Which is the Real Quran?
-
Peace Zenje,
Out of curiousity, what difference does any of this make... really. I mean, is this all to prove that quran is from God? or some version isn't?.. or...
Please, anyone who can clarify for me briefly, I would appreciate it.
For myself, I am interested to know what the original form of the revelation was (to the letter)...
I believe that there are enough proofs within the Quran itself so that this is not a futile excersize.
The next logical step once this is all sorted out would be to unify the Quran into one text...same number of words, letters, verse stops, etc..
As things stand now they are totally unacceptable.
-
Sister SwedenMajidah not everyone. Me, Idolfree, MQuran I can say are still not the followers of number 19.
Salaam to you,
Nice to hear because even if I have friends who are 19 followers I have never really believed in that.
I think it's dangerous to play with numbers and it can be a trick from shaitan to let people go astray by focus on wrong things.Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace,
What is a 19 follower?! I haven't personally come across people that FOLLOW a number! Personally I see a lot of signs and significance in the number 19 within Quran but I can't see how one can follow a number in a spiritual/religous sense!
Can you please explain further about '19 followers'? A more specific definition please. There are many people that see mathematical patterns in the Quran involving the Initialed surahs based on the number 19 but thats all.
Would anyone who has witnessed a sign involving 19 (me and many others) but do not worship 19 be classed as 19 followers?
Nural
-
Peace Sabo,
Tell me, what is your take on the following...
- 29 Suras are initialed
- 29 Suras do not have the word 'Allah' in them.
The total = 58
However, the two set's are interlocked by Sura 68 (which is both initialed, and does not have the word 'Allah' in it) making the total of Suras 57...
Exactly half of the Scripture.
i.e. Half is interlocked, Half is similar.
-
As things stand now they are totally unacceptable.
Peace Layth
Your article was an eye-opener. I never realised that there were so many different versions of the Quran in circulation. I checked some of what you had said in 'Ulum ul Quran' (a sunni book about books other than the Quran) and it confirmed some of what you said (of course they never admitted the differences amounted to anything).
One of my first thoughts was - what chaos there must have been during and immediately after Muhammad. I mean, they lost the Quran! The Quran, from my understading, certainly intimates that people who must have been close to Muhammad (or otherwise how could they have spoken to him) were resentful of the Quran. Most of the early caliphs were assasinated as well. Didn't you mention in your article a quote along the lines of 'shall we take away this Quran?'. Perhaps this was more than a rhetorical question.
But secondly your method of attempting to find the 'original Quran' (according to you) appeared to be reminiscent of the hadith collectors, in the sense that you were attempting to produce a chain of narrators in order to find it.
A VERY important question we should be asking ourselves is how can one believe in one verse of the Quran/'Quran', if one believes it might not have been from God? I personally have yet to draw any concusion about the alledged loss of the Quran although I do want to get my hands on the different versions and compare. Furthermore, I have yet to find any contradictions in the Quran that I read or false statements. If the Quran was altered, how could they have done so without introducing flaws into it?
Roshan
-
Peace Roshan,
One of my first thoughts was - what chaos there must have been during and immediately after Muhammad. I mean, they lost the Quran! The Quran, from my understading, certainly intimates that people who must have been close to Muhammad (or otherwise how could they have spoken to him) were resentful of the Quran. Most of the early caliphs were assasinated as well. Didn't you mention in your article a quote along the lines of 'shall we take away this Quran?'. Perhaps this was more than a rhetorical question.
I never considered the question as more than rhetorical...But you make a valid point.
But secondly your method of attempting to find the 'original Quran' (according to you) appeared to be reminiscent of the hadith collectors, in the sense that you were attempting to produce a chain of narrators in order to find it.
LOL...For once I cannot argue. )
The problem that has arisin is clear and you have identified it...The question 'which one' cannot be answered historically since the chaos exists as far back as you can go...And to trust the narrators is merely to follow in the footsteps of the Hadith.
A VERY important question we should be asking ourselves is how can one believe in one verse of the Quran/'Quran', if one believes it might not have been from God? I personally have yet to draw any concusion about the alledged loss of the Quran although I do want to get my hands on the different versions and compare. Furthermore, I have yet to find any contradictions in the Quran that I read or false statements. If the Quran was altered, how could they have done so without introducing flaws into it?
It depends how much it was 'altered'...If it was a letter here or there, then you may not find any major contradictions...However, I could remove an entire chapter or verses from the original and you would not be able to tell.
I see deduction as more of an unoticable danger than addition.
-
Peace Sabo,
Tell me, what is your take on the following...
- 29 Suras are initialed
- 29 Suras do not have the word 'Allah' in them.
The total = 58
However, the two set's are interlocked by Sura 68 (which is both initialed, and does not have the word 'Allah' in it) making the total of Suras 57...
Exactly half of the Scripture.
i.e. Half is interlocked, Half is similar.
Praise be to God!!!!
I was always wondering and asking why 29 suras initialed. And why 29 suras don't have the word "Allah" inside them. This is a very good observation indeed and if it shows something to me, then it shows that this scripture is amazing either by structure or by contents.
I am sorry for those who consider this as "number worship". If they had the statistical knowledge to understand the significance of these structures they wouldn't have said that. Studying the structure of the starts for example doesn't mean that one is a "stars worshipper".
Thanks Layth for sharing this observation and maybe there is something more behind that.
if you see my post about the structure of the Quran, you will see now that the picture is being more clear
57 suras homogenous verify here
their total sum is 6234
57 suras heterogenous verify here their total sum is 6555additionally what is amazing is
the sum of sura numbers in the homogenous section = 3303 = the sum of verse numbers in the heterogenous section!!! (who understands statistics will know how small is the probability that this number is just obtained by a roll of dice, i.e. luck)Best regards,
sabo -
I really didn't like this article much. First of all it focuses
too much on the differences between Hafs/Warsh. Ok, yes,
these are not identical versions; but even academical non-muslims
researchers acknowledge that these characteristics have more
or less no implications for the final understanding.
One should also not refer to anti-islamic propaganda sites to
prove otherwise.Beside, writing was invented as an aid to store the oral
saying for reading/communicating/transferring for others/
in the future. Even in english today we have differences
depending upon the culture/society you are expressing
yourself to, such as "color" or "colour", "are" or "r" etc.
The hafs/warsh differences are not identical but follow
the same analogy.
Who decides the "official" writing ? Today, in some countries
this is decided by agencies appointed by governments, however
1000+ years ago there were no such central authorities.Using large amount of energy on such minor details is therefore
quite pointless. (Unless you of course need to satisfy some
other structure, such as a mathematical based on, but before
you can do that, you need to prove that such a structure exist,
which to me still remains an open issue. Otherwise, by fixing
text one can always create a pattern by hand.) -
Salaamun alaikum,
This is a very interesting thread. So far, not once have we seen Al-Qur'aan itself tell us on how to decide which is the true version. I wonder what value we really give Al-Qur'aan if we prefer words of historians and muhaditheen and artificial multiples over the principles which Al-Qur'aan itself sets for us ?
thanks and peace.
-
Peace everyone,
Using large amount of energy on such minor details is therefore
quite pointless. (Unless you of course need to satisfy some
other structure, such as a mathematical based on, but before
you can do that, you need to prove that such a structure exist,
which to me still remains an open issue. Otherwise, by fixing
text one can always create a pattern by hand.)
Bravo! And welcome to the forum.So far, not once have we seen Al-Qur'aan itself tell us on how to decide which is the true version.
Good point. I was trying to go even further than that, but was unsuccessful... I guess when I'm ready, I'll start another thread. -
Salaamun alaikum Zenje,
Good point. I was trying to go even further than that, but was unsuccessful... I guess when I'm ready, I'll start another thread.
To my mind, this 'historical' approach business has no Quranic basis. I think the approach of 'finding', i.e everyone finds Al-Qur'aan for himself, whether in a bookshop, through a friend or whatever, this is right approach to take. Al-Qur'aan must be a guide to understanding ur world and urself, rather than have a historical background which is subject to manipulation.
-
Peace
Practicaly, there isnt any difference between hafs and warsh versions if we take into consideration their consonants` basis, that is the text without vowel and consonant markers....toward my study its only one word difference...and it makes no significant change in meaning ...
5724 ?allahu alghaniy ul hameed? and ?allahu huwa al ghaniy ul hameed?
Literal translation goes
"The God is self-sufficient and the praised/praiseworthy" and "The God He is self-sufficient and the praised/praiseworthy"
So basically we have the same text throughout the world.....and ambiguity and plenty of possible readings should not bewilder one who truly believes...cause even doted(consonant markers) and vocalised text have a lot of ambiguity and offer a lot of alternative understandings...
The dots and vocalisation differences between hafs and warsh are truly minor issues...They are mainly a kind of difference in dialects(color/colour, my friend/friend of mine, more rich/richer) and amount quantitatively and qualitatively not even to 1% of differences between alternative, gramaticaly valid translations/understandings that offers each of the versions by itself....
So the real issue and challenge is the correct understanding and/or translations of the both ....and more particularly of the text without consonant and vowel markers...i think its sensible to read from the consonant`s basis( to insert consonant and wowel markers freely) as long as we take into account the context and congruence of the message...(as pointed by mq if i havent misuderstood him)
toward my best knowledge the vowel and consonant markers were not yet invented in the time of revelation... and the first scripts were without them... even today we have such scripts....there are on the net as well i think... if together with these, today we have 7 different recitations(orally transmited) and 2 differently vowelised texts why shouldnt we read from the basis that is imo common to all of them...
Tomorrow some may prove otherwise or find some obscure completely vocalised and doted script dating to the alleged time of revelation that was lying hidden somewhere in some museum or wherever i would never preffered such a script over a consistent and sensible reading/message from the bare text without consonant and vowel markers...
Context and consistency of the message should be the main criteria... not the oldest script method.... that truly resembles to the chain of the narrators method....and can be very subjective..even if scientifically proved....Science, is sometimes very subjective and it takes ages to discover the innappropriateness of its tools and methodology....i am not believing in the book beacuse of this or that person have transmited it to me or because of its age, but because of its message.....
Context and consistency are the very same natural criterias used by humans in understanding of any text because all writings contain some ambiguity...this is a natural principle of any language...
best wishes
Zlatan
p.s.
here s a link to an analysis of some of hafs-warsh differences
http//www.inet.ba/~hardy/differences.htm
-
I did stop visiting Free minds forum because of the arrogant attitute of rejecting everything which is old. I am very much against Rashad Al Khalifah messengership and his faulty code 19 which is very much praised on this forum. The majority of the members belong to cult 19 including Layth who I believe is the Administrator.
Layth intentions might be sincere but sure he is heading towards the path of creating more fitna among muslims.
-
I did stop visiting Free minds forum because of the arrogant attitute of rejecting everything which is old. I am very much against Rashad Al Khalifah messengership and his faulty code 19 which is very much praised on this forum. The majority of the members belong to cult 19 including Layth who I believe is the Administrator.
Layth intentions might be sincere but sure he is heading towards the path of creating more fitna among muslims.
I wholeheartedly agree...though i am not sure of the majority claim...
Layth is extremely worried about the minute differences of the variants while in the same time he is rejecting The God`s bold and glaring messages that are essential and contained in all these variants....
He is so much worried about the nuances and he wont stop until he found all the dots and letters of the reading that have come out directly from the Muhamad`s mouth....but he wont listen to the voice of the MESSAGE....
best wishes
-
Peace all
I am just now reading Layth`s article on hafs and warsh differences and couldnt help but to copy and paste something that testifies to the faith he professes
I quote
- 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.
end of quote
the man can not stand the count of the verses to differ regardless of the fact that all the same verses are there and its only that separation points between the verses are placed differently.
best wishes
-
I did stop visiting Free minds forum because of the arrogant attitute of rejecting everything which is old. I am very much against Rashad Al Khalifah messengership and his faulty code 19 which is very much praised on this forum. The majority of the members belong to cult 19 including Layth who I believe is the Administrator.
Layth intentions might be sincere but sure he is heading towards the path of creating more fitna among muslims.
Peace,
Pardon me sir but I am not a believer of any code 19 nor have I ever been. Nor do I follow or worship any Rashad Khalifa.
To say the majority of the members of this forum follow him (Khalifa) or code 19 is a gross error.
I don't see many people praising Khalifa OR code 19 on here so I don't get why you have come to this unfair conclusion.I'm neither a sheep nor a parrot, just a mere follower of Quran and Quran only.
)
-
Salaamun alaikum,
Zlatanracticaly, there isnt any difference between hafs and warsh versions if we take into consideration their consonants` basis, that is the text without vowel and consonant markers....toward my study its only one word difference...and it makes no significant change in meaning ...
5724 allahu alghaniy ul hameed and allahu huwa al ghaniy ul hameed
I would disagree. Every word in al-qur'aan has a point to it. 'Huwa' to Arab GRAMMARIANS may not be so important, but to metaphysicians, it's a signifier about the 'being' (huwa is literally 'he IS') of Allah.
What strikes me as strange is the unwillingness to get AL-QURAAN to speak for itself. Did Allah overlook the need to say which is His scripture ?
I don't think so.
thanks and peace.
-
peace be upon you KGB,
I am very much against Rashad Al Khalifah messengership and his faulty code 19 which is very much praised on this forum. The majority of the members belong to cult 19 including Layth who I believe is the Administrator.
I have no idea what you're talking about, there are only like 3 or 4 people on here that follow the code 19
