Can the Quran only be understood one way.

[Fool]

Muhammad told the quran as he was given it, But for us who follow the teaching, would it not be "normal" to see a bit different understanding from each practitioner ? as human beings we think somewhat different and even when reading the same text, we will have different understanding of what it actually means, if we not take every word 100% literarlly or?

its like becoming proficient at something anything. there is a goal. it isn't whatever you want it to be. half of anything is still half of nothing


isaiah 28:10

 

[darkskies]

No, because the different meanings do not contradict each other. They cannot contradict each other.

I did not say they do.

 

[Augustus]

Thats exactly what you have shown above. But you have taken the transmission of it from someone who is criticising the chains of narration, not the different "Ways of reading the Quran" based on ahadith. This is hadith. But, thanks for giving your example so that I understand what you mean now. You are analysing hadith.

Not really.

I would only be 'analysing hadith' if I was interested in establishing which of these were accurate/legitimate/etc. or how they came to be. I'm simply using them as examples of variant readings.

There were also obviously a larger number of non-canonical readings, and these contained a greater diversity of differences.

I would like to know who's work this is nevertheless.

The text it is from is noted S Nasser - The 2nd canonisation of the Quran, if you mean his abbreviations:

The acronyms of the Eponymous Readers are used as follows:

IK: Ibn Kathīr, N: Nāfiʿ, IA: Ibn ʿĀmir, AA: Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, A: ʿĀṣim, H: Ḥamza, K: al-Kisāʾī, Y: Yaʿqūb al-Ḥaḍramī, AJ: Abū Jaʿfar al-Madanī, and KH: Khalaf al-Bazzār (al-ʿĀshir). IM stands for Ibn Mujāhid.

What do you mean with "orthodox reading of the Quran emerged centuries later"?

'Orthodoxy' in everything emerged centuries later in Islam, generally the earlier the sources the greater the disagreement between them. Over time, a broader consensus was reached on what was 'correct'. 'Orthodoxy' denotes this consensus rather than any agreement that they are 'correct' (or 'incorrect' for that matter).

If there was a singular objectively 'correct' reading that existed at one point then there is no longer any way of telling what that was without some degree of subjectivity.

 

[firedragon]

The text it is from is noted S Nasser - The 2nd canonisation of the Quran, if you mean his abbreviations:

The acronyms of the Eponymous Readers are used as follows:

IK: Ibn Kathīr, N: Nāfiʿ, IA: Ibn ʿĀmir, AA: Abū ʿAmr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, A: ʿĀṣim, H: Ḥamza, K: al-Kisāʾī, Y: Yaʿqūb al-Ḥaḍramī, AJ: Abū Jaʿfar al-Madanī, and KH: Khalaf al-Bazzār (al-ʿĀshir). IM stands for Ibn Mujāhid.

Thats based on hadith. But thanks for pointing to the author you quoted.

'Orthodoxy' in everything emerged centuries later in Islam, generally the earlier the sources the greater the disagreement between them.

What are the 7th century disagreements?

 

[Augustus]

Thats based on hadith. But thanks for pointing to the author you quoted.

I know, but it is beside the point.

What are the 7th century disagreements?

No one bothered to write them down so we don't know

We just know that when people did start writing stuff down, they couldn't agree, and that people were fabricating stories to support their positions and explain stuff they didn't understand.

 

[firedragon]

I know, but it is beside the point.



No one bothered to write them down so we don't know

We just know that when people did start writing stuff down, they couldn't agree, and that people were fabricating stories to support their positions and explain stuff they didn't understand.

How do you know that they "couldn't agree"? Because there were many many writings that date back to the 1st century hijri. You know that. So they did write it down. Every single scholar or even a layman knows this. So how do you know "they couldn't agree"?

 

[Augustus]

How do you know that they "couldn't agree"?

What I said was if there was originally a single 'objective' reading, no one knows what it is any more as when people started to write down their opinions, they disagreed.

Because there were many many writings that date back to the 1st century hijri. You know that. So they did write it down. Every single scholar or even a layman knows this. So how do you know "they couldn't agree"?

Quran fragments, epigraphy, graffiti, nothing that solves the above issue.

If you disagree feel free to make your case.

 

[firedragon]

What I said was if there was originally a single 'objective' reading, no one knows what it is any more as when people started to write down their opinions, they disagreed.

So who said brother, that there was ever a "single reading"? And who said there is something called "single objective reading" of the Quran?

Quran fragments, epigraphy, graffiti, nothing that solves the above issue.

If you disagree feel free to make your case.

Not really. You said "they couldn't agree" and you also said that in the early years the disagreements were further. But there is no evidence you could provide from the early days where they "disagreed". None. Thats why I asked what could you produce to make your case from the 7th century. Unless you contend that your so called "early days" is actually the "latter days" beyond the 7th century or the first century hijri.

Could you?