Sanaa Quran no diatrical marks and vowel points, Syriac-Aramaic crossover
-
What do you think of this video?
Click the Quran image below.
https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Opened_Qur%27an.jpg/220px-Opened_Qur%27an.jpg
Is this German's linguist interpretation earnest?
Or is it true that the interpretation should reflect Arabian culture and understanding not a bordering Syriac one, despite its similarities?
Is there not an even older Quran than this one discovered?
Does the condition of superimposed text over older and erased text, truly indicate rearrangement and changing of words?
If the premise is that this copy is unique from previous and present copies then words in this copy should not match text in older copies in terms of arrangement etc..
I realize it is old and it has probably been discussed thoroughly tons of times.
However for my sake, please feel free to comment, provide links, debunk it, discuss it and peacefully so.
Thank you all in advance
-
What do you think of this video?
Click the Quran image below.
https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Opened_Qur%27an.jpg/220px-Opened_Qur%27an.jpg
Is this German's linguist interpretation earnest?
Or is it true that the interpretation should reflect Arabian culture and understanding not a bordering Syriac one, despite its similarities?
Is there not an even older Quran than this one discovered?
Does the condition of superimposed text over older and erased text, truly indicate rearrangement and changing of words?
If the premise is that this copy is unique from previous and present copies then words in this copy should not match text in older copies in terms of arrangement etc..
I realize it is old and it has probably been discussed thoroughly tons of times.
However for my sake, please feel free to comment, provide links, debunk it, discuss it and peacefully so.
Thank you all in advance
There is this video made by a muslim responding to this video https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu58q4KoQuE
-
There are several copies of the Qur'an available and they are not the same because they differ in transliteration, i.e. the diacritical marks were added later on when Arabic grammar was developing. Earliest manuscripts lack those marks. Transliteration does indeed change the meaning greatly. It only takes replacement of two dots in 928 to change the meaning from "let them not apporach" to "you apporach not", which greatly changes the meaning and pretty much destroys the pillar of hajj.
Secondly, Qur'an is written in poetic form, its pre-Islamic poetical style is evident in sura 91, for instance, as well as al-fatiha as well as other surahs. Here you can take a look at the analysis of poetical influence in the text of the Qur'an https//books.google.ee/books?id=Bdq3AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=why+sura+91+ends+with+ha&source=bl&ots=fErg4gPMRb&sig=-B1Zelhqj-yBQYBY0CFob9XigWg&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnidO-2ffWAhUqOpoKHRXqCfgQ6AEILjAA#v=onepage&q=why%20sura%2091%20ends%20with%20ha&f=false
That being said, taking words of the Qur'an, especially nouns, literally as per traditional tafsir-influenced interpretation is of no use. Muhammad is not a father of mankind..oh thanks cap'n obvious. Or if you are good with the orphans marry women that you like two three or four...what does it have to do with the orphans? All wives are orphans? Well, how many wings do angels have in such case (351)? And countless of other examples.
Secondly, all semitic languages share same roots, which means that the only possible way to understand the meaning of the Qur'an is to see the old lexicons, such as Taj-Al Roos or Lane's. What is difficult here is not so much of finding the ancient meaning of the words in the lexicons, but the methodology. There should be clear methodology as to what one wants to achieve. Such as if he wants to portray the God of Qur'an to be a jealous guy who will tortue anyone who does not worship him, or he wants to find some other explanation to anything. And the only way to do so is to use previous teachings, that include the Injeel, the Tanakh, the Ditta and others, even the Epic of Gilgamesh may shed some light, but I believe it was also severely mistranslated. Qur'an alone is not enough as the traditional understanding of it is still tafsir-influenced.
I haven't yet read the book by Christopher Luxenburg but I will and see if it makes any sense, but they did not re-transate the Qur'an, but only some of the verses, such as they changed the meaning of what is traditionally understood by hoorines to mean something else when applied the syria-aramaic meaning and some other examples.
-
To me it is irrelevant what anybody says about old or new manuscripts. We have what we see in front of us now.
The main task is to find out its contents . Analyse/study/dissect ...Then see what you make out of what you have inside Qoran.This Qoran that is available /exist in Arabic needs to be studied by its own merit . Look at its contents and take on the challenge it is offering you. i.e to find out who the author is and what the message is saying!!!!!
Who has not heard of Qoran at this age? What are they saying about what it contains/the message is the most important things ,not how it got here!!!!
GOD bless.
Peace -
To me it is irrelevant what anybody says about old or new manuscripts. We have what we see in front of us now.
So is it irrelevant to you what the manuscript originally said?
The main task is to find out its contents . Analyse/study/dissect ...Then see what you make out of what you have inside Qoran.
This Qoran that is available /exist in Arabic needs to be studied by its own merit . Look at its contents and take on the challenge it is offering you. i.e to find out who the author is and what the message is saying!!!!!
Contextual analysis is a dubious methodology, it may explain few things but without deep linguistic understanding it is of no use. Tell me how many wives can one have in the context of the same phrase in 351? Unless you give me a thorough explanation then the contextual analysis is of no use without proper linguistic understanding.
Who has not heard of Qoran at this age?
More people than you think. Even if 'heard' was any argument at all I could ask who has not heard of Mormon bible at this age? So what? Have you not heard about Christian Domostroi?
-
Quote from Makaveli
More people than you think. Even if 'heard' was any argument at all I could ask who has not heard of Mormon bible at this age? So what? Have you not heard about Christian Domostroi?That is why we should look at the contents. it is the most logical thing to do.
And of course it is irrelevant to me what the old manuscript has said if I do not have it. If someone claims to have it ,then make it available,all of it,for studying and comparison!!!!!
Further more ,regarding your questionTell me how many wives can one have in the context of the same phrase in 351? Unless you give me a thorough explanation then the contextual analysis is of no use without proper linguistic understanding.
I see no connection between 351 and the number of wives.To me if one follows the best advice in Qoran ,only one wife is allowed for justice and common sense.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
What do you think of this video?
Click the Quran image below.
https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Opened_Qur%27an.jpg/220px-Opened_Qur%27an.jpg
Is this German's linguist interpretation earnest?
Is there not an even older Quran than this one discovered?
Peace, sloppy work as are most and at 200 minute him saying being oldest dated 705-715 CE is false.
Ma VI 165 in T?bingen University Library was dated by radiocarbon technique to between 649 and 675 CE.
http//www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=4739
To me it is irrelevant what anybody says about old or new manuscripts. We have what we see in front of us now.
Today's manuscripts are rift with to many alifs not precise to distinguish words especially address to plural or singular etc.
It only takes replacement of two dots in 928 to change the meaning from "let them not apporach" to "you apporach not", which greatly changes the meaning and pretty much destroys the pillar of hajj.
The scribes had a system to distinguish and in that context never written with to mean "you" rather with ...
2187 so not taqrabh/thou approach ye them
2222 and not taqrabhunna/thou approach ye them
443 not taqrab/thou approach ye of the connection (outer) and are you intoxicated ...
6151 and not taqrab/thou approach ye of the immorality ...
6152 and not taqrab/thou approach ye of wealth the orphan
928 so not yaqrab/approached they ofSana_Qur_an_ch9v25-30.
https//s1.postimg.org/1dsj5zbqyn/Sana_Qur_an_ch9v25-30.jpgOr if you are good with the orphans marry women that you like two three or four...what does it have to do with the orphans? All wives are orphans? Well, how many wings do angels have in such case (351)?
It's about groups ... mathn/twosome wathultha/and three waruba/and quadruple
https//s1.postimg.org/4hqfold127/MA_VI_165_Quran_ch34v52-ch35v5.jpg
-
That is why we should look at the contents. it is the most logical thing to do.
The context has gazillion inconsistencies if taken from traditional translation. Who is Eebles in 234? And why are the khafirun refered as human/people in another verse? And how can Eebles be of kafiirun in case he is clearly talking to God in a number of verses. Context has no credibility here.
And of course it is irrelevant to me what the old manuscript has said if I do not have it. If someone claims to have it ,then make it available,all of it,for studying and comparison!!!!!
Like an abudance of exclamation marks in all your senteces will somehow make you convince me in your logical disource more... the old manuscript is there, diacritic marks, however, not.
I see no connection between 351
Neither do I. So how can you be sure chapter 4 is speaking about wives?
-
The scribes had a system to distinguish and in that context never written with to mean "you" rather with ...
2187 so not taqrabh/thou approach ye them
2222 and not taqrabhunna/thou approach ye them
443 not taqrab/thou approach ye of the connection (outer) and are you intoxicated ...
6151 and not taqrab/thou approach ye of the immorality ...
6152 and not taqrab/thou approach ye of wealth the orphan
928 so not yaqrab/approached they ofWell, I have another info on 928, where you take that from? If we look at other verses where taqrabu is used it always is used in negative. Take a look at Gerran's 928.
It's about groups ... mathn/twosome wathultha/and three waruba/and quadruple
So?
-
Because I have always known how people sometimes change the Quran for their own benefits (most common in occult world), Sana manuscript never made me worried about the preservation of Quran. I always thought that there was something more about it and thus researched on it on and off.
I still don't know for sure who is behind this manuscript, but yes, Yemen had some of the most hostile enemies of Islam. Let?s remember the person who gave the most number of hadiths came from that country and his name is Abu Huraira. God himself confirmed in the Quran that fake Muslims were distorting the verses while attributing lies to Prophet without ever meeting him. Coincidently, grand mosque seems to be a product lies. Sunnis did claim that it was connected to prophet. But it turned to be false. No proof exists. Now shias have a rumor that the sana manuscript was being written by Ali. Then we have these weird western scholars who never explained why it took them so much time to find the pages since renovation of grand mosque has always been frequent. Lastly, sana manuscript seems to suffer from the issue of warsh and hafs.
When those people said the script proves Quran is not preserved right I thought they were talking about discovery of new verses and chapters. I was proven wrong. The script is not at all a big deal.
-
The context has gazillion inconsistencies if taken from traditional translation. Who is Eebles in 234? And why are the khafirun refered as human/people in another verse?
234 seems to assert he was one of the angels. khafirun can be any conscious being sure of what is right and wrong, yet he chooses the wrong and disobeys God.
And how can Eebles be of kafiirun in case he is clearly talking to God in a number of verses. Context has no credibility here.
I consider that as one of the best signs of how saying God exists does not make one a believer. The words such as belief and disbelief need more investigation.
-
234 seems to assert he was one of the angels. khafirun can be any conscious being sure of what is right and wrong, yet he chooses the wrong and disobeys God.
Nope, he was of jinn. And what is jinn? Or angel?
I consider that as one of the best signs of how saying God exists does not make one a believer. The words such as belief and disbelief need more investigation.
28 - 19 gives precise definition of what is al-kafirun, there is no way Eebles can be one of them, according to that definition.
-
Makaveli,just because some people seem to be in doubt and have some confusing contexts about Qoran ,it does not mean Qoran has.
Qoran is clear as far as "Ouli Al Albab" are concerned.
That does not mean one can know the unseen or the future or does not have a different view about them,but one cannot stay confused about the basics .i.e good character and good morals.
The message is crystal clear about "Sirat Al Mustaqueem"and to follow the best path instructed in it about how to live one s life.
What is to come in the next generations or in the next life can be left in the trust of its controller and Creator.Just because Qoran deals with all these various people who do/view things differently does not mean it is not clear or old manuscripts are clearer.
Qoran does not enforce a way of life but advises on the best choices and gives a way out( A Mercy) for all "Al Naas" good,bad or ugly.
Old or new manuscripts,there is no change in its message and purpose as far as I can see.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Well, I have another info on 928, where you take that from? If we look at other verses where taqrabu is used it always is used in negative. Take a look at Gerran's 928.
https//www.quranite.com/al-masjid-al-haram-in-the-quran/
Gerrans hasn?t looked into it closely since there is no such word in Qur?an or Arabic yaqrab written with ?ya? that means or refers to ?you (pl.)? and when written with ?ya? (likewise other words) refers to ?third-person (sing.)? or ?they? depending on context and never to ?you (pl.)? which is correctly written with (ta) taqrab/thou approach ye of ? see earlier examples?
443 not taqrab/thou approach ye of l-alata
6151 and not taqrab/thou approach ye of l-fawisha
928 so not yaqrab/approached they of l-masjida l-armaLastly, sana manuscript seems to suffer from the issue of warsh and hafs.
When those people said the script proves Quran is not preserved right I thought they were talking about discovery of new verses and chapters. I was proven wrong. The script is not at all a big deal.
Peace, the video is a rant and yes checked Sana and older Birmingham and MA VI 165 manuscripts which only slight differences that initialed verses were unnumbered and modern scripts overuse of alif which don't distinguish slight nuance if address is to plural or singular as the older scribes who took into consideration and were more careful and likewise with many other words...
1942 when said (no alif) to father his O father mine
2152 when said (with alif) to father his and folk his -
The Sanaa Quran is not written in Arabic but "Aramic". It's like a translate. So, of course, they will differ from the original Arabic Quran. A friend from Alternatiforum made a phone call to Puin himself and Puin confessed this fact.
Peace
-
The Sanaa Quran is not written in Arabic but "Aramic". It's like a translate. So, of course, they will differ from the original Arabic Quran. A friend from Alternatiforum made a phone call to Puin himself and Puin confessed this fact.
Peace, verify before posting; Sana "collection" is in Arabic.
Download San'a Manuscripts - Unessco CD images here
https//archive.org/stream/SanaManuscripts-unesscoCdImages/SanaManuscriptsUnesscoCd#page/n9/mode/2upFew more examples which we can see match today's Qur'an.
15-22.6 2nd 002120-002125 Landscape Kufi Musahif 131167C
https//s1.postimg.org/1kxt0230a7/Sana_Qur_an_ch2v120-125.jpg15-15.3 First/2nd 009128-010004 Landscape Kufi Musahif 129158B
https//s1.postimg.org/5lzkvwr1un/Sana_Qur_an_ch9v128-ch10v7.jpg01-29.2 20 2nd 9129 ? 104 Vertical Kufi Musahif (39x36) 066049C
https//s1.postimg.org/5nsnsl6a7j/Sana_Qur_an_ch9v129-ch10v4.jpg -
Nope, he was of jinn. And what is jinn? Or angel?
Is it not possible that we might be dealing with a bad translation? But then again, the explanation of that can be found in other verses. I will take a look at it when I get time. Currently, I am focusing on some other verses linked to lifestyle on earth.
28 - 19 gives precise definition of what is al-kafirun, there is no way Eebles can be one of them, according to that definition.
Check 544
Indeed, We revealed the Taurat in it was Guidance and light; judged by it the Prophets, those who had submitted for those who were Jews, and the Rabbis, and the scholars, with what they were entrusted of the Book of Allah and they were to it witnesses. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not sell My Verses for a little price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then those are the disbelievers.Iblees was asked to do something by God, but he rejected. Same is true for the people in 28-19.
Theme of the verses
Those are the ones who bought astraying for guidance. So not profited their commerce and not were they guided-ones.216
Someone needs to analyze 217. The translation isn't making any sense to me.
https//www.quranite.com/al-masjid-al-haram-in-the-quran/
Gerrans hasn?t looked into it closely since there is no such word in Qur?an or Arabic yaqrab written with ?ya? that means or refers to ?you (pl.)? and when written with ?ya? (likewise other words) refers to ?third-person (sing.)? or ?they? depending on context and never to ?you (pl.)? which is correctly written with (ta) taqrab/thou approach ye of ? see earlier examples?
443 not taqrab/thou approach ye of l-alata
6151 and not taqrab/thou approach ye of l-fawisha
928 so not yaqrab/approached they of l-masjida l-armaPeace, the video is a rant and yes checked Sana and older Birmingham and MA VI 165 manuscripts which only slight differences that initialed verses were unnumbered and modern scripts overuse of alif which don't distinguish slight nuance if address is to plural or singular as the older scribes who took into consideration and were more careful and likewise with many other words...
1942 when said (no alif) to father his O father mine
2152 when said (with alif) to father his and folk hisTheir whole drama is rather deceptive and revolves around folklore of sunnis and shias.
What these so called scholars don't want to say is that the Quran didn't originate from Yemen. It was another territory. It was a foreign land invaded. So what is found in their book proves nothing about the credibility of the one we study.
Needless to say faulty Arabic and verses are still found in Quran published in some foreign places.
-
Iblees was asked to do something by God, but he rejected. Same is true for the people in 28-19.
Weird God... and He supposed to be All-Controlling and All-Powerful...
Yet he lost control over somebody called Iblees and also puny and primitive primate named human?From my POV
When the True God wants anything to do something then It/He/She will do it...
Or in other words everything that's done by anything it's 100% in accordance to His plan... -
Peace jafar.
Do you think GOD is losing control over you or anyone else?
Funny how we want GOD to control others,even though they were given the "freedom/promise" to chose for themselves ,yet will blame GOD for their behaviour/conduct?
Yes indeed ,weird are the creatures not the Creator!!!Anyway,GOD bless you and keep you free to say/do what you wish.
Peace.
