Inconsistency in letters and letter order of 17:49:6

SAbboushi

Hi-

I don't speak Arabic, so am clueless here... wondering why there is a difference in letters and letter order of word 17496 between different Qurans, specifically that the word is written in different ways whereby the letters and are transposed (which, when done, also results in different tashkeel).

Here's a table I've put together showing differences between several Qurans (see the "Letters & Order column)

http//www.strivingforpeace.com/externallylinked/free-minds.org/17.49.6.htm

Hoping someone can explain why this is the case. Thanks--

bkanwar2

Samir,

Try to get yourself familiar with rules of Arabic text writing and differences between, Hamza and Alif, plus Alif used as Kursi of Hamza. No inconsistencies here just differences of writing text.

Regards,

SAbboushi

Thanks - so all forms in my link are valid including QIE's version (where hamza is on prior word) and all forms are pronounced identically?

Bender

Thanks - so all forms in my link are valid including QIE's version (where hamza is on prior word) and all forms are pronounced identically?

salaam,

1749

Please check your Quran if both words are written in the same way, if not then you have an inconsistent Quran, thus one were a error is made in writing.
It doesn't really matter how one writes something, as long as it is consistent with the rest of the book.
I use this Quran for details.

Salaam,
Bender

bkanwar2

Sorry did not scroll down on the link. No it is not, it will be considered a mistake.

SAbboushi

Thanks for your posts.

bkanwar2

No it is not, it will be considered a mistake.

Can you please clarify are you saying that the QIE version is a mistake? Following up on Bender's post, the hamza is placed on the prior word for BOTH words outlined in red above (see Bender's post).

It seems the order of tashkil in all cases is fathah, then kasrah... so I suspect that the pronunciation of all versions are identical, yes?

Also, I wonder how this word was written before tashkil

Man_of_Faith

If you ask me the diacritical marks are not part of the original composition, most markers.

Salaam

SAbboushi

Thanks Man of Faith -- I agree... which is why I am asking how that word was written before the diacritics

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Just remove what are not standard letters of the Arabic language and you have the original word. seems good does it not?

The people who put the diacritical marks there must have thought people were stupid because it is not hard to pronounce it without them. The "we are merely improving things!" comes to mind. Most they have done is ruining the text with all markers and stuff and adding verse numbers etc.

Have faith

bkanwar2

Thanks for your posts.

bkanwar2
Can you please clarify are you saying that the QIE version is a mistake? Following up on Bender's post, the hamza is placed on the prior word for BOTH words outlined in red above (see Bender's post).

It seems the order of tashkil in all cases is fathah, then kasrah... so I suspect that the pronunciation of all versions are identical, yes?

Also, I wonder how this word was written before tashkil

I am not understanding the question well.

Let me share a fact about Quran. The fact remains that whatever the prevalent printed Quran is available, is the Quran. Which also nobody understands.

There is no original manuscript available anywhere in public domain.

Quranic text evolved over period of years to current shape. The only way to understand current text is via archives of preserved language.

The preserved language is only with all diacritical marks and tashkeel

Therefore, let us first have a basic understand of what is available as a fact and reality and then worry about what it might have been at a later date.

Regards,