16:15 |
Post Reply | Page <1 34567> |
Author | |
airmano
Senior Member Joined: 31 March 2014 Status: Offline Points: 884 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
@ Saint:
Just have a look at this and that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript Airmano Edited by airmano - 26 May 2016 at 1:02am |
|
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
|
|
Ringer
Groupie Joined: 27 March 2016 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 51 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Do you read Arabic (at all)? Some letters in Arabic require diacritical marks or points to denote the difference between various consonants. These are very important since different consonants give various different meanings for each 'word'. Early Qur'ans (and some of those still in existence) were written in characters sets that had not yet developed those marks to distinguish similar letters. Also, even today, Arabic is not typically written with the short vowels (ah, i, u) written -- EXCEPT in children's books and the modern versions of the Qur'an. The older Qur'ans lack those marks making the text even more ambiguous. THere are other differences, as there are with the more recently discovered "Yemeni Qur'ans". So there is is both scriptural evidence of many versions of the Qur'an and physical evidence still available of as least somewhat different versions. They myth that there is exactly one version is simply false on its face. |
|
--
Ringer |
|
The Saint
Senior Member Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It's in the Islamic sources which are considered "authentic" by Muslim scholars, Ishaq, Hisham, Tabari, and the Hadeeth Muslim etc.
I disbelieve that absolutely. But the point is that today the Quran in America and in Saudi Arabia is the same. The remaining unpointed Qur'an exist in museums so those clearly show versions. I do not know what you mean by unpointed Quran? I am not arguing that they are contradictory (though they seem to be in some cases) but they definitely exist which makes the myth of a single version false on its face. Let me say that there is no Mushaf or copy among people in Sweden or Africa which are different from each other. The same is true for the whole world. We can go today and LOOK at versions that are different, and see them in images on the Internet. You would have to deny reality to deny that this myth has been disposed. Instead of a wild goose chase give me a link where I should find the alleged versions. |
|
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
|
Ringer
Groupie Joined: 27 March 2016 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 51 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It's in the Islamic sources which are considered "authentic" by Muslim scholars, Ishaq, Hisham, Tabari, and the Hadeeth Muslim etc. The remaining unpointed Qur'an exist in museums so those clearly show versions. I am not arguing that they are contradictory (though they seem to be in some cases) but they definitely exist which makes the myth of a single version false on its face. We can go today and LOOK at versions that are different, and see them in images on the Internet. You would have to deny reality to deny that this myth has been disposed. |
|
--
Ringer |
|
The Saint
Senior Member Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I wrote the original versions -- there were many versions which were collected by Uthman and perhaps other Caliphs and destroyed in favor of the one that became the current (basically only) surviving version.
The oldest extant are Qur'ans are in fact a sort of version since they are written without the more modern diacritic marks and vowel points. There is only one version of the Qur'an today because the others were destroyed but even that exists in various character sets with and without the needed markings. (There have also been fragments found, e.g., Yemeni Qur'ans, of other versions.) Sorry, but the myth of a single version of the Qur'an is not really truth, either literally or in large measure historically. The myth of versions of the Quran vis-a-vis, literally versions of the Bible is perpetrated falsely in Christendom. Because the Quran had always been one with or without diacritics. After Hazrat Usman RA, by common consensus, standardized the Quranic pronunciation, by eliminating variant pronunciations, there have never been any variants. The length and the contents have never changed. Content, has never, ever varied. But what to say of the Bible? Its content has been changed. Moreover, it has been edited hundreds of times and today there exists a bible in almost every sect of Christianity of which there are thousands. |
|
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
|
Ringer
Groupie Joined: 27 March 2016 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 51 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I wrote the original versions -- there were many versions which were collected by Uthman and perhaps other Caliphs and destroyed in favor of the one that became the current (basically only) surviving version.
The oldest extant are Qur'ans are in fact a sort of version since they are written without the more modern diacritic marks and vowel points. There is only one version of the Qur'an today because the others were destroyed but even that exists in various character sets with and without the needed markings. (There have also been fragments found, e.g., Yemeni Qur'ans, of other versions.) Sorry, but the myth of a single version of the Qur'an is not really truth, either literally or in large measure historically. |
|
--
Ringer |
|
The Saint
Senior Member Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The way that the Qur'an (especially the original versions) conveyed many meanings is through extreme ambiguity.
There are no versions of the Quran. Please do not get confused with what has happened to the Bible. The character set originally has no diacritical marks on the letters (not talking vowel markings but the dots that represent different CONSONANTS) so for example b, t, th could not be distinguished. Many other such indistinguishable sets exists. Then of course the vowel and other markings to distinguish double consonants etc. were also missing so even more ambiguity. Many of the verses make no sense in any language so 'only Allah knows'. I do not know where you are getting your information from. Earlier copies were mostly addressed to the Arabs, therefore, no vowels were required But when Islam began spreading beyond Arabia's borders vowels became necessary. If some verses do not make sense to you it is you who needs to enhance his knowledge. Or possibly the world needs to widen its horizons of knowledge. |
|
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
|
The Saint
Senior Member Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Frankly,
if the Arabic language had anything really special that would put it above all others we would now about it by now. The rest is wishful thinking. Ignorance from up close could be quite deceptive. However, your rather pretentious and hypocritical claim may have had a fig leaf to hide behind if you had learnt the Arabic language. |
|
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
|
Post Reply | Page <1 34567> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |