated as a crowing (like Warsh) or as a verse (like Hafs in 11)?
What is the correct verse count to be applied to each Chapter/Sura?
As in Hafs.
What will be the determination in applying verse stops to the words in the verses?
No determination necessary anymore as it has already been proved true in Hafs.
Why are there only 29 Chapters with initials, what is the significance of 29?
This is a good qs n maybe we get the answer one day GW.
What is the method for dealing with the initials in the verses, are they to be stand alone
(like Hafs) or merged with the text that follows (like Warsh)?There are places in Hafs also where they are merged with the text e.g. 501. Therefore as in Hafs.
What are the impacts of the word changes in each of the variant versions?
There is not much difference in meaning as far as I?ve seen, yet I prefer the Hafs version.
Which spelling differences are resolved by the mathematical code, which are not?
Code-19 can be used 2 solve uptil the letter differences but not the vowel marks. The meanings of such words, I believe, have 2 be adjusted by the context.
GOD Bless!
- Dots/Vowel Differences.
