On Thursday 30 June 2005 01:12, Mete Kural wrote: > > Salaamu Alaikum Abdalla,
Wa alaikum asalam wa rahmatullaah. > I don't quite understand what you mean here in trying to distinguish the Quran > from being a scripture but only a recital. I didn't make the distinction, it's already there before I was born. Hence, a written Quran is called a MuS-Haf where as a Tilaawa is not called a MuS-Haf. Moreover, I didn't deny that the Quran takes various forms, of which one is the written form (MuS-Haf). As for exclusively saying that it is a recital, what can I do? It's called Quraan. Insinuating that I deny that the Quran is a kitaab is a bit unappropriate. I simply denied that the Quran is a kutbaan (something that is only written before it is distributed.) From a developer's perspective, think of it as raw text that you can format as HTML, XML, PDF, or pass it to a speech engine to be read outloud. > A scripture is recited. Yes, but it remains a scripture. If you burn all of its copies in the whole world, nobody can reproduce it, because it is depended on the written sources. This cannot happen to the Quran because it is not a scripture, but a recital. Moreover, a scripture is not recited the way the Quran should be recited (wa rattil al-qur-aana tarteela. Surat Al-Muzzamil) Because the Pentatuech (Torah) is a scripture, it is non-existent today (the people of Musa (s) lost it many times before the last time; and whenever they lost it they had bad luck in battles. See Albaqrah:248). What exists is what it supposedly contained. The Quran, however, is exists. In its original format, the scripture has its sources in manuscripts. The sources of the Quran are not manuscripts or divine materials. > As you know, the second ayah of the second surah start > with "dhaalika l-kitaabu laa rayba fiih" translated in many translations > similar > to "This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt". > Also the third ayah of the third surah mentions "nazzala `alayka l-kitaaba > bi-l-haqq" > translated in Pickthall as "He hath revealed unto thee the Scripture with > truth". In addition, please find: > > Also the third ayah of the third surah mentions "nazzala `alayka l-kitaaba > bi-l-haqq" > translated in Pickthall as "He hath revealed unto thee the Scripture with > truth". [...] Shakir translates it as: This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil). Yusuf Ali translates it as: This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; See: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html Khan and Hilali translate it as: This is the Book (the Qur'ân), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqûn [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allâh much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allâh much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)]. See: http://quran.nu/en/ Among the favored translations by Ahl Al-Sunna, I only see Pickthall using "scripture." And that might be related to his pre-Islam background or maybe it's his personal opinion. Nevertheless, I am by no means trying to discredit Pickthall and his fine works. Also, whoever wants to refer to the Quran as a "scripture" let them do so, it's not really my concern. When it comes to the Quran being a book, nobody is denying that it is a "kitaab," but the question is that the "kitab" is not prepared by any human being. It is a kitab alright, but the question is who wrote it? And where is it? And what does it look like? That's why I clarified that the book is free format--it has the capability to spread in thin air as radio waves, paper and ink, stones, or whatever. When it comes to the Pentatauech, those books where sent down on Moses in a physical format. So they take the word "scripture;" that's not the end of their scriptures, though. The word is a wrong word to describe the Quran for reasons that are unsuitable as a discussion in this mailing list. The summary of the opinion I presented is very simple. The Quran is not bound by any physical format (i.e., paper and ink, etc.) When we hear the Quran in radio, what we are listening to is called "The Noble Quran" and so on. The idea is that when an application developer wishes to develop any application related to the Quran, she or he should ask: "What am I trying to present?" If the content is to present a "soft" MuS-Haf -- something that looks like a MuS-Haf on a computer screen -- then I guess the application developer should comply with what the Muslims have agreed upon on what constitutes a MuS-Haf, visually speaking. But if the goal is to do some operations with the Quran, the text doesn't have to look exactly like the MuS-Haf. > Even the most traditional accounts record that the transmission was > both oral and written. Of course, and nobody is denying that as well. And nobody can deny that if it wasn't for tawaatur, we would not have at hand a single authentic qiraa-ah. ;) It is not wrong to write the Quran, but IMHO, I think it is wrong to claim that the Quran is a scripture only. When preachers of other religions appear on TV an say, "This is the word of God!" They fall into numerous problems that we Muslims do not need (e.g., in their ancient scriptures, the word "god"--as is--is not there.) such as letting others imagine that the written Quran should only appear as it is in the MaSaaHif. As time passes by, people will tend to ignore the rulings related to the text of the Quran if the text does not look like a MuS-Haf (e.g., maintaining a cleanliness state and wearing appropriate clothing as a means of respect). > Remember that surah 85 ayah 21-22 says: > > "bal huwa qur'anu mujeed. fee lawhum mahfoodh." This has nothing to do, IMHO, with constraining the Quran into its written format only, and can be answered back with an aya from surat Al-Qiyama: Fa itha qar-anahu fattabi' qur-aanah. (Thuma in 'alayna bayanah) It doesn't say fa itha katabnahu for obvious reasons... Allah (tt) did not send down a book that has a physical format just like what the Messenger Musa (a) received from Allah as Allah (tt) says in many places including surat Al-A'laa: Ina hatha lafi al-suHuf al-Uoola, suHufi Ibraheema wa Musa. There are no suHuf or alwaaH (tablets) that were sent down by Allah (tt), IMHO. Moreover, looking at various Quran manuscripts throughout the Islamic history reveals undeniable facts that: 1. In the early stages of its writing, the Quran was written with plain letters. 2. Dotting notations was added in more than one stage. 3. Simple diacritical marks where added in slow steps. 4. There wasn't any aya numbers or sections Yet, what they held in their hands was indeed called The Quran. I doubt that anyone can deny that the Sura (Surat Taaha) 'Umar snatched from his sister's hands before his Islam--that sura that caused an earthquake in his heart-- looked like Surat Taaha we see today in the MuS-Haf. The same thing applies when we were in highschool and we were asked to write down a passage from the Quran. I doubt anyone can deny that what we wrote was a Quran (We even wrote it down without diacritical marks!) If nobody doubts, then I ask: Why then are numerous Quran related projects are postponed until what can be presented will match the MuS-Haf? I don't know about the others, but I'm not going to wait. :) Copying the Quran and inventing numerous ways to present it and simplify its readings was an amazing process that the SaHaaba and the tabi'een overtook and amazed the world with it [at times when reading was a crime in some societies]. But those methods are not closed to development. Wishing you and your family peace and good health. Salam, Abdalla Alothman _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
