S
sedonaman
Guest
Do Muslims also believe that Allah gave them free will?
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
Most Muslims don’t know Arabic. How could they “know” the Quran if they didn’t know Arabic, then, since a “translation is not Quran”?
M
Muslim_Woman
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Salaam/peace
Non-Arabs learnt Arabic alphabet & how to pronounce the words / recite the verses . As we don’t know the language , we can’t understand the meaning unless we read the translation .
As a non Arab , I read 2/3 lines translation first , then read the Arabic text like this : Say He is God , one and only. Qul Hu wallahu Ahad .
Salaam/peace
It’s a must to recite from holy Quran in our daily prayers. So , we memorised some short chapters since childhood.
Non-Arabs learnt Arabic alphabet & how to pronounce the words / recite the verses . As we don’t know the language , we can’t understand the meaning unless we read the translation .
As a non Arab , I read 2/3 lines translation first , then read the Arabic text like this : Say He is God , one and only. Qul Hu wallahu Ahad .
B
Booklover
Guest
You have tremendous faith in human memory!
Can you honestly believe that every Muslim would remember every word in the Quran exactly and recite it the same way? Even so, what does that prove?Islamic “logic” is mind boggling!
Uthman burned many Qurans because of contradictions and errors in the different translations which were making Muslims lose their faith so the claims by Muslims that the Qurans you have now are the same as dictated by Muhammad are bogus!
Vickie
B
Booklover
Guest
Muslims are always stating that Muhammad was a “mercy” to mankind, can you explain how you can possibly believe such a thing?
Vickie
Vickie
E
Eucharisted
Guest
It means he was a sign of God’s Mercy, becuase he was said to be a compassionate man.
Question: If Mecca didn’t exist, would Muslims pray facing Jerusalem?
B
Booklover
Guest
And what has his “compassion” brought to the world? Looting, raping and lust, terrorism, hatred, abominable pride and arrogance, killing to name but a few!
I for one want no part of Muhammad’s so-called “compassion”!
Vickie
S
sedonaman
Guest
A person can memorize anything; but without understanding, it is meaningless. For example, if a teacher made me memorize, “The earth is round.”, I would not understand what she said if I didn’t have a concept of “earth” and “round”. I could recite all day, “The earth is round. The earth is round. The earth is round. The earth is round. The earth is round.” … ad nausium, but it would have no meaning at all because I wouldn’t understand what I’d be saying. How can someone believe a statement that has no meaning?
How can you understand the meaning if you read a translation since, “Translation is not Quran”? What you are reading is not a Qur’an by your own statement, so you can’t understand the meaning of the Qur’an while reading something that is not a Qur’an.
How do you know what you are saying? In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one he does know, which means that what the apologists who insist that in order to understand the “real” Qur’an one must read it in Arabic, are really making two mutually exclusive statements. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic to read and understand it), or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker). The non-Arabic speaker is then caught in a “Catch-22”, in other words, he can’t get there from here. In fact, you can’t even claim what you are saying here is true about the Qur’an because you are communicating it [whatever “it” is] in English.
While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words, phrases, and concepts that are literally untranslatable? More important, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all men in the only language that cannot be understood by all men – including all Muslims, since most do not speak Arabic?
I highly suspect the idea that only an Arabic Qur’an is a true Qur’an was invented to hide from non-Muslims its contradictions and embarrassing passages used to justify, slavery, the inferiority of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, religious discrimination, violence against non-believers, etc. Those who do make this argument are banking on the listener’s accepting it at its face and not bothering to learn Arabic.
P
planten
Guest
**Yet they have the incorruptible Quran with them. They keep on reading it without understanding much of it in the young age. Later most of them understand the meanings.
It is necessary (every step) to be able to read the Quran in Arabic. That is a must for all Muslims. After that, as much as they can do, the door is open to learning the translation of the Quran in local language.
The Muslims always learn to read the Quran in Arabic. And memorize parts of the Quran in Arabic. Because in the 5 time daily prayers, it is the Quran in Arabic that is recited, not the translation of the Quran**.
P
planten
Guest
**B L, nobody was losing faith in Islam. It was necessary to provide an authentic copy of the Quran to all the world. Islam had spread to vast areas. It was necessary to provide an good authentic compiled copy of the Quran to every one and that is with us even now.You have tremendous faith in human memory!
Islamic “logic” is mind boggling!
Uthman burned many Qurans because of contradictions and errors in the different translations which were making Muslims lose their faith so the claims by Muslims that the Qurans you have now are the same as dictated by Muhammad are bogus!
Vickie
What harm is there if any wrong copies were destroyed even though there is no proof of such things. There were no differences of text.It was only a matter of different dialect.**
B
Booklover
Guest
S
sedonaman
Guest
Nothing you posted answers my questions. All you did was repeat what MW said.
How could they [non-Arabic speaker] understand the Qur’an at a later age if they still don’t know Arabic? Most important, why would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all men in the only language that cannot be understood by all men – including all Muslims, since most do not speak Arabic?
D
dzheremi
Guest
As someone who is both trained in Linguistics and learning Arabic, I also find this assertion rather odd. I will concede that there are probably many words and phrases in Arabic that are not translatable (this is not so strange; there is no direct translation of the English word “privacy” in Russian, nor does English have a word exactly corresponding to the Russian word хам; the closest that I’ve seen is “boorish”), but this is a different claim than “____ can only be truly/properly understood in X language.” This seems to be the claim that certain Muslims make, and it is entirely unsupportable. Linguists threw out this idea of “hard” linguistic determinism years ago. Just because something is not translatable does not mean that the concept does not exist.
I can accept the idea of a preserved liturgical language for its purity and its tradition (these are after all two of the reasons why Latin was until very recently the only language of the Church; its status as a dead language left it unaffected by modern idioms, and it had a long history as the language of the Western Church), but that is it. Anything more than that gets into a person’s own sense of superiority and absolutism, and that is not supportable unless Muslims will finally admit that they really are Arab supremacists, no matter what their prophet said about that in his last sermon.
Incidentally, I read recently in a paper on diglossia by Furgeson [in “Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings”, eds. Paulston, C.B., Tucker, G.R. (2003)] that even the Classical Arabic used in various countries varies according to the phonology of the low/common/national dialect.
“For example, Syrian and Egyptian Arabic often use /s/ for /q/ in oral use of Classical Arabic” (2003: 354)
So maybe the “purity” argument can’t even be made here. I don’t know.
I can accept the idea of a preserved liturgical language for its purity and its tradition (these are after all two of the reasons why Latin was until very recently the only language of the Church; its status as a dead language left it unaffected by modern idioms, and it had a long history as the language of the Western Church), but that is it. Anything more than that gets into a person’s own sense of superiority and absolutism, and that is not supportable unless Muslims will finally admit that they really are Arab supremacists, no matter what their prophet said about that in his last sermon.
Incidentally, I read recently in a paper on diglossia by Furgeson [in “Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings”, eds. Paulston, C.B., Tucker, G.R. (2003)] that even the Classical Arabic used in various countries varies according to the phonology of the low/common/national dialect.
“For example, Syrian and Egyptian Arabic often use /s/ for /q/ in oral use of Classical Arabic” (2003: 354)
So maybe the “purity” argument can’t even be made here. I don’t know.
S
sedonaman
Guest
That is because Islamic logic is built on contradiction. Two conflicting statements can both be true to Muslims; but to us Westerners, if two statements conflict with each other, at least one is false.
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=77D37794-BF74-4BD5-9AD4-D8736FDC82BB
J
jakasaki
Guest
Too much to post from this site, so please take your time and read it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Qur%27an
And I found this information:
Uthman is perhaps best known for forming the committee which compiled the text of the Qur’an as it exists today. **The reason was that various Muslim centres, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur’an. **
Uthman feared that the nascent Rashidun Empire would fall apart in religious controversy if everyone did not have access to a common text of Qur’an.
Towards the end of his reign, the committee finished compiling the text, and Uthman had it copied and sent to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, commanding that alternate versions of the Qur’an be destroyed, and only the official version used.
Uthman is said to have been reviewing a copy of the Qur’an when he was assassinated.
Again, to much to copy and paste for please read here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Ibn_Affan
Kufa - OK - it’s in Iraq - Hey, I keep learning every day…
In the first decades of Islam, Kufa was prominent in literacy and politics, it was founded before Uthman (whom Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri among others credited with the canonisation of the Qur’an’s text), and it was opposed to the central authorities of Medina and Damascus.
From the perspective of eighth-century CE (second-century AH) Medina and Damascus, Kufa was associated with “variant” readings and interpretations of the Qur’an, typically in the name of Ibn Mas’ud and often (it was claimed) read from the pulpit as if they were part of the Qur’an itself.
**It became said that Uthman had sent an exemplar of the text to Kufa, but that it was burnt during the wars of Mukhtar and Ibn Zubayr. **
Al-Hajjaj restored or at any rate promulgated the standard text under Abd al-Malik, castigating even the memory of Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud as “Ibn Umm Abd (son of a slave’s mother)”.
**But a faction in Kufa preserved the readings **“of
Abd Allah / Ibn Masud”, whence Mujahid and his fellow mujtahids compiled them along with other readings and interpretations.From there these readings entered the vast repository of Near Eastern hadith, ultimately to be written down into collections of hadith and tafsir.
More information - read here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Ibn_Affan Legacy
**One of Uthman’s actions, controversial at the time, is now the act for which he is remembered. He headed a committee that established the basic text of the Qur’an. **
Various Muslim centers, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur’an. Uthman feared that the nascent Islamic empire would fall apart in religious controversy if it did not have a sacred text recognized by everyone.
Sometime during the end of his reign, the committee produced a text (some Muslims dislike the term ‘text’ used of the Qur’an, implying that it has the same status as other books whose authors are human.
According to tradition, the process of collecting the surahs (chapters) of the Qur’an had started under Umar, who instructed Zaid ibn Thabit, who had served as one of Muhammad’s scribes, to begin gathering the various written pieces together.
Some have it that a manuscript (Mushaf) existed during Abu Bakr’s caliphate and that the Prophet himself had determined the order of the surahs. Uthman had the manuscript copied and sent to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, **commanding that variant versions of the Qur’an be destroyed, and only his version used. **
Many devout believers believed that his actions were high-handed and accused Uthman of tampering with the sacred book. Some Western historians, such as John Wansborough (1977) believe that the Qur’an was completed later than Uthman’s time.
Read here:newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Uthman
During his caliphate, Uthman collected the verses of Qur’an, and published it as the official version of God’s last message to mankind.
**There were other copies also extant but he seized them and burned them. **
al-islam.org/restatement/58.htm
All of this information I gathered from different sites and posted the site for reference.
Reading all of this, for me, the Koran today is **NOT **the original which was during Mohamads time, because Mohamad was already dead and Uthman took over… but original scrips were burned.
And what about the verses/scrips which were written and placed under Aishia’s bed, but the “goat” ate them. I hear muslims in all sorts of forums that it Mohamad’s scribes wrote the Koran during Mohamads 23 years of ruling.
B
Booklover
Guest
Great work, Pam!Too much to post from this site, so please take your time and read it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Qur%27an
And I found this information:
Uthman is perhaps best known for forming the committee which compiled the text of the Qur’an as it exists today. **The reason was that various Muslim centres, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur’an. **
Uthman feared that the nascent Rashidun Empire would fall apart in religious controversy if everyone did not have access to a common text of Qur’an.
Towards the end of his reign, the committee finished compiling the text, and Uthman had it copied and sent to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, commanding that alternate versions of the Qur’an be destroyed, and only the official version used.
Uthman is said to have been reviewing a copy of the Qur’an when he was assassinated.
Again, to much to copy and paste for please read here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Ibn_Affan
Kufa - OK - it’s in Iraq - Hey, I keep learning every day…
In the first decades of Islam, Kufa was prominent in literacy and politics, it was founded before Uthman (whom Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri among others credited with the canonisation of the Qur’an’s text), and it was opposed to the central authorities of Medina and Damascus.
From the perspective of eighth-century CE (second-century AH) Medina and Damascus, Kufa was associated with “variant” readings and interpretations of the Qur’an, typically in the name of Ibn Mas’ud and often (it was claimed) read from the pulpit as if they were part of the Qur’an itself.
**It became said that Uthman had sent an exemplar of the text to Kufa, but that it was burnt during the wars of Mukhtar and Ibn Zubayr. **
Al-Hajjaj restored or at any rate promulgated the standard text under Abd al-Malik, castigating even the memory of Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud as “Ibn Umm Abd (son of a slave’s mother)”.
**But a faction in Kufa preserved the readings **“ofAbd Allah / Ibn Masud”, whence Mujahid and his fellow mujtahids compiled them along with other readings and interpretations.
From there these readings entered the vast repository of Near Eastern hadith, ultimately to be written down into collections of hadith and tafsir.
More information - read here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Ibn_Affan Legacy
**One of Uthman’s actions, controversial at the time, is now the act for which he is remembered. He headed a committee that established the basic text of the Qur’an. **
Various Muslim centers, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur’an. Uthman feared that the nascent Islamic empire would fall apart in religious controversy if it did not have a sacred text recognized by everyone.
Sometime during the end of his reign, the committee produced a text (some Muslims dislike the term ‘text’ used of the Qur’an, implying that it has the same status as other books whose authors are human.
According to tradition, the process of collecting the surahs (chapters) of the Qur’an had started under Umar, who instructed Zaid ibn Thabit, who had served as one of Muhammad’s scribes, to begin gathering the various written pieces together.
Some have it that a manuscript (Mushaf) existed during Abu Bakr’s caliphate and that the Prophet himself had determined the order of the surahs. Uthman had the manuscript copied and sent to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, **commanding that variant versions of the Qur’an be destroyed, and only his version used. **
Many devout believers believed that his actions were high-handed and accused Uthman of tampering with the sacred book. Some Western historians, such as John Wansborough (1977) believe that the Qur’an was completed later than Uthman’s time.
Read here:newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Uthman
During his caliphate, Uthman collected the verses of Qur’an, and published it as the official version of God’s last message to mankind.
**There were other copies also extant but he seized them and burned them. **
al-islam.org/restatement/58.htm
All of this information I gathered from different sites and posted the site for reference.
Reading all of this, for me, the Koran today is **NOT **the original which was during Mohamads time, because Mohamad was already dead and Uthman took over… but original scrips were burned.
And what about the verses/scrips which were written and placed under Aishia’s bed, but the “goat” ate them. I hear muslims in all sorts of forums that it Mohamad’s scribes wrote the Koran during Mohamads 23 years of ruling.
Vickie
J
jakasaki
Guest
Thanks Vickie - I spent all afternoon researching and compiling. Oh man, the internet is a wealth of information.Great work, Pam!
Vickie
One poster earlier said that the original koran was burned by this Uthman guy and I’ve always heard from muslims that the koran is the original scripts from mohamad reign of 23 years.
In fact, history has documented otherwise. Hopefully, our muslim mates on the site will participate in the discussion…
God Bless,
Pam
New York
S
sedonaman
Guest
Having studied English, Latin, French, Korean, and cultural anthropology, I have to agree with you. As a sidebar in addition to your observations, in a given language, the number of words for an entity is generally an indication of the importance of that entity. The example given in class was in the Eskimo [Aleutian?] language, there are 17 words for “snow” whereas in English there are only a few. The word “coconut” probably doesn’t even exist in Eskimo. In American English, there are literally*** thousands*** of words for “automobile”. So important is the automobile that their names describe them down to the minutest detail.
Of course, some entities are not important to a culture, but I would think that a religion that claims to be universal for all time would be of utmost importance to those concerned about salvation, but for some reason the true meaning of the Qur’an, which self-proclaims to be the way, is highly esoteric.
R
R_not
Guest
I read this a couple of days ago. Many of us on this thread remember the threads that muslims have accused us of worshiping idols and we have tried to explain but this continually comes up - by the same muslims no less.
Anyway, this bowled me over - I almost fell out of my seat when I read it. I will say I do indeed learn something every day.
They think this stone has a conscious!
hypocracies in islam
:dts:
Anyway, this bowled me over - I almost fell out of my seat when I read it. I will say I do indeed learn something every day.
They think this stone has a conscious!
hypocracies in islam
Today I read an article that the muslims are demanding another Church (1,600-year-old) be destroyed because they say it is ‘occupying’ their lands. This is an example of tolerance?
:dts:- Status