Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Simple Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by siam View Post
    The preservation of a sacred text is not an unusual matter---other religions such as Judaism(Torah) and Hinduism(Vedas) have also done a remarkable job of preserving their sacred texts. Buddhism has not---because in Buddhism---a "Wisdom teaching" (sacred text) is supposed to evolve/expand.
    In the case of Islam---what is important to Muslims is that the (sacred) "Word"---the one given by God to all humanity---be available, uncorrupted, to all humanity. The preservation of the Quran in its oral and written form has to do with this purpose. Has this purpose been accomplished?---the answer is Yes.
    An assertion that flies in the face of the evidence. The earliest qur'ans are all different from one another and all contain variations not found in modern versions as well.

    So much for the assertion

    Not one word of its 114 chapters, Suras, has been changed over the centuries, so that the Qur’an is in every detail the unique and miraculous text which was revealed to Muhammad fourteen centuries ago.


    Originally posted by siam View Post
    The Quran we have today is the one that God sent down to humanity. When Muslims speak of the Quran as "revelation"/"Word" we are not referring to particulars of a written text---since the Quran was not "revealed" as a written text---(it was orally transmitted by the Prophet)
    All well and good but the fact remains that the earliest Uthamni qur'ans contain numerous differences among one another as well as from the qur'ans today.

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    That is why the standardization into the written Uthmani codex is considered as preservation of the Quran as is the oral transmission of the Quran from the time of the Prophet to today.
    Then explain the necessity of the 1924 Cairo edition and the Saudi qur'an of 1985. Both of them were made for the same reasons usually given for the necessity of Uthman's revision. In fact just like how Uthman had all previous versions, those written by the companions (Sahabah) and hence declared authentic by Muhammad himself, tossed into a bonfire and destroyed, a vast number of pre-1924 qur'ans were dumped into the Nile (so much for Muslims getting upset about defiling and desecrating "the literal word of God") .

    But why were they even deemed necessary if as Muslim's are taught

    Not one word of its 114 chapters, Suras, has been changed over the centuries, so that the Qur’an is in every detail the unique and miraculous text which was revealed to Muhammad fourteen centuries ago.


    Originally posted by siam View Post
    With the Sanaa and Birmingham manuscripts---the whole issue of the "traditional Muslim accounts" has been broadly accepted and this matter has been laid to rest. Quranic scholars have moved on to exploring other aspects of the Quran.
    This entire post sure looks like a copy pasta job as you are not even dealing with the issues I brought up and don't bring up the Topaki manuscript. And please show how they miraculously laid this matter to rest when they contain numerous differences from the qur'ans in use today rather than just making broad, uncorroborated declarations.

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    However, this (acceptance of traditional Muslim account) was only an issue with revisionist scholars of Islam and not with average Muslims.
    Are you acknowledging that Islamic scholars recognize that the claim that the qur'an has been passed down flawlessly, without any changes to its text is a load of hogwash but keeps it from the average Muslim?

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    For us, the Isnad (chain of transmission accounts) as well as the internal literary structure of the Quran are enough to give reliability to the claim that the Quran today is as God intended it to be....the "revelation" has not been corrupted. Therefore---acceptance of the "traditional account" by Western Academia did not alter anything for the average Muslim. User-friendly additions such as dots, diacritical marks ,....etc are not considered a corruption of the revealed word---rather as preservation from corruption.
    So a demonstrably corrupted chain of transmission is good "enough" to bolster the claim that

    Not one word of its 114 chapters, Suras, has been changed over the centuries, so that the Qur’an is in every detail the unique and miraculous text which was revealed to Muhammad fourteen centuries ago.


    and according to you, the average Muslim doesn't care about the facts showing it to be otherwise.

    I would contend that the average Muslim is unaware rather than is unconcerned.
    Last edited by rogue06; 11-18-2020, 06:25 AM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #17
      Arabic and English are different languages---so the example I will give for the English language will not transfer well to what is understood as the "traditional accounts"---but this hypothetical example might give some insight...?....
      1) In the English language--there are many variations such as Australian English, British English, American English....etc....Sometimes a particular "dialect" might use a synonym---for example, Standard English would use the word "Friend", in a sentence, but Australian english would substitute "Mate" instead. This does not mean that the intent/meaning of a sentence has changed. If these dialects are authorized then they have the same value---they are original.
      Therefore, there has only been ONE Quran from the beginning of revelation.

      2) American English and British English have a difference in spelling---for example, American English uses "color" and British English uses "colour"---this does not make them different words. A sentence could use either spelling---or if the spelling has not been standardized, different spellings could be used without it effecting the intent/meaning.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis...ebster%20(1806).
      "Modern English spelling developed from about 1350 onwards, when—after three centuries of Norman French rule—English gradually became the official language of England again, although very different from before 1066, having incorporated many words of French origin (battle, beef, button, etc.). Early writers of this new English, such as Geoffrey Chaucer, gave it a fairly consistent spelling system, but this was soon diluted by Chancery clerks who re-spelled words based on French orthography.[2] English spelling consistency was dealt a further blow when William Caxton brought the printing press to London in 1476. Having lived in mainland Europe for the preceding 30 years, his grasp of the English spelling system had become uncertain. The Belgian assistants whom he brought to help him set up his business had an even poorer command of it"
      The oral language is a form of preservation and authentication. Therefore if there is a strong link that verifies authentic oral transmission from one person/generation to the next then one can be sure of the accuracy of such transmission. The Quran that has been orally transmitted is the Quran revealed to the Prophet(pbuh).

      3) American English (or British English) have different accents---such as the Boston accent or Texas accent. This does not mean that one accent is wrong/correct nor does it mean that one or the other is not speaking English. Standardization of dialect, spelling, accent, vocabulary...etc does not mean it is no longer the English language.
      Living languages change over time---English as a lived and used language has changed over time so has Arabic.
      However, if the purpose is preservation of "revelation", it is important to ensure that the communication used is the "original". Therefore Quranic Arabic is authentically preserved and user-friendly enhancements ensure such preservation.

      Muslims only have One Quran which is the Quran originally revealed to the Prophet and still in use today. The history of the "traditional accounts' is detailed which is why when these accounts were verified by the discovery of actual physical evidence---the matter was settled (for academia)
      (Quranic) Orthography may still hold interest to scholars/academics---and that is fine.
      For average Muslims, Western scholarly/academic research is a matter that is not particularly relevant as no one is ever going to admit the Quran is from God. And that is fine---it is very OK to have different criteria of verification and/or interest---No one is asking western academics/scholars to conform to what Muslims "believe". They have no obligation to do so. Muslims have no obligation to follow Western academia/scholars either. Each must follow what it feels is right for them.

      IMO, Revisionism and Orientalism has damaged the reputation of Western academia and scholarly research of Islam/Quran. (ex---Tom Holland)....it might take effort to build trustworthy and respected reputations but I am sure that this will eventually happen if they continue to collaborate with Muslim scholars and Academics.....

      Christians are also free to believe whatever they want...if your apologetics sites insist the Quran is corrupted and you prefer to believe that---its ok. I have no problems. But you cannot expect me to do so when I view that the traditional Muslim accounts offer sufficient affirmation.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by siam View Post
        Christians are also free to believe whatever they want...if your apologetics sites insist the Quran is corrupted and you prefer to believe that---its ok. I have no problems. But you cannot expect me to do so when I view that the traditional Muslim accounts offer sufficient affirmation.
        More and more Muslim scholars are starting to agree with the incontrovertible fact that the text has changed over time since the evidence cannot lead to any other conclusion.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Our opinions differ.....
          As explained---"revelation" has a particular meaning for Muslims---for example---a translation is not a "Quran" for Muslims, though it can be understood as one for Western Academia. A text with scribal errors could be considered as "Uthmani codex"/Quran by researchers---but it is automatically disqualified as "Quran"(revelation) by Muslims.
          Unity in diversity---There is only one Arabic Quran---however,, due to the nature of the language (root-word system) many degrees of meaning can be retrieved from a single word or verse. (the same for Hebrew language). So the Quran that is in use today may be standardized---but it can still generate a depth and richness of meaning that can satisfy all levels of intellect. The Quran is for all humanity in all their diversity.

          Here is a Muslim Prof who confirms that the (Muslim) "traditional account" has been verified by evidence......

          Comment


          • #20
            A question about the meaning of the “preservation” of the Koran. What does the doctrine refer to ?

            Is the reference to:

            the consonantal text alone ?

            the consonantal text with vocalisation ?

            the consonantal text with dots and vocalisation ?

            the vocalised, consonantal text colour-coded for recitation ?

            What, exactly, does Sunni theological/legal/other tradition claim has been preserved ?

            And how does Sunni Islam explain the fact that the semantic values of a text depend on how it is vocalised. It is little gain for a consonantal text to be stable and unchanged, if the vocalisation of of the consonants in different copies varies, to produce words with the same consonants, different vocalisations, and different meanings.

            And words of identical forms, within a single language, can have different meanings. “Bow”, “corn”, “sack”, “bear”, for example.

            Does the doctrine claim, in effect, that the Koranic text of my Syrian Koran approved by the Grand Mufti of Syria in Year of the Hijra 1429 / AD 2008 agrees perfectly, in all respects, with the text of Korans from Saudi Arabia or Iran ?
            Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-20-2020, 06:32 AM. Reason: Clarification and addition needed

            Comment


            • #21
              As Islam Question & Answer explains in their section "Claims that the Qur’aan has been distorted":

              Firstly:

              It is not possible for a Muslim to entertain doubts concerning the immutability of the Qur’aan, because Allaah has guaranteed to preserve the Qur’aan. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

              “Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)”

              [al-Hijr 15:9]


              This is the bases for and why Muslims teach (as I provided several sources confirming this) that

              Not one word of its 114 chapters, Suras, has been changed over the centuries, so that the Qur’an is in every detail the unique and miraculous text which was revealed to Muhammad fourteen centuries ago.


              And yet, records from Islamic sources (especially the hadith) reveal that prior to Uthman's revision, the qur'an contained either 111 sura (Ibn Ma'sud's codex) or 116 sura (Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab's codex) and not 114 as seen in the qur'an now.

              Further, when we examine the early extant qur'ans dating back to the 8th cent. and after Uthman's revision, every single one contain spelling errors, some use different wording and different phrasing altogether and some have additions and omissions of text and are structurally different than any qur'an seen today -- which are copies of yet other revisions (the 1924 Cairo edition and the Saudi qur'an of 1985).

              So much for preserving it from corruption.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                A question about the meaning of the “preservation” of the Koran. What does the doctrine refer to ?

                Is the reference to:

                the consonantal text alone ?

                the consonantal text with vocalisation ?

                the consonantal text with dots and vocalisation ?

                the vocalised, consonantal text colour-coded for recitation ?

                What, exactly, does Sunni theological/legal/other tradition claim has been preserved ?

                And how does Sunni Islam explain the fact that the semantic values of a text depend on how it is vocalised. It is little gain for a consonantal text to be stable and unchanged, if the vocalisation of of the consonants in different copies varies, to produce words with the same consonants, different vocalisations, and different meanings.

                And words of identical forms, within a single language, can have different meanings. “Bow”, “corn”, “sack”, “bear”, for example.

                Does the doctrine claim, in effect, that the Koranic text of my Syrian Koran approved by the Grand Mufti of Syria in Year of the Hijra 1429 / AD 2008 agrees perfectly, in all respects, with the text of Korans from Saudi Arabia or Iran ?
                Some Muslims argue that qur'ans translated in to other languages are not perfect and that only the Arabic versions are.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Amendment to my last paragraph (I ran out of time to correct it for some reason):

                  Text as it now stands:

                  Does the doctrine claim, in effect, that the Koranic text of my Syrian Koran approved by the Grand Mufti of Syria in Year of the Hijra 1429 / AD 2008 agrees perfectly, in all respects, with the text of Korans from Saudi Arabia or

                  Text as I want it to be:

                  Does the doctrine claim, in effect, that the Koranic Arabic text of my Syrian Tajweed “with meaning translation in English and transliteration” Koran, approved by the Grand Mufti of Syria in Year of the Hijra 1429 / AD 2008, agrees perfectly, in all respects, with the text of Korans from Saudi Arabia or Iran ?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Some Muslims argue that qur'ans translated in to other languages are not perfect and that only the Arabic versions are.
                    Understood - but that doesn’t really answer the question.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                      A question about the meaning of the “preservation” of the Koran. What does the doctrine refer to ?

                      Is the reference to:

                      the consonantal text alone ?

                      the consonantal text with vocalisation ?

                      the consonantal text with dots and vocalisation ?

                      the vocalised, consonantal text colour-coded for recitation ?

                      What, exactly, does Sunni theological/legal/other tradition claim has been preserved ?

                      And how does Sunni Islam explain the fact that the semantic values of a text depend on how it is vocalised. It is little gain for a consonantal text to be stable and unchanged, if the vocalisation of of the consonants in different copies varies, to produce words with the same consonants, different vocalisations, and different meanings.

                      And words of identical forms, within a single language, can have different meanings. ;Bow corn; sack ;bear;, for example.

                      Does the doctrine claim, in effect, that the Koranic text of my Syrian Koran approved by the Grand Mufti of Syria in Year of the Hijra 1429 / AD 2008 agrees perfectly, in all respects, with the text of Korans from Saudi Arabia or Iran ?

                      Finally someone is asking an interesting question.
                      Preservation (of Quran) means the preservation of the oral recitation that was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) and verified by him as revelation.
                      (According to Muslim tradition---the Prophet did not read/write---therefore the Quran from the Prophet was never in textual form)


                      One has to understand what "revelation" means. The Quran refers to (Quranic) verses as ayah (signs)---another way to understand it is "proof of God". The universe and creation are also called ayah (signs).
                      How these Quranic ayat were revealed is very particular---these are not an "inspiration"---that is, knowledge does not come down from God in some sort of "aha" moment. The Quranic revelation/ayah is very specific and the Prophet knew clearly that it was "Quran". That is why the sayings of the Prophet are not considered Quranic ayat. When the Quran is compared to other works the Prophet dictated---such as treaties, letters...etc. The Quran is clearly different (different authorship/style). In its literary genre (composition), the Quran is also different from pre-Islamic as well as contemporaneous (Arabic) works.
                      From the Muslim perspective---Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is not the author of the Quran.

                      As I understand it, the process of revelation was oral rather than textual....this means that the revelatory process was auditory. The Prophet recited what was revealed to an audience and some scribes wrote it down....others would have memorized it. (Even today, the Quran is memorized cover to cover).
                      The gravity of "Quran" was understood by the early Muslim community and they were serious in its "preservation". During the lifetime of the Prophet, this (preservation) meant authentication by verification from the Prophet directly. (That is why various "dialects" are also authentic/original) However, the primary method of transmission and preservation was oral (recitation). After the death of the Prophet it became necessary to give importance to textual preservation as well---text served as backup. So the first compilation was done under Caliph Abu Bakr.

                      Around the time of Caliph Uthman---the Quran was standardized (more or less) into a single "Ahruf" (mode) and this is called the Uthmani codex...at this time orthography (rasm) also began. Later the Qirat (recitation) also began to be standardized. All these things were tools used to preserve the revealed Quran as recited and verified by the Prophet. How can one be sure?---because there are records. Islamic tradition/history is detailed in the records of the preservation of the Quran.

                      In a previously linked video, there was a segment that showed a Non-Muslim, Non-Arabic-speaking attempt to "print" the Quran. This Quran has mistakes because it did not go through the verification process that a Quran is supposed to go through...therefore it is not considered an actual "Quran" by Muslims. Such texts cannot be used by Muslims for prayer, recitation....etc because it is not the "sacred Quran.

                      For Academic/research purposes, what is "Quran" would have a much looser understanding than what a Muslim believer would understand. There is no problem with this.

                      Average Muslims are not Quran scholars---for us, it is enough to know that the Quran we have today is the "revealed word " of God. This is reasonably ascertained by the "traditional account" which shows the occasion of revelation, and biographies, genealogies, of those who wrote/memorized it and chains of transmission...etc....as well as the quality and content of the Quran itself. IMO, an in-depth knowledge is not really necessary---only reasonable evidence is enough.



                      Comment


                      • #26
                        What u r claiming below, are nothing more than mere obfuscation and blind, arbitrary playing with words that convince nobody of any truthfulness OR preservation of the koran.

                        IF the REDACTED And re-published edition of Zaid bin Sabit's Koran, ordered by force of 3rd caliph uthman's command (BUT Never ordered by Allah himself!) is a well and truly preserved redacted (by Zaid's committee) Text, it was really NOT GOOD Enough the Al-Azhar university scholars authorities in 1924!

                        They rejected and threw away Uthman's re-published Koran recension and RE-STANDARDISED the 1924 CAIRO EDITION. Therefore, they rejected the manuscript of Hafsah (one of Muhd's daughters) used in Mecca by the editorial committee under Zaid b.Sabit,

                        INSTEAD, they used the Hafs and Asim's recension (reading and text) based in Kufa, IRAQ to standardise the 1924 koran version. That was in a northern dialect far away from the Quraish dialect used by Zaid b.Sabit in Mecca!

                        The Cairo Azhar scholars also threw the Uthmanic versions they had, into the Nile river for destruction. Just shows how much they trusted that 'qiraat' LOL!!!

                        Then, in the 1980's the Saudi Arabian government ALSO ACCEPTED as STANDARD, the Cairo 1924 standardised koran - based on the northern kufic Iraqi readings and dialect NOT the Quraish one from Mecca. The Saudi authorities also ignored Uthman's standardised Koran for another that came years later - Asim's and Hafs' reading!

                        Muslim koranic manuscript scholar Shady Nasser has traced and established at least 5 CANONIZATIONS OF THE KORAN! Wake up.


                        Nothing in the koran is properly or reliably preserved. That is what Dr. Yasir Qadhi himself meant when he said that "the standard narrative (of the Koran) HAS HOLES IN IT" on June 8 2020

                        Qadhi's discussion with muslim dawagandist Hijab is here -

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vstGbZkjUcw

                        Qadhi also refers to Dr.Shady Naser - NOT a westerner but a Muslim academic on the Koran texts. Here's the interview with Dr.Shady:-

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxKV3g7iTCE

                        Enjoy!









                        Originally posted by siam View Post
                        The preservation of a sacred text is not an unusual matter---other religions such as Judaism(Torah) and Hinduism(Vedas) have also done a remarkable job of preserving their sacred texts. Buddhism has not---because in Buddhism---a "Wisdom teaching" (sacred text) is supposed to evolve/expand.
                        In the case of Islam---what is important to Muslims is that the (sacred) "Word"---the one given by God to all humanity---be available, uncorrupted, to all humanity. The preservation of the Quran in its oral and written form has to do with this purpose. Has this purpose been accomplished?---the answer is Yes.
                        The Quran we have today is the one that God sent down to humanity. When Muslims speak of the Quran as "revelation"/"Word" we are not referring to particulars of a written text---since the Quran was not "revealed" as a written text---(it was orally transmitted by the Prophet)
                        That is why the standardization into the written Uthmani codex is considered as preservation of the Quran as is the oral transmission of the Quran from the time of the Prophet to today.

                        With the Sanaa and Birmingham manuscripts---the whole issue of the "traditional Muslim accounts" has been broadly accepted and this matter has been laid to rest. Quranic scholars have moved on to exploring other aspects of the Quran.
                        However, this (acceptance of traditional Muslim account) was only an issue with revisionist scholars of Islam and not with average Muslims. For us, the Isnad (chain of transmission accounts) as well as the internal literary structure of the Quran are enough to give reliability to the claim that the Quran today is as God intended it to be....the "revelation" has not been corrupted. Therefore---acceptance of the "traditional account" by Western Academia did not alter anything for the average Muslim. User-friendly additions such as dots, diacritical marks ,....etc are not considered a corruption of the revealed word---rather as preservation from corruption.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Some Muslims argue that qur'ans translated in to other languages are not perfect and that only the Arabic versions are.
                          For ALL Muslims---a translation falls into the category of Tafsir (exegesis) an NOT "Quran" (as in revelation)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The Arabic of the 1924 Cairo Quran and the 1985 Saudi Quran are the "Uthmani Codex" (the Saudi Quran uses the calligraphy of Uthman Taha)
                            https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/...quran-1.636600
                            the 1924 Quran standardized/popularized a particular Qirat (reading)

                            Tajweed falls under Qirat (reading) as this refers to the rules of enunciation.
                            Last edited by siam; 11-22-2020, 01:12 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29

                              NOT true! The 1924 Cairo koran (and so the 1985 saudi one) are not Uthmani codex. But are actually Hafs and Asim's from Kufa, Iraq.

                              Your reliance on journalists can be as deceptive and deceiving others by your shotgun knee jerk reply.

                              Here is the Wikipedia data duly documented:


                              1924 Cairo edition

                              The influential standard Quran of Cairo ("1342 Cairo text" using the A.H.) is the Quran that was used throughout almost all the Muslim world until the Saudi Quran of 1985. The Egyptian edition is based on the "Ḥafṣ" version ("qira'at") based on ʻAsim's recitation, the 8th-century recitation of Kufa.[117]] It uses a set of additional symbols and an elaborate system of modified vowel-signs and for minute details, not identical to any older system.[119] The Cairo edition has become the standard for modern printings of the Quran with the exception of those used in all North Africa (excluding Egypt) where the Warsh version is used.

                              [117] Böwering, "Recent Research on the Construction of the Quran", 2008: p. 74

                              [119] Stefan Wild, "Reading" The Quran: an Encyclopedia, Routledge


                              Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._Cairo_edition

                              SO it is clear that the Cairo edition of your koran is based NOT on Uthman's recension or qiraat, but the 8th century Asim's recitation from KUFA, IRAQ. Why do you deny the truth all the time? When it is in front of your eyes??


                              Therefore, today's koran from the 1985 Saudi standardisation of the 1924 Cairo version is also not based on Uthman but on the northern Iraqi dialect of Kufa, not Mecca.

                              All clear as day except for the misguided.




                              Originally posted by siam View Post
                              The Arabic of the 1924 Cairo Quran and the 1985 Saudi Quran are the "Uthmani Codex" (the Saudi Quran uses the calligraphy of Uthman Taha)
                              https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/...quran-1.636600
                              the 1924 Quran standardized/popularized a particular Qirat (reading)

                              Tajweed falls under Qirat (reading) as this refers to the rules of enunciation.

                              Comment


                              • #30


                                After the Cairo Azhar university scholars re-standardised the 1924 Koran's, they DULY DUMPED THE PRE-1924 VERSIONS (ie. the Uthmanic re-publication/qiraat) INTO THE NILE RIVER.

                                That shows just how much they believed in the preservation, authenticity and value of the "Uthmanic recension" - by throwing them all into the Nile river for destruction.

                                Why would these MUSLIM scholars desecrate the pre-1924 Korans so ignominiously if they believed it was the 'authentic Koran'? Obviously it was NOT.

                                So, today's korans in the main are not Uthmanic at all, but Kufic and based on the readings of Asim and Hafs of Iraq, not anywhere near Mecca. The Saudi scholars endorsed the 1924 Cairo Kufa version in 1985 and thats what the Sunni world reads today, except for the other version - the Warsh in North Africa and the Duri one.

                                Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_...ed_in_the_Nile

                                The history of Koranic desecration is a very interesting one. Not all such desecrations were done by non-Muslims, the Muslims had a big hand in desecrating it too! LOL.






                                Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                                NOT true! The 1924 Cairo koran (and so the 1985 saudi one) are not Uthmani codex. But are actually Hafs and Asim's from Kufa, Iraq.

                                Your reliance on journalists can be as deceptive and deceiving others by your shotgun knee jerk reply.

                                Here is the Wikipedia data duly documented:


                                1924 Cairo edition

                                The influential standard Quran of Cairo ("1342 Cairo text" using the A.H.) is the Quran that was used throughout almost all the Muslim world until the Saudi Quran of 1985. The Egyptian edition is based on the "Ḥafṣ" version ("qira'at") based on ʻAsim's recitation, the 8th-century recitation of Kufa.[117]] It uses a set of additional symbols and an elaborate system of modified vowel-signs and for minute details, not identical to any older system.[119] The Cairo edition has become the standard for modern printings of the Quran with the exception of those used in all North Africa (excluding Egypt) where the Warsh version is used.

                                [117] Böwering, "Recent Research on the Construction of the Quran", 2008: p. 74

                                [119] Stefan Wild, "Reading" The Quran: an Encyclopedia, Routledge


                                Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._Cairo_edition

                                SO it is clear that the Cairo edition of your koran is based NOT on Uthman's recension or qiraat, but the 8th century Asim's recitation from KUFA, IRAQ. Why do you deny the truth all the time? When it is in front of your eyes??


                                Therefore, today's koran from the 1985 Saudi standardisation of the 1924 Cairo version is also not based on Uthman but on the northern Iraqi dialect of Kufa, not Mecca.

                                All clear as day except for the misguided.





                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 11-13-2020, 09:15 AM
                                44 responses
                                269 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post siam
                                by siam
                                 
                                Started by Christian3, 10-25-2020, 07:17 AM
                                8 responses
                                67 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Trucker
                                by Trucker
                                 
                                Started by Trucker, 10-23-2020, 11:09 AM
                                51 responses
                                351 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Trucker
                                by Trucker
                                 
                                Started by JohnnyP, 01-23-2014, 04:30 PM
                                5 responses
                                7,409 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Dan Zebiri  
                                Working...
                                X