Quote: |
Peace:
Is this some sort of veiled threat? If so, that is pretty nasty. I remember reading about this book sometime ago and thought it to be pretty absurd. |
Quote: |
Peace,
I have seen this and other things like this. The ideas are completely absurd and only an attempt to try to reinterpret the Quran according to their liking. but the fact that they try to use another language is ridiculous. Even if they are close you can't interpret italian using spanish or vice-versa. That is just plain old wrong. Gobless, |
Quote: |
With the myths propagated as facts, he then sets about to manipulate the words till he can make them agreeable to his agenda, or till he has traced them to another language and made them agreeable to his agenda. Thus, strengthening one assumption with another, he proceeds to show that the Quran is not an Arabic composition, all the while focused on his agenda of introducing it as a Christian scripture. |
Quote: |
Peace,
"Luxenberg" and his likes can only operate under assumptions. The issue I come across when dealing with the non-Muslims is that many of them, without even reading his book, claim that diacritics and vowels were not "invented" until centuries after the revelation of the Quran. Regarding the diacritics: In any case the Islamic tradition is unable to provide any date for the final fixing of the reading of the Koran by means of the introduction of the diacritical points, so that one is dependent on the general assertion that this process stretched out over about three hundred years. Regarding the short vowels: To the extent that this writing reform was also carried out in the text of the Koran, the consequences for certain readings were inevitable. An initial marking of the short vowels a, u and i by points, likewise modeled upon the earlier Syro-Aramaic vocalization systems – according to which the more lightly pronounced vowel (a) is indicated by a point above and the more darkly pronounced vowel (e /i ) by a point below the consonant, to which was added in Arabic a middle point to mark the u – is said to have been introduced as the first reading aid under Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (685–705). Many Quran-alone Muslims lend themselves to the same wrong conclusions. Just because the texts didn't reflect written vowels does not mean that the vowels were not understood and spoken. The fact that the Quran was mostly preserved through Qurraa' makes it obvious that the vowels were always there even if not always written. In modern Arabic newspapers and literature the vowels are still not commonly written. That is because readers are expected to know the most common (and not the obscure) forms of words and plug them in with their (spoken) vowels when they read. Sometimes confusion may arise or is expected and writers then will write the vowels or other diacritics so that the reader does not make the wrong conclusions. In the case of the Quran the vowels were invented and put into the text to prevent people from making up whatever they wanted and disregarding the authentic mutawaatir readings that also coincided with the non-voweled text. Before that and even during and after, the consesus of the Qurraa' and their qiraa'aat (readings) was and is the authority or what is the correct voweling of the Quran. As these recitations are mutawaatir and these readers memorized and compared often. Interestingly the Quran's preservation is similar to the hadeeth but it is a step above in that there are about 10 mutawaatir recitations of the Quran. They are all accepted and 97 percent of it is letter by letter and vowel by vowel the same. There is about a 3 percent difference betwen recitations, all of which have a common meaning. And the non-mutawaatir readings are sahih, hassan and da'if. At best they can be used as a source of tafsir for seemingly vague mutawaatir versions (that is if they make sense and corroborate the meaning of the mutawaatir verse) of the Quran, but they have no authority and are not considered revealed by God, but rather someone's corruption (intentional or unintentional) And then there are the the mawdu' (falsified). I'm not sure if these have any place in trying to understand the mutawaatir versions of the Quran. The text, for those who had access to texts of the Quran, was a guide that limited the extant to which the Quran COULD have been corrupted. I know this may offend some who feel that the Quran was to be preserved only in a supernatural way that does not allow for providence. But I believe that it was providence and the circumstances that God created on earth and among people that allowed for the Quran to be preserved. Yeah some might say that that 3 percent variance proves that the Quran wasn't preserved. But the fact that this 3 percent share meanings in all of the recitations is proof enough for me that it was preserved and that divine providence was at work. Godbless, |
Quote: |
Thanks for that, I agree. I don't find what you quoted to be proof of the existence of diacritical marks during the pre-Islamic era but a phenonomon that definitely opens up that possiblity. However, even Muslim scholars are in agreement that these diacritical marks were added later on. Some say by Hajjaj. Some say by others. Who exactly instated them is not clear. Nor is it clear at what particular time they entered into use for the writing of Arabic. It is possible that it was pre-Islamic, so I won't say that you are wrong. But as far I know that is unlikely. Thanks for your inputs.
Godbless, |
Quote: |
Peace,
Thanks for showing me that. Peace. Godbless, |
Quote: |
It doesn't sound so unreasonable to me that there is a Syrian-Aramaic-Christian influence on the Quran. If the Prophet was a merchant for some years before receiving the Quran it stands to reason that he would have encountered a wide range of different sorts of people. |
The wrote: |
Quite a few non-Muslims refer me to free-minds.org website, so I decided to help them out by starting a thread there. The text in green is my invitation to her to join me out here or over there. |
Quote: |
I'm absolutely baffled as to what you're unhappy with. Recitation and reading aloud mean exactly the same thing, so I don't see any difference between Arabic and Syrian-Aramaic in regards to the question of the meaning of Quran or "qeryana".
Is the Quran a reading, or interpretation, of the bible? Well, some of the stories are the same, some of them are different or unique. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to view the recitation of the Quran as in the same cultural tradition as Jewish and Christian devotional reading/singing. |
The wrote: |
@ahmedbahgat: Free minds only attracts young people due to their charming attitude, which is the common attitude for any new sect trying hard to attract followers
I don't know about young people, but the number of Jews, Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims that have been seeking support from that site and "Safar"'s website has significantly increased over the last two years. The only reason I am there is because of the heavy demand they are in with non-Muslims. |
Quote: |
You don't have to worry about trolls, they can enjoy themselves without our help. But yes - I don't see why it matters whether or not "reading" and "recitation" comes from a cultural context where the same term was used about the bible as the quran.
The early Christians used to have a lot in common with Muslims. Not only did they sing the scriptures in the same way as Muslims, they also used to pray in the same way, with systematic bowing, kneeling and putting their forehead on the floor. But when Christianity became dominated by Greeks and Romans they gave that up and just sat on their Church pews listening to their priest and drinking their wine. We muslims have far more in common with the early Semitic/Aramaic Christians. |
Quote: |
The book of the bible which I find is most similar to the Quran is the book of Isaiah, the writing is not poetic like the Quran, but the symbolism in it, for example making frequent reference to the destruction of Sodom as the Quran does, makes me see it as being in a similar tradition.
6-7th Century Christians in Rome or Byzantium would not be early Christians, as they were deep enough in the Empire to be totally under the sway of the Niecean creed. But in Syria they would be out of reach of Imperial religious power and were thus much less influenced by catholic-orthodox dogma, so were more like early Christians. When I hear the Quran recited in a singing voice with tune and melody, as it traditionally is, I call that singing. I know Sunni muslims take offence to this and say it is not singing, and some even say singing is haram, but they're just silly. Is the only thing you have against Luxenberg that he is quoted at you by evangelical christians online? |
Quote: |
It's conjecture, but why circular? |
Quote: | ||
The way I see things is that when the message of God is given to a Prophet, it is like water pouring into a container. Whatever the form of the container, be it a glass, or a bottle, the water takes that shape, but its substance remains the same - it is still water.
Hence since the Prophet was from Mecca, he spoke Arabic, and the framework of ideas and examples given in the Quran are based upon this, it mentions tribes that we now would never have otherwise heard of from elsewhere. But the substance of what he is saying is constant regardless of culture. Thus it really does not matter to me whether the Arabic he spoke was traditional Bedouin Arabic or christianised Syrian Aramaic. If there are Syrian influences, if some of the cultural references made in the Quran are from a Christian-Syrian-Aramaic context, this is only the shape of the cup, it does not affect the substance of the meaning of the Quran, which is the 'water' God pours into it. In the case of the grapes/virgins example - of course this doesn't matter. The whole passage is only symbolic anyway - the Quran tells us so in 3:007
If suicide bombers are disappointed in the afterlife, it's not going to be anything to do with food or sex. It'll be whether they find themselves in the right place or not. |
The wrote: |
Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but an assertion requires more than just assumptions, which is what Christians (including "Luxenberg") fail to provide. |
The wrote: |
About the aalameen-aalimeen conflict, is it 21:107 where you suggest that we read "aalimeen" instead of "aalameen"? |
Quote: |
I agree that Luxunberg is an idiot, but the relation between Quran and Qeryana isn't so easily dismissed. Another flaw in his reasoning is that Qeryana is distinctly Christian. But look at Qeryana Ha Kefa. Considering the casual usage of the word Quran within the Quran itself it's safe to say it was a familiar word for everyone. |