Koran & Hadith in plain english?

[Kenny]

Readers are the reciters. In Islam, the Quran can be read with beautiful voices. Anyone can have a tone to read It's up to you to just read it or say it.

There are ways to recite the Quran. Example with Tajweed. It is a form of reading other than just saying it.

But the readers don't all read exactly the same words, if I am not mistaken. Similar in meaning but not the same reading. I thought Abu Bakr had his own?

 

[MyM]

But the readers don't all read exactly the same words, if I am not mistaken. Similar in meaning but not the same reading. I thought Abu Bakr had his own?

I don't exactly know what you mean about Abu Bukr The reciters say the same words, the same meanings. It's the accents that are different. They are not changing the words etc. example....the word "British" some say British (normal way of sayin it) and some pronounce it as
"Bri-ish" they know it is the same word, same meaning, but they just have a different accented way of saying the word.

Mohammad pbuh was taught all the ways.

 

[MyM]

that is what I thought. It isn't that there is just "one Quran" but rather a variety and that one has to study and research to find which recitation is true.

No there is just ONE QURAN.
The normal practicing way most read nowadays is called the Hafs.....doesn't mean its a whole new book.

the recitations are just differently. It is something in Arabic that is made clear to be able to do.

There is no variety of Qurans floating out in about. Just One.

 

[MyM]

Your examples of the Bible are also translations only.

The Bible doesn't claim to be from God. It is from the hands of men and in it, they have taken out, deleted, changed and played around with the interpretations. It's not about just translations...versions upon versions of bibles out there that not two are identical. Most of these scripts are not during the times of Jesus.

 

[Augustus]

But the readers don't all read exactly the same words, if I am not mistaken. Similar in meaning but not the same reading. I thought Abu Bakr had his own?

Might be of interest:

The common belief that the Qur’an has a single, unambiguous reading is due in part to the bravado of translators, who rarely express doubt about their choices. Yet it is above all due to the terrific success of the standard Egyptian edition of the Qur’an, first published on July 10, 1924 (Dhu l-Hijja 7, 1342) in Cairo, an edition now widely seen as the official text of the Qur’an.2

... Writing in 1938, Otto Pretzl noted with amazement that in his day for the first time a de facto canonical text had emerged.6

Yet the Egyptian project was never intended to be text-critical, at least as this term is commonly understood. The scholars who worked on that project did not seek to reconstruct the ancient form of the Qur’an, but rather to preserve one of the canonical qira’at “readings” (here meant in the specialized sense it has in Islamic tradition), that of Hafs (d. 180/796) ‘an ‘Asim (d. 127/745).

But these qira’at are part of the history of the text, not its starting point, and the idea of a discrete number of different yet equally canonical qira’at did not develop before the fourth/tenth century, when great divisions over the Qur’anic text led Ibn Mujahid (d. 324/936), among others, to sponsor this regulatory concept. Ibn Mujahid argued that there are seven, equally valid qira’at. Others argued for ten, or fourteen. The gradual (yet never complete) acceptance of the argument for seven qira’at (often attributed to Ibn Mujahid’s use of a prophetic hadith that speaks of “seven letters” of the Qur’an)7 was generally accompanied with the caveat that each qira’a has two versions. Effectively, then, fourteen different versions were considered equally authentic, only one of which was Hafs ‘an ‘Asim. Even in this scenario there is no unanimity over the precise shape of the Hafs ‘an ‘Asim qira’a. Four different lines (turuq) of transmission are claimed for it, and discrepancies abound in the various texts claiming to transmit it.

In the early twentieth century, therefore, the shape of the Qur’an would have seemed anything but clear. In fact, the Egyptian government was motivated to begin the project that would lead to the Cairo Qur’an edition due to the variations (or “errors,” as an appendix to the Cairo edition describes them) found in the Qur’anic texts that they had been importing for state schools.8 In response, the government destroyed a large number of such texts by sinking them in the Nile River and issued its own text...

However, the Cairo text is often at odds with manuscript evidence.12 This is perhaps to be expected, given that the Cairo project was not about recovering a text as much as choosing a text. Indeed the very idea of canonical qira’at is based on religious doctrine, not textual criticism. In the paradigm of qira’at, discussion over the shape of the Qur’anic text must take place within the context of the community’s tradition.

The Egyptian Qur’an, then, should not be confused with a critical edition. The Egyptian scholars in no way sought to record the canonical variants to their text, let alone the non-canonical variants to be found in manuscripts.

Gabriel Said Reynolds - The Quran in its historical context

 

[firedragon]

Am I mistaken? Or are there up to 20 versions of the Quran in Arabic but simply try to convey the same meaning?

20 versions? Thats false really. Its a false claim by some people but since you didnt quote names I will not.

 

[firedragon]

But the readers don't all read exactly the same words, if I am not mistaken. Similar in meaning but not the same reading. I thought Abu Bakr had his own?

So you are a hadith believer?

Yes. There is a hadith that says Hafza had a Quran Mushaf which is a written text that was taken as the standard to measure other writings. And it also says that Uthman took this text to measure against floating texts around the vicinity to standardise the reading.

You can read something like a paper written by Angelica Neuwirth to understand this subject. I am guessing you have been taught by some polemicists. Read these scholarly works.

Cheers

 

[MyM]

Might be of interest:

The common belief that the Qur’an has a single, unambiguous reading is due in part to the bravado of translators, who rarely express doubt about their choices. Yet it is above all due to the terrific success of the standard Egyptian edition of the Qur’an, first published on July 10, 1924 (Dhu l-Hijja 7, 1342) in Cairo, an edition now widely seen as the official text of the Qur’an.2

... Writing in 1938, Otto Pretzl noted with amazement that in his day for the first time a de facto canonical text had emerged.6

Yet the Egyptian project was never intended to be text-critical, at least as this term is commonly understood. The scholars who worked on that project did not seek to reconstruct the ancient form of the Qur’an, but rather to preserve one of the canonical qira’at “readings” (here meant in the specialized sense it has in Islamic tradition), that of Hafs (d. 180/796) ‘an ‘Asim (d. 127/745).

But these qira’at are part of the history of the text, not its starting point, and the idea of a discrete number of different yet equally canonical qira’at did not develop before the fourth/tenth century, when great divisions over the Qur’anic text led Ibn Mujahid (d. 324/936), among others, to sponsor this regulatory concept. Ibn Mujahid argued that there are seven, equally valid qira’at. Others argued for ten, or fourteen. The gradual (yet never complete) acceptance of the argument for seven qira’at (often attributed to Ibn Mujahid’s use of a prophetic hadith that speaks of “seven letters” of the Qur’an)7 was generally accompanied with the caveat that each qira’a has two versions. Effectively, then, fourteen different versions were considered equally authentic, only one of which was Hafs ‘an ‘Asim. Even in this scenario there is no unanimity over the precise shape of the Hafs ‘an ‘Asim qira’a. Four different lines (turuq) of transmission are claimed for it, and discrepancies abound in the various texts claiming to transmit it.

In the early twentieth century, therefore, the shape of the Qur’an would have seemed anything but clear. In fact, the Egyptian government was motivated to begin the project that would lead to the Cairo Qur’an edition due to the variations (or “errors,” as an appendix to the Cairo edition describes them) found in the Qur’anic texts that they had been importing for state schools.8 In response, the government destroyed a large number of such texts by sinking them in the Nile River and issued its own text...

However, the Cairo text is often at odds with manuscript evidence.12 This is perhaps to be expected, given that the Cairo project was not about recovering a text as much as choosing a text. Indeed the very idea of canonical qira’at is based on religious doctrine, not textual criticism. In the paradigm of qira’at, discussion over the shape of the Qur’anic text must take place within the context of the community’s tradition.

The Egyptian Qur’an, then, should not be confused with a critical edition. The Egyptian scholars in no way sought to record the canonical variants to their text, let alone the non-canonical variants to be found in manuscripts.

Gabriel Said Reynolds - The Quran in its historical context

I have heard of him. He is knowledgeable May Allah guide him to the truth ameen, Arabic Muslim scholars know more Many scholars do not interpret the Al Azhar as that authenticated. They come up with strange fatwas not authenticated by the Quran and Sunnah.

The Egyptian Quran? that's weird.


The main seven readers or reciters were:

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

The ones who have the strongest isnaad in recitation are Naafi’ and ‘Aasim.

The most eloquent are Abu ‘Amr and al-Kisaa’i.

Warsh and Qaaloon narrated from Naafi’.

Hafs and Shu’bah narrated from ‘Aasim.

And Allaah knows best.

 

[Augustus]

The Egyptian Quran? that's weird.

Why weird? It's a very well known fact

The Cairo edition was published in 1924 by the printing press of Bulaq, a district of the Egyptian capital. This edition is also called the “Royal edition” (al-malikiyya or al-amīriyya) as it was prepared at the initiative of King Fuad I. It represents the last stage in a long process of canonization of the Quranic corpus...

The commission appointed by King Fuad was composed of eminent scholars: Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ḥusaynī, president of the Committee of Egyptian Reciters of the Qur’ān, who personally wrote the text down. Ḥanafī Nāṣif, academic inspector of the department of Arabic language at the Ministry of Education. Muṣtafā ʿAnānī and Aḥmad al-Askandarānī, professors at the Madrasat al-Muʿallimīn al-Nāṣiriyya. The edition, which is composed of approximately eight hundred and fifty pages, is in compliance with the simplest variant reading of the Qur’ān, and more specifically with the one established by Ḥafṣ b. Sulaymān (d. 180/769) who supposedly learned it from his master ʿĀṣim b. Abī al-Naǧūd (d. 127/745).

Qur’ān 12-21. Translations of the Qur’ān in Europe, 12th - 21st centuries..

 

[firedragon]

Might be of interest:

The common belief that the Qur’an has a single, unambiguous reading is due in part to the bravado of translators, who rarely express doubt about their choices. Yet it is above all due to the terrific success of the standard Egyptian edition of the Qur’an, first published on July 10, 1924 (Dhu l-Hijja 7, 1342) in Cairo, an edition now widely seen as the official text of the Qur’an.2

... Writing in 1938, Otto Pretzl noted with amazement that in his day for the first time a de facto canonical text had emerged.6

Yet the Egyptian project was never intended to be text-critical, at least as this term is commonly understood. The scholars who worked on that project did not seek to reconstruct the ancient form of the Qur’an, but rather to preserve one of the canonical qira’at “readings” (here meant in the specialized sense it has in Islamic tradition), that of Hafs (d. 180/796) ‘an ‘Asim (d. 127/745).

But these qira’at are part of the history of the text, not its starting point, and the idea of a discrete number of different yet equally canonical qira’at did not develop before the fourth/tenth century, when great divisions over the Qur’anic text led Ibn Mujahid (d. 324/936), among others, to sponsor this regulatory concept. Ibn Mujahid argued that there are seven, equally valid qira’at. Others argued for ten, or fourteen. The gradual (yet never complete) acceptance of the argument for seven qira’at (often attributed to Ibn Mujahid’s use of a prophetic hadith that speaks of “seven letters” of the Qur’an)7 was generally accompanied with the caveat that each qira’a has two versions. Effectively, then, fourteen different versions were considered equally authentic, only one of which was Hafs ‘an ‘Asim. Even in this scenario there is no unanimity over the precise shape of the Hafs ‘an ‘Asim qira’a. Four different lines (turuq) of transmission are claimed for it, and discrepancies abound in the various texts claiming to transmit it.

In the early twentieth century, therefore, the shape of the Qur’an would have seemed anything but clear. In fact, the Egyptian government was motivated to begin the project that would lead to the Cairo Qur’an edition due to the variations (or “errors,” as an appendix to the Cairo edition describes them) found in the Qur’anic texts that they had been importing for state schools.8 In response, the government destroyed a large number of such texts by sinking them in the Nile River and issued its own text...

However, the Cairo text is often at odds with manuscript evidence.12 This is perhaps to be expected, given that the Cairo project was not about recovering a text as much as choosing a text. Indeed the very idea of canonical qira’at is based on religious doctrine, not textual criticism. In the paradigm of qira’at, discussion over the shape of the Qur’anic text must take place within the context of the community’s tradition.

The Egyptian Qur’an, then, should not be confused with a critical edition. The Egyptian scholars in no way sought to record the canonical variants to their text, let alone the non-canonical variants to be found in manuscripts.

Gabriel Said Reynolds - The Quran in its historical context

Do you understand what a Qiraat is from an Islamic context?

 

[Augustus]

Do you understand what a Qiraat is from an Islamic context?

yes

 

[firedragon]

yes

Please do give an example. Lets say from the 1st chapter of the Qur'an just to make it easy.

Thanks in advance.

 

[MyM]

Why weird? It's a very well known fact

The Cairo edition was published in 1924 by the printing press of Bulaq, a district of the Egyptian capital. This edition is also called the “Royal edition” (al-malikiyya or al-amīriyya) as it was prepared at the initiative of King Fuad I. It represents the last stage in a long process of canonization of the Quranic corpus...

The commission appointed by King Fuad was composed of eminent scholars: Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ḥusaynī, president of the Committee of Egyptian Reciters of the Qur’ān, who personally wrote the text down. Ḥanafī Nāṣif, academic inspector of the department of Arabic language at the Ministry of Education. Muṣtafā ʿAnānī and Aḥmad al-Askandarānī, professors at the Madrasat al-Muʿallimīn al-Nāṣiriyya. The edition, which is composed of approximately eight hundred and fifty pages, is in compliance with the simplest variant reading of the Qur’ān, and more specifically with the one established by Ḥafṣ b. Sulaymān (d. 180/769) who supposedly learned it from his master ʿĀṣim b. Abī al-Naǧūd (d. 127/745).

Qur’ān 12-21. Translations of the Qur’ān in Europe, 12th - 21st centuries..

What I'm saying is that the words haven't changed and to call it the Egyptian Quran set me back because we Muslims don't call it that.

 

[Link]

Might be of interest:

The common belief that the Qur’an has a single, unambiguous reading is due in part to the bravado of translators, who rarely express doubt about their choices. Yet it is above all due to the terrific success of the standard Egyptian edition of the Qur’an, first published on July 10, 1924 (Dhu l-Hijja 7, 1342) in Cairo, an edition now widely seen as the official text of the Qur’an.2

... Writing in 1938, Otto Pretzl noted with amazement that in his day for the first time a de facto canonical text had emerged.6

Yet the Egyptian project was never intended to be text-critical, at least as this term is commonly understood. The scholars who worked on that project did not seek to reconstruct the ancient form of the Qur’an, but rather to preserve one of the canonical qira’at “readings” (here meant in the specialized sense it has in Islamic tradition), that of Hafs (d. 180/796) ‘an ‘Asim (d. 127/745).

But these qira’at are part of the history of the text, not its starting point, and the idea of a discrete number of different yet equally canonical qira’at did not develop before the fourth/tenth century, when great divisions over the Qur’anic text led Ibn Mujahid (d. 324/936), among others, to sponsor this regulatory concept. Ibn Mujahid argued that there are seven, equally valid qira’at. Others argued for ten, or fourteen. The gradual (yet never complete) acceptance of the argument for seven qira’at (often attributed to Ibn Mujahid’s use of a prophetic hadith that speaks of “seven letters” of the Qur’an)7 was generally accompanied with the caveat that each qira’a has two versions. Effectively, then, fourteen different versions were considered equally authentic, only one of which was Hafs ‘an ‘Asim. Even in this scenario there is no unanimity over the precise shape of the Hafs ‘an ‘Asim qira’a. Four different lines (turuq) of transmission are claimed for it, and discrepancies abound in the various texts claiming to transmit it.

In the early twentieth century, therefore, the shape of the Qur’an would have seemed anything but clear. In fact, the Egyptian government was motivated to begin the project that would lead to the Cairo Qur’an edition due to the variations (or “errors,” as an appendix to the Cairo edition describes them) found in the Qur’anic texts that they had been importing for state schools.8 In response, the government destroyed a large number of such texts by sinking them in the Nile River and issued its own text...

However, the Cairo text is often at odds with manuscript evidence.12 This is perhaps to be expected, given that the Cairo project was not about recovering a text as much as choosing a text. Indeed the very idea of canonical qira’at is based on religious doctrine, not textual criticism. In the paradigm of qira’at, discussion over the shape of the Qur’anic text must take place within the context of the community’s tradition.

The Egyptian Qur’an, then, should not be confused with a critical edition. The Egyptian scholars in no way sought to record the canonical variants to their text, let alone the non-canonical variants to be found in manuscripts.

Gabriel Said Reynolds - The Quran in its historical context

This all true. If Muslims want to put their heads in the sand and claim things about Quran that are not true, it's up to them. Or they can face reality.

 

[MyM]

Qir'ah ...which are "different linguistic, lexical, phonetic, morphological and syntactical forms permitted with reciting"

In saying this, the words of Allah in the Quran are not being changed. They are still the same and the meanings are still the same

 

[Link]

What I'm saying is that the words haven't changed and to call it the Egyptian Quran set me back because we Muslims don't call it that.

There is four different recordings given to a verse in Surah Saffat for example, that is significant.

Peace be upon the family of Yaseen (three qariats do this) (Auli Yaseen)
Peace be upon El Yaseen
Peace be upon Alyaseen (the Yaseen)
Peace be upon Elyaseen

The popular one is El Yaseen but that doesn't even make grammar wise any sense.

The analogy that it's like how Mikaeel can be expressed differently in Arabic, is simply not true. There is different ways of expressing Alif or it's various forms eee aauu aaa etc, but there is no reason to disconnect the Lam for the ya if it was Elyaseen, it doesn't make sense to express it as El Yaseen.

And so the most popular and majority transmitted (El Yaseen) is not even grammar wise correct.

Also, it doesn't make sense to end with "seen" to Elyas when it could've just said it like Nuh (a) "Peace be upon Nuh over the worlds" and make it rhyme without changing name.

I've concluded based on hadiths and also reasoning, since it stops saying "peace be upon..." with Lut and Yonus after, and the Surah before link "Yaseen, indeed you are of the sent ones..." which has an obvious link to the Surah after and how Prophets are mentioned there, that it definitely means "Peace be upon the family of Yaseen".

 

[firedragon]

There is four different recordings given to a verse in Surah Saffat for example, that is significant.

Peace be upon the family of Yaseen (two qariats do this) (Auli Yaseen)
Peace be upon El Yaseen
Peace be upon Alyaseen (the Yaseen)
Peace be upon Elyaseen

The popular one is El Yaseen but that doesn't even make grammar wise any sense.

The analogy that it's like how Mikaeel can be expressed differently in Arabic, is simply not true. There is different ways of expressing Alif or it's various forms eee aauu aaa etc, but there is no reason to disconnect the Lam for the ya if it was Elyaseen, it doesn't make sense to express it as El Yaseen.

And so the most popular and majority transmitted (El Yaseen) is not even grammar wise correct.

Also, it doesn't make sense to end with "seen" to Elyas when it could've just said it like Nuh (a) "Peace be upon Nuh over the worlds" and make it rhyme without changing name.

I've concluded based on hadiths and also reasoning, since it stops saying "peace be upon..." with Lut and Yonus after, and the Surah before link "Yaseen, indeed you are of the sent ones..." which has an obvious link to the Surah after and how Prophets are mentioned there, that it definitely means "Peace be upon the family of Yaseen".

Bro. What are you on about?

Can you give direct reference to a manuscript of the Qur'an in the Hijazi?

Thanks.

 

[Augustus]

Qir'ah ...which are "different linguistic, lexical, phonetic, morphological and syntactical forms permitted with reciting"

In saying this, the words of Allah in the Quran are not being changed. They are still the same and the meanings are still the same

The canonicity of many of the recitals has certainly been debated over time by Muslims, so that point is debatable.

As is the question of non-canonical variations

 

[sun rise]

translations can vary.

Translations not just can but do vary. 17:104 is a the classic which has past and future tense and in one translations predicts Israel exists because we're in the end times.

Then interpreting what one reads is a subject to "verses of abrogation" which states that some verses have replaced/took precedence over earlier ones.

NB: Saying the Arabic is there, which is sometimes true online, is not a cure because learning Quranic Arabic takes dedication and time.

 

[Augustus]

Please do give an example. Lets say from the 1st chapter of the Qur'an just to make it easy.

Thanks in advance.

If you have a point, make it.