Which is the Real Quran?
-
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
-
Hi,
It is a difficult trap to avoid, the more you study, the more you want details to fall into place, and you may get caught up in certain ideas.
However, the code 19 may, or may not, be a mathematical code from God.
The message does not change, and it never will. If the 19-code can help some people put a deeper trust in the Qur?an, so be it. Just try to avoid making 19 an idol to worship.The various versions of the Qur?an, all give us the same message. Also in English we may have the same message given in different ways, even with different words etc. And we may have two different messages delivered using the same words.
The main thing, therefore, is to try to understand the underlying reason for the message, and the goal that the sender is trying to reach.
Try not to loose sight of the goal through overemphasizing the means.Best regds
Ali Omar
-
Peace to every one here for me the discussion about whicih version is right is useless even though there r differences but i don,t think so the differences r very big n its not against the over all message of Quran i think whicih is God alone for me if there is code 19 exist or not doesn,t really matter because i belive Quran i belive its from God n i will continue to follow Quran in the mean time if some want research the code or some want to research that whicih version is right i,m not against that its ok with me peace
-
Peace Zaltan,
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 ...
I could not help but recall the following verse when reading your statement on this subject
"And from mankind are those who argue regarding God with no knowledge nor guidance nor enlightening Scripture." (22
Not only do you obviously not know this subject, but the aggressiveness with which you approach and attack it is quite interesting.
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....
I suppose if you have no problem speaking about the Scripture without knoweldge, then you would also have no problem speaking about my beliefs without knowledge.
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....
What voice of the message? The one that said the following
"And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for. " (1736)
Which is of is upholding without knowledge? Without verification?
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
You are suppose to read on a subject before you argue it, not after.
And after you now read, did you have the moral obligation to retract your statement about the differences being insignificant?
No, you jumped in for what you thought would be a kill
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.
Who cares about authenticity when we can all live in la-la land where differences are not differences and where research on such a subject is treated as taboo?
I care that God's enemies have managed to infiltrate the very text we thought was secure...I care to expose these people for what they have done, and to attempt to substantiate and identify the damage done (no matter how big or small).
If you can live with the knowledge of such people altering God's revealtions, then you need to ask yourself if you are any better than they are.
"So woe to those who write the Scripture with their hands then Say ?This is from God,? so that they can seek a cheap gain! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gained. " (279)
-
Salaamun alaikum Layth,
I care that God's enemies have managed to infiltrate the very text we thought was secure...I care to expose these people for what they have done, and to attempt to substantiate and identify the damage done (no matter how big or small).
In my opinion, you should care about what God's book tells you about determining which is God's book. Relying on historical texts will bring you the same results as those who did the same, Sunnis and Shias. Of course, that's your right and I respect your position.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace MQ,
In my opinion, you should care about what God's book tells you about determining which is God's book. Relying on historical texts will bring you the same results as those who did the same, Sunnis and Shias. Of course, that's your right and I respect your position.
I have already determined through the article that historical reliability alone will lead to a mish-mash of findings (so we are not in dispute on this matter).
With regards to all the variations/meanings, I have mentioned that following the 'best' of each is the most reasonable approach to take (I also do not think we are in dispute on this).
The only factor where we may not be in agreement is the mathematical aspect of the verification...This for me only helps 'point out' what may be a human error, but in no way is it on its own conclusive.
RK fell into this when he tried to force the Scripture to adhere to certain 19 counts which he knew must be there...I have found that the same tool helps determine where a problem may lie, without giving the solution in any forced mannor (i.e. do we treat the Basmalla as Hafs does in 11 or as Warsh does?...With the 'tool' of 19 we can see that Warsh is more correct in this aspect)
Some general comments I would like to make (not addressed to anyone in particlualr)
Most of the paranoia about 19 is caused by poeple not being aware how such a tool may be used and thinking they have to start re-writing the text as was done with 'NWN' or with 9128&129.
From my study, the fault lies in ignorance...Not in the tool itself.
Just looking at the denial on the exisitence of significant differences between the 10 versions of the Quran (I am not even counting RK's or any other non-Sunni versions floating around out there) shows what type of honesty levels we are dealing with here.
The Scripture is not and never has been God...If we were to remove it entirely from existence then God would continue to exists and would continue to be the King/Lord of the Worlds...People here need to ask if they have made the Scripture as God and forgotton the true Lord of heavens and earth to whom we give all submission and to whom not a leaf falls ecxcept with His knowledge...
-
Salaamun alaikum Layth,
Note Whatever discussion takes place, I am IN NO WAY accusing you of anything. You are my brother in Islaam as long as you're commited to human evolution (quran 9/11).
Layth I have already determined through the article that historical reliability alone will lead to a mish-mash of findings (so we are not in dispute on this matter).
Agreed. The problem lies in situatiing historical information.
Layth With regards to all the variations/meanings, I have mentioned that following the 'best' of each is the most reasonable approach to take (I also do not think we are in dispute on this).
Sorry, if that's the case, then we are judging the Quran, not the other way round. How would you go about determining the following
18/36 warsh - minhuma
hafs - minhaI can read the verse by itself and conclude as-saat refers the 'min' comparison, thus making the hafs correct. There's no 'huma' duality there. Would you accept this based solely on the Quran ?
This is a very dangerous route to take, Layth.
Allah has promised to protect az-zikr as you well know. Az-zikr simply means the one in eminence (not al-tazkir, which is the reminder) which is the one people know about, not Warsh.
From my study, the fault lies in ignorance...Not in the tool itself
I agree that the book is 'kitaaban mutashabihan mathany' (a book with similarities repeating and repeating - 39/23) and therefore there has to be a structure which we can come to rely on. The thing is to find a muhkam (definition) to the structure before we can come to rely on it. (i.e..a see tashbih or similarity).
Just looking at the denial on the exisitence of significant differences between the 10 versions of the Quran (I am not even counting RK's or any other non-Sunni versions floating around out there) shows what type of honesty levels we are dealing with here.
Agreed. We need to be honest with ourselves because we will face Him one day. All I'm saying is, A book like al-qur'aan couldnt have left us clueless about this.
The Scripture is not and never has been God...If we were to remove it entirely from existence then God would continue to exists and would continue to be the King/Lord of the Worlds...People here need to ask if they have made the Scripture as God and forgotton the true Lord of heavens and earth to whom we give all submission and to whom not a leaf falls ecxcept with His knowledge...
Agreed. The thing is, when we go beyond the boundaries of scripture, we will fail to find the truth. This is God's promise. This is what I worry about.
thanks and peace.
-
I see people are still getting sucked into this nonsense. First off, regarding the Tashkent Qur'an, it can never be used as an historical reference as it it was tampered with by Pisareff before it was photgraphed, therefore one can never truly be sure what it was like in it's original state. For references, read Jeffrey. The rest of the article lists variations which I've addressed in another post, no need to rehash them. As for the difference regarding Qalaa and qul, and qalaa not being grammatically correct, that's simply wrong, as qalaa doesnt not solely mean "he said" it also means to proclaim loudly, etc. I still haven't seen anything relating to real mathematics, nor do I see anyone here who would be remotely qualified to conduct a serious mathematical study. Only works published in reputable peer reviewed journals are ever taken seriously. Layth, you said that your dictionary gives the meaning of '?The camel and goat heavy with milk " to the words safa and marwa. I'd love to verify that for myself, and since I live in Nyc, I have access to pretty much every book ever published. What is the name of this Classical Arabic dictionary? God bless, and I hope you're doing great in "Arabia"
-
Peace Layth
Peace Zaltan,
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 ...
I could not help but recall the following verse when reading your statement on this subject
"And from mankind are those who argue regarding God with no knowledge nor guidance nor enlightening Scripture." (22
Not only do you obviously not know this subject,
I do know this subject wery well..well enough not to be duped by your alleged differences..i have carefully read both scripts many many times...and i stay with my statement they have no significant differences....considering both text with or without wowels and dots....of course if one is not nitpicking...
I have read warsh at least 20 times few years ago...and the fact that i cant even recall the differences says it all.....Reading/following both of the book offers the very SAME EXPERIENCE , MESSAGE AND THE ROAD....
All the differences that you have found are but a nitpicking....of course significance is a relative thing( and we may discuss one by one in order to show you that, witha holistic approach, there are almost no differences at all).... but as i have said in the last post under this thread the differences between hafs and warsh amount NOT EVEN to 1% of alternative readings/understandings/translations that offers each of the versions on its own....
The greatest difference between undoted texts ( i admit its not the only one and there are several more of which some ill comment here) is the mentioned huwa He that makes no change in meaning......
The others differences in the consonant`s basis are reffering to the ommiting of the waw/and(or fa/so)... mainly warsh omites waw at the beggening of the sentence....and that doesnt change the meaning at all....not even once.........and waw/and and fa/so are known to be synonyms in arabic as well in english...
You have reported the diffeences in alif at few places....they also do not change the meaning significantly and it may be argued if these alifs belong to the consonant basis or not and if all of the alifs are considered to have been writen in the beggining or not(and were understood)...there is also a d in surplus yartadid or yartadda ... no change in meaning...to conclude the topic.....there is a meem differece in 1836.... from the two gardens or from the gardens make no difference in meaning at all...Not a single case of a significant meaning change....
thinking of?Wa Alaw? vs ?Wa An Law? (7216) and ?Alim Allan? / ?Alim An Lan??(7320) as of a differences is a greatest nitpicking I have ever seen....
Alos and you rush or rush you doesnt make any difference....
here are all the words differences from your article....
272 in Hafs is ?Fadar?tum? / In Warsh it is ?FadarAtum? with an
extra ?Alif?.
2132 in Hafs is ?Waassa? / In Warsh it is ?WaAwsa? with an extra
?Alif?.
2165 in Hafs is ?Yaraa? / In Warsh it is ?Taraa? with a ?Ta? instead of a
?Ya?.
3133 in Hafs is ?Wa Sariu? / In Warsh it is ?Sariu? without the
?Waw?.
553 in Hafs is ?Wa Yaqool? / In Warsh it is
?Yaqool? without the ?Waw?.
554 in Hafs is ?Yartad? / In Warsh it is ?YartadD? with two ?Dals?.9107 in Hafs is ?Wa Alazeena? / In Warsh it is ?Alazeena?
without the ?Waw?.
1836 in Hafs is ?Minha? / In Warsh it is ?MinhuMa? with an addition
of the ?Meem?.
214 in Hafs is ?Qaal? / In Warsh it is ?Qul? without the ?Alif?.
26217 in Hafs is ?Watawakal? / In Warsh its is ?Fatawakal? with
a ?Fa? instead of a ?Waw?.
4026 in Hafs is ?Aw An? / In Warsh it is ?Wa An? without the ?Alif?.
4230 in Hafs is ?Fa Bima? / In Warsh it is ?Bima? without the ?Fa?.
4319 in Hafs is ?Ibaad? / In Warsh it is ?Inda? without the ?Alif? and with
a ?Nwn? instead of the ?Ba?.
4368 in Hafs is ?YaIbad? / In Warsh it is ?YaIbadY? with a
?Ya? at the end.
5724 in Hafs is ?Huwa Alghani? / In Warsh it is
?Alghani? without the ?Huwa?.
7216 in Hafs is ?Wa Alaw? / In Warsh it is
?Wa An Law? with an additional ?Nwn?.
7320 in Hafs is ?Alim Allan? / In Warsh it is ?Alim An Lan?
with a letter ?Nwn?.
9115 in Hafs is ?Wa La? / In Warsh itand all of them together, and each on its own, with or without other possible diferences, even when multiplied 19 times by 19, do not amount to 1% of your distortion of the message which you have done based on your utterly subjective and perverted explanations, translations and interpretations of the book....
bets wishes
-
I see people are still getting sucked into this nonsense. First off, regarding the Tashkent Qur'an, it can never be used as an historical reference as it it was tampered with by Pisareff before it was photgraphed, therefore one can never truly be sure what it was like in it's original state.
good comment.... I have some copies of the book with many pages tore up( my kids) does it mean the scripture is tampered with?
I have some copies in my house on which i have experimented and added a lot of content and I even added false verses such as there is no god but Muhamad... and if some unknown future researcher, a few ceturies later, after my departure, find these copies under the ruines of my house what would it mean?
best wishes
-
Salaam Alaikum,
M Quran, Zlatan, Cathedral thanks for the very informative nice posts. I have no knowledge about the subject so can't give my opinion.
What is Hafs or Warsh version?
I don't want to know because the Qur'an the message is uncorrupted unchanged because its the promise of God Almighty.
I am censoring myself here on what Layth said about
If we were to remove it entirely from existence then God would continue to exists and would continue to be the King/Lord of the Worlds...People here need to ask if they have made the Scripture as God and forgotton the true Lord of heavens and earth to whom we give all submission and to whom not a leaf falls ecxcept with His knowledge...
because my blunt response which ofcouse is against cult 19 will cause more furry. -
Salaamun alaikum,
Cathedral I see people are still getting sucked into this nonsense. First off, regarding the Tashkent Qur'an, it can never be used as an historical reference as it it was tampered with by Pisareff before it was photgraphed, therefore one can never truly be sure what it was like in it's original state
Agreed, Allah has protected az-zikr (the one in eminence). That's why, no matter how many manuscripts you find in some Yemeni mosque or what have you, it will not change the one commonly known to people. Rashad Khalifa tried to propagate his Quran (minus 9/128-129) but it failed. Why ? Because the one in eminence is perfectly clear.
KGB What is Hafs or Warsh version?
Please read 'which quran' article in free-minds (look at 'whats new' section)
Zlatan I have some copies in my house on which i have experimented and added a lot of content and I even added false verses such as there is no god but Muhamad... and if some unknown future researcher, a few ceturies later, after my departure, find these copies under the ruines of my house what would it mean?
lol, I will write a letter to my descendants in the future , warning them of your evil plan...hahahaha.
thanks and peace.
-
Nature, Existence and creation....All these combines as real Quran. Because we all can read those things..which give us knowledge and evidence. These are something that cant be changed no matter how hard we try. Its the Natural Law.
peace
-
As for the difference regarding Qalaa and qul, and qalaa not being grammatically correct, that's simply wrong, as qalaa doesnt not solely mean "he said" it also means to proclaim loudly, etc.
This is one of the greatest Laths arguments of significant differences...and this very well mirrors his incorect and narrow approach to the book...namely study of the sentences in isolation! ...he is well known of basing a whole doctrine on the sightest allusions of the single verse of the text....having this in mind of course that each letter make a universe difference to him ...instead the doctrines should be based only on what is clear, precise, decisive and repeated/confirmed throughout the book...this is the correct methodology for obtaining the real message...
And true when one study the word in isolation he might think its a great difference if it is said "say"(order) or "he said"(a fact).....
however, when studied in the context of the verse and particualarly in the context/light of the book as a whole it absolutely doesnt change a thing if all the previous messengers that were possibly spoken of in the verse have said the words below or it was the muhamad himself who is ordered to say these words....or he previously have said the words so now the god has quoted them
He said( or say)
"My Lord knows what is said in the heavens and in the Earth, and He is the Hearer, the Knower." 214
it absolutely make no difference see the whole passage at the begening of chapter 21
we made no difference between the messengers and there is a lesson for us in all of them....or in whatever they have said...and the message was always the same
best wishes
p.s. in other post Ill analyse the next great differece (2125)and youll see its also is not an issue if we have a correct approach and are not being nitpicky.....
-
Layth wrote in his article
there are significant differences which cannot simply
be waived away or ignored?
For example
2125 in Hafs is ?WatakhIzu? (You shall take) / In Warsh it is
?WatakhAzu? (They have taken/made).
In 2125 the subject being addressed is that of ?Maqam Ibrahim?. One version gives a
command/order, while the other states a historical fact/observation.If we have a holistical approach we simply cant make the mistake whichever of the reading we choose to folow....
throughout of the book no matter which version you read Abraham is described as a great example and a paradigm to follow or immitate...( we also have mention of those with him as an example to follow)
Do we understand the verse as order to took from the Abrahams stance/place way/attitude of serving(musalla) or that the people in the past have done so makes absolutely no difference....
we are anyway to follow his course, way or example....and thats all!
The main point is, no big or significant or specil special injuction could be extracted from any single verse or any verse of the book treated in isolation from the rest of the book and thus any reading and even the extreme ones will be rectified and dissolved by other parts of the book....
we have seen the obey the messenger case ....
When studied in isolation, could there be any more explicit proof to the Hadith and Sunna theory? hardly....but the verses or sayings of the book are simply not meant to be studied in isolation but as a new whole that is greater and quantitatively and qualitatively different from the simple compliation of them all or when studied separately
best wishes
