The Qur'an and translations

[Riverwolf]

More of a question than a debate, but I'm sure it's a topic that among scholars of Islam is debated.

I have recently heard that Arabic, the language the Qur'an was written in, is the Islam holy language. I do know that Muslims have made strong efforts to preserve the Qur'an in its original text, so as not to spark foreign believers getting lost in translation, like what happens all too often with the Bible.

Therefore, the question I'm asking is this: is it acceptable for a non-Arab Muslim who doesn't read or speak Arabic to read and follow one of the various translations? And if not, is it okay for him to be a Muslim following a translation until he or she learns the Arabic writing so as to follow the original better?

(as a side question, is it possible to read the Arabic texts without being able to speak the language? because the Arabic alphabet sure is pretty. :angel2

 

[YmirGF]

(as a side question, is it possible to read the Arabic texts without being able to speak the language? because the Arabic alphabet sure is pretty. :angel2

Um, if you do not speak Arabic (ie. understand Arabic) just how exactly are you going to be able to interpret the pretty squiggles? In theory, one would have to study Arabic enough to be able to read and it is safe to say that by the time you can read satisfactorily you will probably be able to speak it as well.

I'll leave your other questions to the Muslims.

 

[Oberon]

I believe translations of the Koran are allowed in order to convert. Personally, I would like to be able to read classical Arabic well enough not to need them. Someday...

 

[Ashuri10]

For the record, to claim that the Quran has not been rewritten is false, the Quran has been rewritten more than once, and history proves that.

In reality you can read Arabic if you learn it, but of course it would be pointless to read something that you cannot understand.

 

[Riverwolf]

For the record, to claim that the Quran has not been rewritten is false, the Quran has been rewritten more than once, and history proves that.

I have heard that, too, but do you have any evidence to back it up?

 

[Sahar]

Therefore, the question I'm asking is this: is it acceptable for a non-Arab Muslim who doesn't read or speak Arabic to read and follow one of the various translations? And if not, is it okay for him to be a Muslim following a translation until he or she learns the Arabic writing so as to follow the original better?

Why not? And what's the debated topic about this?
Actually many non-Arab Muslims don't understand Arabic and understand the Qur'an in their own language but some of them are able to read the Qur'an in Arabic and in many cases they don't understand the Arabic language.

(as a side question, is it possible to read the Arabic texts without being able to speak the language? because the Arabic alphabet sure is pretty. :angel2

Yes. I met Malaysian girls who understand and speak Arabic very little but they read the Qur'an in Arabic pretty well, much better than many Arabs themselves.

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

Therefore, the question I'm asking is this: is it acceptable for a non-Arab Muslim who doesn't read or speak Arabic to read and follow one of the various translations? And if not, is it okay for him to be a Muslim following a translation until he or she learns the Arabic writing so as to follow the original better? (as a side question, is it possible to read the Arabic texts without being able to speak the language? because the Arabic alphabet sure is pretty. :angel2

I must say that understanding the meaning of the Quran is more important than knowing how to read or speak Arabic. The Arabic of the Quran is slightly different that the Arabic that is commonly spoken by contemporary Arabs. Many Arabs fluent in their own dialect still have difficulty reading the Quran with proper pronounciation and have difficulty understanding it without referring to a commentary. Although I am not an Arab, but traditionally Muslim children like myself are taught how to read the Arabic of the Quran, including how to recite and pronounce it properly. There are millions of people who have memorized the entire Quran in Arabic, but will not be able to tell you its meaning.

If you want to be able to learn to read the Quran in Arabic, you can learn online with nine simple lessons. The hardest part will be simply to recognize the letters, because the Arabic alphabet looks completely different to the Roman alphabet.

DursulQuran Learn to Read Holy Qur'an

Also there is nothing wrong with using a translation of the Quran if you cannot understand Arabic. The only problem is that there are many translations out there which are completely changing the meaning of Quran. You should read from an authentic English translation, approved by the Saudi government, such as the Hilali and Khan, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, or Picktall translations.

 

[Riverwolf]

I must say that understanding the meaning of the Quran is more important than knowing how to read or speak Arabic. The Arabic of the Quran is slightly different that the Arabic that is commonly spoken by contemporary Arabs. Many Arabs fluent in their own dialect still have difficulty reading the Quran with proper pronounciation and have difficulty understanding it without referring to a commentary. Although I am not an Arab, but traditionally Muslim children like myself are taught how to read the Arabic of the Quran, including how to recite and pronounce it properly. There are millions of people who have memorized the entire Quran in Arabic, but will not be able to tell you its meaning.

If you want to be able to learn to read the Quran in Arabic, you can learn online with nine simple lessons. The hardest part will be simply to recognize the letters, because the Arabic alphabet looks completely different to the Roman alphabet.

DursulQuran Learn to Read Holy Qur'an

Also there is nothing wrong with using a translation of the Quran if you cannot understand Arabic. The only problem is that there are many translations out there which are completely changing the meaning of Quran. You should read from an authentic English translation, approved by the Saudi government, such as the Hilali and Khan, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, or Picktall translations.

Big thanks!

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

No problem...and dont forget Arabic is written from right to left.

 

[Riverwolf]

No problem...and dont forget Arabic is written from right to left.

Like every language that wasn't based on Greek...

 

[Ashuri10]

I have heard that, too, but do you have any evidence to back it up?

The evidence is very logical evidence, and that is the study of the Arabic language and its development.

First let us look at what the Muslims themselves believe, according to Muslims, the Qur'an itself as a book never really existed in the days of Mohammad, rather it was memorized, and instead it was written on any objects found near by such as pieces of leaves, stones, parchment or leather, and so on, not only that, but they were also written by men who Mohammad chose, not by Mohammad himself, it wasn't until after the death of Mohammad that the Qur'an was put into paper.

Now let's look at the logical respond to why the Qur'an must have been rewritten at least more than once, the first thing we should look at is the Arabic alphabets, if you compare modern day Arabic to the Arabic of the 6th century, they are nothing a like, in fact, if we take an Arabic text from the 6th century and post it on this website (Which I will in a second), chances are hardly anyone will be able to read it, also let's not forget that the Arabic alphabets are not Arabic, they are Aramaic originally, and they come from the Nabatean Aramaic alphabets, this is a fact.

Now that we got the origin out of the way, let's look at how Arabic as an alphabet has changed, if you know anything about Semitic alphabets, you'll know that the original alphabets are known as Abgads, (Because they start with Alaph, Beth, Gamal, Daleth, and so on), Arabic on the other hand is no longer an Abgadi alphabet, because it no longer retains its original roots, instead, the Arabic alphabets have been tweaked with a lot after the death of Mohammad, and went through a major evolutionary change (Which was a good change for the language, but not for the history of the religion), so this let's look at these changes:

a) Arabic during Mohammad's days did not have dots, for those who know anything about Arabic today, they know that there are many dots that actually differentiate between letters, for example the letters 7(H)aa', Khaa', and Jeem all look like the same without any dots, but in reality they all produce different sounds and depending on where the dot is or not, you get a certain sound out of it, same goes for other letters such as Baa', Taa', and Thaa', also Ayin and Ghayin, also daal and dhaal, raa' and zaay, and so on.

So from this, we know 100% that the Qur'an has been rewritten at least once, because clearly the Arabic of Mohammad's days must have been very different and there was no dots, the question is who put the dots on the real Qur'an and how do we know there are no errors there?

b) The development of the dots was finalized during the 8th century (2 centuries after Mohammad), the next thing is the vowels, which are very very important also, vowels in Arabic were in development during the 8th century but were not finalized until the 9th century, and they are important because sometimes a word can mean different things depending on the vowels put on it, for example there's a word spelled with kaaf-taa'-baa', or to make it short k-t-b, this is the root for "To Write", but this word depending on the vowels can either mean "He wrote", or "It was written", or "Books", but depending on which vowels you put in there of course, so once again this ensures us that the Qur'an was once again modified for a second time.

I would say the oldest Qur'an that resembles modern Qur'ans comes no earlier than the 9th century, 3 centuries after Mohammad, so to claim that Islam has the original book unmodified is a big major false statement that does not match history, finally, wait for me to reach 15 posts so I can post pics from links and compare between the two Arabic writings, this should be in no time, so wait for an hour or so

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

Ashuri10, what you are describing is different Arabic scripts in which the Quran was written in throughout history. The earliest manuscripts of the Quran were written in the kufic script, which most people cannot recognize anymore. The same is true for English

This is Times New Roman script

This is Comic Sans MS script

and this is the script I like best, Trebuchet MS. Different scripts, same language.

So the script in which the Quran was written may have changed over time, but the text itself, and more importantly its recitation has not changed in the least.

This is the Quran in Kufic script

And this is what most modern copies of the Quran look like, using a more modern script.

 

[Ashuri10]

Yes Fazl, it's the Kufic script, I will post some pics once I reach my 15th post, the Kufic script you posted is actually a pretty advanced one and easy to read once you zoom in on it, but the very early Kufic script I'm talking about has no dots nor does it have any vowels, but it was the original Arabic.

 

[Ashuri10]

Here you go Fazl, can you read these for me?

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

Here you go Fazl, can you read these for me?

What is so surprising? Arabic doesn't have vowels in the first place, even the modern script doesn't have vowels, with the exception of alif. The vowel marks, like damma, kasra, and fat-ha are only put in modern copies of Quran to help non-Arabs pronounce it properly. In some of the early copies of the Quran these vowel marks were put in different color ink to distinguish it from the text itself.

 

[Ashuri10]

What is so surprising? Arabic doesn't have vowels in the first place, even the modern script doesn't have vowels, with the exception of alif. The vowel marks, like damma, kasra, and fat-ha are only put in modern copies of Quran to help non-Arabs pronounce it properly. In some of the early copies of the Quran these vowel marks were put in different color ink to distinguish it from the text itself.

There's nothing surprising there, but in order to meet the criteria of having the original Qur'an, you must be able to read the original Arabic alphabets (Which are Aramaic), unfortunately, this is not the case here, therefore Muslims cannot confirm whether the modern Qur'an is similar to the earliest Qur'an or not, if the Arabs remained using the same alphabets and same system of the original Qur'an was written in, then perhaps this claim could have a shot at being valid depending on how the manuscripts match up, but because this history of the Arabic alphabets disagrees with the claim, you can no longer say that the Qur'an has not been rewritten.

I bring this up because many Muslims like to claim that the Bible has been rewritten, therefore it's no longer valid, I agree that the Bible has been rewritten, but so has been the Qur'an.

Ohh and by the way, while modern Arabic only uses vowels optionally, dots are not an option, which did not exist during Mohammad's days.

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

There's nothing surprising there, but in order to meet the criteria of having the original Qur'an, you must be able to read the original Arabic alphabets (Which are Aramaic), unfortunately, this is not the case here, therefore Muslims cannot confirm whether the modern Qur'an is similar to the earliest Qur'an or not, if the Arabs remained using the same alphabets and same system of the original Qur'an was written in, then perhaps this claim could have a shot at being valid depending on how the manuscripts match up, but because this history of the Arabic alphabets disagrees with the claim, you can no longer say that the Qur'an has not been rewritten.

There is actually no difference between the alphabet in the original Kufic script and modern Arabic scripts apart from the appearance of the letters. Like you mentioned, there are no dots in the Kufic script to distinguish between similar sounding letters like ba or tha. One of the reasons the script used commonly for the Quran changed was so it could be read more easily. But in terms of alphabet, all the letters remain the same and the way they are pronounced as well. The Quran is primarily an oral recitation, so long as the modes of vocal recitation is preserved it does not matter if the script changes from time to time.

I bring this up because many Muslims like to claim that the Bible has been rewritten, therefore it's no longer valid, I agree that the Bible has been rewritten, but so has been the Qur'an.

You cannot compare the corruption of the Bible's original text, with the hundreds of thousands of textual differences between the multitude of New Testament manuscripts, as well as the additions and substractions of texts to how the Quran has been written in different Arabic scripts. There are parts of the Bible which cannot be found at all in the earliest manuscripts, as well as competing Gospel accounts which the Council of Nicea arbitrarily decided which to accept and reject. The Quran's text has been perfectly preserved.

 

[Ashuri10]

There is actually no difference between the alphabet in the original Kufic script and modern Arabic scripts apart from the appearance of the letters. Like you mentioned, there are no dots in the Kufic script to distinguish between similar sounding letters like ba or tha. One of the reasons the script used commonly for the Quran changed was so it could be read more easily. But in terms of alphabet, all the letters remain the same and the way they are pronounced as well. The Quran is primarily an oral recitation, so long as the modes of vocal recitation is preserved it does not matter if the script changes from time to time.

Wrong, there's a big difference between the original and modern Arabic scripts, not just the dots, but the order of the alphabets is no longer original, ever wonder what abgad hawiz stood for? Alaph, Beth, Gamal, Dalath, Heh, Waw, Zain, so on, Arabic no longer retains this originality, instead it's a modified system.

The original Semitic alphabet system is 22 letters, this is used in Aramaic and Hebrew to this day, how many alphabets does Arabic have? 28 + the Hamza (Which is another thing that was added after Mohammad's time), therefore you cannot claim that the early Arabic alphabets (Which were Aramaic) are the same as the modern Arabic, it's a big difference.

That's like saying the original Bible is in Aramaic, but today I read it in Arabic alphabets, it's similar sure, but not the same, there's a big difference, one system kept its roots, while the other one was modified throughout the ages and went through heavy different developments.

You cannot compare the corruption of the Bible's original text, with the hundreds of thousands of textual differences between the multitude of New Testament manuscripts, as well as the additions and substractions of texts to how the Quran has been written in different Arabic scripts. There are parts of the Bible which cannot be found at all in the earliest manuscripts, as well as competing Gospel accounts which the Council of Nicea arbitrarily decided which to accept and reject. The Quran's text has been perfectly preserved.

Noone said anything about corruption, I said rewritten, you can call it whatever you like, and whether the Bible has been rewritten as many times as the Qur'an is not the issue, the bottom line is both books have been rewritten and modified, Christians accept this fact, Muslims don't, history says both books have been rewritten, it's the fact, there's no original perfect copy.

 

[Riverwolf]

Okay, so we're on the same level here, here's the biggest contrast between the Bible and the Qur'an.

The Bible is a library, not a single book. It is also a highly censored library. In theory, its cannon is always open to new revelations or theological writings, so long as they're divinely inspired.

The Qur'an is a single book, not a library. And as far as we are aware, nothing that Mohammad dictated to scribes was left out. (or that God through Gabriel dictated to Mohammad was left out)


And on the subject, doesn't Qur'an translate roughly to reading? So, as Falz stated, it's not important how it reads; what's important is how it sounds. And somehow I doubt simply adding in new letters to make it easier to read will corrupt a text. It's when you add new words or change words (or don't change words, in some cases) that a text will be corrupted. So, using that logic, in order to preserve a work, you have to change a few things with the times so that the original meaning is not lost in translation, like with the Authorized Version of the Bible. (commonly called the King James Version) English was spoken the same way back then, and so whatever the original meaning was when the text was written down is lost in translation. Hence the need for new translations.

 

[Ashuri10]

Okay, so we're on the same level here, here's the biggest contrast between the Bible and the Qur'an.

The Bible is a library, not a single book. It is also a highly censored library. In theory, its cannon is always open to new revelations or theological writings, so long as they're divinely inspired.

The Qur'an is a single book, not a library. And as far as we are aware, nothing that Mohammad dictated to scribes was left out. (or that God through Gabriel dictated to Mohammad was left out)

Correct in a way, but I'm not sure what you mean by a highly censored library, you mean its true meaning is hidden? Frankly, it's not a perfect book, it has been rewritten many times, but keep in mind that Islam relies on the Bible.

Now whether these texts are divine or not is not my concern, the fact is the Bible as you say is a library of books written in different times of history, the Hebrew Bible was most likely written in Mesopotamia (In Babylon and Assyria to be exact), and it was most likely assembled after the 6th century BC, in that sense Judaism borrows a lot from Mesopotamian tradition, but most likely adopted the monotheistic idea when Zoroastrian arrived, before that there was no evidence of monotheism in the region (Only in Egypt, but that's not the same story).

The earliest Biblical records don't go beyond the 4th century BC, at worse no earlier than 5th century BC, yet if you read along the lines of the Bible, you see some of the Mesopotamian stories such as the big flood in the epic of Gilgamesh, or the rise of King Sargon of Akkad, all these stories are Mesopotamian legends that Judaism borrowed and replaced them with Noah, Moses, and so on, eventually this legend carried on with the Judeans that by the time Jesus' time rolled, Judaism was a legit established religion, of course the story of Jesus rolled along and more books were written by people who believed in him, these people carried on to include these books to the older Hebrew texts which eventually led to the Christian Bible.

The original language of these new Gospels was mostly in Greek, since the Greeks were the dominant group around there, the citizens who lived on the Greek side knew and understood Greek, therefore if one person claims that the Gospels were translated to the Greek, that's false, because some of these Gospels were indeed written in Greek and the manuscripts confirm that. Other gospels were written in Syriac Aramaic, it differs a little from the Greek in the sense that some books in the new testament are not included in the Syriac Aramaic versions, while they are included in the Greek ones, and so on.

So overall yes, the Bible has been translated into different languages, but the bottom line is the base of the Bible is 3 languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, all the manuscripts agree with that, in other words arguing about King James is truly a worthless argument because it's not the original language of the Bible.

The Quran on the other hand is indeed one book only, but keep in mind that this same book is based on the Bible, and it believes in everything that is in the Bible, but claims that the Bible is corrupted, the main issue is the Bible takes a lot of legends from polytheism (The story of Noah is one example), in Islam, Noah is a prophet, by this example, Judaism-Christianity-Islam all have pagan elements (Or so they say) to them.

And on the subject, doesn't Qur'an translate roughly to reading? So, as Falz stated, it's not important how it reads; what's important is how it sounds. And somehow I doubt simply adding in new letters to make it easier to read will corrupt a text. It's when you add new words or change words (or don't change words, in some cases) that a text will be corrupted. So, using that logic, in order to preserve a work, you have to change a few things with the times so that the original meaning is not lost in translation, like with the Authorized Version of the Bible. (commonly called the King James Version) English was spoken the same way back then, and so whatever the original meaning was when the text was written down is lost in translation. Hence the need for new translations.

Ahh but you it is very important to know how it reads too, if I make a small mistake in writing, and that mistake is a legit mistake, it could give the verse a very different meaning, if there's a Quran manuscript out there somewhere written in the original system, people need to be able to read it to confirm for themselves that the modern day Quran is indeed the same Quran, and unchanged or unmodified, other than that, a person cannot make this claim, and Islam certainly cannot make this claim, because history proves that it has been rewritten.