Which Qoran ?
-
peace,
Re 1)
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601390.msg263468#msg263468Re 2)
How does one verify a truth? This is the same way in which to verify Quran
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597396.msg191658#msg191658Re 3)
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.htmlRe 4)
http//free-minds.org/mumins (perhaps one of the most important articles on this site) -
Peace Wakas,
Re 1)
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601390.msg263468#msg263468Basically you're saying we should trust the methodology for assembeling the Quran simply because it is written in the Quran certifies its own authenticity and because the majority of muslims didn't question it ? ???
About the Quran being written down under the supervision of the Messenger Mohamed, is there any proof to this either from history or the Quran ?
Re 2)
How does one verify a truth? This is the same way in which to verify Quran
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597396.msg191658#msg191658I totally agree with your post; God's signs are everywhere.
Howerver I don't see how this responds to the issue of 'tashkil' = dots + vowelsRe 3)
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.htmlThanks for the link peace
Re 4)
http//free-minds.org/mumins (perhaps one of the most important articles on this site)That was an interesting read. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Thanks a lot for the recommandation.May God guide us all
-
What do you think of this?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607600.msg370764#msg370764
-
Hannibal,
Without the dots, e.g. it is nearly impossible to know which letter and pronunciation it is for even a skilled reader. I highly doubt it ever was so. There had to be some difference. I suppose in purely stylistic works they may have removed the dots on the letters, but that was merely for decoration.
But otherwise diacritics such as these are inventions , but clearly appears to be original since it gives emphasis on the language when the speaker wants to highlight on something in a context by holding on to the letter through pronunciation. Compare it to word stress.
I have seen fairly old texts that retain dots on letters.
Be well
-
Hannibal,
Without the dots, e.g. it is nearly impossible to know which letter and pronunciation it is for even a skilled reader. I highly doubt it ever was so. There had to be some difference. I suppose in purely stylistic works they may have removed the dots on the letters, but that was merely for decoration.
But otherwise diacritics such as these are inventions , but clearly appears to be original since it gives emphasis on the language when the speaker wants to highlight on something in a context by holding on to the letter through pronunciation. Compare it to word stress.
I have seen fairly old texts that retain dots on letters.
Be well
Peace Man of Faith,
As an arabic speaker, i couldn't agree more about the difficulity of reading arabic text without the dots and the vowels.
This is the reason that pushes me to understand when the 'tashkil' of the Quran was made ?Take a look at what is considered the oldest version of Quran
http//www.masress.com/dostor/28861 (no tashkil)The page is in arabic but your can simply type an image search with 'oldest copy of Quran'.
May God guide us all
-
Many ancient languages were said to be written without separations or indicators with all the letters next to each other.
maybesomethinglikethismakingitverydifficultforsomelaterpeopletoknowwhenthesentencesendornewwordsbeginandthingslikethatbutmaybeitisntsohardafterallonceyougetintothegrooveifyouhaveforexampleinthisentence
-
Hi again,
Tashkil diacritics are added later to "help" pronunciation. There is no doubt about it. I also think they are not necessary if you know the rhythm of the Arabic language Quran uses. I find they may fool us into believing things not true about the ancient pronunciation as it was meant to be pronounced.
The only markers I consider native with the script are the normal dots on the letters and madda. Everything else including hamza are inventions to aid reading. And the interpreters also inserted alifs not native such as is written in the older manuscripts raising suspicion over how things really are.
Be well
-
peace,
Re 1)
I am simply saying that based on the information we have, there are differences in terms of collection, so it is not right to equate collection of hadith with collection of quran. I believe there is some Quranic evidence for the writing of revelation, and this has been discussed many times on this forum, I recommend a forum search. I cannot recall the specific verses at the moment.Re 2) and 3)
You asked how do we know if the tashkeel is correct or not, and I implied that the approach will be similar to how one verifies any truth, and I provided some verse references which discuss how to read/study/verify Quran -
Hi again,
Tashkil diacritics are added later to "help" pronunciation. There is no doubt about it. I also think they are not necessary if you know the rhythm of the Arabic language Quran uses. I find they may fool us into believing things not true about the ancient pronunciation as it was meant to be pronounced.
The only markers I consider native with the script are the normal dots on the letters and madda. Everything else including hamza are inventions to aid reading. And the interpreters also inserted alifs not native such as is written in the older manuscripts raising suspicion over how things really are.
Be well
Brother Man of Faith,
What I was looking to confirm was the following
Do you approve that the first versions of Quran were 'tashkil'-less ?
if no, please share the evidence.
If yes, you have already agreed that tashkil changes a meaning to its opposite
example 302-3 might mean The Romans has been defeated and they will soon winn. OR The romain have won and they will soon been defeated.So tashkeel is not simply to help with pronunciation but it is key to understand the meaning !
So please, if you have evidence about when the Quran was received by Mohamed or how it was written down (with or without tashkeel) please share those evidences (no opinions) with us.May God guide us all
-
peace,
Re 1)
I am simply saying that based on the information we have, there are differences in terms of collection, so it is not right to equate collection of hadith with collection of quran. I believe there is some Quranic evidence for the writing of revelation, and this has been discussed many times on this forum, I recommend a forum search. I cannot recall the specific verses at the moment.Re 2) and 3)
You asked how do we know if the tashkeel is correct or not, and I implied that the approach will be similar to how one verifies any truth, and I provided some verse references which discuss how to read/study/verify QuranBrother Wakas,
I was hoping you would tell me what made you believe that the methodology of assembling the Quran is better than the one with the Hadiths. I hope you understand that logically speaking, the fact that a text auto-certifies its authenticity, it is no certification.
However, I will look into the older posts on this Forum hoping to find the answer to a simple question how, when and by whom the Book that guides the lifes of all muslims was assembled ?
May God guide us all
-
No. The earliest versions were entirely without tashkeel. And the markers that I mentioned in the post you did respond like this to is what I consider by what I have seen that the original Quran manuscript contained. Dots on letters and (madda) are the only original scriptural markers.
I know the tashkeel is also there to understand a word's meaning, but they can be misleading as well, particularly if they are not original because then one can put tashkeel on there and then claim the word has a particular meaning other than a different word with different tashkeels, while the original script was in both cases pointing towards one and the same word.
"As can be seen in the sample page from Sadeghi and Goudarzi's edition, the lower text has no vowel marks and rarely uses diacritical marks for distinguishing consonants. The lower text was erased and written over, but due to the presence of metals in the ink, the lower text has resurfaced, and now appears in a light brown color."
For example, in sura 2, verse 87, the lower text has wa-qaffayn 'al thrihi whereas the standard text has wa-qaffayn min ba'dihi (see the "Variants" section below for a selected list).
"The parchment upon which the lower codex is written has been radiocarbon dated with 99% accuracy to before 671 AD, with a 95.5% probability of being older than 661 AD and 75% probability from before 646 AD."
Source Wikipedia about the Sana'a manuscript
This explains something. It also shows that the original Quran was tampered with.
I am in the progress of reinterpreting Quran and delivering a translation matching the new interpretation and the difference in 287 would make a difference actually. I think personally that because the interpreters could not decipher the text in any logical way they rather than worked any further changed the text so they could make sense of the context. My reinterpretation project has showed that little was understood as intended of the original Arabic in Quran. I by knowing the change in 287 understand why they changed it because it says like this in the real interpretation "Moses was given the book/knowledge and one should follow in the footsteps of the messenger(s)". The traditional interpreters like to diminish that the original decree is still the same as the one of Moses so therefore they make it look like Muhammad abrogate everything from the past. But in fact the context speaks of following what Moses revealed. That is why I also propagate strongly against traditional Islam with all its practices because I know most is bogus and a fabrication by Persian clerics who have nothing to do with what Moses, Jesus etc taught.
In fact not even is interpreted as intended because it is stems from the root with an attached as prefix meaning to count/reckon/consider something as in considering something's value. Now if the Sana'a mentioned athira instead of ba'ad instead then it changed my translated meaning a little, but since ba'ad in truth does mean exactly as traditional interpreters make it so it is not very far off from athira, but it is still enough to make an impact.
Instead of reckon/count/consider then it says simply "follow" the messenger(s)", i.e. Moses' ancient decree is fully okay. To further corrupt so that it looks like this Islam sect is okay they have chosen to pervert Moses' practices by claiming that the Sustainer said to Moses "I am with you as long as you perform salat". The traditional interpreters make this into a ritual whereas the original script was intending to say "as long as you follow the guidance", i.e. follow what the Sustainer revealed to Moses, most importantly the traditional 'Ten Commandments' which shine with their absence in the traditional interpretation of Quran, EVEN if they are actually there (260 for your information, but you will not solve it unless you discard all bias and misconception).
All of this the interpreters aka Persian clerics did to fabricate a religion called Islam, fit their doctrine to what they liked, rally the Arab people against their own country Persia and also the Roman empire. The warfare interpretation of chapter 9 is false, it speaks of something other or less violent as in the traditional interpretation. The Quran's interpretation was tailored to rally people. The interpreters meant that the Romans and the Persians occupied their lands so they used religion as a weapon to rally people. These people were considered Mushrikeen and kafar. It shows that the traditional interpretation is made that the Christian sect of the Roman empire is demonized (with some right) and the Zoroastrian idolatry they were doing at that time was also demonized. The story of Mecca is a later invention, probably several hundred into the second millennium.
It is hard to swallow, but everyone calling themselves Muslim are actually following a fabricated religion. It was a systematic clergy with the same indoctrination as the Christian adversaries in Rome.
Brother Man of Faith,
What I was looking to confirm was the following
Do you approve that the first versions of Quran were 'tashkil'-less ?
if no, please share the evidence.
If yes, you have already agreed that tashkil changes a meaning to its opposite
example 302-3 might mean The Romans has been defeated and they will soon winn. OR The romain have won and they will soon been defeated.So tashkeel is not simply to help with pronunciation but it is key to understand the meaning !
So please, if you have evidence about when the Quran was received by Mohamed or how it was written down (with or without tashkeel) please share those evidences (no opinions) with us.May God guide us all
