|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
THHuxley
Joined: 20 Feb 2004
Posts: 2474
Location: Denver, Colorado
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Abudosama wrote: |
| • - Their understanding can not be as true as people living then. |
Actually, since hindsight is 20-20, historians are often able to gain a perspective that earlier people did not have. So, you are wrong. Their understanding can be even MORE true then people living then.
| Abudosama wrote: |
| • - Composition of Truth in this way is a composition of lie, for other. |
Actually, truth is truth and lies are lies, regardless of what either group bleieves. The difference is not that what is true for one is a lie for another, it is that some people are correct and others are wrong.
| Abudosama wrote: |
| • - How can some one describe the behaviour and living styles of stone age people. |
By studying their bones, their artifacts, their dwellings, and the traces of their behavior left behind.
_________________
Nullius in Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
abudosama, the verse was meant in the weak form and allegoricly that woman should simply behave when temptation is around.
Girth your loins;keep your legs together.
Even in it's headscarve interpretation it was never binding.
Think on it. Mohammad could never have put it in Allahs mouth to state:
WOMAN SHOULD KEEP THEIR LEGS TOGETHER.
Mo's live and that of woman would sure have been different.
And moslems would have understood the proper allegoric meaning right away.
Instead of all that subterfuge with hijaab.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abudosama
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1126
Location: Planet Earth
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THHuxley
| Quote: |
Well, Muslim history, maybe.
Thankfully, most non-Muslim historians rely on evidence, and not myth.
I would contend that religion is the most corrupted source for "human idiotic support" since it is entirely fabricated from scratch. |
. Every history my dear THHuxley, more assumptions with litte facts.
_________________
SALAM-UN-ALAIKUM, to All brothers & Sisters in Islam(submition) and Eemaan(Peace).
Good Wishes and blessing of their god or no god to non-Muslim (who lack submission and Peace). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley
Joined: 20 Feb 2004
Posts: 2474
Location: Denver, Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Abudosama wrote: |
| . Every history my dear THHuxley, more assumptions with litte facts. |
I know this is the most convenient belief for you to hold, as it allows you to ignore the truth of Islamic history.
Not all of us have the same need for rationalization.
_________________
Nullius in Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abudosama
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1126
Location: Planet Earth
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Li-Li-th
| Quote: |
Think on it. Mohammad could never have put it in Allahs mouth to state:
WOMAN SHOULD KEEP THEIR LEGS TOGETHER. |
. Don't you like to keep your leg togather as woman ?
_________________
SALAM-UN-ALAIKUM, to All brothers & Sisters in Islam(submition) and Eemaan(Peace).
Good Wishes and blessing of their god or no god to non-Muslim (who lack submission and Peace). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep I do especially when leechers are around.
But it doesn't follow from religion.
Niqaab does not protect woman from abuse so it would be better if they would change the sura to the oldest original available.
That would in my opinion also invoke a change in muslimmen.
The allegoric meaning would be to behave. So addressing the inner strenght and morals.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abudosama
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1126
Location: Planet Earth
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Li-Li-Th
| Quote: |
| Yep I do especially when leechers are around. . |
• - But why do you let Leechers to approach the intersection of your legs.
• - If you do tahara like Muslim you won,t attract Leechers, try it.
_________________
SALAM-UN-ALAIKUM, to All brothers & Sisters in Islam(submition) and Eemaan(Peace).
Good Wishes and blessing of their god or no god to non-Muslim (who lack submission and Peace). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They never get that close, and you might say so, but request a hospital workschedule and read on the abuse of your women instead of talking like a nitwit.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abudosama
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1126
Location: Planet Earth
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Li-Li-Th
You commented:
| Quote: |
| Think on it. Mohammad could never have put it in Allahs mouth to state: WOMAN SHOULD KEEP THEIR LEGS TOGETHER. |
I asked:-
| Quote: |
| • - Don't you like to keep your legs together as woman ? |
You cofirmed:
| Quote: |
| Yep I do especially when leechers are around. . |
I suggested:-
| Quote: |
• - But why do you let Leechers to approach the intersection of your legs.
• - If you do tahara like Muslim you won,t attract Leechers, try it. |
You informed:
| Quote: |
| They never get that close, and you might say so, but request a hospital workschedule and read on the abuse of your women instead of talking like a nitwit. |
• - Well If they never get that close then why do you fear????? and accept:
| Quote: |
| Yep I do especially (keep my legs together as woman) when leechers are around. . |
_________________
SALAM-UN-ALAIKUM, to All brothers & Sisters in Islam(submition) and Eemaan(Peace).
Good Wishes and blessing of their god or no god to non-Muslim (who lack submission and Peace). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
must be reflex even by streetlenght distance.
but back to the subject.
what about reintroducing that earlier version and abrogating the wrong one on veils?
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abudosama
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1126
Location: Planet Earth
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Li-Li-Th
| Quote: |
must be reflex even by streetlenght distance.
but back to the subject.
|
• - Ofcourse.
| Quote: |
| what about reintroducing that earlier version and abrogating the wrong one on veils? |
• - Abrogation must be on all evilish attitude, of critics.
| Quote: |
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
| Quote: |
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/ArabicScript/Ayat/17/17_70.gif
(Al-Kitaab C: 17, V: 70). And surely :-
• - We have honored the children of Adam, and
• - We carry them in the land and the sea, and
• - We have given them of the good things, and
• - We have made them to excel by an appropriate excellence over most of those whom We have created. |
_________________
SALAM-UN-ALAIKUM, to All brothers & Sisters in Islam(submition) and Eemaan(Peace).
Good Wishes and blessing of their god or no god to non-Muslim (who lack submission and Peace). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
what about reintroducing that earlier version and abrogating the wrong one on veils?
• - Abrogation must be on all evilish attitude, of critics.
|
in the first place that's not answering nor addressing the oldest verse version merits and secondly were does it state that in the quraan?
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abudosama
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1126
Location: Planet Earth
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Li-Li-Th
| Quote: |
| in the first place that's not answering nor addressing the oldest verse version merits and secondly were does it state that in the quraan? |
Bit explaination please :-(
_________________
SALAM-UN-ALAIKUM, to All brothers & Sisters in Islam(submition) and Eemaan(Peace).
Good Wishes and blessing of their god or no god to non-Muslim (who lack submission and Peace). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear A.
first on the preservation of old arab documents, so as to make clear that this is a valid method take paictures on microfiche and other forms of exact copying from the original:
http://www.arabcin.net/arabia3000/english/3/english.htm
| Quote: |
There are complete five copies of Koran was copied in the Ottoman Khalifa time (after 6 years of the death of the prophet). One is in Istanbul museum in Turkey, the second in one of the former Soviet republics (may be Auzbzkistan) , the third was burned on 13/4/2003 in the Library of Baghdad after the American occupied this city. The fourth in Egypt. I do not know where the other 5th copy exists? but surely there are copy which was Khalifa Ottoman, he was killed while reading the Koran and its blood still on the 2 page till now. In case I find picture for that copy, I will show it here ….
|
| Quote: |
Sa'na manuscripts, ancient versions of the Koran discovered in Sa'na, the capital of Yemen.
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 assistance to preserve and examine them.
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.
----------- The above are exerpts pertaining to the above post.---
The rest is the article in its entirety.
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 Rushdie 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 Satanic Verses. "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 assistance 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 palimpsests - manuscripts with versions written even earlier that had been washed off or erased.
These findings led Dr Puin to assert 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.
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-18805.html
| Quote: |
Just incase anyone is interested, the book An Introduction to the sciences of the Quran authored by Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi has been reprinted
An Excellent book
also has some nice pictures of old quraan manuscrips at the back, one written around 2 A.H. !
Another good site:
Ulum al Qur'an
by Ahmad von Denffer
An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Denffer_uaq/
|
| Quote: |
Q. – By the way, what do you think about the Islamic veil?
A. – “There is a passage in Sura 24, verse 31, which in Arabic reads, ‘That they should beat their khumurs against their bags.’ It is an incomprehensible phrase, for which the following interpretation has been sought: ‘That they should extend their kerchiefs from their heads to their breasts.’ But if this passage is read in the light of Syro-Aramaic, it simply means: ‘They should fasten their belts around their waists.’” |
The full article:
| Quote: |
The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian Origins of the Koran http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42077,00.html
A German scholar of ancient languages takes a new look at the sacred book of Islam. He maintains that it was created by Syro-Aramaic speaking Christians, in order to evangelize the Arabs. And he translates it in a new way
by Sandro Magister
ROMA – That Aramaic was the lingua franca of a vast area of the ancient Middle East is a notion that is by now amply noted by a vast public, thanks to Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ,” which everyone watches in that language.
But that Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran, and of the Koran of a primitive Christian system, is a more specialized notion, an almost clandestine one. And it’s more than a little dangerous. The author of the most important book on the subject – a German professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages – preferred, out of prudence, to write under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg. A few years ago, one of his colleagues at the University of Nablus in Palestine, Suliman Bashear, was thrown out of the window by his scandalized Muslim students.
In the Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries, mangled by the wars of religion, scholars of the Bible also used to keep a safe distance with pseudonyms. But if, now, the ones doing so are the scholars of the Koran, this is a sign that, for the Muslim holy book as well, the era of historical, linguistic, and philological re-readings has begun.
This is a promising beginning for many reasons. Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, a professor at Saarland University in Germany and another Koran scholar on the philological level, maintains that this type of approach to Islam’s holy book can help to defeat its fundamentalist and Manichean readings, and to bring into a better light its ties with Judaism and Christianity.
The book by “Christoph Luxenberg” came out in 2000 in Germany with the title “Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran” (“A Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran”), published in Berlin by Das Arabische Buch. It is out of print, and there are no translations in other languages. But a new, updated edition (again in German) is about to arrive in bookstores.
Here follows an interview with the author, published in Germany in the newspaper “Süddeutsche Zeitung” and in Italy in “L’espresso,” no. 11, March 12-18, 2004:
From the Gospel to Islam
An interview with “Christoph Luxenberg” by Alfred Hackensberger
Q. – Professor, why did you think it useful to conduct this re-reading of the Koran?
A. – “Because, in the Koran, there are many obscure points that, from the beginning, even the Arab commentators were not able to explain. Of these passages it is said that only God can comprehend them. Western research on the Koran, which has been conducted in a systematic manner only since about the middle of the 19th century, has always taken as its base the commentaries of the Arab scholars. But these have never gone beyond the etymological explanation of some terms of foreign origin.”
Q. – What makes your method different?
A. – “I began from the idea that the language of the Koran must be studied from an historical-linguistic point of view. When the Koran was composed, Arabic did not exist as a written language; thus it seemed evident to me that it was necessary to take into consideration, above all, Aramaic, which at the time, between the 4th and 7th centuries, was not only the language of written communication, but also the lingua franca of that area of Western Asia.”
Q. – Tell us how you proceeded.
A. – “At first I conducted a ‘synchronous’ reading. In other words, I kept in mind both Arabic and Aramaic. Thanks to this procedure, I was able to discover the extent of the previously unsuspected influence of Aramaic upon the language of the Koran: in point of fact, much of what now passes under the name of ‘classical Arabic’ is of Aramaic derivation.”
Q. – What do you say, then, about the idea, accepted until now, that the Koran was the first book written in Arabic?
A. – “According to Islamic tradition, the Koran dates back to the 7th century, while the first examples of Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase are found only two centuries later, at the time of the ‘Biography of the Prophet’; that is, of the life of Mohammed as written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 828. We may thus establish that post-Koranic Arabic literature developed by degrees, in the period following the work of al-Khalil bin Ahmad, who died in 786, the founder of Arabic lexicography (kitab al-ayn), and of Sibawwayh, who died in 796, to whom the grammar of classical Arabic is due. Now, if we assume that the composition of the Koran was brought to an end in the year of the Prophet Mohammed’s death, in 632, we find before us an interval of 150 years, during which there is no trace of Arabic literature worthy of note.”
Q. – So at the time of Mohammed Arabic did not have precise rules, and was not used for written communication. Then how did the Koran come to be written?
A. – “At that time, there were no Arab schools – except, perhaps, for the Christian centers of al-Anbar and al-Hira, in southern Mesopotamia, or what is now Iraq. The Arabs of that region had been Christianized and instructed by Syrian Christians. Their liturgical language was Syro-Aramaic. And this was the vehicle of their culture, and more generally the language of written communication.”
Q. – What is the relationship between this language of culture and the origin of the Koran?
A. – “Beginning in the third century, the Syrian Christians did not limit themselves to bringing their evangelical mission to nearby countries, like Armenia or Persia. They pressed on toward distant territories, all the way to the borders of China and the western coast of India, in addition to the entire Arabian peninsula all the way to Yemen and Ethiopia. It is thus rather probable that, in order to proclaim the Christian message to the Arabic peoples, they would have used (among others) the language of the Bedouins, or Arabic. In order to spread the Gospel, they necessarily made use of a mishmash of languages. But in an era in which Arabic was just an assembly of dialects and had no written form, the missionaries had no choice but to resort to their own literary language and their own culture; that is, to Syro-Aramaic. The result was that the language of the Koran was born as a written Arabic language, but one of Arab-Aramaic derivation.”
Q. – Do you mean that anyone who does not keep the Syro-Aramaic language in mind cannot translate and interpret the Koran correctly?
A. – “Yes. Anyone who wants to make a thorough study of the Koran must have a background in the Syro-Aramaic grammar and literature of that period, the 7th century. Only thus can he identify the original meaning of Arabic expressions whose semantic interpretation can be established definitively only by retranslating them into Syro-Aramaic.”
Q. – Let’s come to the misunderstandings. One of the most glaring errors you cite is that of the virgins promised, in the Islamic paradise, to the suicide bombers.
A. – “We begin from the term ‘huri,’ for which the Arabic commentators could not find any meaning other than those heavenly virgins. But if one keeps in mind the derivations from Syro-Aramaic, that expression indicated ‘white grapes,’ which is one of the symbolic elements of the Christian paradise, recalled in the Last Supper of Jesus. There’s another Koranic expression, falsely interpreted as ‘the children’ or ‘the youths’ of paradise: in Aramaic: it designates the fruit of the vine, which in the Koran is compared to pearls. As for the symbols of paradise, these interpretive errors are probably connected to the male monopoly in Koranic commentary and interpretation.”
Q. – By the way, what do you think about the Islamic veil?
A. – “There is a passage in Sura 24, verse 31, which in Arabic reads, ‘That they should beat their khumurs against their bags.’ It is an incomprehensible phrase, for which the following interpretation has been sought: ‘That they should extend their kerchiefs from their heads to their breasts.’ But if this passage is read in the light of Syro-Aramaic, it simply means: ‘They should fasten their belts around their waists.’”
Q. – Does this mean the veil is really a chastity belt?
A. – “Not exactly. It is true that, in the Christian tradition, the belt is associated with chastity: Mary is depicted with a belt fastened around her waist. But in the gospel account of the Last Supper, Christ also ties an apron around his waist before washing the Apostles’ feet. There are clearly many parallels with the Christian faith.”
Q. – You have discovered that Sura 97 of the Koran mentions the Nativity. And in your translation of the famous Sura of Mary, her “birthgiving” is “made legitimate by the Lord.” Moreover, the text contains the invitation to come to the sacred liturgy, to the Mass. Would the Koran, then, be nothing other than an Arabic version of the Christian Bible?
A. – “In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Scriptures which might have been used in sacred Christian services. In the second place, one may see in the Koran the beginning of a preaching directed toward transmitting the belief in the Sacred Scriptures to the pagans of Mecca, in the Arabic language. Its socio-political sections, which are not especially related to the original Koran, were added later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and thus functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society.”
Q. – To many Muslim believers, for whom the Koran is the holy book and the only truth, your conclusions could seem blasphemous. What reactions have you noticed up until now?
A. – “In Pakistan, the sale of the edition of ‘Newsweek’ that contained an article on my book was banned. Otherwise, I must say that, in my encounters with Muslims, I have not noticed any hostile attitudes. On the contrary, they have appreciated the commitment of a non-Muslim to studies aimed at an objective comprehension of their sacred text. My work could be judged as blasphemous only by those who decide to cling to errors in the interpretation of the word of God. But in the Koran it is written, ‘No one can bring to the right way those whom God induces to error.’”
Q. – Aren’t you afraid of a fatwa, a death sentence like the one pronounced against Salman Rushdie?
A. – “I am not a Muslim, so I don’t run that risk. Besides, I haven’t offended against the Koran”
Q. – But you still preferred to use a pseudonym.
A. – “I did that on the advice of Muslim friends who were afraid that some enthusiastic fundamentalist would act of his own initiative, without waiting for a fatwa.”
__________
Divine Verses
Koran, in Arabic Qur’an, means recitation or reading. It is an essential element of the Islamic faith that it was always with God and “descended” in its fullness to Mohammed at the moment of his call as a prophet, called the “night of destiny.” It is in Arabic, and it may be ritually recited only in this language. It is divided into 114 Suras, or chapters, and each Sura is divided into verses. The first Sura, called “the unstopping,” is a brief prayer that plays an important role in worship and everyday life. The following Suras are ordered according to length, from longest to shortest. According to the tradition, Mohammed gradually communicated to his faithful the parts of the Koran revealed to him. The oldest Suras are called those “of Mecca”; that later ones, “of Medina.” The most ancient Suras are of a markedly theological character, while the Suras of Medina are more juridical, dictating the ordering of the community. For Sunni Islam,.the Koran may not be put to criticism, given its divine nature: in any case, the “door of interpretation” of the Koran has been closed since the 11th century. |
On the matter of abrogation:
| Quote: |
Sahih al-Bukari
كتاب المناقب (The Book of the Virtues of the Prophet and His Companions)
No. 3267 - Narrated Anas:
Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-'As and 'AbdurRahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts of the Holy Qur'an in the form of book in several copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons. " If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the quran, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the quran was revealed in their language." So they acted accordingly. (Said bin Thabit was an Ansari and not from Quraish ).
So we have translations at this stage, and the muslims of today argue that translations are susceptible to error.
|
http://www.libertyunites.tv/ftopicp-46601-.html
just for reference:
http://www.hindunet.com/forum/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=hindutva&main=47596&type=thread
http://archive.mumineen.org/awliya/duat/retrospect.html
http://www.islammuslims.com/islam-qa/Volume_7/Chapter_1.htm
ayat al sayf abrogates the one on no compulsion.
| Quote: |
10262: Dividing Tawheed into categories
Question:
I hear from some knowledgable brothers concerning Tawheed and its categories that Shaykh ul Islaam Taqi`ud deen Ibn Taymiyyaah (Rahimahullaah) held 2 catergories of Tawheed (ie; Tawheed Ar-Ruboobiyyaah and Tawheed Al Asmaa Was Sifaat) How true are these statements? Did Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem (rahimahullaah) hold 4 catergories? and finally does Shaykh Saleeh Al Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) hold 4 catergories of Tawheed?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
We must understand the principle which says that there is nothing wrong with using new terminology. This principle is well-known among the fuqaha' and scholars of usool. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
There is nothing wrong with new concepts and new words, unless there is something bad about them.
Madaarij al-Saalikeen, 3/306
Secondly:
From early times the scholars have categorized the rulings of sharee'ah. This has only been done to make it easier to understand the texts and rulings of sharee'ah, especially as time goes by and knowledge of Arabic language becomes weaker and the language gets mixed with foreign languages.
The scholars thought it wise to set out principles, issues and categories to make it easier to understand. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it is a good thing because it makes knowledge more accessible to the Muslims. Al-Shaafa'i set out the principles of fiqh and his categorization was well-received and was followed by the scholars of usool who wrote commentaries on what he said and added to it. This was done in all branches of Islamic knowledge such as tajweed (recitation of Qur'aan), Qur'aan and others, including Tawheed.
Thirdly:
With regard to what the questioner mentions, that Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah] divided Tawheed into two categories and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem divided it into four, as did Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, there is nothing wrong with that.
|
| Quote: |
"And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allaah (He is the ruling Judge)."[al-Shoora 42:10]
"Have you not seen those (hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tâghût (false judges) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitân (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray"[al-Nisaa' 4:10]
"Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith"[al-Maa'idah 5:50]
"O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination"[al-Nisaa' 4:59]
Every Muslim must submit to the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, and not give precedence to the ruling of anyone other than Allaah and His Messenger _ no matter who they may be _ over their ruling. Just as worship must be for Allaah alone, so too the hukm (judgement, command) belongs to Him alone, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah" [Yoosuf 12:40]
Referring for judgement to anything other than the Book of Allaah or to anything other than the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), is one of the gravest of evil actions and one of the worst of sins; indeed, a person may become a kaafir by referring for judgement to anything other than the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), if he believes that this is permissible or he believes that the ruling of anyone other than Allaah and His Messenger is better. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission"
[al-Nisa' 4 5]
He is not a believer who does not refer for judgement to Allaah and His Messenger both in basic matters of religion and in minor issues, and with regard to rights and duties. Whoever refers for judgement to anyone other than Allaah and His Messenger as referred for judgement to Taaghoot (false judges).
Hence we conclude that it is not permissible to revive tribal laws, customs and systems to which they refer for judgement instead of to the pure sharee'ah which has been prescribed by the Most Just of the Judges and the Most Merciful of those who show mercy. Rather we must bury it, kill it off and turn away from it, and be content to refer for judgement to the laws of Allaah, in which there is good for all people and protection for their religious and worldly affairs. The tribal shaykhs should not judge between the people according to customs which have no basis in Islam and for which Allaah has sent down no authority. Rather they should refer matters concerning which their tribes dispute to the sharee'ah courts. This will by no means prevent reconciliation between disputing parties by removing hatred and uniting people and pleasing both parties without forcing anyone, in a manner that does not go against the sharee'ah, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"and making peace is better"[al-Nisa' 4:128]
"There is no good in most of their secret talks save (in) him who orders Sadaqah (charity in Allaah's Cause), or Ma`roof (Islamic Monotheism and all the good and righteous deeds which Allaah has ordained), or conciliation between mankind"[al-Nisa' 4:114]
"So fear Allaah and adjust all matters of difference among you" [al-Anfaal 8:1]
And it was narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Reconciliation among Muslims is permissible, apart from a reconciliation which forbids something that is permitted or permits something that is forbidden."
What is obligatory is to adhere to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and to refer to them for judgement, and to beware of anything that goes against them; and we must repent sincerely from anything that has been done in the past which went against the laws of Allaah.
May Allaah help us all to do that which He loves and which pleases Him; may He grant us all refuge from the misguidance of fitan (to be forgotten) and the misguidance of the Shaytaan, for He is All-Hearing, Ever Near. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions, and grant them peace.
Majmoo' Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi'ah li Samaahat al-Shaykh al-`Allaamah `Abd al-`Azeez ibn `Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 8, p. 272 (www.islam-qa.com)
|
So A. what we are faced with is an earlier version of quraan. We know that according to the fiqh the verse on wearing hijaab is not a strong one. Meaning it should not be taken literally but understood as behaving in a suitable decent matter when the circumstances as mentioned occur.
And really what women isn't offended by having het breasts compared to 'bags'. ((Allah can't use a proper word that's not offensive?? All the more reason to think that is was a wrong interpretation.)
The next point is were this dresscode derived from? There is enough prove that it came from tribal customs in the time and that in no way manner or form Allah ordered this.The form the verse came down was as a kind of wishfull thinking.Not like an edict:
| Quote: |
For this reason, legislative matters in the Qur'an are frequently addressed to the believers, starting the address with "Believers". For example Allah says: "Believers, fasting is prescribed for you..." [al-Baqarah 2:183]
And He says: "Believer, when the call is proclaimed for prayer on Friday, hasten earnestly to the remembrance of Allaah..." [al-Jumu'ah 62:9]
And He says: "Believers, fulfill the contracts..." [al-Ma'idah 5:1]
Addressing the believers like this carries the implication that: "If you are true believers, you should perform the following action, because it is a requirement for the integrity and sincerity of Iman."
|
With an interpretation that says that people should behave in all decency I feel that the spirit of integrity and sincerity of aspiring to peace is better served that approaching a woman in an undecent manner just because she is not wearing un overgarment. Or woman for that matter. I do not have the full text but to me it seems that it was in the original meant for both sexes.
Especially since recent reports of muslimmen descibing women in hijab as more sexy then an undressed woman.
We saw the same in Europe in the Victorian days and it made for a new kind of perversion. And that rather defeats the purpose of mentioning it in the quraan.
I am not the only one who resents women that were a headscarve in the way the verse is interpreted now. It's like they are implying that man and women have no self-control. It's offensive to people that are very well behaved. The latter I consider it the way Muhammed (and if we are to take his every utterance Allah) meant it to be.Well behaved and no sexual connotation.
If a piece of cloth is still all that stands between a man or woman behaving out of control than islam is truly not a guideline or religion that improves character and good behaviour.
In the days of old wearing the headscarve was to distinquish one from slaves(but was also the attire of a prostitute in some middle eastern cultures of that day and some slavegrils were halfnaked)as a person that was not subservient to anyone and had her own means of livelyhood. Islam spoke out against slavery for muslims(as did Chrestos for the christians)so the headscarve became the symbol for that. Given that they are now the only ones still holding slaves and people against their volition, it's rather hypocritical.(think of iraq and demanding freedom to wear headscarves in France while holding two people and like the slavers of yore deciding over their life or death or how much money they are worth.)
So I would plead for a correction of that interpretation of the verse in the quraan to remove the patina of hypocrisy that is nowadays attached to the veil.
http://groups.msn.com/j544ntu4jle82hdg947f4sf1l2/religion.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=3316&LastModified=467547
8346080782964
| Quote: |
Le thème du hijab est abordé huit fois dans le Coran. Et pas une seule fois pour désigner l'habit dont la femme devrait se couvrir la tête.
|
it is mentioned 8 times in the quraan and not once as a female attire to cover the face. It talks about a curtain to seperate men from the womens space.
So in all honesty(sticking to that text) if a men ventures out he would also have to wear the veil.
But you would concur with me that that interpretation would be silly.
And then again it's all about the wifes of the prophets that should not be spoken to improper. A curtain , not a veil should seperate them.
I'ld say that wearing the veil has created a fog of misunderstanding between men and women and west and islam just like in sura 41 verse 5 or sura 83 verse 15.
It might have been meant as a step forward for those women that were as slaves forced to be halfnaked ( in the old poetry a referral like that is made), but now it means exactly the opposite.
The ratio however should be freedom and equality for men and women, since that is what abolishing slavery is all about.
Slaves so as to convince them to become islamic, were denied a big overdress, some verse in i think the an-fal refers to that.
Well A. I tried to be as complete as is possible.So it's not even about abrogation but about an interpretation that does more justice to the inherent decency of men and women.The liberation should touch upon all, not half of them wearing a restricting cloth.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abudosama
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1126
Location: Planet Earth
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:14 pm Post subject: Please Define a Book. |
|
|
Li-Li-Th
I am thankful for you detail explanation, What ever you have written about changing of Quraan, because you people mostly rely on human history written by Iranian. Anyhow if I temporarily believe what you quoted, then please answer the following Questions?
• - How do you define a Book, booklet or manuscript pinned together?
• - If Shakespeare instead of writing his drama’s only spoke in front of audience, can he tell people about his drama as book he wrote?
• - If a person out of audience memorizes Shakespeare’s drama by heart and next day, can he tell people that he had read this drama from Shakespeare’s book?
• - Can a verbal lecture written on a piece of papers, parchment, bones, leaves and collected in a bin be called as book?
_________________
SALAM-UN-ALAIKUM, to All brothers & Sisters in Islam(submition) and Eemaan(Peace).
Good Wishes and blessing of their god or no god to non-Muslim (who lack submission and Peace). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
