Koran & Hadith in plain english?

[SA Huguenot]

A Roman said to Hillel, “Teach me Judaism while standing on one foot.” And Hillel said, “No problem”.
Hillel then went on to say “That which is hateful unto you, do not do unto others, the rest [of the Torah]
is commentary, go and learn.”

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, is there a source of plain English Koran and Hadith?

Every time I've tried to explore these, I soon am perplexed and confused by what I'm reading.
The names, the terminology, what I can only surmise what the writer assumes is general knowledge...

Think of my pursuit as similar to a blind man trying to understand colors by taking a painting class.

It's no different in the Jewish world, you make no headway on youtube lectures without some basic
grasp of terms and phrases that the teacher assumes you already know. I get lost there too frequently.

Yes, I had the same problem untill I found out that the Muslim scholars, Imaams, who translated their Quran into English, did it with bias and changed the meaning of a lot of problematic words and statements not to offend the Western readers.
I then started to get different English translations, and found huge variations in translation.

There are some Muslims who do translate it actual wording to the actual English, but somehow those English Qurans are never used by Muslims when talking to the Western world.

This is how most Muslims would like the Western world to understand Quran 66:12 for instance.
“And Maryam (Mary), the daughter of ‘Imraan who guarded her chastity. And We breathed into (the sleeve of her shirt or her garment) through Our Rooh [i.e. Jibreel (Gabriel)]”. [al-Tahreem 66:12]
And they follow up with a huge explanation on how this breath entered Mary's womb.
How was ‘Eesaa (peace be upon him) Created? - Islam Question & Answer

However, this is not what the Arabic says at all!

This is the true translation:
Muhammad Sarwar

He has also told, as a parable, the story of Mary, daughter of Imran who preserved her virginity and (into whose womb) We breathed Our spirit. She made the words of her Lord and the predictions in His Books come true. She was an obedient woman.
You can but this quran here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...mp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B003FQ8558

But the real and correct translation is:
Muhammad Ahmed & Samira And Mary Amran's daughter who remained chaste (protected) her genital parts between her legs, so We blew in it from Our Soul/Spirit , and she confirmed/was truthful with her Lord's words/expressions, and His Books , and she was from the worshipping humbl
You can download this translation by this Muslim here:
Clay Chip Smith

Anyhow, You will always hear Muslims defending the Quran with:
You must read it in Arabic!
or
Each word in Arabic has many meanings...etc.

Well, guess what, I learned it was only excuses.
The Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek, and those languages are fare more difficuilt to translate from, than the small Quran from Arabic!

In stead of Just translating what the Quran realy says, even if a spade is called a spade, the Muslim scholars need to whitewash the Quran not to offend civilised people.

The Bible was translated with swearwords shouted out by Nebuchadnezzars' general to the King in Jerusalem, and descriptions of israel whoring with idol gods described in x rated wording, Yet, we can read it in Hebrew and English, and any language on eart.

Nope, the Muslim scholars are only deceiving their fellow Muslims, and they are making it very bad for a Muslim to defend the Quran when guys like me ask if this can not be called as deception.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Hello

In Islam, you have the Arabic words of Allah and in saying that, whenever you read a translated copy, always have the arabic there next to it. This way you are always obliged to go back to the Arabic if you do not understand it and can ask about it.

Yes, there are many translations of the Quran but only one Arabic version.

Also not true,
the correct statement should be, all Muslims are using the 1924/1928 Arabic compiled in Egypt.
There are many different Qurans on Earth.
and none are 100% the same as the next.
Sanaa, Topkapi, Samarkant, Egyptian golden Quran, Hafs, Warsh, Qualoon, Al Duri and the list goes on.
All differing with some minor wording, to differernt words, to arrangements, to adding 2 verses in Q9, and the list goes on.

Guess what, the original manuscripts was destroyed by Uthman, and even Muhammad's quran was burned by hakim.

Now, why on earth did they do that?
Well, because Muslims started to make war and kill each other because of differences and added verses in the Quran.
Uthman then standardised the Quran and destroyed all the other versions!

 

[MyM]

English translations are not the real Quran.
But if you want to read the Quran and can't read it in the original, don't assume that any one translation is accurate.
If you read just a bit, don't take a tiny bit out of context.

This is true The Arabic is translated into many languages, and that is the best way to go about it---to ALWAYS have the Arabic by its side. Then if one does not understand it still, they go to those who are more knowledgeable. It's actually the best way to understand and when it's with the original, you can't say, "that's not what I said or meant" which many do with other religious books. They put their own opinions as the correct tafsir. Translations are not tafsirs, just a small percentages of it.

 

[MyM]

Yes, I had the same problem untill I found out that the Muslim scholars, Imaams, who translated their Quran into English, did it with bias and changed the meaning of a lot of problematic words and statements not to offend the Western readers.
I then started to get different English translations, and found huge variations in translation.

There are some Muslims who do translate it actual wording to the actual English, but somehow those English Qurans are never used by Muslims when talking to the Western world.

This is how most Muslims would like the Western world to understand Quran 66:12 for instance.
“And Maryam (Mary), the daughter of ‘Imraan who guarded her chastity. And We breathed into (the sleeve of her shirt or her garment) through Our Rooh [i.e. Jibreel (Gabriel)]”. [al-Tahreem 66:12]
And they follow up with a huge explanation on how this breath entered Mary's womb.
How was ‘Eesaa (peace be upon him) Created? - Islam Question & Answer

However, this is not what the Arabic says at all!

This is the true translation:
Muhammad Sarwar

He has also told, as a parable, the story of Mary, daughter of Imran who preserved her virginity and (into whose womb) We breathed Our spirit. She made the words of her Lord and the predictions in His Books come true. She was an obedient woman.
You can but this quran here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...mp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B003FQ8558

But the real and correct translation is:
Muhammad Ahmed & Samira And Mary Amran's daughter who remained chaste (protected) her genital parts between her legs, so We blew in it from Our Soul/Spirit , and she confirmed/was truthful with her Lord's words/expressions, and His Books , and she was from the worshipping humbl
You can download this translation by this Muslim here:
Clay Chip Smith

Anyhow, You will always hear Muslims defending the Quran with:
You must read it in Arabic!
or
Each word in Arabic has many meanings...etc.

Well, guess what, I learned it was only excuses.
The Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek, and those languages are fare more difficuilt to translate from, than the small Quran from Arabic!

In stead of Just translating what the Quran realy says, even if a spade is called a spade, the Muslim scholars need to whitewash the Quran not to offend civilised people.

The Bible was translated with swearwords shouted out by Nebuchadnezzars' general to the King in Jerusalem, and descriptions of israel whoring with idol gods described in x rated wording, Yet, we can read it in Hebrew and English, and any language on eart.

Nope, the Muslim scholars are only deceiving their fellow Muslims, and they are making it very bad for a Muslim to defend the Quran when guys like me ask if this can not be called as deception.

Omg seriously.........what Muslim scholars are you referring to????? Please don't spread this it does not represent. The story of Mary, DOES NOT INSULT ANYONE. If it does, it would most likely insult the Christians for the story of Maryam is a more eloquently told in the Quran than how it is represented in the Bible!

Seriously, how can you misinterpret so badly and then spread your own opinions about what you don't understand.

If you and many like you are like this, I am so very happy Allah HAS PRESERVED THE ORIGINAL for it's people like you who cause hatred between others.

You do not know the Arabic scholars, you do not know the tafsirs, you do not understand how the story was told...so please don't act like you know what is happening.

Ya know, the translations of the Bible has serious defects from Greek to English. Why don't you work on how to preserve that.

 

[MyM]

"Koran & Hadith in plain english?".....The Koran and Hadith are not in English....and that's the point. They were written long ago in a different language, and any attempt to translate them correctly will fail (somewhat).

This is why the associate pastor of my local Greek Orthodox church was having so much difficulty understanding the bible. He thought that there was just one heaven, not several levels of heaven as written in the Old Testament. He thought that God had split himself into three parts (trinity). When we go back to the old translations, we understand the truth.

Modern pastors will tell you lies about "all versions of the bible are perfect and agree with one another." That's simply not true. For example, in the old testament, Genesis 1:25 says that man was created before animals, and Genesis 2:18 says that man was created after animals.

Since the Muslim faith (and Christian faith) are spin-offs of the Jewish faith (essentially meaning that all Muslims and Christians are religiously (not ethnically) Jews), they must all rely on the old testament being true and correct.

Since when do we rely on lies to be sure of our religions? I thought that lies are the domain of Satan? Doesn't Satan rule by lies and deception?

We must tell the truth about the invalidity of modern translations of God's words. We must only believe the oldest versions, and, even then, we must question whether the words are true.

We must recognize lies in order to defeat them. We can't be misled by lies.

Hello

If you mean spinoff as the same message that was preached from all the messages from the past, in the Quran, Allah states
He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.


In Islam, it is known that all the messages from Adam to Mohammad all taught the same religion. One God. One message. Through time man has corrupted those messages. That is why the final message was sent and after that, the judgement.

We, as Muslims, don't rely on those messages from the past. We have the original LAST MESSAGE.

In Islam, Mohammad pbuh ordered the Quran to be written, Uthman on him peace, gathered, conformed it into a book and until this day is here. Mohammad pbuh gave specific instructions and also put in charge those who are experts in Quranic matters for understanding the Quran and til this day, we have those words. We do not rely just on translations...anyone can that has the ability to translate, can translate if they can prove to be authenticated by the Quran and Sunnah.

 

[MyM]

Yes, yes, you know I could replace every instance of 'Arabic' with 'Hebrew'
and it would describe exactly how I read Torah, English on one side, Hebrew the other.

The Hebrew side would do no good for someone who can't read it.
The English side, while never perfect, would still be better than nothing.
And certainly better than something being translated from Latin from Hebrew.

After five pages of indecipherable arguments, I'm disappointed no one could
give me an answer. I guess there's no real desire for non-Arabic speakers to
read the Koran? Is that accurate? That there's nothing you think is important
enough to supersede a lack of a language skill and be spread in the world?

but you are missing the point, your Hebrew is not authenticated by God. It is of man. God did not endorse what you are reading. Men have added, deleted and then they say inspired, then they say what they wish. Greek to Hebrew to English etc...things are bound and have been lost in translations as Christianity already proved that. Allah did bring the Torah and the Zaboor (to David-Dawood-on him peace, and the Injeel(goospels) but he sent Mohammad pbuh to confirm those that came before it.

You are incorrect. Anyone can read the Quran. But giving opinions must be authenticated.

“It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) the Book (this Quran). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkaam (commandments), Al-Faraa’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudood (laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding”
Al ‘Imraan 3:7

This verse in the Chapter of al Imran (fyi: The father of Maryam on her peace) should help you to understand. Islam is not something that one must just read and throw aside like they don't understand. Allah says, it is FOR the understanding.

He knows who will already but we try our best to do our best to understand what our Creator wants from us.

 

[MyM]

I agree.

When King Henry VIII of England wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon (1st of 6 wives), and the Catholic church prohibited it, he formed his own (Anglican, protestant) church, and demanded to be its leader (holy man that he was....lol).

Kings and popes have altered the various bibles. Every spin-off has its own favorite version, and no two versions are exactly alike. The devil (pardon the pun) is in the details.

I suppose that we could use statistics and say to ourselves that we have a 90% chance of being right? But that doesn't give us a very good understanding of God.

Yeah, I have often watched movies as well that just really pist me off a little lol I mean so what they are King...doesn't make them get revelation from God and the arrogance that stemmed from that went way beyond and over.

When I was a Christian, I read in the Bible that Divorce was forbidden. Then as I grew older, that belief was still in the Bible but people were just not paying it no mind anymore. That was really puzzling. It's like people are playing fast and loose with the book they are claiming came from God. The laws were not even made fair.
In Islam, Divorce has stages and it is most definitely allowed. One can remarry as they wish. No one is to force, to pressure or compel anyone to marry against their will. In Islam, the women even has a dowry the man must pay. (Doesn't have to be a certain amount-the less the better) but it is the women's right.

 

[MyM]

Okay, that's a good start, thanks.

The Quran claims to be clear and easy to understand. Therefore, the Islamic scholars who spend years working on translations should be able to create accurate translations. If they cannot, then we cannot honestly claim that the book is perfect.

My point is that when a Muslim says something like "oh, you can't really understand the Quran unless you read it in Arabic", that's not a logical or defensible claim. That claim is in conflict with what the Quran itself says.

In the Quran, Allah says,
“It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) the Book (this Quran). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkaam (commandments), Al-Faraa’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudood (laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:7]

There is no contradiction

This verse is clear

 

[MyM]

Also not true,
the correct statement should be, all Muslims are using the 1924/1928 Arabic compiled in Egypt.
There are many different Qurans on Earth.
and none are 100% the same as the next.
Sanaa, Topkapi, Samarkant, Egyptian golden Quran, Hafs, Warsh, Qualoon, Al Duri and the list goes on.
All differing with some minor wording, to differernt words, to arrangements, to adding 2 verses in Q9, and the list goes on.

Guess what, the original manuscripts was destroyed by Uthman, and even Muhammad's quran was burned by hakim.

Now, why on earth did they do that?
Well, because Muslims started to make war and kill each other because of differences and added verses in the Quran.
Uthman then standardised the Quran and destroyed all the other versions!

Again, you do not understand. The words never change. The meanings never change. In Islam, the Quran has different ways of RECITING.
As I have said in another post and I posted them. I also gave an example...I will mention it again. Take the word British...some pronounce it like it is spelled and some pronounce it as Bri'ish...it is accented differently. Mohammad pbuh taught all.

What Uthman did was compile all the Quran, to preserve it. He conformed it into a book and still to this day it is preserved. It was written down during the lifetime of Mohammad pbuh because Mohammad pbuh told them to write it down. What Uthman did was collect all of the written, and compiled it. SIMPLE as to not lose it and for people to understand it better. In Islam, we take the name of Allah seriously, we do not put it in the trash, nor in the bathroom, or touch it after having sexual relations until you have ghusl (full bath) and if you need to dispose of it like it is getting old and kinda need to get a new Quran, or the name of Allah is on newspapers, in books, etc.--we burn them instead of putting them in the trash. Also, if you were to know Arabic, you would find that when you read it, it is simple, but to those who are not Arabic, like myself, you will be very confused as to what it is being said. Because the vowel markings need to be there. This is what Uthman (on him peace) did. SIMPLE. But people like you turn it into something horrible all because you just can't understand what we try to tell you.

Allah says it is for the understanding

 

[Augustus]

Muslims don't call it canonicity.

The English language does though, so we know what I mean.

So you have to precisely give examples and define what you are speaking of specifically.

You well know there have been debates over whether or not certain recitals constitute acceptable variations or errors.

If they are as you say non canonical, they are non canonical. So with the greatest difficulty, with you never answering a question I understood what you are trying to say.

If they are non-canonical, whats the problem? Please explain.

It's not a problem but a question: to what extent are non-canonical variations evidence of (relatively minor) textual variations that existed along side each other prior to "Uthmanic" standardisation as opposed to scribal and transmission based errors of a standardised text.

 

[MyM]

The English language does though, so we know what I mean.



You well know there have been debates over whether or not certain recitals constitute acceptable variations or errors.



It's not a problem but a question: to what extent are non-canonical variations evidence of (relatively minor) textual variations that existed along side each other prior to "Uthmanic" standardisation as opposed to scribal and transmission based errors of a standardised text.

The ones that were taught by Mohammad pbuh did not have errors. The Quran stayed the same. The Quran does not have errors. Same words, same meanings.
The most famous reciters/recitations are

1-Naafi’ al-Madani

2-Ibn Katheer al-Makki

3-‘Aasim al-Kufi

4-Hamzah al-Zayaat al-Kufi

5-Al-Kisaa’i al-Kufi

6-Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ al-Basri

7-‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Aamir al-Shaami

 

[icehorse]

I don't accept the Islamic theology that the Quran is timeless etc. Anything that is born dies sooner or later for one thing. And there's zero logical proof that Gabriel gave the Quran to Muhammad.

That's all I'm really saying. The foundational claims of the faith are illogical.

 

[Augustus]

The ones that were taught by Mohammad pbuh did not have errors. The Quran stayed the same. The Quran does not have errors. Same words, same meanings.
The most famous reciters/recitations are

Yet, factually, there exist numerous early manuscripts that deviate from the standard text beyond simply being accepted variations. It is also true that these variations are generally pretty minor, but they do impact meaning to some extent.

The question is are these the result of scribal and transmission errors or are they indicative of a degree of flexibility in the early text. Of course this question is debatable, and can't really be conclusively proved either way.

One perspective on this:

First, although it seems to have been reasonably demonstrated by now that (with the exception of the lower layer of the San'a) palimpsest) most surviving Quran manuscripts bear the signs of having been produced following a campaign of standardization basically consistent with that reported to have been directed by the third caliph, it is also clear that there existed some differences of perception about the correct words of the Quran an text at the times most of these manuscripts were produced, which were later revisited when these perceptions changed or standardization became more thorough. It is not impossible that some of these varying perceptions would have been tied to certain geographic regions or locales. This perceived flexibility exceeds the bounds of what is reported in the qira'at literature.

Second, these differences of perception were not confined to the earliest decades after Muhammad's death, but there was some flexibility extending for several centuries after. The flexibility does not appear to have been great...

This degree of apparent flexibility that has limits seems to fit very well with what is seen elsewhere, such as the inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock which suggest to Chase Robinson and Stephen Shoemaker a certain instability in the text of the Qur'an through the time of its completion in 691/2 AD, during the reign of the caliph 'Abd al-Malik, 1 3 and, to the larger point, the variations requiring later correction in the manuscripts would be consistent with what Nicolai Sinai has termed the 'emergent canon model,' the hypothesis that "the Qur'anic text, in spite of having achieved a recognizable form by 660, continued to be reworked and revised until c. 700." 1 4 Of course, such a model, i.e. complete closure of the quranic "canon" around 700, would still fail to account for manuscripts being produced after this time that still required later correction, unless of course every one of these were to be attributed only to orthographic developments, standard qira'at variations, or scribal error at first production, a scenario that does not appear to be the case.

Corrections in Early Quran Manuscripts: Twenty Examples - Daniel Alan Brubaker


Some corrections (the Arabic transliterations haven't copied well, but it shows the general idea):

• wa-lii "nor" of Q6:91 is written instead as wiiw,

• "and;" the lam- )alif has been omitted. The meaning here is thus "you and your fathers" rather than the 1924 Cairo edition's "you nor your fathers"

• What reads mubarakun mu$addiqu, "[it is] blessed and confirms," in the 1924 Cairo edition ofQ6:92 is written in this manuscript without the long medial
  
  )alif in the first word and also with a long )alif at the end of both words, to render mubarakan mu$addiqan, apparently "a blessed and confirming one."
  
  
• The waw "and" that precedes li-tundhir, "that you may warn," in the 1924 Cairo edition is absent on this page.
  
  
• What reads $alatihim (archigraphemically CLA BHM), "prayers," in the 1924 Cairo standard is written in this manuscript with a waw instead of the medial long )alif, that is, $alawatihim, 1 2 or, archigraphemically, CLW BHM. The latter is plural; a slight change of meaning.
  
  
• The aw, "or," of Q6:93 is written in this manuscript as wa, "and," to render "he who imputes falsehood to Allah and says," instead of the 1924 Cairo edition's "he who imputes falsehood to Allah or says."
  
  
• The 1924 Cairo standard's idh, "while," ofQ6:93 is written in this page as idha, "when."
  
  
• The long )alifthat is in second position of the bastu, "outstretched," ofQ6:93 in the 1924 Cairo edition is missing on this page.
  
  
• The word �.J rabbikum, "your Lord," is written between allah andfa- )inna of Q6:95. This does not exist in the 1924 Cairo edition �ut does make grammatical sense here, reading, "That is Allah your Lord, how then," rather than "That is Allah, how then" as it exists in today's standard. It is interesting that the correctors ofthis page did not erase this word. Did they feel it belonged here?
  
  

 

[firedragon]

The English language does though, so we know what I mean.

Thats true. I can relate to that.

You well know there have been debates over whether or not certain recitals constitute acceptable variations or errors.

Im confused. Are you referring to a recital or a textual variant?

It's not a problem but a question: to what extent are non-canonical variations evidence of (relatively minor) textual variations that existed along side each other prior to "Uthmanic" standardisation as opposed to scribal and transmission based errors of a standardised text.

Okay.

The so called "Uthmanic text" is a term used to refer to the early text but the term is used because of a hadith. Thus, if this hadith is to be followed, the Hafza manuscript was taken by Uthman which already existed and he apparently made an error correction. So then, if this term is used the Uthamanic text is Hafzas manuscript.

From a text critical angle, each manuscript is to be understand as a text type. And these text types having a variant if any, can be attributed to many things, like errors, homoeoteleuton, etc. lt could also be taking parallel texts and gaining an understanding through criticism. Isthiabul Mutawaaziaathi.

When it comes to recital, a Madhwajib will change the recital from an A to an AAA, but that does not apply to early manuscripts but only comes out from the traditions. Mathn, Isnad. That is why when you say recital you have to give an example to clear out what you mean because its confusing. Some traditions like the sab thuwal, meen and mathani are narrated by someone like ibn Abbas, Yazid and Awf. It becomes Gharib. Doubtful. So some of these narratives taken by some scholars need to be questioned. Nowhere is this division defined by either the Qur’ān or by anything sound. Nowhere.

So a lot of questions remain in the latter scholarships taking a modern outlook on the latter manuscripts, taking Uthmanic text or tradition as a frame, with out considering scholars like Farahi's commentary that the text of the Qur'an was never left to the Salafs or the companions. It was standardised during the prophets lifetime. And even the Uthmanic tradition in the hadith that they take, says very clearly about Hafzas manuscript which was used by Uthman. Which means it was the standard, and earlier, and was with Hafza, which makes it closer to the source.

Some examples of a variant stated by Sadeghi himself who you quoted are something like "Fadhdheeh" vs "Fadheeh". The writer dropped a letter. Dhad is dropped. Its a silly error and the word doesnt make sense. So what you must understand is that this is considered a serious error. Why? Because its a textual variant, not a rendition variant. Not a recital. So this absolutely minor variant is considered serious simply because it was indeed a textual variant though a child would know what has happened. After the Dhal, the writer dropped the Dhad. So that's the kind of serious variant we are talking about.

Then you get some variants where commentaries have been written and analysis of the text shows that the addition is definitely not Quranic. So it was changed. The analysis process of taking a few narrations and manuscripts will correct that easily, as an advanced step. But a scholar of Fusha atthuraath identifies it without any narrations or other manuscripts because of the philological obvious difference in writing.

 

[icehorse]

But people like you turn it into something horrible all because you just can't understand what we try to tell you.

When you make extraordinary claims such as "the Quran is the perfect, timeless, final, unalterable word of god", you should expect us to be skeptical. It's not us making those claims, it's you.

 

[firedragon]

Yet, factually, there exist numerous early manuscripts that deviate from the standard text beyond simply being accepted variations. It is also true that these variations are generally pretty minor, but they do impact meaning to some extent.

The question is are these the result of scribal and transmission errors or are they indicative of a degree of flexibility in the early text. Of course this question is debatable, and can't really be conclusively proved either way.

One perspective on this:

First, although it seems to have been reasonably demonstrated by now that (with the exception of the lower layer of the San'a) palimpsest) most surviving Quran manuscripts bear the signs of having been produced following a campaign of standardization basically consistent with that reported to have been directed by the third caliph, it is also clear that there existed some differences of perception about the correct words of the Quran an text at the times most of these manuscripts were produced, which were later revisited when these perceptions changed or standardization became more thorough. It is not impossible that some of these varying perceptions would have been tied to certain geographic regions or locales. This perceived flexibility exceeds the bounds of what is reported in the qira'at literature.

Second, these differences of perception were not confined to the earliest decades after Muhammad's death, but there was some flexibility extending for several centuries after. The flexibility does not appear to have been great...

This degree of apparent flexibility that has limits seems to fit very well with what is seen elsewhere, such as the inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock which suggest to Chase Robinson and Stephen Shoemaker a certain instability in the text of the Qur'an through the time of its completion in 691/2 AD, during the reign of the caliph 'Abd al-Malik, 1 3 and, to the larger point, the variations requiring later correction in the manuscripts would be consistent with what Nicolai Sinai has termed the 'emergent canon model,' the hypothesis that "the Qur'anic text, in spite of having achieved a recognizable form by 660, continued to be reworked and revised until c. 700." 1 4 Of course, such a model, i.e. complete closure of the quranic "canon" around 700, would still fail to account for manuscripts being produced after this time that still required later correction, unless of course every one of these were to be attributed only to orthographic developments, standard qira'at variations, or scribal error at first production, a scenario that does not appear to be the case.

Corrections in Early Quran Manuscripts: Twenty Examples - Daniel Alan Brubaker


Some corrections (the Arabic transliterations haven't copied well, but it shows the general idea):

• wa-lii "nor" of Q6:91 is written instead as wiiw,

• "and;" the lam- )alif has been omitted. The meaning here is thus "you and your fathers" rather than the 1924 Cairo edition's "you nor your fathers"

• What reads mubarakun mu$addiqu, "[it is] blessed and confirms," in the 1924 Cairo edition ofQ6:92 is written in this manuscript without the long medial
  
  )alif in the first word and also with a long )alif at the end of both words, to render mubarakan mu$addiqan, apparently "a blessed and confirming one."
  
  
• The waw "and" that precedes li-tundhir, "that you may warn," in the 1924 Cairo edition is absent on this page.
  
  
• What reads $alatihim (archigraphemically CLA BHM), "prayers," in the 1924 Cairo standard is written in this manuscript with a waw instead of the medial long )alif, that is, $alawatihim, 1 2 or, archigraphemically, CLW BHM. The latter is plural; a slight change of meaning.
  
  
• The aw, "or," of Q6:93 is written in this manuscript as wa, "and," to render "he who imputes falsehood to Allah and says," instead of the 1924 Cairo edition's "he who imputes falsehood to Allah or says."
  
  
• The 1924 Cairo standard's idh, "while," ofQ6:93 is written in this page as idha, "when."
  
  
• The long )alifthat is in second position of the bastu, "outstretched," ofQ6:93 in the 1924 Cairo edition is missing on this page.
  
  
• The word �.J rabbikum, "your Lord," is written between allah andfa- )inna of Q6:95. This does not exist in the 1924 Cairo edition �ut does make grammatical sense here, reading, "That is Allah your Lord, how then," rather than "That is Allah, how then" as it exists in today's standard. It is interesting that the correctors ofthis page did not erase this word. Did they feel it belonged here?
  

Brubaker. I thought you will bring Brubaker into this.

Take one of his so called "changes" above. Just one.

Can you tell me how many manuscripts he has taken and what are the narrations he has considered? His so called conflicting "grammatical problems" and "flexibility" are technically conflicting. He is doing a very bad job. He does not even understand some basic arabic where ever he got the knowledge from. In arabic sentences of the Quranic text the grammar requires masculine or/and feminine noun. Unbelievable. And you go and cut and paste parts of his book, where ever you found it. Mate. He has handpicked some manuscripts, made up a flexibility theory, mixed up flexibility and grammatical errors not knowing what in the world he was talking about, and in fact contradicting himself, and ignored other earlier manuscripts, traditions. He takes a drop of two letters in a manuscript, ignored several other manuscripts that has it, and makes the "flexible" case.

Absurd.

 

[Link]

Yet, factually, there exist numerous early manuscripts that deviate from the standard text beyond simply being accepted variations.

There is no such thing as the standard text. The Quran has come us by multiple recitations and variations. To pick one and make it popular and then declare it's the standard is unfair.

This to me is no big deal, because, there is multiple interpretations for example for verses where the meaning is even more important then differences in Qaria and we can investigate which one is true. The same is true of the recitations, the Quran always verifies which one is true. For example, 3:7, there is another verse that says "Rather it's clear signs in the hearts of those given the knowledge" and so we can conclude and for many reasons, the hamza is supposed to be AFTER the Firmly rooted in knowledge in 3:7.

There is a different way with each discrepancy, but you can see the truth in Quran itself. For example, by Quran and reasoning, you can also know the three recitations that passed "Peace be upon the family of Yaseen" is the correct one. I can elaborate in great detail, but the other recitations are impossible.

And where we don't know, we can do same with mutashibih concepts in Quran, leave it till we know.

 

[Augustus]

Im confused. Are you referring to a recital or a textual variant?

in that sentence

You well know there have been debates over whether or not certain recitals constitute acceptable variations or errors.

The so called "Uthmanic text" is a term used to refer to the early text but the term is used because of a hadith. Thus, if this hadith is to be followed, the Hafza manuscript was taken by Uthman which already existed and he apparently made an error correction. So then, if this term is used the Uthamanic text is Hafzas manuscript.

From a text critical angle, each manuscript is to be understand as a text type. And these text types having a variant if any, can be attributed to many things, like errors, homoeoteleuton, etc. lt could also be taking parallel texts and gaining an understanding through criticism. Isthiabul Mutawaaziaathi.

Hence "Uthmanic", not Uthmanic.

As I've said, textual variant can be explained by different factors, the problem is it is hard to prove as we can only build inductive arguments as to why one explanation is preferable to the other.

It's pretty clear that the Quran was highly standardised quite early, but that is not saying that it was perfectly standardised from day 1.

In addition, we know that early mufassir didn't understand parts of the Quran, or how to interpret some words/verses. This suggests there was a loss of some knowledge somewhere, at leats if we assume the meaning was known in the days of Muhammad (hence the need to fabricate sunnah to explain things).

So we are left with a lack of proof, and different perspectives can be argued.

Brubaker. I thought you will bring Brubaker into this.

Take one of his so called "changes" above. Just one.

Can you tell me how many manuscripts he has taken and what are the narrations he has considered? His so called conflicting "grammatical problems" and "flexibility" are technically conflicting. He is doing a very bad job. He does not even understand some basic arabic where ever he got the knowledge from. In arabic sentences of the Quranic text the grammar requires masculine or/and feminine noun. Unbelievable. And you go and cut and paste parts of his book, where ever you found it. Mate. He has handpicked some manuscripts, made up a flexibility theory, mixed up flexibility and grammatical errors not knowing what in the world he was talking about, and in fact contradicting himself, and ignored other earlier manuscripts, traditions. He takes a drop of two letters in a manuscript, ignored several other manuscripts that has it, and makes the "flexible" case.

Absurd.

The question is are these the result of scribal and transmission errors or are they indicative of a degree of flexibility in the early text. Of course this question is debatable, and can't really be conclusively proved either way.

One perspective on this:

 

[firedragon]

It's pretty clear that the Quran was highly standardised quite early, but that is not saying that it was perfectly standardised from day 1.

What is "Day 1" for you?

I gave you a comprehensive answer. You are incapable of understanding it. try and read some scholarly books. If you want I can recommend some.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

You well know there have been debates over whether or not certain recitals constitute acceptable variations or errors.

Give an example of a debate with direct reference on recitals. Not a cut and paste. Try and give a direct reference with what is the recital you are speaking about, and if you ever understood what I said about recitals or not. Who debated, what was the debate, based on what recital, etc. Details.

Thanks.