Constant research as to the message of Quran and what our Creator wants from us. Are you really this dense?
^^
Stop trying to backtrack on what you've already said… questioning the sameness of the Qur'an between what we have today and what was read in the Prophet's (saw) time… tut, tut…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Constant research as to the message of Quran and what our Creator wants from us. Are you really this dense?
[/QUOTE]
Not so dense, gupguppy is rather hollow like TIN (Tribal, and Insane Neanderthal) cup.
TIN cups believe in just one type of research, "how to behead people". When they think about productive research, they are more than happy to hand it over to Europeans.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
^^
Stop trying to backtrack on what you've already said… questioning the sameness of the Qur'an between what we have today and what was read in the Prophet's (saw) time… tut, tut…
[/QUOTE]
You are just wasting everyone's time. The idea is to gain knowledge, and you, for some odd reason, are convinced that everything is already laid out and no further work is necessary. I bet you can't give a definitive answer as to what "Aalif, Laam, Meem" stands for.
What hubris to assume that we already fully understand the Quran's message.
What's wrong with exploring different interpretations, as long as they are based on the Quranic text?
Lets not confuse the issue here, the issue is not the message, but the Arabic or as Faisal said original Arabic. I think there are lot of books available in Arabic which refer to the Arabic style of pre Islamic poetry. These books tell a lot about the "style" of arabic being used then and now. Being a student of Arabic language for the last two years, I can tell you that little has changed in Arabic in the last 2000 years. Now the Ai'rabs were added much later, in around 720 Anno Domini. During this time all the copies of Quran were with out any of Ai'rabs, they were added for the sole reason that people with no Arabic speaking knowledge were pronouncing the words wrong which could be interpreted differently.
I can add some more Arabic language history links if required.
Can you tell us what is the oldest manuscript of Quran that is preserved till today? What is the writing style? Any images?
I think I found some resources. Feel free to add additional thoughts.
The original manuscripts of the Quran did not contain either the Airab’s, but presumably did not contain even the nuktas (dots). I would imagine its not difficult to read without those marks, for those who understood the language at that time. Obviously not so easy for rest of us. It also depends on which Rasm-ul-Khatt is used to write it, as there are more than one to write Arabic. Here is the Quran, the way most of us read it
[thumb=H]Quran-Beirut12080_4394377.JPG[/thumb]
And I got two scans of the images of the Quran claimed to be from Hazrat Usman (Peace be upon him)'s time. Look at the text (just an example):
[thumb=H]q_script_old112080_6055940.JPG[/thumb]
[thumb=H]q_script_old212080_6055940.JPG[/thumb]
Again, the point is not to suggest that anything is altered or that we are not reading the right Quran.. but that there is always room to do more research on what certain words mean. If someone, in their infinite wisdom thinks, that the door to more research is closed, thats a poor reflection on their minds.
Well here is another review link.
The question that comes to my mind is, if muslims found it hard to write quranic text on something due to lack of writing material and lack of people who could read and write then how did the ancient texts survived eg poetry etc that is attributed to preislamic period Arabs?
This is the problem here, the following claim is made that the Quran is the basis for Arabic, whilst above Minime has said that Arabic has remained largely unchanged for 2000 years.
Its obvious the writer is using Syriac and Aramic defintions instead of the Arabic ones, whereever the words sound similar.
You can see examples of this in the link I provided earlier.
What kind approach or research is this, it only creates illogical meanings to the verses.
This isnt some great new finding, its just a way of confusing muslims. And before you know, it will be forgotten and they will try and find new techniques to misguide us.
Do you really think the muslims were completely wrong for 1400 years.
Airaab Hajaj Bin yousaf nay lagway/tajweez kiay thay take ghair arab sahi parrh sakain ... un dinon yah aik fitna ban gia tha ka honay chahiay ke nahi ... aik laak ke qareeb ulama kofa main jamma thay maghar koi faisla na ho saka. Akhair Hajaj nay hukam dia ... sub ke sir qalam kar do ... uss waqt se lay kar aaj tak arab o ajam airaab ke saat hi lekhtay or pharrtay hain.
i think, that as language evolves, so do those interpreting it. clearly, if the language of the Quran changed, those understanding it changed with it. In this case, I stand with those who take the literal meanings from our ancestors.
Had it actually meant 'grapes' at that time, those who read it at that time would've taken it as such. Its not as if we have the Book divorced from history in our hands right now, and are trying to make sense of it.
No, the meanings cannot change.
Personally, I think the whole argument about "hur" meaning "grapes" is just a bunch of BS. Someone up there gave a link that linguistically demolishes the argument of Christoph Luxenberg, step by step. And in the mean time also proves that Luxenberg's own skills about these languages is highly questionable.
Plus, I remember that this topic was floated around some time ago, was refuted, and disappeared. Not sure why its brought back again. I don't see any new research to corraborate the findings.
Boy you got that right, this Christoph Luxenberg (whoever he is) has been discussed before.
http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42735
http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115985
http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=130805
There is nothing wrong with constant research of the Quran, after all that is why its there for. But you will always find people using sinister tactics to discredit and misinterpret the Quran.
No doubt this and similar topics will come up again.
oopps...sorry MOHAMMAT ATTA...no virigins for you...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I bet you can't give a definitive answer as to what "Aalif, Laam, Meem" stands for.
[/QUOTE]
I'm confident though that they were in the original Qur'an, something which you'd like to leave open for debate with your arguments about us not having the "original manuscript" and us being "limited to the Quran we read in present times" as if there's some difference... you obviously don't realise what your words imply...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Again, the point is not to suggest that anything is altered or that we are not reading the right Quran
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you finally have backtracked... that's fine... anyone can make a mistake... even a moderator...
^ gupguppy -- saying that there might be another way to interpret the language doesn't involve altering the Quran at all. it just means that WE MIGHT have been misreading it. don't accept new interpretations without questioning, but don't immediately discard them without study either.
^^
Yes, i know that... but that's not what Faisal first said as i've clearly shown... he's backtracked now anyhow so no probs...
Yes, its actually clear to everyone, gupguppy, that you really neither have any point nor anything productive to add to the discussion. You keep wasting everyone's time by thumping yor chest and not getting the point. But thats ok too. We don't test for moronic behavior when we accept the registration request.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
We don't test for moronic behavior when we accept the registration request.
[/QUOTE]
I've a good mind to report you to a moderator... hey, hold on, you are (supposed to be) a moderator... how ludicrous...