Liberate wrote:I suspect the reason why you don't want to give us those qualifications is simply because you don't have any.......
Sources pls, if I am to go on your say so we are back to where this thread started...your qualifications pls.
Your perspective inference expresses that only Arabic Scholars can understand the Quran. So if any Arabic speaker is not an Al-Azhar Graduate he/she is exempted from understanding the Quran ?
Any rational individual is wondering why you are translating words differently to those of recognised scholars and claiming seasoned islamic scholars, early muslim imams, many of them with arabic as their mother tongue are stupid and do not understand arabic properly, in fact everybody's translation is in error bar yours, and would like to see your qualifications for making such assumptions, if you want to interpret the koran and islam for the muslim ummah, where are your arabic scholar qualifications? Do you have any? yes or no? what is stopping any Tom, Dick and Harry doing the same thing you are doing claiming their interpretation is the only true one? you are undertaking a monumental task claiming to have the truth of islam you need to prove you are in a fit state to carry that mantle, what do you think the muslim ummah will do to you when they find out you are interpreting the koran, and claiming everybody else who interpreted it are stupid since none understood arabic as much as you, even Ibn Kathir is in error, his tafsirs are foolishness, when you used to be a former 'jew' and do not even speak arabic as your mother tongue.
Liberate wrote:You are the one using sura 35:24 to suggest heralds have been sent to every nation, the very next verse 35:25 says :
In 35:25 who are " those who were before them" ? You tried to imply that this was refering to "the Jews and the Christians" ie the Jews and the Christians.
Liberate wrote:since any logical person can see that this can only be talking about the people of the book,
I think thats what you wanted it to mean, but in fact it makes no absolute reference to only them. The Quran mentions other people whom Prophets were sent to who were not Israelites Such as Noah, Idris, Ayyub, Dhul-Kifl
, Hud, Saleh etc. They were not Israelites who were sent to their own people.
Again why are you diverting the subject to an irrelevant subject so you don't have to answer when that is not the focus of my discussion?. That was the preceding verse to prove that messengers have been sent to every nation, the very next verse says if they reject Mohammed they rejected the messengers too and they came with scriptures and the divine book, this is the succeeding verse hence every nation has been sent a book and scriptures, is this not implied? yes or no?
Since you mention them, which prophecy did Noah make? which prophecy did Jacob make? Which prophecy did Idris/Enoch? make? Who are Hud and Saleh and which prophecies did they make? which books and divine scripture did they bring?
According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali โBeginning with Adam, Islamic tradition asserts, God sends 124,000 prophets at various times and to every community to remind people of their obligation to the one and only sovereign Lord and warn them against heedlessness and disobedience. The Qurโan declares, โThere is not a nation but that a warner was sent to itโ (Q. 26:207)โ
Mahmoud M. Ayoub book, World Religions: The Islamic Tradition, has this to say: โThe Qurโan mentions by name, however, twenty-six prophets and messengers, most of whom are biblical personages. These include Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, Jonah, John the Baptist, Jesus, and others. The Qurโan also mentions three Arabian prophets: Shuโayb (possibly Jethro, Mosesโs father-in-law), Hud, and Salih.โ
That leaves 123,971 unaccounted for. For more than 1,400 years Islamic scholars and theologians have been searching for these very large number of Allahโs Messengers, but yet have been unable to find them. Although sent to Earth by Allah the overwhelming majority of His Messengers cannot be found. Nay, not even a single emissary! This is preposterous and an insult to intelligence. Who were they? Where are they? When did they come? What did they do? What do they look like? What are their names? Who know these Messengers, their wives and children?
The so learned and pious ulema (Islamic scholars) do not have a โclueโ and are still unable to locate and identify them! For more than 14 centuries?!!! Till today not even a single Messenger that was sent aforetime has been found! May Allah forgive this collective hypocrisy and deliberate denial of tens of thousands of His previous emissaries to Earth.
The above quote is from a muslim website
http://www.al-qiyamah.org/
with the final paragraph proof, instead of applying it's evidence to it's logical conclusion (they don't exist) the muslim scholars are to blame for not finding them.
Are you telling me there are prophets in your holy book with no prophecies who can't be found?
Thank You for you input and we have demostrated how much you would stretch your self to prejudice a book you have never read, cause if you did you would have found this [Don't you mean you just found it?].
Sorry to disappoint you, IT WAS YOU THAT BROUGHT UP THAT VERSE TO SUPPORT THE VIEW that messengers have been sent to every nation on earth. Now you realise it makes no logical sense with the succeeding ayat you then say heres another one I have found, for someone who is claiming the onus on the truth and interpretation of the koran and calling themselves a haneef muslim, I suggest you do what your name suggests be a true believer and start memorising the koran (and believe in hadiths) so you know which verses to bring, rather than accuse me of not reading the koran for you.
YUSUFALI: To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
Now you are interpolating your own meaning into Yusuf's Ali's translation? I wonder why you did that , this is what it says:
10:47 To every people (was sent) an apostle: when their apostle comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
As you no doubt are aware apostle is a strictly greek term and is only used for the original disciples of Jesus, so if we take this verse to it's logical conclusion all the apostles went to every nation on earth?
There is no evidence whatsoever every nation had an apostle or messenger or prophet just a ludicrous statement from the mind of a madman that muslims the world over have to justify or else their whole faith hangs in the balance, where are the apostles/prophets/messengers for the aborigines, or the eskimos, or the amazons? No doubt all these apostles/prophets/messengers were preaching islam and spoke arabic.
Now we go back to what Liberate originally said :
Liberate wrote:ofcourse h20 no doubt will tell you he doesn't believe those hadiths but those same hadiths are where he is getting his stance that all countries have been sent with messengers
We demonstrated one Ayah then He tried to misconstrue the verse. It is clear you have never read the Quran then you make these galant utterance about what it says or does not say.
Look who is talking, which koran should I read don't they all have terrible translations?
why does the earliest quranic fragments circa 800AD (150+ after the death of Mohammed) NOT HAVE ANY DIACRITICAL DOTS OR VOWELS
Tashkeel didnt exist at that time, it wasnt needed. It was a script system produced to help with the correct reading for those who were students in reading Arabic.
Here is more from the article:
A German academic fears a violent backlash from orthodox Muslims because of his "blasphemous" theory that the Koran has been changed and revised. Such a backlash is not to be taken lightly; the Salman Rushdie affair is a solemn reminder of the power of an angry Muslim community. After the author wrote his novel satanic verses, which was considered by Muslims to be blasphemous, a fatwa , or religious decree, was pronounced against him in 1989 that left him fearing for his life. Rushdie has only recently reappeared in public after nearly 10 years in hiding.
According to Muslim belief, the Koran is the eternal, unaltered Word of God, which has remained the same for 14 centuries.
But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.
Puin's conclusions have sparked angry reactions from orthodox Muslims. "They've said I'm not really the scholar to make any remarks on these manuscripts," he said.
The semitic philologist, who specialises in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic palaeography, has been studying Sa'na manuscripts, ancient versions of the Koran discovered in Sa'na, the capital of Yemen.
So controversial are his findings that the Yemeni authorities have denied him further access to the manuscripts.
He says they shed new light on the early development of the Koran as a book with a "textual history", which contradicts the fundamental Muslim belief that it is the unchanging Word of God.
Any questioning of the authenticity of the Koranic text as the Word of God can expect a hostile reaction. The fatwa , or death sentence, was issued against Rushdie for hinting in satanic verses that the Koran may include verses from other sources - chiefly Satan.
Academics offering radical interpretations of the Koran put their lives at risk. In 1990, Dr Nasr Abu Zaid, formerly a lecturer in Koranic Studies at Cairo University, provoked a national outcry in Egypt over his book The Concept of the Text. There were death threats from Muslim extremists, general public harassment, and in 1995 he was branded an apostate by Egypt's highest court. The court forced him to divorce his wife because under Islamic law, marriage between an apostate and a Muslim is forbidden.
Zaid's proposal was arguably less radical than Puin's. Zaid's book argued that "the Koran is a literary text, and the only way to understand, explain, and analyse it is through a literary approach". A Muslim, Zaid remained in Egypt for a time to refute the apostasy charges, but fled with his wife to Holland in the face of increasing death threats.
Puin believes that he will not receive the same reaction, because unlike Zaid or ru$hdie he does not have a Muslim name.
His claim that the Koran has changed since its supposed standardisation, and that pre-Islamic texts have crept in, would nonetheless be regarded as highly blasphemous by Muslims. He has not yet written a book on his radical findings, but says it is "a goal to achieve" in the near future.
Dr Tarif Khalidi, lecturer in Islamic Studies at Cambridge University, warns that the book may generate a controversy similar to $atanic vยฃrses. "If Dr Puin's views are taken up and trumpeted in the media, and if you don't have many Muslims being rational about it, then all hell may break loose."
Khalidi fears Muslims will not accept Puin's work on the Sa'na manuscripts as having been done with academic objectivity, but see it as a deliberate "attack on the integrity of the Koranic text".
The manuscripts, thought to be the oldest surviving copies of the Koran, were discovered in the ancient Great Mosque of Sa'na in 1972, when the building was being restored after heavy rainfall, hidden in the loft in a bundle of old parchment and paper documents. They were nearly thrown away by the builders, but were spotted by Qadhi Isma'il al-Akwa, then president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who saw their importance and sought international as$istance to preserve and examine them.
Al-Akwa managed to interest Puin, who was visiting Yemen for research purposes in 1979. Puin in turn persuaded the German government to organise and fund a restoration project. The restoration revealed that some of the parchment pages dated from the seventh and eighth centuries, the crucial first two centuries of Islam, from which very few manuscripts have survived.
Until now, there were three ancient copies of the Koran. One copy in the Library of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, and another in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, date from the eighth century. A copy preserved in the British Library in London, known as the Ma'il manuscript, dates from the late seventh century. But the Sa'na manuscripts are even older. Moreover, the Sa'na manuscripts are written in a script that originates from the Hijaz - the region of Arabia where the prophet Mohammed lived, which makes them not only the oldest to have survived, but one of the earliest copies of the Koran ever.
Puin noticed minor textual variations, unconventional ordering of the chapters (surahs), as well as rare styles of orthography. Then he noticed that the sheets were pa|impsests - manuscripts with versions written even earlier that had been washed off or erased.
These findings led Dr Puin to as$ert that the Koran had undergone a textual evolution. In other words, the copy of the Koran that we have is not the one believed to have been revealed to the prophet.
This is something that Muslims would find offensive.The idea that the Koran is the literal Word of God, unchanging and permanent, is crucial to Islam.The traditional Muslim view holds that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by God in fragments between 610 and 632 AD. The revealed verses were "recorded on palm leaves and flat stones and in the hearts of men [meaning memorised]," and remained in this state during the prophet's lifetime.
About 29 years after Mohammed's death during the rule of the third Muslim caliph, Uthman, a standard copy of the Koran in a book form, was made, because already divergent readings and copies were circulating in the growing Islamic empire. This Uthmanic recension, according to the Muslim view, was produced with meticulous care, based on earlier copies of the Koran made according to the instructions of the prophet.
Orthodox Muslims insist that no changes have occurred to the Koran since the Uthmanic recension. But this view is challenged by the Sa'na manuscripts, which date from shortly after the Uthmanic recension.
"There are dialectal and phonetical variations that don't make any sense in the text", says Puin. "The Arabic script is very defective - even more so in the early stages of its literature."
Like other early Arabic literature, the Sa'na Koran was written without any diacritical marks, vowel symbols or any guide to how it should be read, says Puin. "The text was written so defectively that it can be read in a perfect way only if you have a strong oral tradition." The Sa'na text, just like other early Korans, was a guide to those who knew it already by memory, he says. Those that were unfamiliar with the Koran would read it differently because there were no diacritical and vowel symbols.
As years went by, the correct reading of the Koran became less clear, he says. People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs [first letter of the Arabic alphabet] in the Koranic text".
Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees.
"Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran".
After Hajjaj's changes in around the 700s, "the Koranic text became pretty stable", he says.
Puin accepts this up to a point, but says that certain words and pronunciations were standardised in the ninth century. He says the Uthmanic text was the skeleton upon which "many layers of interpretation were added" - causing the text to change.
I suggest you read the history of arabic calligraphy and weep
http://www.sakkal.com/ArtArabicCalligraphy.html
Liberate wrote:how do we know who is talking in the first person or third person, who is being active or passive, what represents the letters B,T,H who made these adjustments which so called prophet was watching them and giving them prophetic advice to make these changes?
You should ask your self the same question as to the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Bible whereas it originally never had diacrital marks in which it also was introduced to help the Hebrew/Aramaic reader.
Sources pls as pointed out below the diacritical dots were only added in the hebrew in the Masoretic era in the 8th century and were for vowels, the consonants were clearly differentiated, on the other hand arabic could not differentiate between 'then' and 'the' for 150+ yrs after the prophet, the scribes simply made up what they perceived as the correct interpretation relative to the context. The evidence shows the divineness of the koran as a joke.
In a paper delivered September 29, 1989, Dr. Gleason L. Archer also made a number of relevant observations ...
It should be added that the old cuphic script in which Arabic was then written was of rather uncertain interpretation. Not only did it lack any vocalization, but far more serious was the lack of diacritical dots to distinguish consonants like b, t and th and even n and y, all of which were written as a single vertical jog. Needless to say, the fact that active verbs and passive verbs are often identically written made for a good deal of disagreement as to what the written text really meant, until such time as the vowel points were added at some later period. These factors made for a great deal of disagreement far more serious than was the case with the Sopherim text of the Old Testament, which, to be sure, also lacked vowel points until the advent of the Massorets around 800 A.D., but which accurately distinguished the consonants in their writing system. In light of the foregoing data, it can only be said that the problem of establishing the original, supposedly inspired, text of the Quran is far more serious than is the case with the Hebrew Old Testament, for which thousands of manuscript copies are still available for textual criticism ranging in age from the 2nd century B.C. to the 11th century A.D.
Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages
in Germany, argues that the Koran has been misread and
mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the
earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of
Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian
Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic
scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly
read today...Christoph Luxenberg, however, is a pseudonym, and his
scholarly tome ""The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran" had
trouble finding a publisher, although it is considered a
major new work by several leading scholars in the field.
Verlag Das Arabische Buch in Berlin ultimately published
the book.
The caution is not surprising. Salman Rushdie's "Satanic
Verses" received a fatwa because it appeared to mock
Muhammad. The Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed
because one of his books was thought to be irreligious. And
when the Arab scholar Suliman Bashear argued that Islam
developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging
fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet, he was injured
after being thrown from a second- story window by his
students at the University of Nablus in the West Bank. Even
many broad-minded liberal Muslims become upset when the
historical veracity and authenticity of the Koran is
questioned.
Now if STUDENTS are prepared to throw their teacher off a 2nd storey building for islam, we can see into the mind of a student with no arabic scholar qualifications telling us all for the 1400+ yrs of islam he alone has the onus on the truth and interpretation of islam, and everybody else was stupid.
Secondly, where is the proof of the changes in the reading different from that of Muhammad and his Companions ? can you please produce your proof.
Where should we start... Uthmann's changes, Abu Bakr's changes or was it Ali's changes, the phantom 7 readings of the companions that weren't standardised till 2 centuries after the alledged event, or was it 10 readings or was it 14 readings, the Al Hajjaj adding a thousand characters to the text and boasting about it, not to mention the missing verses on stoning, nursing adults, about the son of Adam, and the strange one of "meeting their lord and he is pleased with them", not to mention the two imams that amended the text again in the 10th century. I suggest you grab a koran from the northern parts of Africa compare it with one from the middle east and notice the different diacritical dots alledgedly in the same place each producing a different pronunciation but don't forget everything was recorded verbatim from allah to jibreel to Mohammed and the scribes Zaid et al (writing it in the quraish dialect whatever that meant), I won't even mention that other scribe that added his own words into the text and Mohammed said it was ok until he became an apostate because he was allowed to add his own words to the koran and Mohammed ordered his execution, because he was endangering the veracity of his demonic utterings.
H2O wrote:No. Cause all Heralds ie Prophets were not messengers. There are two types of Prophets. 1) Nabiy and 2) Rasoolan Nabiyyan. Some Heralds were only Prophets and some were Prophetic messengers. Prophetic Messengers were the ones that received a "Kutub, Suhuf, or Zubur, that were to be writen to teach and instruct their people with.
Liberate wrote:Sources pls, I am no longer relying on your say so, if you can't provide any sources then you are speaking from your own assumptions that brings us back to the topic at the top of the thread, your arabic scholar qualifications pls.
Sure here it is :
ููุงุฐูููุฑู ููู ุงููููุชูุงุจู ู
ููุณูู ุฅูููููู ููุงูู ู
ูุฎูููุตูุง ููููุงูู ุฑูุณููููุง ูููุจููููุง (19:52)
ููููุงุฏูููููุงูู ู
ูู ุฌูุงููุจู ุงูุทูููุฑู ุงููุฃูููู
ููู ููููุฑููุจูููุงูู ููุฌููููุง (19:52)
ููููููุจูููุง ูููู ู
ูู ุฑููุญูู
ูุชูููุง ุฃูุฎูุงูู ููุงุฑูููู ููุจููููุง (19:53)
ููุงุฐูููุฑู ููู ุงููููุชูุงุจู ุฅูุณูู
ูุงุนูููู ุฅูููููู ููุงูู ุตูุงุฏููู ุงููููุนูุฏู ููููุงูู ุฑูุณููููุง ูููุจููููุง (19:54)
ููููุงูู ููุฃูู
ูุฑู ุฃููููููู ุจูุงูุตููููุงุฉู ููุงูุฒููููุงุฉู ููููุงูู ุนููุฏู ุฑูุจูููู ู
ูุฑูุถููููุง (19:55)
ููุงุฐูููุฑู ููู ุงููููุชูุงุจู ุฅูุฏูุฑููุณู ุฅูููููู ููุงูู ุตูุฏูููููุง ูููุจููููุง (19:56)
There is my proof. All Prophet were not Messengers, whereas some Prophets were given ranks higher than others:
*
ููุฑูุจูููู ุฃูุนูููู
ู ุจูู
ูู ููู ุงูุณููู
ูุงููุงุชู ููุงูุฃูุฑูุถู ููููููุฏู ููุถููููููุง ุจูุนูุถู ุงููููุจููููููู ุนูููู ุจูุนูุถู ููุขุชูููููุง ุฏูุงูููุฏู ุฒูุจููุฑูุง (17:55
*
Again where does it say this: "
all Heralds ie Prophets were not messengers. There are two types of Prophets. 1) Nabiy and 2) Rasoolan Nabiyyan. Some Heralds were only Prophets and some were Prophetic messengers."?
Why should anyone believe a word of the above, when you have no arabic scholar qualifications to say any of this, where are your credentials?