It's not opinion. I've been meaning to start a thread about this. To put it simply, your Quran is not identical to the Tashkent manuscripts, and I'm not talking about the meaning of the words or the "tashkeel". I'm talking about actual word differences. I'll start you off with minimum dosage: Sura 37, Aya 103. Compare this aya between the Uzbeki, Turkish and Yemeni manuscripts and then have a look at your copy at home. Please also read the 'scholars' response to this issue before getting all aggressive.
Wait, so because there is a small difference in words (one that is actually caused by tashkeel in the example you gave [37:103]), the Qur'an wasn't written until the 14th century? Here is 37:103: Is this so supposed to be your evidence that the Qur'an was written in the 14h century? Because these two texts you see above are separated by roughly 1,300 years. Because you stated that Qur'an is only 600-700 years old, and to give evidence of that you tell me to look at textual variants in Qur'anic manuscripts that are almost twice as old as you think the Qur'an is. Do you not see how illogical that is? Perhaps you may want to change your argument. Maybe something like human error has caused some textual variants in the written Qur'an. But outright stating that it is only 600-700 years old is just pure ignorance. Also, I have read a few scholars' works on the topic. One would be Rashad Khalifa, who I consider an authoritative source on the Qur'an.
I'm guessing you're not a native Arabic speaker? They mean the opposite and it has nothing to do with tashkeel. [Uthmani] Wa Maa Aslamaa: And they didn't submit. Exactly opposite. Given that a defining property of the Quran is its apparent infallibility, you can say that all the ones we use today are not the Quran. If human error can enter the Quran, it ceases to be the Quran. Unless you are saying that the Quran which we read from today has human error in it. Then we're on the same page.
Who also, ironically, claims that today's Quran has been edited by people, and that through the magic number "19" has been able to pin point the exact errors, essentially IMO creating a new idol to worship in the form of the number 19. He also once claimed that he is mentioned in the Quran. In a very convenient move just before making this claim, I believe he dropped his real first name in order for this to become somehow true.
there are going to be different translations as it trickles down, not just from languages, cultures, interpretations. Plus initially it wasn't written down, it was an oral tradition recited, so then it changed from languages too, thats apart of the reason there are so many different ways to see it. I've even heard the whole 72 virgins was supposed to be(or interpreted by some) to be 72 grapes. I mean its lal there, but its interesting the idea of religion is your relationship with god, your connection to him and the world, and how you act and that you are accountable, but now it seems the 'religious' spend more time deciding who is in the club or not and spend energy pointing out who does what right and wrong rather than focusing on practice,cleansing, etc entirely. its an argument without a proper answer, or the answer is just that everyone is right to their own world and let it be and if you are comfortable and confident in your beliefs and thoughts, then practice, and carry on rather than trying to take others over.
A few points: 1- Uloom al-quran: The spelling of the words of the original Qur'an is not the same as the spelling of the Quran in modern-day Arabic. It is known that the original Uthmani script eliminated certain letters, added silent letters, merged words, and spelled words that appeared in different places differently. Later Arabic grammar changed these rules, and the scripts were modified accordingly. 2- Traditionally (traditionally here meaning the first three centuries AH), documenting of the Quran was done with a minimalist approach in writing; As long as it was understood culturally amongst the people, it was sufficient to put on paper/parchment/stones/bones/etc. 3- This particular argument is only one that I've seen espoused by Rashad Khalifa and his followers. As you well know, he had certain eccentricities with numerology, resulting in a severe loss of credibility by the Muslim mainstream. Because his following was so scant, it was not afforded much serious scholarly attention by Muslim academics, neither at his time nor currently. 4- The primary mode of transmitting the Quran was orally, not textually. In fact, any Quranic scholar with an ijaazah can trace his ijaazah back to the Prophet himself, citing along the way each individual who transmitted the Quran to the next. This oral preservation in tawaatur format is the strongest evidence of its preservation. If you're interested in reading a more scholarly attack/critique of Quranic integrity, I would suggest Dr. Hossein Modarrisie's (not sure I spelled it right) work; I believe its entitled 'Early debates concerning the integrity of the Quran.' If you have access to jstor, its available there. He has his points, and there are academics who've refuted him as well. As a side on that, Modarrisie is a professor of Islamic Studies at Princeton and a Shiah, and you may see some influence of his shi'ism in his writings. For the record, I'm of the opinion that the Quran we have today has not been subject to human error, but has undergone restructuring and editing over generations. Just curious: are you a native Arabic speaker?
No, I'm saying that what you stated here is false: http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showpost.php?p=5835176&postcount=34 So what I'm asking you is, how is the Qur'an only 600 - 700 years old (as you stated above), when there are Qur'anic manuscripts that are twice as old as that? You deflected answering the question by telling me to compare my Qur'an with manuscripts that are thousands of years old. It's obvious a Qur'an with Syriac calligraphy and no diacritical marks from 700 AD would be different than a 21th century Qur'an. Do you know why they started used tashkeel? After Uthman had a completely compiled version sent out to the various provinces in the caliphate, many reading errors started to occur, especially in those areas where a different Arabic dialect was read/spoken. Either way, all this stuff I am referencing happened when these people were reciting the Qur'an (something you stated did not exist for another 600 to 700 years). If you can prove the Qur'an was an invention of the 14th century, then please do so.
lol Here is what I am saying: Since there are different words with opposite meanings, I refuse the notion that either of those books are the Quran or that we know what was intended to be communicated to us. Therefore, as far as today's 'Quran' goes, IMO it dates back no more than 600-700 years because between the copies from that time and 1,300 years ago, the changes which took place in the wording are completely contradictory to the definition of THE Quran. Do you know somehow what the Prophet PBUH recited exactly?
1) From this, what I'm understanding is that the Uthmani one edited some 'original' manuscript, and then grammar changed so the text changed again? 2) Source? For two things: (a) It was understood culturally among people and (b) it was sufficient to have fragmented pieces in different places, completely unorganized. 3) Agreed. I don't think he's any less credible than the Muslim scholars who condemned him, but his religion is as Islamic as Islam is Christian. 4) Ijaazah, if I'm not mistaken, can be attained in multiple dialects. It also rests on the integrity of the transmitters memory - a very unreliable method of transmission. Thank you very much for the recommendation. I'll try to find it. If you happen to get a hold of it in electronic format, please send it to my email through the board. The word error is interesting. I think we differ in that you don't mind the editing and restructuring so long as you know that it happened. IMO, it's unacceptable and takes the Quran far closer to the Hadith. How someone can accept human intervention in this matter is beyond me. If not for the premise that the words that came out of the Prophet's (PBUH) mouth and then transmitted orally with extreme accuracy till it made its way to one book perfectly, I would have lost faith in the Quran long ago honestly. The scholars propogate this myth as well. I've realized recently that they will dance around the words to imply these things but never ever discuss that there is a difference with the Uthmani Quran, even if they have the rationale, and only if they are specifically asked about it. Why? Why the hell don't we have proper access to copies of this Uthmani Quran? Them not quashing the myth that it is untouched by humans is futher proof to me that they have a sense of insecurity. It falls in line with "innovation is bad", "don't question too much", "don't think for yourself, ask a scholar", bla bla bla bla blablabla. This system they've set up is one I would fully mimic if I wanted to start my own religion and make sure people believed me and gave me time to come up with twisted answers to make sure people are convinced that they are either being lied to by the non-religious or that they lack the sufficient knowledge to determine anything on their own. It is not the system I would mimic if I was confident that my religion transcends time, gender, race, science, etc. Sorry about that little rant. It's just extremely frustrating how the scholars operate (I've been discussing this with one and his first question was "WHO TOLD YOU THIS?").
I understand what you're saying, but I must stress that I'm not talking about lost in translation here. Basically, if the Bible said in one version: AND KILL THEM. then in another version: AND DO NOT KILL THEM. That's what I'm talking about. It's also what many Islamic scholars accuse the Bible of doing. In addition, their rationale apparently is that there are 6 freaking dialects so they had to write it differently. Then how is it the Quran? Why all up in arms when it is translated? Why pray in Arabic? This makes a lot of sense for a Salafi though. They add things in brackets into translations. They follow the Hadith like they follow the Quran. At the very least, I understand it now > they do it because there is not much difference between it all.
