znaci poceo Wimbledon....
Ibn Warraq: Leaving Islam
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyufZQkUaYA[/youtube]
According to Muslim sources, the story goes that the Quran got its final content ca. 650 AD (not later than 656 AD under the third caliph, Uthman). But that is not 100% true – actually far from 100% true. This partly because even if everybody was ordered to burn old Qurans and only keep the new, official one, it took at least 100 - 200 years and may be more (books after all were valuable - and represented the religion like they had learnt it) before all other ones were destroyed, and the texts were known to many educated people. This resulted in changes now and then in texts as they were copied - by hand. Besides the Arab written language at that time lacked the short vowels and also still had none of the points Arabs today use when writing (the so-called dicrital points) and the other signs like full stop, comma, etc. - the written Arab language/the alphabet was not perfected until around 900 AD. Because of that, it frequently is difficult even today to know what word really was written, as one has to guess what vowels to use and what signs are missing. In cases where more than one meaning is possible, all the different possible meanings are judged to be correct by Islam – but they are called “ways of reading” to camouflage that there really are different varieties of the text. And also in the Hadith (explanation in next chapter) it is said that according to Muhammad, the Quran was sent down in 7 versions that all were correct, even where they differed. Not to mentioned all the different varieties that existed in earlier times because of the unclear language. (f. ex. in 1972 a number of very old Qurans were found in Yemen. They turned out to have “small, but significant differences” compared to modern ones - and then western scientists were denied access.) So when a Muslim tells the Quran is always correct, it is pertinent to ask him which Quran (the Arabic Quran dominating today, is the one that happened to be dominant in Egypt when they printed an edition in 1924, the one after Hafs, whereas the one after Warsh is used in parts of Africa, especially North Africa).
Actually for a long time there were 14 - fourteen - canonised versions of the book (Ibn Warraq: “Why I am not a Muslim” and others): Even after Uthman’s version, there were lots of others, partly because of the unclear alphabet. Then there was made a “final” canonisation influenced by the great Muslim teacher Ibn Mohair (dead 935 AD). They stated that 7 variants (other Muslim teachers accepted 10 to 14) had to be accepted as correct. But as each existed in two versions, one ended up with 14 different, all accepted as correct, because it was fully possible to understand the original in those different ways (and actually more), as the original as mentioned was written by means of a far from perfect alphabet. (To make an example in English: If you know that the vowels are omitted, and you have two letters you think represents a word - f. ex. “h” and “s” - the word can as well be “house” as “hose” or even “his“ or “has“).
These are the canonized 14 versions (they called it “ways of reading” – as said to hide that there were many variants). 1. name is the editor, 2. and 3. names are the narrators:1+2: Nafi from Medina after Warsh or Qalun.
3+4: Ibn Kathir from Mecca after al-Bazzi or Qunbul.
5+6: Ibn Amir from Damascus after Hisham or Ibn Dhakwan.
7+8: Abu Amr from Basra after al-Duri or al-Susi.
9+10: Asim from Kufa after Hafs or Abu Bakr (not the caliph).
11+12: Hamza from Kufa after Khalaf or Khallad.
13+14: Al-Kisai from Kufa after al-Duri or Abul Harith.
As you understand there is a good reason for asking Muslims which Quran is the one perfect and without mistakes - and which one Allah really sent down (if he did). Only one of these really can be 100% correct - and may be none. Most likely none - too many varieties are possible. And too many mistakes etc. in the book.
Prijavite se
Registruj se
FAQ
Pretraga
isto tako prica i kako je nastao Kuran..tako da gledano hipoteticki i to jos cisto prihvatimo, dodjemo na isto kao sto ti pokusavas uraditi sa Ehrmanom..
<3 !