Liberate wrote:Any rational individual is wondering why you are translating words differently to those of recognised scholars and claiming seasoned islamic scholars
H2O wrote:..its just a matter of choice of words to express the Arabic having the same denotation.
As in regards of certain words yes I would say there is a difference. One example is the translation of the Arabic word "nutfah" some translate it as a mingled drop, or sexual discharge. This is their interpretation and not a literal meaning of the word. We translate it as " a trickler or a thing that trickles" which is more the literal meaning of the word rather than interpretation.
In order to distinguish a translators interpretation of a word or a literal rendering, you would have to know Arabic which is not upon you. The difference of words we chose contrary to what other scholars rendered is no different from our example of the translators in the above posts who contradicted each other. Question is which translation is accurate? As for you, you would choose the one that will suit you better, even after you know other scholars translated something else different.
H2O Quoted Quran:
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.
Liberate Wrote:
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?
Well here we go. If I remember correctly you posted up the meaning of the word "
rasool" to mean "messenger" sometime back in which the Arabic of 10:47 says " wa li-kulli ummatir-
rasool....". So even though its wrong to translate "rasool" as apostle rather than "messenger" you still use this as an advantage to criticize the Quran when in fact its the translators error not the Quran. SO your criticism is not on Quran but on the translator
You were so convinced that whatever I translate is wrong but the translators are right but yet they still contradict each other in translation so you use a translation that you can use to your advantage.
So now you went for the long shot, you claim I Interpolated the translation of Yusuf and made some changes so you can justify your wishful thinking ideas. These are the links to those translations:
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.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/010.qmt.html
second source for Yusuf
[47] 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.
http://quran.al-islam.com/Targama/DispT ... a=47&t=eng
They all use "messenger" ~ rasool, so tell me who made the change now ? It sounds like someone is trying to appeal to a Christian mentality, I sigh at them for having such inclination
Liberate wrote:Look who is talking, which koran should I read don't they all have terrible translations?
Read the preface to each translation, the translations are not the Quran, but are their interpretation. Also I have no need for a translation, you do, but you pick and choose which one you want that appeals to your criticism.
Liberate wrote: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.....
It is nice to see this garbage article again which has already been trashed on another forum not related to freejesus forum (See Quote in Blue below) ~ which are the comments made about that article on
http://forums.about.com/ab-islam/messages under Quran & Sunnah/Burning of the Quran, but first lets finish up what Liberate edited from the article below in red text
I my self have been tracing Puin, he hasnt come up with anything else. As a matter of fact in the same article he was
offered a challenge on safe grounds for a debate with a scholars on the issue and Mr Puin has remained Mute ever since. Continueing where Liberate left off in the the original post.
...This is blasphemy, according to orthodox Muslims, and is not entirely accepted by other academics.
Jones admits there have been "trifling" changes made to the Uthmanic recension. Khalidi says the traditional Muslim account of the Koran's development is still more or less true. "I haven't yet seen anything to radically alter my view," he says.
He believes that the Sa'na Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet. "It's not inconceivable that after the promulgation of the Uthmanic text, it took a long time to filter down."
Puin's other radical theory is that pre-Islamic sources have entered the Koran. He argues that two tribes it mentions, As-Sahab-ar-Rass (Companions of the Well) and the As- Sahab-al-Aiqa (Companions of the Thorny Bushes) are not part of the Arab tradition, and the people of Mohammed's time certainly did not know about them.
"These are very unspecific names, whereas other tribes are specifically mentioned," said Dr Puin.
His researches have shown that the ar-Rass lived in pre-Islamic Lebanon and the al-Aiqa in the Aswan region of Egypt around 150AD, according to the Atlas of Ptolemy. He argues that pre-Islamic sources entered the Koran, presumably when the growing Islamic empire came into contact with those regions and sources.
Khalidi says finding pre-Islamic registers in the Koran does not discredit the Muslim belief in any way, because it does not threaten the integrity of the Koran. "The Koran was revealed at a particular time in the vocabulary of the age", he says.
Puin also questions another sacred belief that Muslims hold about the Koran, that it was written in the purest Arabic. He has found many words of foreign origin in the text, including the word "Koran" itself. Muslim scholars explain the "Koran" to mean recitation, but Puin argues that it is actually derived from an Aramaic word, qariyun, meaning a lectionary of scripture portions appointed to be read at divine service. He says the Koran contains most of the biblical stories but in a shorter form and is "a summary of the Bible to be read in service".
Orthodox Muslims have always held that the Koran is a scripture in its own right, and never a shortened version of the Bible, even if both texts contain the same prophetic tradition.
Khalidi says he is weary of constant attempts by western Islamicists to analyse the Koran in a parallel way to the Bible. Puin, however, sees the need for a "scientific text" of the Koran, and this is what he intends to achieve. He says that Muslims believe that "the Koran has been worked on a thousand years ago" and "is not a topic anymore".
Not all Muslim reaction to him has been hostile. Salim Abdullah, director of the German Islamic Archives, affiliated to the powerful pan-Islamic Muslim World League, has given him a positive response.
"He asked me if I could give him the permission to publish one of my articles on the Sa'na manuscripts", said Puin. Warned of the possible controversy it could raise, he replied: "I am longing for this kind of discussion on this topic."
The above is the last of the Article
http://www.nashash.com/Khutbahs/Read/Quran_Athu.html , next are the comments ellaborated on it from another Forum spoken of above:
Its is clear Puin accusation are THEORIES and not FACTS. He even admits that the copy he stumbled upon is DEFECTIVE. He complains about TEXTUAL VARIANCES not word differences.
The order of the chapters and verses was the same issue with the people of Iraq. Before the Uthmanic copies were issued the Quran was not written in the reading order of its verses and chapters as it is in now, but was only memorized by those Arabs of the Hijaz in such order to that of the EXACT order the prophet recited it in and was taught ORALLY to his companions and the Muslim community. Thus the recital Order, as it seems, was only known to the Arabs of the Hijaz until Uthman's standardized written copy was issued.
The Style of Orthagraphy is based on the people who copied it to what was easy for them to read. One thing that will bring Puin's whole THEORY to a crash is that he forgot the majority of the people at that time were UNLETTERED meaning most of them did not know how to read and write or barely knew how to. The copiest could have well been someone new to reading and writing as at that period of time it then started to became an obligation.
As for the statement of the Quran being written in the Purest of Arabic is an exageration even by muslims of what the Quran actually says that was fuel for Puin and Critics of islam to burn. Allah states that the Quran is "arabiyyin mubeenin" ~ clear Arabic (Ref. 26:195...16:103...) so that Arabic Speaking people may understand it (Ref. 43:3)
The error, some translators render "mubeen" as "PURE" where as the Quranic Arabic word for such a term is "mutahharah". "mubeen" means clear, plain, perspicuous (Ref. Edward Lane Arabic Lexicon)
Also the Arabic language is part of the semitic family in which all of them share simular words to each other coming from common shared roots.
The fact is the words in the Quran are Arabic by ization or derived it is still Arabic.
As for the script style being originated from the Hijaz is irrelevant as there were many other script styles of the Hijaz depending on the tribe.
As the hadeeth we posted indicates more than one script style that was associated with the dialect of a tribe in the Hijaz "'...Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue...."
I would like to know how did THEORY turn into FACTS. The article says over and over THEORY but Liberate takes it as FACTS
Liberate wrote: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?
Why should someone believe a word you say who has never read the Quran but still makes blind comments about it, who has studied criticism about islam but has not cared to hear the objective to it. As I said long time before if it is something against islam you believe if it something for islam you disreguard as false.
As to the matter of Tahkeel or diacritical marks introduced to the written script of the Quran during the development of the Arabic script it self is irrelevant when the preservation of the Quran was more dependant on orally than it was by writing. The textual transmission of the Quran was always preferenced by oral authority to cofirm the written script of the Quran not vise versa. This proccess was done in the begining when Zaid had first compiled the Quran: Before this, whenever a disagreement came about the reading of a verse oral reading was preferenced to its confirmation not its written source.
During the time of Uthman, again, Oral reading was preferenced to the accuracy of the writting of the Quran.
Volumn 006, Book 061, Hadith Number 510. (Al-Bukhari..and same reported by Muslim, Thirmidhi, Abu Dawud ahadeeth)
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Anas bin Malik : Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "
Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham
to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.
'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials,
whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Please see link below on the Burning of the Quran ) Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)
http://www.geocities.com/uwas2001/BOTQ.htm
Now as to your former post reference quote:
When more and more Muslims of non-Arab origin and also many ignorant Arabs' [Yaqut reports in his book irshad that al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf himself once read ahabba in 9: 24 wrongly as ahabbu, see GdQ. 111, 124, note 6.] studied the Qur'an, faulty pronunciation and wrong readings began to increase. It is related that at the time of Du'all (d. 69H/638) someone in Basra read the following aya from the Qur'an in a faulty way, which changed the meaning completely...
The mistake occurred through wrongly reading rasulihi in place of rasuluhu, which could not be distinguished from the written text, because there were no signs or accents indicating the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorised the correct version he could out of ignorance easily commit such a mistake.....
The answer was in your own quote, the tashkeel introduction ie vowel pronounciation to the script was held to the oral reading which confirmed the correct reading if there was ambiguity with the written. For those of you who would like to read the ENTIRE text atricle that Liberate posted please go to
http://www.islamworld.net/UUQ/3.txt
Liberate wrote:I suggest you read the history of arabic calligraphy and weep
I am laughing actually.
Liberate wrote: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?
The verse did not say
The Messengers to imply all messengers sent by Allah, but says 35:25 makes an example using your preferenced translation
And if they treat thee as a liar, those who were before them also treated their Messengers as liars. Their Messengers came to them with clear Signs, and with the Scriptures, and with the illuminating Book
The verse is indefinite as to messengers whereas is only making an example of some of the prophets.
Remember long time ago what you said when we gave out perspective of the a bible verse you said :
I am going to say the same word in reverse "
It takes a certain Christian arrogance to tell us our beliefs when it is clear you do not understand that verse. "
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? ].
No. It was bait on a hook, also I was too lazy to go look up those other verses, so I just quoted what I knew from memory in Arabic then translated but at the same time not being void of the other verses. I thought that would be sufficiant but apparently it wasnt cause you took it to such a extent as you made a statement about me and was caught red handed in prejudice and in wanton.
Liberate wrote:There is no evidence whatsoever every nation had an apostle or messenger or prophet
O yes there is , its called World Theology in comparitive religion. Care to explain how portion of Christian and Jewish beliefs and laws are in other religions that existed years before Judaism and Christianity. Atheists have a field day with this when you believe that G-D only sent Prophets to the CHildren of Israel alone
Liberate wrote: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."?
I posted the verses of the Quran for you, whats wrong cant you read ?
Since we have disagreement as to translations ~ which they contradict each other, there can be no dispute or doubt about the Quran it self
Prophet ~ In English has multiple meanings
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... &x=12&y=16 . The common greek meaning is " one who for tells the future " ~ which can be applied to even a pagan in which the word is originally greek derived. In the Arabic language "Nabi" means "One who declares tidings and news from G-D" Ref. Edward Lane, Al- Mawrid, and Hans Wehr Arabic dictionaries and Lexicon.
So your question should first be what is our deffinition of "Prophet" which is obviously contrary to your dogma of the term whereas in islam it does not mean "one who prophecies ie a Seer"