Which is the Real Quran?
-
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 First off, regarding the Tashkent Qur'an, it can never be used as an historical reference as it it was tampered with by Pisareff before it was photgraphed, therefore one can never truly be sure what it was like in it's original state.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
-
Peace
3146 in Hafs is tGs% ?Qatal? (Fought) / In Warsh it is ?Qutil? (Were Killed).
In 3146 the difference is between a prophet and those with him being killed, while in the
other the difference only means that they fought by his side.heres an another insignificant difference that Layth in his narrow, unholistic, partial and isolationistic approach to the book consider significant
3146 "And many prophets had a large number of devotees fighting(or being killed) with them. They did not waver by what afflicted them in the cause of God, nor did they become weak, nor did they become discouraged; and God loves the patient ones." FM
Were they fighting or they have been killed on the Gods path doesnt matter at all....what maters is that they did not wawer upon aflictions nor become weak nor discouraged in the path of The God...
p.s. At the end of the day, and as a matter of fact, both are facts, regardless of how do we read the verse....many were fighting and many were killed as well....
best wishes
Zlatan
-
Salaamun alaikum Zlatan,
p.s. At the end of the day, and as a matter of fact, both are facts, regardless of how do we read the verse....many were fighting and many were killed as well....
Sorry, but if I was reading sun tzu's the art of war, then yeah I can say any rendition would be ok. But this ALLAH'S BOOK, so the active and passive voice must have a difference. If not, then we must be the same as sunnis because until now, they do not give the book of Allah the place it deserves.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace brothers MQ, Zlatan, Layth, all,
Sorry, but if I was reading sun tzu's the art of war, then yeah I can say any rendition would be ok. But this ALLAH'S BOOK, so the active and passive voice must have a difference. If not, then we must be the same as sunnis because until now, they do not give the book of Allah the place it deserves.
The differences in vocalization marks such as the one in 3146 are normal because vocalization marks were added to the text hundreds of years after the fact. Hence, they reflect human interpretation of the text. In the case of 3146 someone interpreted the word QTL as "fighting/killing" and someone else interpreted it as "being killed". Surely, as you noted, there is a difference in those interpretations but this difference will not be resolved by some "miraculous code".
Before anyone starts panicking, please consider how ALL the many thousands (if not millions) of differences in interpretation are resolved. They are resolved using CONTEXT. This is true for the great reading as well as any mundane Arabic text such as your Arabic newspapers, books, and manuscripts which don't have vocalization marks at all. This is also true in all languages and even English has many ambiguities that people try to resolve using context.
If we look at the context from 3143-145, we would see that "death" is the prevailing theme. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that "QuTiL" (were killed) is more correct. If one looks at 3146 in isolation then "QaTaL" (fought/killed) seems to fit better. Either way, I am sure that no one is going to hell because they misinterpreted "QTL" in 3146. Again, WITH or WITHOUT differences in vocalization marks people will CERTAINLY have different interpretations of the text so there is no need to get dramatic and make speeches about "not giving the book of Allah the place it deserves".
Brother Layth was the first one to open my eyes to the above facts when several years ago he noticed the errors in the vocalization marks in the beginning of Chapter 30, which were totally out of sync with the context, this despite 7afs and Warsh versions being in agreement. For some unknown reason he has forsaken this common sense intelligent approach and instead now he seems content with sinking deeper into the counting 19 obsession.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman, all,
AymanThe differences in vocalization marks such as the one in 3146 are normal because vocalization marks were added to the text hundreds of years after the fact. Hence, they reflect human interpretation of the text. In the case of 3146 someone interpreted the word QTL as "fighting/killing" and someone else interpreted it as "being killed". Surely, as you noted, there is a difference in those interpretations but this difference will not be resolved by some "miraculous code".
Hundreds of years ? Well Ayman, I'm afraid I don't know any such thing. All I know is, I have a book called 'al-qur'aan' and it has the i'raab, that's all.
Also, I never implied any code nor am I a supporter of any code doctrine.
If we look at the context from 3143-145, we would see that "death" is the prevailing theme. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that "QuTiL" (were killed) is more correct. If one looks at 3146 in isolation then "QaTaL" (fought/killed) seems to fit better. Either way, I am sure that no one is going to hell because they misinterpreted "QTL" in 3146. Again, WITH or WITHOUT differences in vocalization marks people will CERTAINLY have different interpretations of the text so there is no need to get dramatic and make speeches about "not giving the book of Allah the place it deserves".
I don't think ppl go to hell unless thier heart's in the wrong place and I agree, even if we agree on one 'version', there's still be interpretational differences. That wasn't my point. My point is, I look to the book to tell me if it is itself. I don't depend on history and extra-quranic criterias. I don't think this is being dramatic.
Brother Layth was the first one to open my eyes to the above facts when several years ago he noticed the errors in the vocalization marks in the beginning of Chapter 30, which were totally out of sync with the context, this despite 7afs and Warsh versions being in agreement. For some unknown reason he has forsaken this common sense intelligent approach and instead now he seems content with sinking deeper into the counting 19 obsession.
Yes, so in other words, you and Layth are telling the book that IT is out of sync with (your interpretation of) the story. I'm sorry but I cannot do that because I believe that you are relying upon traditional sources in order to attain your understanding of 'the context'.
i hope you take my disagreement in the right spirit of discussion. I am certainly grateful for your input.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace brother MQ, all,
Hundreds of years ? Well Ayman, I'm afraid I don't know any such thing. All I know is, I have a book called 'al-qur'aan' and it has the i'raab, that's all.
There are several places where I'raab doesn't fit the context. Therefore the I'raab must be wrong.
Also, I never implied any code nor am I a supporter of any code doctrine.
Understood, my comment was more of a general comment based on the theme of the article that this thread is about.
I don't think ppl go to hell unless thier heart's in the wrong place and I agree, even if we agree on one 'version', there's still be interpretational differences. That wasn't my point. My point is, I look to the book to tell me if it is itself. I don't depend on history and extra-quranic criterias. I don't think this is being dramatic.
Agreed. So please apply this approach to have the book tell you about its own I'raab.
Yes, so in other words, you and Layth are telling the book that IT is out of sync with (your interpretation of) the story. I'm sorry but I cannot do that because I believe that you are relying upon traditional sources in order to attain your understanding of 'the context'.
We are not relying on the traditional stories. In fact, the traditional stories totally agree with the I'raab.
We are relying on the internal evidence from the book. The beginning of Chapter 30 mentions two entities, the Romans (who are trinitarians) and those who had faith. There is nothing in the chapter about Persians as traditional stories contend. It is The God's law that those who have faith will eventually be victorious over the rejecters. Why would those who have faith be happy for a victory by those who are rejecters/"kafirun"? Thus, based on The God's law and the clear context in Chapter 30 and evidence from the great reading describing the Trinitarians as rejecters/"kuffar", the "tashkeel" added to the original Arabic words must be off.
So here we have an example where the "tashkeel" clearly contradicts the context and common sense. It is not surprising then that amazing hearsay stories have been manufactured to justify such illogical interpretation of chapter 30. Those are the traditional stories you refer to.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
There are several places where I'raab doesn't fit the context. Therefore the I'raab must be wrong.
To me, the i'raab doesn't fit YOUR INTERPRETATION of the context. 'fitting the context' is a meaningless verb without the fitter. In this case, the fitter is you and not al-furqaan.
Agreed. So please apply this approach to have the book tell you about its own I'raab.
I already am. i'm not dissatisfied with the i'raab.
We are not relying on the traditional stories. In fact, the traditional stories totally agree with the I'raab.
We are relying on the internal evidence from the book. The beginning of Chapter 30 mentions two entities, the Romans (who are trinitarians) and those who had faith. There is nothing in the chapter about Persians as traditional stories contend. It is The God's law that those who have faith will eventually be victorious over the rejecters. Thus, based on The God's law and the clear context in Chapter 30 and evidence from the great reading describing the Trinitarians as rejecters/"kuffar", the "tashkeel" added to the original Arabic words must be off.
So here we have an example where the "tashkeel" clearly contradicts the context and common sense. It is not surprising then that amazing hearsay stories have been manufactured to justify such illogical interpretation of chapter 30. Those are the traditional stories you refer to.
Internal evidence ?
-
where in the book does it say 'ar-rum' are 'kuffar' ?
-
where in the book does it say 'ar-rum' are trinitarians ?
thanks and peace.
-
-
Peace brother MQ,
We are not relying on the traditional stories. In fact, the traditional stories totally agree with the I'raab.
We are relying on the internal evidence from the book. The beginning of Chapter 30 mentions two entities, the Romans (who are trinitarians) and those who had faith. There is nothing in the chapter about Persians as traditional stories contend. It is The God's law that those who have faith will eventually be victorious over the rejecters. Thus, based on The God's law and the clear context in Chapter 30 and evidence from the great reading describing the Trinitarians as rejecters/"kuffar", the "tashkeel" added to the original Arabic words must be off.
So here we have an example where the "tashkeel" clearly contradicts the context and common sense. It is not surprising then that amazing hearsay stories have been manufactured to justify such illogical interpretation of chapter 30. Those are the traditional stories you refer to.
Internal evidence ?
-
where in the book does it say 'ar-rum' are 'kuffar' ?
-
where in the book does it say 'ar-rum' are trinitarians ?
One could go on with such questions
Where in the book does it say that 'ar-rum' are the Romans?
If you take 'ar-rum' to be the Romans then your questions are pointless because they were Trinitarians and continue to be so until this day. Hence, TODAY we have the ROMAN Catholic and Orthodox churches. Trinitarians are "kuffar" BY DEFINITION (see 573).
If you take 'ar-rum' to be not the Romans then your questions are fine. But then you need to first provide an alternative better interpretation of what 'ar-rum' means.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
Where in the book does it say that 'ar-rum' are the Romans?
It doesn't. That's why I keep using the term 'ar-rum' and not 'romans'.
If you take 'ar-rum' to be not the Romans then your questions are fine. But then you need to first provide an alternative better interpretation of what 'ar-rum' means.
Why do I 'need to first provide' anything ? If 'ar-rum = romans' doesn't work, would my not being able to provide an alternative make it work somehow ? In my understanding, any meaning derived from a historical event isn't valid because one would be simply opening a pandora's box of confusion by looking into history. I have not found an alternative meaning for ar-rum but Allah has told us not to rush and to continue to seek information.
If you take 'ar-rum' to be the Romans then your questions are pointless because they were Trinitarians and continue to be so until this day. Hence, TODAY we have the ROMAN Catholic and Orthodox churches. Trinitarians are "kuffar" BY DEFINITION (see 573).
Firstly, you know they were romans only from history. Secondly, you know romans were trinitarians only from history. Thirdly, you know 'roman catholics' are related to the romans also through history.
Well, I'm sorry but this doesn't make your evidence 'from the book'. It makes your evidence 'from history'. Furthermore, you have taken 'historical events' and used it to tell the book what it says. Im afraid I cannot venture into that field. However, I wish you all the best in finding the truth and I'm sure you'll wish me the same.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace MQ,
It doesn't. That's why I keep using the term 'ar-rum' and not 'romans'.
Yes and it doesn't say that "yahood" are the Jews either.
If you take 'ar-rum' to be not the Romans then your questions are fine. But then you need to first provide an alternative better interpretation of what 'ar-rum' means.
Why do I 'need to first provide' anything ? If 'ar-rum = romans' doesn't work, would my not being able to provide an alternative make it work somehow ? In my understanding, any meaning derived from a historical event isn't valid because one would be simply opening a pandora's box of confusion by looking into history. I have not found an alternative meaning for ar-rum but Allah has told us not to rush and to continue to seek information.
Right now that 'ar-rum = romans' is the best available information we have and it is confirmed and verified by physical evidence (not history as you claim). I am sure that you know all the signs in the great reading that tell us that we are required to go to the best.
Thus, we should always strive for better understanding, but until a better understanding is reached, we should have the best available understanding. What you are suggesting is to have no understanding at all. This goes against the basic tenets of the book. To you the chapter might as well be saying "the bla-bla-bla were defeated or defeated".
If you take 'ar-rum' to be the Romans then your questions are pointless because they were Trinitarians and continue to be so until this day. Hence, TODAY we have the ROMAN Catholic and Orthodox churches. Trinitarians are "kuffar" BY DEFINITION (see 573).
Firstly, you know they were romans only from history.
No. I know that they were the romans in the same way that I know the meaning of many words in the great reading, from verifying Arabic dictionaries against the context in the great reading and from physical evidence that I can verify for myself (see 1736).
How do you know that Yahood are the Jews? How do you know that "ghalab" means "defeat"?
When you think of it, we really aren't 100% sure about any of the above. But we follow the best available information and we verify it for ourselves. The God gave us our minds so that we discern the best available information. Thus, we know the above beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are implying that having no understanding is better than seeking the best understanding.
Secondly, you know romans were trinitarians only from history. Thirdly, you know 'roman catholics' are related to the romans also through history.
No. I know it from the PHYSICAL evidence they left in the land that I can verify with my own eyes and mind (see 1736). For example, their old churches, etc. You don't seem to know the difference between physical evidence and history (hearsay).
We are encouraged by the great reading to examine the physical traces of those who came before us (see 4021, 4082, etc.).
On the other hand, you are implying that we should be blind to those evidences. Again, this goes against the basic tenets of the book.
Well, I'm sorry but this doesn't make your evidence 'from the book'. It makes your evidence 'from history'. Furthermore, you have taken 'historical events' and used it to tell the book what it says. Im afraid I cannot venture into that field. However, I wish you all the best in finding the truth and I'm sure you'll wish me the same.
My evidence is not from history/hearsay. It is from the book and from verification of physical evidence with my God-given mind and eyes.
I totally agree with you that history is wrong and subjective. I am not talking about history nor relying on it. I encourage you to stay away from history and venture into the field of verifying physical evidence and the information in the book with your God-given faculties, otherwise there is no chance for you to achieve a better understanding and "ar-rum" and many other concepts in the book will always mean nothing to you like "bla-bla-bla" and there is no chance for improvement.I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
Yes and it doesn't say that "yahood" are the Jews either.
Yeah, that's why I don't think they're Jews. Or are you giving a general reminder to us all again
Right now that 'ar-rum = romans' is the best available information we have and it is confirmed and verified by physical evidence (not history as you claim). I am sure that you know all the signs in the great reading that tell us that we are required to go to the best.
Can you please link your 'physical evidence' to textual evidence in al-qur'aan ? I can't seem to find it.
Thus, we should always strive for better understanding, but until a better understanding is reached, we should have the best available understanding. What you are suggesting is to have no understanding at all. This goes against the basic tenets of the book. To you the chapter might as well be saying "the bla-bla-bla were defeated or defeated".
How is this 'best available' ? You are basically telling al-qur'aan what to say based on your interpretation of 'physical evidence' ?
No. I know that they were the romans in the same way that I know the meaning of many words in the great reading, from verifying Arabic dictionaries against the context in the great reading and from physical evidence that I can verify for myself (see 1736).
How do you know that Yahood are the Jews? How do you know that "ghalab" means "defeat"?
Refer to above for 'jews'. As for 'ghalab', I refer back to al-qur'aan which tells us that it is in 'lisanun arabiyun mubin'. I then verify it according to context and back into my nafs.
You are implying that having no understanding is better than seeking the best understanding
Not 'the best', 'YOUR best'. I'm afraid this isn't MY best.
No. I know it from the PHYSICAL evidence they left in the land that I can verify with my own eyes and mind (see 1736). For example, their old churches, etc. You don't seem to know the difference between physical evidence and history (hearsay).
We are encouraged by the great reading to examine the physical traces of those who came before us (see 4021, 4082, etc.).
On the other hand, you are implying that we should be blind to those evidences. Again, this goes against the basic tenets of the book.
Please quote the verses correctly ). Neither of those 2 verses tells you that it's an interpretational tool for al-qur'aan. Instead, they're telling you to see their traces which shows that even great civilisations come to an end. Simply because there are churches in a certain location, does that automatically link 'romans' with sura 30 ? Does sura 30 give you a location ?
In the end, our differences boils down to epistemology. You're not taking physical evidence. You're interpreting physical evidence. In my opinion, this is no different from Christians finding pieces of wood and claiming its the calvary cross! I would rather stick to what I consider the Quranic method.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace MQ,
Can you please link your 'physical evidence' to textual evidence in al-qur'aan ? I can't seem to find it.
Much of the book is addressed and talks about the people of the book, people who idolize Jesus (trinitarians), and Jews. The great reading speaks critically of those people. Hence, normally some of them would have been enemies of those who have faith and conflicts would have resulted.
How is this 'best available' ? You are basically telling al-qur'aan what to say based on your interpretation of 'physical evidence' ?
Even some understanding of "ar-rum" is certainly better than your no understanding of "ar-rum". If you disagree then please tell us your understanding of what "ar-rum" means and why they can't be the romans.
As for 'ghalab', I refer back to al-qur'aan which tells us that it is in 'lisanun arabiyun mubin'.
How do you know that "arabiyun" means this language codified and named Classical Arabic?
The Arabic meaning of the word "ar-rum" is romans and you can check that in ALL Arabic dictionaries. So according to your own criteria, "ar-rum" means romans.
I then verify it according to context and back into my nafs.
You can't know the context except through reading in 'lisanun arabiyun mubin', which as we saw in Arabic "ar-rum" means romans exactly like "ghalab" means defeat. So instead of criticizing please tell us what "ar-rum" means from the context.
As for verifying back into your "nafs" that is what everybody does. At the end, our selves are responsible for our understanding.
Not 'the best', 'YOUR best'. I'm afraid this isn't MY best.
ANY understanding is better than no understanding. anyone can criticise endlessly, but useful criticism comes with a better alternative. You refuse to tell us what you think "ar-rum" means.
Please quote the verses correctly ). Neither of those 2 verses tells you that it's an interpretational tool for al-qur'aan. Instead, they're telling you to see their traces which shows that even great civilisations come to an end. Simply because there are churches in a certain location, does that automatically link 'romans' with sura 30 ? Does sura 30 give you a location?
All we need to link "romans" to chapter 30 is the word "ar-rum", which in "lisan 3arabi mubin" means romans.
Now if you want to argue that the romans were not trinitarians then this is a different matter. All I can tell you is to obey signs such as 4081-85 and see the traces left by the romans and decide for yourself if they were trinitarians or monotheists. This is better than making no effort and instead being content with just criticising.
In the end, our differences boils down to epistemology. You're not taking physical evidence. You're interpreting physical evidence. In my opinion, this is no different from Christians finding pieces of wood and claiming its the calvary cross! I would rather stick to what I consider the Quranic method.
The physical evidence that romans were trinitarians is conclusive and not subject to interpretations. Just go to any of the traces that they left in the land and see for yourself as we are commanded in the great reading.
As for the great reading's method, it is based on continuous betterment of our understanding. The "quranic" method doesn't tell us to endlessly criticise while making no effort to bring a better understanding. Hence, I encourage you to bring forth a better interpretation of "ar-rum" than "romans". If you do then I am all for changing my mind as I have done many times before. For now, "ar-rum" understanding as "romans" is at least better than your ZERO understanding of what "ar-rum" means.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
Before I proceed, I'd like to remind us again of the purpose of this discussion which is, whether or not the i'raab is divinely ordained. Let me just point out that without the i'raab, you can either read it 'the romans were defeated' or 'the romans defeated (another party)'. These are two diametrically opposed outcomes. Since al-qur'aan is 'bayyinat min al-huda', clarification from the guidance' (2/185), I cannot possibly agree with your thinking.
Let me set an analogy for you. Lets take an equation =
20 + x + y + z + ..... = 100
Let 20 = 'quranic text'.
What you're saying is, '20 isnt 20 but could be something else'. So '20' becomes a variable.
Lets see what other variables you have there
-
that ar-rum are romans.
-
that romans are trinitarians
-
that the 'physical evidence' of churches geographically corresponds to the geography of sura 30 (which btw, mentions no place name).
-
that the word is 'ghalibat' instead of 'ghulibat' (this is a variable as well, because it depends on the 3 variables above).
you wroteMuch of the book is addressed and talks about the people of the book, people who idolize Jesus (trinitarians), and Jews. The great reading speaks critically of those people. Hence, normally some of them would have been enemies of those who have faith and conflicts would have resulted.
Agreed. But there is nowhere in al-qur'aan which states that ar-rum are trinitarians. You have 2 variables here, one which assumes the word is ghalibat and 2, that ar-rum are romans.
Even some understanding of "ar-rum" is certainly better than your no understanding of "ar-rum". If you disagree then please tell us your understanding of what "ar-rum" means and why they can't be the romans.
Your conclusion is wrong by my reading. I don't have a conclusion of my own yet and will wait for Allah to guide me on the matter. But that doesn't make your conclusion right.
How do you know that "arabiyun" means this language codified and named Classical Arabic?
The Arabic meaning of the word "ar-rum" is romans and you can check that in ALL Arabic dictionaries. So according to your own criteria, "ar-rum" means romans.
Well, some people say the Quran is of some syriac language as well. I don't buy this at all.
To me, the matter is simple. We use the communication system and apply it to the book. The proof then is the 'haqqness' of the result, i.e. how far the result matches real events (41/53). To me, matching ar-rum to romans isn't 'signs in horizons' , actual happening events. And for you to say 'physical evidence' is unacceptable to me because its laden with interpretational gaps. Sura 30 mentions NO absolute location.
You can't know the context except through reading in 'lisanun arabiyun mubin', which as we saw in Arabic "ar-rum" means romans exactly like "ghalab" means defeat. So instead of criticizing please tell us what "ar-rum" means from the context.
Are you saying that unless I have an answer of my own, your is automatically valid? Rather funny criteria of truth, if I may say so )
As for verifying back into your "nafs" that is what everybody does. At the end, our selves are responsible for our understanding
Well, that's why I wished you peace. This discussion will not reach a concilation because we ascribe to different epistemologies.
All we need to link "romans" to chapter 30 is the word "ar-rum", which in "lisan 3arabi mubin" means romans.
Tell me, would you accept that 'makkah' and 'bakkah' is the sunni city in saudi arabia where billions of sunnis have been for 'hajj' ? Lisanun arabiyun mubiin (which you claim comes from dictionaries) say so.
Now if you want to argue that the romans were not trinitarians then this is a different matter. All I can tell you is to obey signs such as 4081-85 and see the traces left by the romans and decide for yourself if they were trinitarians or monotheists. This is better than making no effort and instead being content with just criticising.
Is that what the verse says ? Go look at them and figure out if they were trinitarians or monothiests ? I dont think so ) The verse asked us to consider thier end, not their religion. This is all interpretation of signs, not signs itself.
The physical evidence that romans were trinitarians is conclusive and not subject to interpretations. Just go to any of the traces that they left in the land and see for yourself as we are commanded in the great reading.
'not subject to interpretations'....where have I heard that kind of phraseology before? Are you going to report me to the quranic-archeological council or something D
As for the great reading's method, it is based on continuous betterment of our understanding. The "quranic" method doesn't tell us to endlessly criticise while making no effort to bring a better understanding. Hence, I encourage you to bring forth a better interpretation of "ar-rum" than "romans". If you do then I am all for changing my mind as I have done many times before. For now, "ar-rum" understanding as "romans" is at least better than your ZERO understanding of what "ar-rum" means.
While making no effort ? That's funny, I don't recall telling you I've made no effort. If you think a shaky understanding is better than none, then I wish you peace and hope your application of the ayat will bring you benefit ).
thank you for a most stimulating discussion.
-