16:15 |
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 7> |
Author | ||
The Saint
Senior Member Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Just have a look at this and that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript
I looked. And I wish to remind you that since the Uthmanic Quran came into existence all MUslims all over the world have been reading it alone. Nothing is going to change that, In sha Allah! Millions of Huffaz have memorized the same Quran as well. There IS no other Quran. |
||
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
||
airmano
Senior Member Joined: 31 March 2014 Status: Offline Points: 884 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sure, but the presence of different Qurans shows clearly that there have been errors in the transmission channel(s). All Uthman did was defining one (of the many) version as the Quran" (burning the others). In other words he standardized the Quran(s) to one official version. But what is so exciting about defining a standard ? Ah, although I am sure you will never read this [to the end] it's at least to remind you that there are other views on this subject than the "official Muslim" one. Airmano Edited by airmano - 02 June 2016 at 8:07am |
||
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 note "Saint" that the fact that Muslim's ignore all other Qur'ans doesn't mean they don't exist nor that there weren't many in existence AND IN USE at various times during Islamic history.
Also note that the old museum Qur'ans are considered authentic and do not have the diacritical marks that distinguish various consonants nor the vowel marks that show where and what vowels appear within the roots. Such to each of these original sources being legitimately read with many (perhaps effectively infinite) meanings. This neither argues for or against any myth of a miracle due to a single version. A 'single Qur'an' just isn't relevant to that subject of miraculous origin. |
||
--
Ringer |
||
The Saint
Senior Member Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sure, but the presence of different Qurans shows clearly that there have been errors in the transmission channel(s).
No, not at all. They are museum-worthy only. They are mere curiosities. The standard is there in the Uthmanic Quran. Anything not comparable with it is not even worth discussing. At best it could be from people who did not receive the Uthmanic Quran. All Uthman did was defining one (of the many) version as the Quran" (burning the others). All Hazrat Usman RA did was to standardised the pronuciation and the dialect of the Quran to prevent confusion. No addition or substraction. In other words he standardized the Quran(s) to one official version. Exactly. And it has remained the same till date. But what is so exciting about defining a standard ? Exciting is not really the appropriate word here. The primary concern was to ensure uniformity of reading, pronunciation and of course, content. Ah, although I am sure you will never read this [to the end] it's at least to remind you that there are other views on this subject than the "official Muslim" one. LOL..............there always are! To everything. |
||
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)
|
|
Do note "Saint" that the fact that Muslim's ignore all other Qur'ans doesn't mean they don't exist nor that there weren't many in existence AND IN USE at various times during Islamic history.
Muslims are actually supposed to ignore all other so called Quran's except the Mushaf of Usman RA. Also note that the old museum Qur'ans are considered authentic and do not have the diacritical marks that distinguish various consonants nor the vowel marks that show where and what vowels appear within the roots. Perhaps, you are right. I do not know this for a certainty, though. Such to each of these original sources being legitimately read with many (perhaps effectively infinite) meanings. I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean? A 'single Qur'an' just isn't relevant to that subject of miraculous origin. Single? Or, do you mean unchanged since the Uthmanic Quran came into existence |
||
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
||
TG12345
Senior Member Male Joined: 16 December 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1146 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
By saying "cast, driven and firmly set all mean the same thing here in this context" what do you mean. You drive a stake into the ground by hammering it in. Cast can mean to throw down or place down on something. Firmly set means that something stays in one place. These words mean different things. Can you please explain what you mean? Lane's Arabic Lexicon defines "cast" as to order, throw down, place on. p 3012 http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ |
||
TG12345
Senior Member Male Joined: 16 December 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1146 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Salaam alaikum and thank you for your answer. Are there other possible meanings also? |
||
The Saint
Senior Member Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
@ Ringer -I do not see any links pointing to different versions of the Quran?
Edited by The Saint - 14 July 2016 at 8:59am |
||
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
||
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 7> |
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 |