Is there a numbering difference in the older version of Quran around Lane's time
-
Ah I see. I'm curious to know, is it then possible for the misplacement of diatrical points and vowel signs to change the meaning of certain words and hence contextual meaning?
Viewers discretion advised when reading work of Joseph Islam.
See
Richard Bell and Montgomery Watt have suggested that the 'varying systems of verse-numbering depend to some extent, though not entirely, upon varying judgement as to where the rhyme was intended to fall in particular cases
Suggested is not truth.
In other cases, the reasons for differences are more straightforward. For instance, some Indo-Pakistani systems count the basmala phrase (which reads 'In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy', and is found at the beginning of every chapter except chapter 9, al-Tawba, Repentance) as part of the number of verses.
Sure we should take that very seriously! Apparently, they even exercise the freedom to completely change the meanings of verses like one of my friends showed Gabriel cursing Christians in Fatiha -\
Check out https//www.slideshare.net/kingabid/symmetric-book-noble-quran
I want to know why the scholars never mention it if the real numbering truly was from humans.Has anyone noticed, how Lane?s Lexicon claims jasadan is used in Quran 7146 and 2090, when jasadan instead appears in 7148 and 2088 (at least in the version I know of)??
Why is the word in question claimed to be in different verses than in the version of Quran we have available on corpus.quran.com(the version which I know of?
Maybe the editors were not so interested? 1801 was a time when Europe didn't see Islam in good light. Any translated Quran published there always had some sort of of bad things to go with the flow of the hate. It was pretty "necessary". Enough has been written about Thomas Jefferson's struggle to find a translated Quran written in neutral way.
-
Hello Reel!
Yeah I went and double checked. I see what you are saying but in my opinion system of verse numbering does not really affect the contextual meaning of the passages unless we are speaking of a system of numbering so different that entire verses and surahs may have been interposed as a cause of it.
However, I think what you have cited from Joseph Islam's post is a direct quotation from a book, not his own words. Who knows maybe those are all his books, or he has a stake in them. It is not too important in my opinion.
What I really think may have an effect is the absence or presence (as well as presence in varying combinations) of diacritical points and vowel signs.
What I was originally interested to know, was the degree of variation among Quranic manuscripts.
It seems that this user by the name of 'Joseph Islam', has made use of quotations from Ulum Al-Quran. I do suspect, it has traditionalist influence, however, it is possible that tradition may not have much significance in an individual's ability to convey truthfully, whether indeed ALL old Quranic manuscripts were void of (d.p.)diacritical points and (v.s.)vowel signs. It is more a matter of factual evidence. This brings me to begin asking questions.The most important question I have is
Is it indeed truly the case that, ALL old Quranic manuscripts were void of diacritical points and vowel signs?
Let's confirm that and then move on. If it is so, then
Could the scholars of those times read the letters without diacritical points and vowel signs?
What is the number of old manuscripts found?
Is the number of all old Quran manuscripts found having no d.p.'s and v.s.'s really the exact same as the number of all old Quran manuscripts ever found?
What is the quantitative range of meaning for words lacking or possessing varying d.p.'s and v.s.'s?
Meaning, how many different meanings can a word give me in its bare form (without d.p.'s and v.s.'s) and then how many meanings can it yield with each different possible combination of d.p.'s and v.s.'s?I have many more questions that I would like validated. When it comes to ALL old Quran manuscripts, I would like to know for each
-Name of Manuscript
-Age of Manuscript
-Origin of Manuscript
-Location of Retrieval
-Manner of Acquisition( archeologically, ecclesiastically or etc...)A more in depth analysis that would completely satisfy any doubts about the homogeneity of the text would include
-List of all the different meanings that EACH word can yield in all its forms!
-Number of different meanings a word can have without any marks
-Number of different meanings a word can have with d.p.'s and v.s.'s
-Number of verses in which contextual meaning remains the same after combining of varying alternative meanings
-Number of verses in which contextual meaning differs due to the combination of varying alternative meanings
-With these numbers we can observe and measure the percentage of variance
-With the latter we can then calculate how significant this variance is.Qualitatively as a believer I would like to know
-Which verses constitute as the Ummu l-kitabi
-Which altered verses coincide with verses that convey the Foundations of the Book?
-And then finally assess the range of meanings in this final group
-Determine whether absence or presence of marks affect any of those verses -
Hello Reel!
Yeah I went and double checked. I see what you are saying but in my opinion system of verse numbering does not really affect the contextual meaning of the passages unless we are speaking of a system of numbering so different that entire verses and surahs may have been interposed as a cause of it.
Yeah, that's been my conclusion too.
However, I think what you have cited from Joseph Islam's post is a direct quotation from a book, not his own words. Who knows maybe those are all his books, or he has a stake in them. It is not too important in my opinion.
Yeah, I see the citation. But again, suggested is not a conclusion and it doesn't seem all of what is in his post is correct when we take a look at the symmetry thing.
What I really think may have an effect is the absence or presence (as well as presence in varying combinations) of diacritical points and vowel signs.
What I was originally interested to know, was the degree of variation among Quranic manuscripts.
I remember a thread in which Layth's work on which Quran is right Quran was critiqued. Someone mentioned he has been studying the different versions for 20 years. He pretty much debunked all the claims of differences someone listed over there. He went over each verse. He told that surrounding verses help see the correct meanings. What I have noticed is that most of the changes aren't changes, but mostly synonyms for which it is easy to pick up the meanings. You asked about manuscripts. How Quran is in Indo Pak system is pretty irrelevant to that ;D
It seems that this user by the name of 'Joseph Islam', has made use of quotations from Ulum Al-Quran. I do suspect, it has traditionalist influence, however, it is possible that tradition may not have much significance in an individual's ability to convey truthfully, whether indeed ALL old Quranic manuscripts were void of (d.p.)diacritical points and (v.s.)vowel signs. It is more a matter of factual evidence. This brings me to begin asking questions.
You are absolutely right. This is the book
https//www.kalamullah.com/Books/ulum-al-quran.pdfYou will notice that the writer is parroting traditions and also just like Fox news he is using "it is believed" and "some say".
The most important question I have is
Is it indeed truly the case that, ALL old Quranic manuscripts were void of diacritical points and vowel signs?
Let's confirm that and then move on. If it is so, then
Could the scholars of those times read the letters without diacritical points and vowel signs?
Oh, they do that all the time in Middle East. That turned out to be a problem for me. I could read only with those markings, but my Arabic language teachers always avoided them. Students who started from 1st grade had no problem in understanding and of course, almost 85% them were non Middle Eastern and from other religions.
What is the number of old manuscripts found?
Is the number of all old Quran manuscripts found having no d.p.'s and v.s.'s really the exact same as the number of all old Quran manuscripts ever found?
What is the quantitative range of meaning for words lacking or possessing varying d.p.'s and v.s.'s?
Meaning, how many different meanings can a word give me in its bare form (without d.p.'s and v.s.'s) and then how many meanings can it yield with each different possible combination of d.p.'s and v.s.'s?I have many more questions that I would like validated. When it comes to ALL old Quran manuscripts, I would like to know for each
-Name of Manuscript
-Age of Manuscript
-Origin of Manuscript
-Location of Retrieval
-Manner of Acquisition( archeologically, ecclesiastically or etc...)A more in depth analysis that would completely satisfy any doubts about the homogeneity of the text would include
-List of all the different meanings that EACH word can yield in all its forms!
-Number of different meanings a word can have without any marks
-Number of different meanings a word can have with d.p.'s and v.s.'s
-Number of verses in which contextual meaning remains the same after combining of varying alternative meanings
-Number of verses in which contextual meaning differs due to the combination of varying alternative meanings
-With these numbers we can observe and measure the percentage of variance
-With the latter we can then calculate how significant this variance is.Qualitatively as a believer I would like to know
-Which verses constitute as the Ummu l-kitabi
-Which altered verses coincide with verses that convey the Foundations of the Book?
-And then finally assess the range of meanings in this final group
-Determine whether absence or presence of marks affect any of those versesFor those, we have no one but us!Don't put faith in the analysis of most sectarian scholars.
It would be difficult judge Quran by using archaeological evidence because usually they find a few here and there. One finding may not be enough to confirm everything. It is like studying a planet. Findings will always be slow. But what I have noticed is that it is possible to extract the meanings through experimental tasks.
-
I remember a thread in which Layth's work on which Quran is right Quran was critiqued. Someone mentioned he has been studying the different versions for 20 years. He pretty much debunked all the claims of differences someone listed over there. He went over each verse. He told that surrounding verses help see the correct meanings. What I have noticed is that most of the changes aren't changes, but mostly synonyms for which it is easy to pick up the meanings. You asked about manuscripts. How Quran is in Indo Pak system is pretty irrelevant to that ;D
A Morokkan friend who does a lot of study of Qur'an regarding the variations from one Qur'an version to nother, said tht those variations are very few and very slight, the greatest amount to synonimes of the kind that give merely a shade of meaning from one to another, and not a different meaning.
As to what is extant or has been found out materially to investigate, I doubt verymuch that we will ever get enough material to be uncontestedly conclusive. I do think that oral transmission is a big factor in preservation of Qur'an. If there had ever been great differences between diferent versions of Qur'an, OF THAT, we should really have some hard proof. Orally I have never heard of greater differences than those inwritten form already mentionned. The fact tht in the wide world with so many peple, so many travellers, so many islamophobes, also in academia, willing or eager to find mistakes and falsehood in Qur'an, the fact that all talk about Qura'nic fabrications being pure speculation and no hard facts, the fact that we have no two relly different versionsnot to speak of three or four or twenty like is the case for instance with gospels, for me is proof tht the Qur'an we know is the Qur'an there has been. That is all we do know. The rest is speculation of what could have been. The double track, in writing and in recitation seems to have been a very effective tool of preservation, and as far as I am concerned the one "miracle" that the Qur'an speaks of.
Salaam
-
Check out https//www.slideshare.net/kingabid/symmetric-book-noble-quran
I want to know why the scholars never mention it if the real numbering truly was from humans.Peace reel, it's only rearranging columns of numbers which there are countless possibilities e.g. to get similar add/subtract multiples of 2 verses or delete two verses from ch 9 and/or add them to ch 11 etc...
ch #vrs 57 even 57 odd
1 7 ..... 8 ...
2 286 288 ...
4 176 180 ...
9 127 136 ...
11 125 136 ...
13 43 56 ...
14 52 66 ...
15 99 114 ...
16 128 144 ...
17 111 128 ...
18 110 128 ...
22 78 100 ...
24 64 88 ...
25 77 102 ...
27 93 120 ...
28 88 116 ...
29 69 98 ...
30 60 90 ...
32 30 62 ...
33 73 106 ...
34 54 88 ...
35 45 80 ...
38 88 126 ...
39 75 114 ...
43 89 132 ...
45 37 82 ...
56 96 152 ...
57 29 86 ...
58 22 80 ...
63 11 74 ...
64 18 82 ...
66 12 78 ...
68 52 120 ...
70 44 114 ...
72 28 100 ...
74 56 130 ...
78 40 118 ...
80 42 122 ...
81 29 110 ...
87 19 106 ...
88 26 114 ...
90 20 110 ...
91 15 106 ...
93 11 104 ...
94 8 102 ...
97 5 102 ...
98 8 106 ...
101 11 112 ...
102 8 110 ...
103 3 106 ...
105 5 110 ...
106 4 110 ...
107 7 114 ...
111 5 116 ...
112 4 116 ...
113 5 118 ...
114 6 120 ...3 200 ... 203
5 120 ... 125
6 165 ... 171
7 206 ... 213
8 75 ... 83
10 109 ... 119
12 111 ... 123
19 98 ... 117
20 135 ... 155
21 112 ... 133
23 118 ... 141
26 227 ... 253
31 34 ... 65
36 83 ... 119
37 182 ... 219
40 85 ... 125
41 54 ... 95
42 53 ... 95
44 59 ... 103
46 35 ... 81
47 38 ... 85
48 29 ... 77
49 18 ... 67
50 45 ... 95
51 60 ... 111
52 49 ... 101
53 62 ... 115
54 55 ... 109
55 78 ... 133
59 24 ... 83
60 13 ... 73
61 14 ... 75
62 11 ... 73
65 12 ... 77
67 30 ... 97
69 52 ... 121
71 28 ... 99
73 20 ... 93
75 40 ... 115
76 31 ... 107
77 50 ... 127
79 46 ... 125
82 19 ... 101
83 36 ... 119
84 25 ... 109
85 22 ... 107
86 17 ... 103
89 30 ... 119
92 21 ... 113
95 8 ... 103
96 19 ... 115
99 8 ... 107
100 11 ... 111
104 9 ... 113
108 3 ... 111
109 6 ... 115
110 3 ... 1136555 6236 6236 6555
In addition earliest manuscripts used different numbering e.g. initials not counted.
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11105.msg394688#msg394688
Birmingham Qur?an 95.4% 568-645 CE
http//www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspxMA VI 165 Qur?an 95.4% 649-675 CE contains ~20% Quran ch17v36 to ch36v55
http//idb.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/diglit/MaVI165http//oi65.tinypic.com/1zvu9h1.jpg
-
Peace reel, it's only rearranging columns of numbers which there are countless possibilities e.g. to get similar add/subtract multiples of 2 verses or delete two verses from ch 9 and/or add them to ch 11 etc...
110 3 ... 113
6555 6236 6236 6555
In addition earliest manuscripts used different numbering e.g. initials not counted.
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11105.msg394688#msg394688
Birmingham Qur?an 95.4% 568-645 CE
http//www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspxMA VI 165 Qur?an 95.4% 649-675 CE contains ~20% Quran ch17v36 to ch36v55
http//idb.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/diglit/MaVI165http//oi65.tinypic.com/1zvu9h1.jpg
Oh no, what I was saying is that why it is not mentioned by those who have officially taken the responsibility to "arrange" the Book. See we have a similar system in accounting. If two sides (debit and credit) don't match we take the yielded numbers to be inaccurate. It is a big thing. It is considered as the most fundamental thing the accounting students must learn. I hope you are understanding the issue.
A Morokkan friend who does a lot of study of Qur'an regarding the variations from one Qur'an version to nother, said tht those variations are very few and very slight, the greatest amount to synonimes of the kind that give merely a shade of meaning from one to another, and not a different meaning.
It seems then that those who investigated the variations have the same conclusion. But of course, I myself went to check out only to find synonyms.
As to what is extant or has been found out materially to investigate, I doubt verymuch that we will ever get enough material to be uncontestedly conclusive. I do think that oral transmission is a big factor in preservation of Qur'an. If there had ever been great differences between diferent versions of Qur'an, OF THAT, we should really have some hard proof.
Salaam
After going over Rig Veda I have come to realize that unchanged Quran really doesn't make it look like it is from God. Apparently, the veda which came far before Christianity remains unchanged today in distorted form. The only thing we can conclude after seeing some common verses it shares with Quran is that they did receive a Book from God.
Orally I have never heard of greater differences than those inwritten form already mentionned. The fact tht in the wide world with so many peple, so many travellers, so many islamophobes, also in academia, willing or eager to find mistakes and falsehood in Qur'an, the fact that all talk about Qura'nic fabrications being pure speculation and no hard facts, the fact that we have no two relly different versionsnot to speak of three or four or twenty like is the case for instance with gospels, for me is proof tht the Qur'an we know is the Qur'an there has been. That is all we do know. The rest is speculation of what could have been. The double track, in writing and in recitation seems to have been a very effective tool of preservation, and as far as I am concerned the one "miracle" that the Qur'an speaks of.
Their approach is completely wrong and in many ways irrational because they are going with the preconceived stupidity of sunni and shia scholars that
• Quran was a new Book.
• Islam was a new religion.
-
No, not so, reel I am not saying that, I was not speaking about the content of the book or it being new or old. If it was, such as it is now, word by word, or older it does not matter because we have it now, and it says what it says. And if we find an older one, fine too, because the Qur'an itself does not say that it is something new or is bringing something new. The revelation has always been the same, the universal revelation, so what is the problem? Some, or many, written or oral accounts have had human hands changing or putting things or withdrawn things from them. If there are others which are preserved perfectly, fine I am glad to know and to read, so ?what is the problem? sand if there is only one version of the vedas, and the vedas do not convince, what is the use?
As to not having more than one version of the Qur'an not beeing proof of anything, the thing is that the Qur'an says so, so, ok, no proof to assert that the Qur'an is right, but most certainly there is no proof that the Qur'an is not right.
The question is as always that, in the end, who cares who or how something came into existence, but whether that thing is good or bad or in between and we come (I come) to the conclusion that what matters is the content, with hadith, with Qur'an with whatever, if what it says holds, good, if it doesn't, pedigree does not help, and if it does pedigree cannot undo it.
So I do not know about the vedas, or how it has been preversed or not. I have read very little of them, and in the little a read there was something that did not ring true to me, but it was a translation. On the other hand, I have been reading and reflecting and checking a lot on other ancient or not so ancient religions and beliefs and I do corroborate there is only one religion from God and all so called religions in principle, can be traced to divine inspiration in conjunction with human receptivity.
So, what if now was a copy of a Qur'an found that ws different from the one at hand? Again, look at the content. Does it say the same, if however in different form. Good. Does it contain falsehood and things that repel to a morally honest and open person? Well there you are. It always comes to the individual, to the inner honesty and sincerity of the prospective believer.
That has been the trick always with religion as a mishandled social tool, instill in the people the idea that they are not the final judges of their own beliefs, but that there is some authority, some human authority they must hand their own inner purity in order to be good, and it works with anything to apply it to.
So, finally, prooofs, proofs,weare the proof, each one of us. If the Qur'an was applied to predict whether tomorrow is going to be good wheather or to weight the meat the butcher, it owuld be useless, but it is applied to each of us. We are the proof, we are our own proof. We do not need experts to show us how stupid we are, neither orientalists, nor least of all, takfiris who think themselves trustees of God over others.
Salaam
-
No, not so, reel I am not saying that, I was not speaking about the content of the book or it being new or old. If it was, such as it is now, word by word, or older it does not matter because we have it now, and it says what it says. And if we find an older one, fine too, because the Qur'an itself does not say that it is something new or is bringing something new. The revelation has always been the same, the universal revelation, so what is the problem?
Some, or many, written or oral accounts have had human hands changing or putting things or withdrawn things from them. If there are others which are preserved perfectly, fine I am glad to know and to read, so ?what is the problem? sand if there is only one version of the vedas, and the vedas do not convince, what is the use?
No, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about popular belief, aka sunni/shia one. I think you aren't fully familiar with how they interpret Quran. Their vocab is different. It is like
If God says the Book wasn't new then in sunni shia religion it means the Book is new
If God says the book is protected then it means Bukhari and friends are protecting it
If God says don't make distinction among prophets then in sunni shia religion, it means make distinction among prophetsWe need a special thread for this D
As to not having more than one version of the Qur'an not beeing proof of anything, the thing is that the Qur'an says so, so, ok, no proof to assert that the Qur'an is right, but most certainly there is no proof that the Qur'an is not right.
The question is as always that, in the end, who cares who or how something came into existence, but whether that thing is good or bad or in between and we come (I come) to the conclusion that what matters is the content, with hadith, with Qur'an with whatever, if what it says holds, good, if it doesn't, pedigree does not help, and if it does pedigree cannot undo it.
So I do not know about the vedas, or how it has been preversed or not. I have read very little of them, and in the little a read there was something that did not ring true to me, but it was a translation. On the other hand, I have been reading and reflecting and checking a lot on other ancient or not so ancient religions and beliefs and I do corroborate there is only one religion from God and all so called religions in principle, can be traced to divine inspiration in conjunction with human receptivity.
So, what if now was a copy of a Qur'an found that ws different from the one at hand? Again, look at the content. Does it say the same, if however in different form. Good. Does it contain falsehood and things that repel to a morally honest and open person? Well there you are. It always comes to the individual, to the inner honesty and sincerity of the prospective believer.
That has been the trick always with religion as a mishandled social tool, instill in the people the idea that they are not the final judges of their own beliefs, but that there is some authority, some human authority they must hand their own inner purity in order to be good, and it works with anything to apply it to.
So, finally, prooofs, proofs,weare the proof, each one of us. If the Qur'an was applied to predict whether tomorrow is going to be good wheather or to weight the meat the butcher, it owuld be useless, but it is applied to each of us. We are the proof, we are our own proof. We do not need experts to show us how stupid we are, neither orientalists, nor least of all, takfiris who think themselves trustees of God over others.
Salaam
Once again, its the shias and sunnis who believe unchanged words show the Book is from God despite the fact they like to reject it if they are not told from secondary sources how it was preserved. We came to Quran alone with the same preconceived notion. I did see disappointment from some users when they were told of book structure variation. I fully understand that. What I have realized is that the application of the Quran verses are the main key and not the style of it.
-
No, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about popular belief, aka sunni/shia one. I think you aren't fully familiar with how they interpret Quran. Their vocab is different. It is like
If God says the Book wasn't new then in sunni shia religion it means the Book is new
If God says the book is protected then it means Bukhari and friends are protecting it
If God says don't make distinction among prophets then in sunni shia religion, it means make distinction among prophetsWe need a special thread for this D
The question is as always that, in the end, who cares who or how something came into existence, but whether that thing is good or bad or in between and we come (I come) to the conclusion that what matters is the content, with hadith, with Qur'an with whatever, if what it says holds, good, if it doesn't, pedigree does not help, and if it does pedigree cannot undo it.
So I do not know about the vedas, or how it has been preversed or not. I have read very little of them, and in the little a read there was something that did not ring true to me, but it was a translation. On the other hand, I have been reading and reflecting and checking a lot on other ancient or not so ancient religions and beliefs and I do corroborate there is only one religion from God and all so called religions in principle, can be traced to divine inspiration in conjunction with human receptivity.
So, what if now was a copy of a Qur'an found that ws different from the one at hand? Again, look at the content. Does it say the same, if however in different form. Good. Does it contain falsehood and things that repel to a morally honest and open person? Well there you are. It always comes to the individual, to the inner honesty and sincerity of the prospective believer.
That has been the trick always with religion as a mishandled social tool, instill in the people the idea that they are not the final judges of their own beliefs, but that there is some authority, some human authority they must hand their own inner purity in order to be good, and it works with anything to apply it to.
So, finally, prooofs, proofs,weare the proof, each one of us. If the Qur'an was applied to predict whether tomorrow is going to be good wheather or to weight the meat the butcher, it owuld be useless, but it is applied to each of us. We are the proof, we are our own proof. We do not need experts to show us how stupid we are, neither orientalists, nor least of all, takfiris who think themselves trustees of God over others.
Salaam
Once again, its the shias and sunnis who believe unchanged words show the Book is from God despite the fact they like to reject it if they are not told from secondary sources how it was preserved. We came to Quran alone with the same preconceived notion. I did see disappointment from some users when they were told of book structure variation. I fully understand that. What I have realized is that the application of the Quran verses are the main key and not the style of it.
OK, I get you.
I keep thinking about Lut. He says you prefer men to women... I amm not hadithist but I am have to say that what hadithists say is, yes, owmen just for procreation, you should prefer men all over all the time. I am really starting to think Lut and his debauchers all over. Like Maryam another unknown because so carefully and throughly hidden behind well worn out stories.
Salaam
