Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Simply Shia Muslim believes that Islam was hijaked!
05-23-2017, 05:32 AM (This post was last modified: 05-23-2017 06:07 AM by FilmFlaneur.)
Post: #81
RE: Simply Shia Muslim believes that Islam was hijaked!
(05-20-2017 03:42 PM)KAYSER Wrote:  Translations are translations of Quran, They are not Quran. I don't know what is your point here.

They are versions of The Qu'ran. What else would they be described as? Such versions have a long history : the first translation of the Qur'an was performed by Salman the Persian, who translated Surah al-Fatihah into the Persian language during the early 7th century.

And in addition, are you saying that anyone who reads a translated Qu'ran is 'not reading the Qu'ran' at all? I see. Does that mean that any non-Arabic speaker is not truly Islamic then, even though they might claim to be a Muslim, since reading the Qu'ran is, I believe, an essential part of the faith? And why aren't all translations condemned by Muslims in non-Arabic if they are not acceptable versions of your Holy Book?

Translated Qu'rans may not be, to some, acceptable versions of the Qu'ran or the 'real thing', but versions they are by the mere fact that they represent your holy book albeit in a different language while not, as already said being considered the same, due the changes inevitably wrought by translation. So then: QED.

Quote: The Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn are two surahs (chapters) that are considered forgeries by both Sunni and Shi'ite Scholars. The fake chapters first appeared in a mid 17th century book called "Dabistan-i Madhahib" by anonymous writer(s) in India. These chapters are not to be found in the Qur'an and there is no record of them in earlier sources[/i]

Fair enough. I should have double checked that claim.

Nothing comes from nothing, cowboy. - Tex Nihilo
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-23-2017, 06:57 AM (This post was last modified: 05-23-2017 06:58 AM by FilmFlaneur.)
Post: #82
RE: Simply Shia Muslim believes that Islam was hijaked!
(05-20-2017 05:01 PM)KAYSER Wrote:  In Surah Fatiha, Allah says "Ar-Rahmani, Ar-Rahimi." Why do these two names end in kasra (majroor, or "genitive case")? Typically, scholars differ on their ideas, according to the reading. Also without i'raab one could not tell the difference between Fa'il and Maf'ool (فاعل و مفعول), nor Mudhaf from man'oot (مضاف من منعوت), nor would one marvel from a exclamation (استفهام), nor a Sadr from a Masdar, nor a Na't from a Ta'keed. So variant readings are also critical here, and the end results depend on the 'different reader's' use or adoption of the marks.

Please re-read my question. What I asked you is to give me an example from the Quran with these differences and how they are a big deal. I didn't ask you to explain.
Quote:Please re-read my answer. This disputation is over whether the Qu'ran has, or has not, as you claimed been 'changed by a letter'. The variant readings, the existence of which you have to accept, more than cross that threshold. I have shown that, historically, it is highly unlikely that what Muslims read today is exactly the same as dictated to an allegedly illiterate Mohammed in a cave by an angel to the letter. And as I have shown, 'variants' are, associated with 'versions'. Whether or not you consider the results theologically significant (and of course you wouldn't) is not that relevant. And being on - this - particular notice board I would not claim they are, and that the truth of Islam is not in doubt.

Quote:I said, by removing those marks all readings become the same.

And I said that, even if one recover the 'original version' this does not mean that alternative readings can be ignored (just as they are not in practice) so this is also bye-the-bye lol.

Quote:You claimed that Basmalah is present in some readings and is not present in other readings. [b]HERE is a website with all readings, now Show me where is Basmala is present and where it is not when it comes to chapter 9 [/b]

So you have found a version of the Qu'ran recited where chapter nine does, in fact include the Basmala? Note that I am still not saying that it is the custom to make a reading without the Basmala. Merely that that it is not always consistent - as in Chapter 9 where, in the regular version, there is none. Perhaps one is 'put in' then? Would that be an insignificant variant, too?

And, if the Qu'ran is 'always the same' then why link to so many different recitations?

(05-16-2017 05:40 AM)FilmFlaneur Wrote:  Is not the Prophet Mohammed the one for you then??

I was not born yesterday. I know when people are sarcastic

Nice evasion. But that did not answer the question, merely criticised the tone. Is the Prophet Mohammed not for you then?

(05-16-2017 05:40 AM)FilmFlaneur Wrote:  I am glad you admit here at last that 'changed copies' (or 'versions' to others) existed before being expunged - which is all I was hoping to demonstrate. So then: QED.

Stop saying "You admitted" in every post for things I never denied to start with.

So the QED stands and I thank you. The Qu'ran has existed in different versions and today, for reasons explained several times, is unlikely to be 'not a letter changed' by man if only for the fact that transmission has been so fraught. I thank you.

Quote:Stop being a baby and man up a bit....

It seems I have to forgive you a third time for an attempt at an insult. And, I do.

Quote:As I explained, anyone can write the Quran, It has been done a lot, and that won't be the last time. The Question is, are those versions being used?

QED, thank you for admitting again there have been versions. And let us consider that the version of the Qu'ran we have today is that which was compiled back in the day after destroying inconvenient or irregular alternatives. Not to mention that nearly every language has a version (by the fact at least that they are not considered 'true scripture') of your holy book, via translation.

Quote:are they going to prevail and spread widely like the ONE QURAN? are they going to be used in prayers? no they are not. that's why the Quran won't change and never changed.

Er .. but just above you have admitted that the Qu'ran did change and so 'never' is a contradiction. Make ye rmind up LOL


This person and that person say this and that is not an evidence LOL

Oh yes, I forgot: you distrust the researches and views of Islamic scholars... and, er, don't Imams "say this and say that"?

Quote:But, er, Caliph Uthman's version of the Qur'an (the one he compiled and selected into shape) is the one in use and authorised today! Admittedly the Uthman' Qur'an did not have any dots to record the exact letter and pronunciation. The text could be read in several ways and was in this way ambiguous in places. Hence this whole dispute.

The Dots and marks represent different pronountiation, go back to my original point, remove those dots If you are not happy with and you are face to face with the original Quran

And so then: when you are not "face to face with the 'original'", presumably you are just face to face with ...

Quote:we found out, all your examples don't hold water

I see; so the bottom line is that the Qu'ran you read today is unchanged in every single respect from when Mohammed listened to the angel Gabriel in the cave? And none of the process of transmission with the editing, burnings, single sourced chapters & etc has changed anything? The current un-chronological ordering was deliberate, say?

Here's what despised scholarship says:

Quote:In this study Textual Criticism and Qur'an Manuscripts , Keith Small applies the principles of textual analysis to twenty-two manuscripts--most of them early--that contain Q. 14:35-41, which describes how Abraham settled his son--presumably Ishmael--in Mecca. Based on a careful and systematic analysis of the manuscripts, Small traces the historical development of the Qur'anic text from the rise of Islam until the 10th century CE. Comparison of the manuscripts with the evidence of literary sources suggests that the text remained open and fluid during the first half of the seventh century, and that the production of a standard text was not completed until the end of that century. This editorial project, sponsored by the Umayyad caliphs, resulted in the destruction of most if not all of the earliest manuscripts, with the result that it is currently impossible to recover the original form of the text. [i.e. the current Qu'ran is a version, to a greater or lesser degree of what was recoverable back in the day] This is an important contribution to scholarship on the Qur'an.--David S. Powers, Cornell University

Can you prove your alternate view? I wouldn't use any scholars to do it though...

Others, more flexible in their attitudes to elderly transmitted texts, may wish to be alerted to the first critical edition of the Qu'ran currently being prepared by the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, since oddly, many conservatives in the Islamic world have felt loath or nervous of asking obvious questions about the state of the text. One goal is to distinguish between the manuscript and orally transmitted readings of the Qu'ran. More details can be found here:

Nothing comes from nothing, cowboy. - Tex Nihilo
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2017, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2017 09:39 AM by FilmFlaneur.)
Post: #83
RE: Simply Shia Muslim believes that Islam was hijaked!
Some more considerations of a critical edition of the Qu'ran (from an Islamic site one notes) which seem relevant here:

Quote: if one is deeply acquainted with the historical journey of the Qur’an, the reality is not that simple. The phenomenon of early history of the Qur’an shows exactly that varieties of text traditions and variant readings of the sacred book have existed from the beginning of Islam, which later became major reason for the attempt to standardize it by ‘Uthman for the purpose of maintaining the socio-political cohesion of Muslims. Thus, the standardization of the text of the Qur’an is mainly based on the political reason...

... there is no solid ground to refuse any attempt to re-edit the critical edition of the Qur’an. One of the objections toward this Qur’anic edition which will explore the seven readings—and probably also involving non-‘Uthmanic variants—is that it will disturb the stability of the text and the reading which have been fixed for centuries. However, as shown above, one only need to look into the manuscripts and early history of the Qur’an to find that the Qur’anic texts have undergone various orthographical revisions which in their nature were experimental, and the fact that major readers have also applied the method of ikhtiyâr (selection) in developing their reading system...

.. This critical edition of the Qur’an will be oriented toward achieving a better orthographical form of Qur’anic text and easy to read. While the texts themselves will be recited in a reading format which comes from “selected” readings of Muslims’ various historical qirâ’ât tradition heritage. Many inconsistencies in the orthography of the texts—e.g. the usage of tâ’ mabsûta as substitute for tâ’ marbûtah in the word rahma, ni’ma, etc; the substitute of alif with waw in word shalâh, zakâh, etc; the writing of mimmâ or allâ that at times being written separately and at other times combined, and many other examples — clearly showed the attempt to accomodate many development of oral traditions and Qur’anic writings that existed among muslims at that time. These inconsistencies need to be revised.

At this point, it should be agreed that the writing system is a cultural product of human beings that undergo developments along with human progress. Script or written words, as Abu Bakr al-Baqillani said, are merely symbols in serving its purpose as signs, epitomes and formulas used to make the reading easier. Since the aim of writing the Qur’an is to ease the appropriate reading, therefore revision of the orthographical texts of the Qur’an ought to serve the aim.

Besides the points mentioned above, explorations and investigations of variant readings to produce a better reading of the Qur’an become significant for other reasons: First, the two readings being used today, sometimes are not compatible with ‘Uthmanic textus receptus. The consonantal text of âtâni or âtânî-llâh in 27:36, for instance, were read by Nafi’ and Hafs ‘an ‘Asim as âtâniya-llâh. Second, in several cases, the two readings are problematic from the linguistic point of view. The linguist experts, for instance, by acclamation have pointed out the error Nafi’ made when reciting the word nabîyîna in 2:58 as nabî’îna, or the word al-barîyah in 98:6 as al-barî’ah, or ‘asaytum in 2:246 as ‘asîtum. While the reading of Hafs from ‘Asim for 20:63, hadzâni, was critiziced by ‘Aisyah in a transmission, that it should be recited hadzayni, as in the reading of Abu ‘Amr and Nafi’. Third, in many cases, the two official readings show biases—for example gender bias, as shown by Nasaruddin Umar in his book, 'Gender Equality Argument: Qur’anic Perspective'. Besides, both are sometimes inconsistent with direct context of the Qur’an and human rational logic. ..

... The selection of variant reading traditions for the critical edition of the Qur’an, not only relies on classical principles such as the compatibility of readings with the texts and linguistic norms, but also relies on close attention toward direct context of reading variant within its inserted place in the Qur’an. Besides considering the implication of interpreted meaning and indicated law in a particular selected reading, the selection process also need to take into account the universal values believed by human beings as truths. In other words, the procedure of irtijâl—i.e the procedure to synchronyze a reading with linguistic norms and human reason—will also be adopted.

- Wa-llâhu a’lam bi-l-þawâb. Lecturer of Qur’anic Studies at Faculty of Islamic Law, State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Alauddin, Makassar. [My emphases]

It will be hard for 'not a letter' to be changed in any coming critical edition of the Qu'ran, the very nature of which suggests a long overdue sensitive yet informed reformation , and editing of the usual text after examining all existing sources and variants. As we see above, there are admitted, by the open minded Muslims at least , some "inconsistencies" and incompatibilities to be found in what the faithful have before them at the moment There has been no such Critical Edition anywhere until now as a scholarly standard to guide them. Also, any critical edition will also be, yes, a version of the text since inevitably there will always be some still holding dear the old one, even rejecting the new, no doubt viewing (as Kayser apparently does) any scholarship which asks questions and drawing natural deductions about the transmission and elderly sources with suspicion. And with no Critical Edition of the Qu'ran hitherto, one is also inclined to how it can ever really be claimed that the existing text is as it is supposed to be, a pristine version of what was originally dictated to the Prophet, in the cave, by an angel?

None of this of course changes the truths of Islam.

Nothing comes from nothing, cowboy. - Tex Nihilo
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Is Shia Muslim? vonason 16 8,433 10-29-2012 10:15 PM
Last Post: DangerTrue
Question Shia Part 1:Basic Beliefs valipour 8 5,414 05-03-2010 11:37 AM
Last Post: valipour
  Shia Part2:The Son of the Prophet Was Killed-Why? valipour 3 1,661 04-29-2010 08:27 PM
Last Post: valipour
  All Shia websites in one kamal 2 13,150 04-28-2010 06:51 AM
Last Post: valipour

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)