Which is the Real Quran?
-
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.
-
-
Peace MQ,
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)'.
Excuse me my intrusion, I'd like to know How do you read the sentence above according al-i3rab?
- were defeated
or - defeated (another party)
Thanks in advance.
- were defeated
-
Peace MQ,
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.
First, you don't seem to understand what i3rab is or its purpose. You are confusing the very basics of i3rab and vocalization marks. One can do i3rab without vocalization marks, hence for example, you can have mu'mnun and mu'mnin, which take the correct i3rab without any vocalization marks.
Your inability to figure out who "defeated" or "was defeated" without the interpretive device of vocalization marks is rooted in your lack of understanding of the term "ar-rum" which is the main subject of the verses and thus provides the CONTEXT. Hence, unable to understand the CONTEXT, you have to rely on the vocalization marks.
On the other hand, people who know the CONTEXT can easily figure the meaning from the CONTEXT without ANY need for vocalization marks. You seem unaware of the fact that the vast majority of Arabic (and Classical Arabic) texts are WITHOUT vocalization marks, yet we are able to EASILY read them and deduce who "did something" or "got something done to him" from the CONTEXT.
You need the vocalization marks because you don't know what "ar-rum" are and hence you don't know the context. Otherwise, the context makes it pretty clear that those who had faith were happy for the defeat of the romans.
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.
False analogy. We are only talking about TWO alternative interpretations.
Lets see what other variables you have there
- that ar-rum are romans.
This is not a variable. This is a value assigned to "ar-rum". You on the other hand, did not assign any value to "ar-rum" so "ar-rum" is a variable for you but not for me. For you it is as if "ar-rum" = x.
- that romans are trinitarians
That romans are trinitarians is verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt using our eyes and mind as The God ordered us (see 1736). On the other hand, you have not provided any evidence that "ar-rum" are not the romans.
- that the 'physical evidence' of churches geographically corresponds to the geography of sura 30 (which btw, mentions no place name).
This has nothing to do with geography. Romans everywhere were trinitarians. This became their official STATE religion after the Nicene.
- that the word is 'ghalibat' instead of 'ghulibat' (this is a variable as well, because it depends on the 3 variables above).
No it depends on the context. You can call it a binary variable because it can only take two values. The context is given by the word "ar-rum". Since, you don't understand "ar-rum", you naturally can't figure out the context and thus are forced to rely on the vocalization marks.
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.
If the "ar-rum" are romans then this provides the context for everything else.
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.
It is your right to reject or accept anything you want. I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here to disspel the myth that vocalization marks are divine inspiration for the readers of this forum. Your inability to make a conclusion despite having faith that vocalization marks are divine proves my point.
In this case, I was able to make a conclusion without vocalization marks based on the "'bayyinat min al-huda', clarification from the guidance' (2/185)", while you were not "guided" to a conclusion. The obstacle is that you take vocalization marks to be divine.
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.
This doesn't answer the question.
How do you know that "arabiyun" means this language codified and named Classical Arabic?
How do you know the right "communication system"?
Do signs in the horizons (outside us) cannot be physical signs?
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 )
No, I am saying that without vocalization marks, I was able to get an answer while you are stuck despite having absolute faith in the vocalization marks. This proves that vocalization marks are not part of the "'bayyinat min al-huda', clarification from the guidance' (2/185)". Remember what you said, this discussion is not about "ar-rum". It is about vocalization marks.
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.
It may not reach a conciliation but at least I demonstrated that the vocalization marks are irrelevant as far as reaching a conclusion about the meaning and CONTEXT is all that matters.
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.
No.
Arabic dictionaries say that "makkah" primarily means "destruction/wearing down". This common noun fits the context of 4824.
- And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
On the other hand, you just created a problem for yourself because if you look at "makkah" in 4824 you will see that it is "makkatA" with a "fat-ha" when it should have taken a "kasra". According to rules of i3rab, the "fat-ha" is used instead of kasra in the case of proper names of places. Thus the vocalization marks that you have faith in actually CONFIRM the falsehood that 'makkah' "is the sunni city in saudi arabia where billions of sunnis have been for 'hajj'".
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.
If you read carefully, you will see that the signs tell us to consider the end of the REJECTERS who only have faith when they see the end coming. Turn the page and read also a little further in Chapter 30 (309-10) and see that it is not a coincidence that those signs come RIGHT AFTER the signs about "ar-rum". The God knew that you and I would be having this discussion. 309 will help you understand who "ar-rum" are and understand the CONTEXT.
'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
You don't have to listen to me and you are free to make fun, but please read a little further and listen to 309 to figure out who "ar-rum" are.
While making no effort ? That's funny, I don't recall telling you I've made no effort.
Actions speak louder than words.
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 ).
A shaky understanding is at least a start that has a chance of improvement. To use your mathematical analogy, an improvement of 1% on something is a little but is better than a 100% improvement on zero, which is still zero.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
mquran wrote
While making no effort ? That's funny, I don't recall telling you I've made no effort.Ayman
Actions speak louder than words.So because I don't want to share my understanding, its considered I've not done any work on the subject? No wonder you think ar-rum are romans
I must say, I never had you pegged for ad homoniem attacks , Ayman Soon you'll start telling me my diet is the reason I cannot see what you see. You're already telling me its conclusive and there's no room for interpretation.
The above is a sign that the discussion will continue to be fruitless. I pray you find peace following the action which follow your understanding. There is no point attempting to concile because we use different criterias.
This is the last you'll hear from me on the subject.
peace be upon you.
-
The verse numbering etc. is really just a man-made tool to make easy reference to a text. This has gone on for ages. There really is nothing 'divine' about verse and chapter numbering at all, why would there be? If anyone still sticks to this submission.org theory that numbers have some mystical signficance then you really are reading too much into that.
The bsm-allah is also found in early Arab codices as preliminaries to portions of Biblical texts too. There is a copy of this online if anyone wishes to see it - the book of Hebrews begins with the bsm-allah. It is not numbered. It is just a prologue to the reading of the portion thereafter.
Remember that the earliest copies of alkoran are very likely to have been unvowelled. This is because vocalizations at that early stage in Semetic languages were not used. The differences that Layth (Lion) points to between hafs and warsh are mainly to do with different vowelling, but this was not relevant in early Arabic which resembled Aramaic.
Take a look at my avatar on the left there. shock It is in Aramaic and most likely the early Arabic script developed from this.
Can you make out what it says? roll
-
Peace all
heres something interesting that might be related to the topic
The paomnnehil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. >The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Perety amzanig huh?
copy and paste from
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30525&highlight=#30525
-
Salaamun alaikum Zlatan, all.
To me, if the Quran spells something differently, there's a reason for it. If it changes syntax, there's a reason for it. Even the arrangement of the suras itself has an arrangement.
If what is important is only the 'overall' message, then suras 103 and 112 is enough. God is one, believe in Him and do good. Al-Qur'aan however details the entire existence and process of humankind. And as such, its power of language is to be taken seriously, not approximately. Sunnis have been very approximate in thier use of the Quran and look whats happened to them.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace,
My question is in relation to the divergent total count of 6214 verses officially vs. the actual count of 6213 which you stated for the Warsh version. Where is the actual discrepancy?
The reason I ask is that 6213 is a multiple of 19 by itself without addition of any basmalahs. It would be interesting to know where and why there is such a discrepancy of one.
I received a responce from them as follows
Dear brother Layth,
Wa alaykum ssalam wa rahmatullah
What you mentioned in your letter, beign the result of your manual counting of the verses of the Glorious Quran (Warsh recitation) is correct. However, the statement at the back of the edition you referred to is, likewise, faultless. We would like to refer you to the same report of the Academic Committee (Page b) which states unequivocally that the verse number nine of Surat al-Mulk ends with word "Kabir" and not the word "nadhir" occuring in a preceding sentence. This makes the total number of verses in surat al-Mulk thirty, but would have been thirty one, had the verse been made to end with the first senence in it. Putting the number at thrity as the Committee has righlty done is in line with a Prophetic hadith wherein the Messenger of Allah (salallahu alai wa ssalam said, "There is a chapter in the Qur'an consisting of thirty verses, which intercedes for its reciter, until he is forgiven. i.e. Tabaraka ladhi bi yadihi l mulk .."
Based on this, the total number of the verses will be, as you have mentioned, 6213. However, the other opinion making the number 6214 , as held by some scholars, cannot be totally ruled out.Academic Affairs Dept.
King Fahd Qur'an Printing Complex,
P.O.Box 6262
Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Tel. +966-4-8615600
Email [email protected]
www.qurancomplex.org -
Hafs,warsh,etc are all one Qur'an. Anyone who knows anything about the different qiraat would realize this. All have the same surahs, verses in the same order, and the surahs are in the same order. Anyone who knows old Arabic literature will also know it was very common to give the same sermon, verse, etc but modify it slightly. The idea of slightly varying the same material was a major component of old Arabic literature. The question posed is aimed at people who really do not know anything about the textual history of the Qur'an.
Khi- Salam. I think u dont know abt the differences btw hafs n warsh. While most diferences r slight there r some differences which effect the meaning considerably as well n the following article will make this clear 2 u
Is There Really a Difference?
There is a widely prevalent belief that there are no ?real? differences between the two versions of Hafs & Warsh and that they are simply slight vocal variations (a letter here, a letter there) which do not have any impact on the meaning of the Quran. The truth of the matter however is that there are significant differences which cannot simply be waved 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.
3146 in Hafs is ?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.
Verse counts for Hafs are 6236, while Warsh records 6214 (other versions record 6616, 6217, 6204, and 6226).
According to ?Daleel Al-Hayran Fil Kash a?n Ayaay Al-Quran?
Muslims claim to know the time, place, and occasion that each verse was revealed in?Yet between Hafs and Warsh they seem not to know even how many verses were originally revealed!
The question that presents itself is ?Which did Gabriel reveal??
For consistency, and unless otherwise stated, I am comparing between the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Quran as published by the King Fahad Quran Complex in Medina. The measurable differences between the Hafs and Warsh will be classified as follows-
Dots/Vowel Differences.
-
Word/Letter Differences.
-
Verse Count Differences.
I will only deal with the ?significant? differences that are found as a full textual comparison is beyond the scope of this paper. For a full list of the textual and vocal differences, the book ?The 10 Sanctioned Recitations?
provides complete side-by-side comparisons for each Sura/Chapter. AL-Qiraat Al-Ashr Al-Mutawatira, by Sheikh Mohammed Rajih (Published by Dar Al-Mahajir) -
Dots/Vowel Differences.
Although it is debatable as to when the dots and vowel marks were actually utilized, there is a marked differences between the Hafs and Warsh in this area with quite a few ?Y? and ?T? or other dot/vowel changes as can be seen in the examples below
14 in Hafs version is read as ?MaAliki? (Possessor/Owner) / In Warsh it is ?Maliki? (King).
2125 in Hafs is ?WatakhIzu? (You shall take) / In Warsh it is ?WatakhAzu? (They have taken/made).
2140 in Hafs is ?Taquluna? (You Say) / In Warsh it is ?Yaquluna? (They Say).
2259 in Hafs ?NunshiZuh? (We grow them) / In Warsh it is ?NunshiRuha? (We spread them).
381 in Hafs is ?AtayTukum? (I have given) / In Warsh it is ?AtayNakum? (We have given).
3146 in Hafs is ?Qatal? (Fought) / In Warsh it is ?Qutil? (Were Killed). Note that this difference significantly changes the meaning.
696 in Hafs is ?Wa Jaal? (Made) / In Warsh it is ?Wa JaAl? (Makes).
757 in Hafs is ?Bushra? (Good News) / In Warsh it is ?Nushra? (To Disperse). This is also a significant difference.
7144 in Hafs is ?BirisalAti? (My Messages) / In Warsh it is ?Birisalati? (My Message).
937 in Hafs is ?YuDhalu? (Misguided by) / In Warsh it is ?YaDhilu? (Misguide With).
102 in Hafs is ?LasAhir? (Magician) / In Warsh it is ?Lasihr? (Magic).
1033 (also 1096) in Hafs is ?Kalimat? (Word) / In Warsh it is "KalimAt? (Words). -
Word/Letter Differences.
Looking through the two versions, the effects are mostly evident in the letters ?Alif? and ?Waw?, with some of the differences shown as follows
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? (THEY see)/ In Warsh it is ?Taraa? (YOU see) 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? (from it, singular)) / In Warsh it is ?MinhuMa? (from it, plural) with an addition
of the ?Meem?.
214 in Hafs is ?Qaal? (past tense) / In Warsh it is ?Qul? (present tense) 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? (OR according to) / In Warsh it is ?Wa An? (AND according to) without the ?Alif?.
4230 in Hafs is ?Fa Bima? / In Warsh it is ?Bima? without the ?Fa?.
4319 in Hafs is ?Ibaad? (slave) / In Warsh it is ?Inda? (at) without the ?Alif? and with a ?Nwn? instead of the ?Ba?. This is a major difference in meaning.
4368 in Hafs is ?YaIbad? (O servants) / In Warsh it is ?YaIbadY? (O MY servants) 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?.
9115 in Hafs is ?Wa La? / In Warsh it is ?Fa La? with a ?Fa? instead of a ?Waw?. -
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.
The most obvious difference in the verse count occurs in the ?Basmalla? which is treated as a
verse 11 in the Hafs version and where it is unnumbered in the Warsh version.
of 7 27
However, as shown in the table that follows, the location of verses marks varies in a large
number of the Suras/Chapters.
The table shown primarily relies on the verification of the verse count based on the King
Fahad Printing Press in Medina?
The total number of verses according to Hafs is 6236 (not including 112 Basmallas), while
the number of verses according to Warsh is 6214 4 (not including 113 Basmallas).
4 Although the King Fahad Print records a total of 6214 verses in Warsh, it was found that a manual
count of the printed verse stops revealed 6213 verses. A communication has been sent to the Quran
Complex for clarification, but no response has yet been provided.
Number of Verses for Hafs / Warsh
Chapter Hafs Warsh Chapter Hafs Warsh Chapter Hafs Warsh Chapter Hafs Warsh
1 7 7 30 60 59 59 24 24 88 26 26
2 286 285 31 34 33 60 13 13 89 30 32
3 200 200 32 30 30 61 14 14 90 20 20
4 176 175 33 73 73 62 11 11 91 15 15
5 120 122 34 54 54 63 11 11 92 21 21
6 165 167 35 45 46 64 18 18 93 11 11
7 206 206 36 83 82 65 12 12 94 8 8
8 75 76 37 182 182 66 12 12 95 8 8
9 129 130 38 88 86 67 30 30 96 19 20
10 109 109 39 75 72 68 52 52 97 5 5
11 123 121 40 85 84 69 52 52 98 8 8
12 111 111 41 54 53 70 44 44 99 8 9
13 43 44 42 53 50 71 28 30 100 11 11
14 52 54 43 89 89 72 28 28 101 11 10
15 99 99 44 59 56 73 20 18 102 8 8
16 128 128 45 37 36 74 56 55 103 3 3
17 111 110 46 35 34 75 40 39 104 9 9
18 110 105 47 38 39 76 31 31 105 5 5
19 98 99 48 29 29 77 50 50 106 4 5
20 135 134 49 18 18 78 40 40 107 7 6
21 112 111 50 45 45 79 46 45 108 3 3
22 78 76 51 60 60 80 42 42 109 6 6
23 118 119 52 49 47 81 29 29 110 3 3
24 64 62 53 62 61 82 19 19 111 5 5
25 77 77 54 55 55 83 36 36 112 4 4
26 227 226 55 78 77 84 25 25 113 5 5
27 93 95 56 96 99 85 22 22 114 6 6
28 88 88 57 29 28 86 17 17
29 69 69 58 22 21 87 19 19
of 8 27
The difference in verse numbering not only affects the count, but also affects the reading of
the Quran whereby the ?stop? is able to give verses different law properties once they are
made stand alone or merged as in the example that follows
Hafs O you who believe, honour your contracts. Made lawful for you are all the animals of
the livestock, except that which is being recited to you, and what you are not allowed
to hunt of the game while you are under restriction. God decrees as He pleases. (51)
Warsh O you who believe, honour your contracts. (51)
Made lawful for you are all the animals of the livestock, except that which is being
recited to you, and what you are not allowed to hunt of the game while you are under
restriction. God decrees as He pleases. (52)
Which is the Real Quran?
God did not reveal both 6214 verses and 6236 verses (later appearing as verse stops when the
Quran was arranged)?Nor did He reveal both ?He Said? (a fact) and ?Say? (a command) for
verses such as 214.
From all this we can see that while some differences do not really effect the meanings others clearly do. So the differences have to be taken seriously and ONLY one version can be correct. The mathematical coding based on number 19 has shown that this is mostly the hafs version with the exclusion of 9128&129.
" how can you know which one is real? You can only know with the 19 code"
I'm shocked actually that people take this 19 nonsense seriously. There is nothing special about the number 19, nor is there a secret 19 code in the Qur'an. How about this though, just to be sure. I, or any number of people can send the "evidence" of this 19 code to known mathematicians at places like Caltech, mit,harvard,princeton,etc. I realize not all will answer, but some will. Let the real mathematicians decide. Btw Layth, do you have an email address someone can reach you at, besides hotmail?
Khi- Does it still seem like nonsesne 2 u? GOD Bless!
-
