Marijn van Putten: Qur'anic Arabic, the Canonical Reading Traditions, and Arabic Linguistics
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 04. 2022
- In this video I have the pleasure of sitting down with Dr. Marijn van Putten and discuss his recent book on Qur'anic Arabic. Dr. van Putten is a researcher at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics and specializes in the liguistic and textual history of the Qur'an. He has published on textual criticism of the Qur'an, the linguistic history of the Arabic of the canonical reading traditions, as well as the Berber languages. Dr. van Putten obtained his Ph.D. in Berber Linguistics from Leiden University and has published extensively on Berber as well as Arabic and other languages.
Dr. van Putten is the recipient of European Research Council Consolidator Grant which will fund his project "QurCan: The Canonisation of the Quranic Reading Traditions". This project is researching the recitation of the Quran in the early Islamic period. The QurCan project will turn to the hundreds of Quranic manuscripts from before the tenth century, thus uncovering the lost history of Quranic recitation in the early Islamic period. You can read more about this project here: www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/...
Dr. van Putten's recent book "Qur'anic Arabic" is open access and can be found here: brill.com/view/title/61587
If you would like to help fund Dr. van Putten's projects you can find his Patreon here: / phdnix
Friends, if you enjoyed this video please like this video and consider subscribing to the channel.
#Quran #MarijnvanPutten #GabrielReynolds #Arabic
This was such a fantastic interview! I love these conversations and the way you carry yourself Dr. Gabriel.
You shold have Dr. Gabriel in your channel. Ive always enjoyed your guests on islam.
Hopefully one day you'll realize it's not a gohst chasing Scooby-Doo enterprise. 😁
Best regards
Are you sure you watched it? Or are you really in the Matrix?
I like your interview as well
Thank you for keeping comments on these videos open. Most channels turn them off to prevent non-academic discussion, but I think this goes against the very purpose of critical scholarship. Great vid!
Thank you for sharing this with us. I subscribed. I have found Quranic Arabic so fascinating. This video has shown me how much I don't know! It's life-long sojourn.
Thanks for these gems you keep putting up Gabriel
I love early Islamic and Christian histories and these interviews are brilliant. There is so much on CZcams and around the internet about Christianity but so little on secular approaches and research to Islamic history. Thank you Dr. Reynolds for starting this series. I’m a “devout” follower.
Amazing stuff as always, many thanks to Dr Reynolds and Dr van Putten for all of their great work.
The standard consonantal text of the Quran, the Uthmanic rasm, is extremely stable. Since its codification the text underwent almost no changes. This codification took place around its traditionally assigned date during the reign of Uthman. Only some minor changes in spelling.
Marijn van Putten
@@merlinx8703 Thank you for the comment but are you sure this was for me?
@@alansmith1493 yup
Since you have an Islamophobic website
The standard consonantal text of the Quran, the Uthmanic rasm, is extremely stable. Since its codification the text underwent almost no changes. This codification took place around its traditionally assigned date during the reign of Uthman. Only some minor changes in spelling.
Marijn van Putten
Ask Jay Smith and Robert Spencer about it.
@@eva4adam451 LOL “Ask 2 Islamaphobic profit-driven CZcams polemicists about it” Yeah, what a great scholarly method that is. Please, spare us of such nonsense. We’re here to listen to real scholarship. Not comical celebrity personalities.
@@eva4adam451 Ask two Evangelist boomers with 0 knowledge about the topic or history instead of a leading academic like Dr Van Putten? ok sure
Pay attention to the other things he says about claims of perfect preservation.
Great, so we have Uthmans Quran, What about Muhammad's Quran? Does Dr Van Putten make the same statements for the Quran prior to the Uthmanic Burnings?
Wonderful
👍 brilliant
Wao. Its the first time i felt amazing about learning history of quran. It was a great interview and more of a learning lesson. I am not a person to spend an hour on a kearning video just dont have temperament but hooked on. I was actually looking for these explanations because someone sent me a research work that there are many errors in quran and those errors have been the comparisons between different dialects and now I understand that those errors are dishonesty or lack of knowledge.
Really enjoyed this! Maybe on future videos, you could use bookmarks so watchers can jump to certain sections easier? :)
Thanks for the tip!
Great job Dr. Gabriel, however I can’t say the same about your guest, most orientalist named the oldest Quraanic manuscripts as Hijazi writing however after further studies they found that writing was originated and was used not in hijaz but further north , that writing did not include punctuations, dots or the long alef , that’s what led to different readings.
About the thing with quranic arabic having no case system (i'rab) how do you explain ones that have long vowels. Muslimuun vs muslimiin. Rajulaan vs rajulayn. And many other situations
Conclusion: Quran is very well preserved.
Hi Dr. Van Putten. Audio (mic) at your end sounds somewhat as though you are in a tunnel. For those of us whose first 'listening language' is not English, might you slow your speaking speed just a bit. Thank you so much.
Question I have wanted to ask someone for over a year. You might be able to answer me.
I read the English translation of the 50-page preface of Gunter Lüling's book, A Challenge to Islam. I understand that Lüling was a disciple of Albert Schweitzer and a non-Trinitarian. He explains in his preface that one of the formatting challenges when he wrote his book was that word-processing programs were not yet versatile enough to allow for a smooth display of different alphabets and scripts. I found myself wanting to be able to read a modern edition of his work, even if some of the linguistics is now outdated, that is less congested, visually more pleasing and easy to read, for the simple pleasure of being able to more comfortably read where this man's scholarship was at, at the time of the writing of his book.
It matters not to me that some of his work might be 'outdated'. I still would like to be able to more comfortably read what he wrote.
Am at the 40-minute mark of your exchange with Gabriel. It is 3 a.m.
Will continue tomorrow listening to your wonderful exchange.
I really enjoy the interviews you are conducting with other experts on various topics but it could be a little better if you could delve into the topic faster during your interviews in my opinion
You mentioned 48:10 where عليهُ was used instead of عليهِ. And you claimed Hafs was ‘flexing’ or ‘showing off’. Far from it. The dhamma was used for a purpose which you may not know because of your limited knowledge of the Arabic language. فاضل صالح السّامرّائي explains the reason for using that term. Look it up. I can give you the link if you would like.
Gib link pls
@@dailydeen114 They didn’t allow the link to be displayed. But you can search:
الموسوعة البيانيّة. {لمذا عاليهُ وليس عليهِ} في الآية الكريمة: {و من أوفى بما عاهد عليه الله}
@@dailydeen114 it can be found here:
لمذا عليهُ و ليس عليهِ في الآية الكريمة و من أوفى بما عاهد عليهُ اللهَ
Please me know if that worked out.
Arabiyya without إِعرَاب is not Arabiyya, and I agree that Qiraat is not dialects. I believe that QCT was used for secondary sources at that time to match different readings when Islam start expanding beyond Hijaz. The main primary was still Qiraat that any readers would interpreted how the Quran sounds. Remember without having sound recording apparatus to check if the readers recited correct verses or not , it makes sense to use QCT as the guidances. That is way when we heard there are different readers how to sound "hamza", " ya" etc will not surprising at all. Like Sibawayh , a linguist during that era talked about ﺽ it might does not sound like Qiraat Hafs that we hear today.
Did he study the rasm text ?
I like....
Great interview, glad you have the expertise and background as an interviewer to ask more probing questions about details.
So the professor's idea is that the Quran originally had irab and then lost it as all dialects lost it. Then later on the reading traditions added it back on but independently?
His idea is that it originally did not have i'rāb (apart from, maybe, a fathah at the end of accusative plural endings like -īna). It was in Old Hijāzi dialect. In short, it was pronounced as the rasm, the orthography, would be read without diacritics (wovel marks, harakāt/tashkīl). The readings, or Qira'āt traditions, are artificial. That is, they are not natural languages. Because they mix Hijāzi and Najdi/Mu'add Arabic features (sometimes inconsistently). And they also use i'rāb, which was more of a Eastern Arabic (Najdi/Mu'add) feature rather than Old Hijazi.
The characteristics of the Old Hijāzi of the Qur'ānic rasm were the following: it had imālah (ē), indicated by alif maqsûrah, alif at-tafkheem (ô) in some words like "salāt" (indicated by the use of waw), and no hamzah in words. I can give you some illustrations:
Third verse of surat al Baqarah, Hafs:
"Alladhīna yu'minūna bi'l ghaybi wa yuqīmūna s-salāta wa min ma ("mimmā") razaqnāhum yunfiqūna".
Same verse, "reconstructed" Old Hijāzi:
"Alladhīn yūminūn bi'l ghayb wa yuqīmūn as-salôh wa min mā razaqnāhum yunfiqūn."
From al-anfal, sura 8 verse 17:
Hafs: "wa mā ramayta idh ramayta, wa lākin Allāha ramā".
Hijazi: "wa ma ramayt idh ramayt, wa lākin Allāh ramē".
@@Ebionarius Interesting but it seems that he thinks irab is artificial so how could it exist in Najdi Arabic?
@@stevenv6463
I added some stuff to my comment if you want to take a look.
He does not go into it extensively here, but he seems to be of the opinion that there probably were dialects that had i'rāb. I'rāb goes back to proto- Semitic even, so it is not something completely made up. But the thing is just that the original language, or dialect, of the Qur'ān did not have it. I'rāb was imposed on the reading of the Qur'ān by the use of harakāt/tashkīl, which, rather than being a characteristic of the Old Hijāzi Arabic of the 6th and 7th centuries, reflected the ideal of "good" Arabic in the 8th and 9th centuries. This under the influence of the Qasīdah poetry and its prevalence in Arab high culture at the time.
@@Ebionarius Interesting, thank you for your response.
@@stevenv6463
No problem. With that said, there are Qira'āt traditions which have Old Hijāzi features like imālah (ē), alif at- tafkheem (ô) and lack of hamzah within words. For instance Warsh an Nafi and Khalaf an Hamza. But no Qira'āt is consistent in its linguistic features. They all mix different features, and even Hafs for example, which never has imālah (ē), has one instance (in only one place in the entire Qur'ān) where he reads with an imālah (the word "mujrēhā" in surat- al Hūd, verse 41). And of course, all Qira'āt have i'rāb.
The word عليهِ was used ‘more than a hundred times’ like you said but عليهُ اللهَ happens only once in the Quran. But the words عليهِ اللهِ do not appear in the Quran at all. It seems the use is related to onlyلفظ الجلالة. That’s a hint for you there to you Hafs using عليهُ.
even if Muslims dont find this useful for their own scholarship it at least sheds a lot of light summarizing many orientalist studies.
What is his twitter
@PhDniX
Very interesting discussion.
My traditional Somali quran teachers,who had their own Somali shaykhs stretching back to the time of the prophet, had a different way of reciting the Quran from the current Somali teachers who are largely products or students of recent products of Saudi Arabian universities and read in the manner of the current Saudi shaykhs like Sudais et al.
These new shaykhs criticise the old ones, thinking that Hafs is the only variant, and there is pressure to abandon the older way of recitation for what is perceived to be the correct,read Saudi, way of recitation.
To give an example, I still say wa ma adreika instead of the current wa ma adraka, kefirin instead of kafirin. I think this is the Duri recitation, but I stand to be corrected. This always elicits a response from the modern shaykhs saying I'm pronouncing it wrong. I now realise that my recitation and pronunciation probably has a solid chain going back to the time of the prophet.
That has nothing to do with them being from Saudi Arabia. Sudais doesn't have an isnad as far as I know (maybe just in hafs..) and he just reads the regular hafs reading just like most of the Muslim world. The reading you're referring to are also accepted readings and whoever "corrects" you just doesn't know it and certainly isn't even close to being scholars. Unless of course your pronunciation of imalah is wrong...
@@BarisTitanX Unfortunately the tendency in the Islamic world currently,largely driven by the Wahhabi Najdiyya Salafi sect manhaj and their claim to exclusivity, is to promote uniformity,rather than diversity in Quranic recitation. This makes a lot of Muslims ignorant about these accepted readings and they frown upon hearing them. A lot of education and awareness of the diversity of the Islamic heritage is required.
What would be a wrong pronunciation of imalah.As I understand it, its a shift in pronunciation of the final vowel from a to I or e, so that you would not say musa but musi or muse. I would appreciate any clarification.
@@kaalufshinni3576 I think that narrative is another overplayed one. Sure, there may be SOME contemporaries in KSA that are opposed to paying a lot of attention to tajweed rules, but a lot of readers in de two mosques have an isnad in several if not all readings. Can you show me some works wherein these Najdi's you speak of are 'opposed' to variant recitations. Who are we exactly talking about here?
As for your pronunciation of imalah, I'm not saying you make a mistake. In theory you're correct, but just like anyone can read how the letters are supposed to be pronounced, that does not mean he is able to produce said sound correctly.
Anyway, in general, the best explanation for these kinds of issues you can listen to these days is probably Dr. Ayman Suwayd.
Something else as well as a reply to your original post, some scholars also believe that you should read according to ONE reading when reading, i.e. you shouldn't for instance be applying imalah while the rest of your reading is according to that of hafs 'an 'asim for instance.
Of course if someone flatout says that a reading in and of itself is wrong, then there's a bigger issue, but I highly doubt those 'new' shaykh's you speak of say that, and if they do, they are not to be looked at.
@@BarisTitanX It's more about promoting a certain reading rather than oppsing the other variants at the public level. The recitations of the Saudi clerics are heavily promoted as the standard and their output of audio visual materials is spread to every corner of the Muslim world. It thus assumes a position as the standard recitation visaviz the others in the eyes or ears of the general Muslim public.
I will look up Dr Suwayd .Much appreciated for the reference.
@@kaalufshinni3576 I fail to see how that is 'wrong' or worthy of condemnation, knowledge about the variant readings is just like any other subject in Islam, the majority of people don't know anything about anything.
Plus, it's almost always been the case that one specific reading was the standard in a place/time, like Ibn Kathir's reading was the standard in Makkah or Nafi's reading was the standard in Madinah. Right now, Warsh's reading is still the standard in the Maghrib region, are they to be condemned because they don't promote or spread the 10 readings but generally just read Warsh?
2 horns means 2 centuries . Horn is always referrede to as century in the Quran
You making your own Quranic explantions and your own Islam. I call them cafateria Islam.
Compare between the language of the Qur'an and the language of the Hadeeth, completly different language.
Using “dhammah” with عليهُم is one of the common ways of reading this third plural personal pronoun, as is the case with Hamza and Ya’qub. But Hafs uses it only once in his entire reading. It is important to know all modes of reading (Qiraat) before getting so excited and before jumping to such sweeping “linguistic” conclusions.
North Africans have a proverb that says: the camel does not see how curved is his neck!
It is exactly how this discussion ended questioning how رجلٌ should be written with noun نون, and making it sound as an error in Arabic Quran. Well what about for instance: longtemps in French why don’t you argue about the need for g , p, and s and why you do not hear that when you pronounce it? What about the word Canada, why do you use C to say K? And what about the word Revelation? why you didn’t write it with sh at the end for English or cion for French.? Why do you pronounce Paris with S in English? Do you really know the world more than the French people who pronounce it Pari, omitting the s and pronouncing the r “gh” غ? Why do you write Washington with g, and how come w and a become suddenly و? Isn’t it better to write it currently in Arabic :-) وشنطن - while removing the Hamza أ to not cause more trouble:-)? and I am not sure why I ended up writing cause with c while I need to use the k sound.. and the examples are endless in this regard.
Now, regarding الاعراب alErab, it was put in place to facilitate learning Arabic for non native Arabic speakers who do not really care about that. The same applies for advanced Arabic readers who can read an Arabic text without need to add to it any اعراب (تشكيل الحروف والكلمات vocalizations), and the same applies to an Arabic kid in elementary school. Arabs do not need to write two م for instance to know that محمد is pronounced Muhammad.
I am also not sure how the host and his guest are so convinced that مأجوج never existed and only ماجوج was read as if they have been listening to the Prophet-PBUH- praying with only ماجوج for his entire life. Also the suggested argument ignore the use of similar differences daily without changing the meaning in the Arab world as for instance is the case for بير and بئر ( a well) or ذيب and ذئب (wolf) or مومن and مؤمن (believer), مومنون and مؤمنون (believers). We can find similar differences in other languages as for instance the use on z and s in British and American English ( authorise/authorize or recognise/recognize).
There is a deliberate omission that oral transmission of language always precedes its writing, and the writing itself is a very late apparition in human history. Also, a kid can speak and learn his native language from his parents without knowing how to write it. It is also a well-known fact that illiterate people can still talk and speak their native language very well, and some of them are also poets. Therefore, suggesting that there no Irab اعراب in Arabic and the Quran is not a clear Arabic, because رجل is not written with noun نون at the end is a non-sense. al-Irab is the way the language is articulated following its inner rules for its native people that they do not need or care of going to school to learn the grammar in order to speak their language. In other word, you cannot separate the writing from the oral transmission to correctly pronounce the language, and that has nothing to do with Arabic. Here is an example using English language, when you write for instance: "a gifted giraffe", you cannot know just by writing the words correctly that "g" in gifted has the same pronunciation as "g" in giraffe. But that also does not mean you'll understand the meaning by being able to read the sentence correctly as you will never know what giraffe is unless you explicitly see that or someone at least help you to grasp its meaning. also, the suggested famous "noun" at the end of the world will never address the issue and eliminate the need of the oral transmission of the language. The reason is that when you add the suggested noun you will only complicate the case as رحلن can be read as rahalna, ruhhalun, rijlun, rajulun, rajulin, rahlun, to name a few. Therefore to read the following, for instance, حرح رحل راسه cannot be resolved by adding the suggested noun to رحل to become حرح رحلن راسه (when possible, dots are omitted in purpose to reflect the original Arabic writing). However, for a native Arabic speaking s/he can easily decipher it, and adding the vocalization (dots & harakat) will be very helpful for non-Arabic speaker to pronounce that correctly (جَرَحَ َرجُلٌ رَاسَهُ) without necessary knowing the meaning as that will also need another level of transmissions as explained above regarding the meaning of a "giraffe" .
By the way if we apply the advanced arguments by the host and his guest, one can say they are talking about something else as if there is no Quran at all because there is قرآن but there is no كوران - that sounds like کور + كور (dual plural) and كور is what the blacksmith uses for his work). Sounds weird, but it is what we end up with when applying the suggested approach. Also, the host and his guest look very convinced that there is no reading transmission of the Quran while they ignore that millions of people use the Quran daily in their prayers, alone or in a group, where in 3 of 5 prayers the Quran is recited aloud, and entirely recited aloud in Ramadan of each year.
وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَا تَسْمَعُوا لِهَـٰذَا الْقُرْآنِ وَالْغَوْا فِيهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَغْلِبُونَ (سورة فصّلت: آية 26)
Those who disbelieve say: Heed not this Qur'an, and drown the hearing of it; haply ye may conquer.
(Quran, Chapter 41, verse:26)
Michael Zwettler RIP
Thanks. Interesting, but seems a big orientalist. I wonder what Edward Said would say. :).
"...The Qur'an and THE BIBLE."
Why there is no mention, let alone critic on the Bible??
Fantastic 🤣
This guy is an undercover christian trying his best to 'find the hidden satan in islam'
On other interviews Van Putten complains about the hypocrisy of the Christians with the Bible having almost no texts close to revelation time, while Muslims had a whole book that has been preserved into a league totally different to that of Christians xD.
I didn't watch this tho, i'm doing a preliminar... if that's the case it would have been cool indeed if he asked the professor about the Bible.
@@JibreelProductions💊
You could have gotten much of the answers through Sahihu Sunnah (the authentic statements of the prophet that has a well documented chain of narration). In one of the authentic statements of the prophet Muhammad, he started that Quran was revealed to him in seven different dialects that were prevailing during that time. There are a number of facts to consider here: first, the difference in pronunciation is only limited to certain words of the Qur'an. Second, the difference in recitations does not give a contradicting meaning, but rather either adds a deeper or clearer meaning in the same context of the verse and Sura. Third, the way the words are written are the same, and as far as I know there is only one word that has the same written form yet a completely different recitation from one Quranic recitation to another, yet exactly same meaning. تبينوا... تثبتوا
The Qur'an wasn't composed in poetry Arabic or even in normal classic Arabic. As a native Arab, you would be able to immediately recognize that this speach doesn't look like anything else composed in the same language, not even the statements of prophet Muhammad himself. It seems from Islamic history that non-believers at the time of the prophet had the very same impression and opinions about the composition of the Qur'an to the extent that they called it Magic. You should read other Islamic sciences to help you understand more and get more answers.
Kindly invite Dr Ali Attie to your prodcast: He is a staunch scholar in the historical aspect of Judaism,Chrisainty and Islam: well versed in Arabic, Hebrew, and Greek. He will enrich your activity in the history of the Abrahamic faith.
44:40 The real issue is here: When the 9/10th c., etc., (Persians) grammarians of the Quranic language say that the people of the Hijaz uses 'zawj' for both (wife/husband), or any other word that was appear to them odd, they say it because of what they have been taught by their elders: that the Quran come from the Hijaz, therefore the people there uses this word, and they ground their statement with this, naturally/innately *trusting* what they have been taught: language of the Quran= language of the people of the Hijaz, or it is because they have *heard* themselves the people of Mecca/Medina uses this word?
The response is: one does not know. Therefore their statement cannot be taken for granted since one does not know if they state it by the context they believe (Quran=Hijaz) or by personal experience.
So their statement could only be an intellectual build: Quran=Hijaz therefore the people of the Hijaz uses 'zawj' for both (wife/husband).
So the localization of the origin of the Quran in the Hijaz is still in question, as we have (still) none inscription in the Quranic Arabic language in the Western part of the Peninsula. This last point being odd, as we are taught by the same elders of the Persian grammarians of the 9/10 th c. that Mecca/ Medina were big cities heavily populated, etc.
Lol... Here is a wandering revisionist...
@@aismail8321 Lol...only someone who poses questions.
The only surviving harf of the quran is the uthmani harf which is the harf of the quraysh as known by ijmaa. even in hijaz you had different tribes with different dialect so there is no standard hijazi dialect in time of the prophet.
@@offlas32 So you have no evidence that the language of the Quran comes from the Western Peninsula.
@@user-yz1dl3eu8l who says its from the western peninsula?
I have to pick an argument against this scholar. I'm linguistically trained in several languages including Arabic so I feel authorized to dispute some of his arguments. We have to point out that the Quran has been criticized, studied and translated since the European Middle Ages, so we are not discovering the wheel over here. whoever studies Arabic learns that there is modern, classical, dialects and the Quran, meaning that the language is peculiar if not different. Any rational historian that is not a muslim believer can easily find better arguments that this scholar trying to find a middle in a haystack that have more sense. We can argue that in a land of poets where people dominate poetical language, another poet claiming to be a Prophet will be taught about. Therefore he could have embellished the language in very unconventional forms. I however believe in the divine language of the Quran as revelation that was able to move people accustomed to poetic language. This scholar to me is following a very old orientalist tradition that has been walked many times. Mora than research seems to be heading cats.😺
These are studies by non Muslims and experts in their field saying the Quran has been preserved.
Another link for proof
czcams.com/video/WKlSJa-ZnJQ/video.html
Another link of proof that the Quran is preserved. From Birmingham University and tested in Oxford University.
czcams.com/video/C-HDFiC2boQ/video.html
czcams.com/video/n281Zyywyn4/video.html
How to Proof that the Quran has been preserved accurately
The Quran wasn't created before Prophet Mohammad
czcams.com/video/klr3Jy2e3mk/video.html
The Quran IS in a league of it's own.
czcams.com/video/BwZ7S2C4Mtw/video.html
czcams.com/video/on0ntDST0mU/video.html
Reid N. Moon
czcams.com/video/N_Pmk2KI7l4/video.htmlsi=xpL6nAT0i9pQLuFs
Marjin Van Putten was hired by the European Research Council. They are funded by 16 billion euros each year, and their council is governed by the Scientific Council.
He was paid 2 million Euro to show if Muslim Scholars were correct to say that the Quran was standardized in 647 CE. He is specialized in linguistic history of Arabic and Berber. He is not a Muslim.
He said "the first thing that strikes you is how EXTREMELY similiar they are, really similar. A totally different story with the New Testament and the early Hebrew Bible stuff. The Quran is the same thing over and over again. One word is spelled one way and the other is spelled another way but its is the same thing. It is CAREFULLY copied. It's not just generally the same, but the same even with specifications. The copies are meticulously detail...... and identical.
You can sense the surprised and the pure astonishment of his voice from the manuscript.
The 2 million Euro question is has the Quran been faithfully preserved? That is the bold claim Islam makes. Marjin had to compare the current text with the earliest Quran.
In his researched and finding he can say that the Quran was standardized at the latest 650 CE or slightly before that. Which is aligned with Mislim Scholars. Hundredths of copies were made between 650 CE to 700 CE. This means that the Quran was standardized after 15 years or 17 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Here is the full video below.
Heeft hij een fout gevonden of niet
Interesting that Europeans went through millions for this desecting of the Quran, and they failed with the their goals
literaally these videos are trolled by desperados regurgitating the same old trope.
Just think after studying and researching your quran, how many turn to Islam? None
So only foolish people who have not studied your quran will accept your Islam without understanding anything out of it. Most Muslims are born in that religion that is why donot even research about the Truth like why there are so many contradictions in your quran. Why so many spelling errors in your Quran? Why logic is not applied in your Islam? Why historical facts are denied in your quran? etc etc.
Isn't the video clearly explained that none of the 7 canonical reading (qiraats) match the original reading of the Quran
Maybe they are interested in discovering the truth
@@amirattamimi8765Prove it. There’s different ways of reciting it. The message doesn’t change like the Bible’s.
First clarify: did you or did you not tell the koran to Mohammed? Fess up now, it's been 1400 years already.
Unfortunately, It doesn't sound like you know anything about the Quranic language (science).
An illiterate gives his opinion that these scholars of Quran and Arbic language know nothing! Wow That is why you are Muhammadan my friend! And you will die as a Muhammadan and when you open your eyes in the after life, you will see Jesus who will judge you Then what will you say your Lord? My parents deceived me? Or my sheikh or my teacher deceived me? God will ask you why did you ignore the coments you read about Islam? Why did you watch those Quanic scholar's video and question yourself whether you are in right place or not????
These are studies by non Muslims and experts in their field saying the Quran has been preserved.
Another link for proof
czcams.com/video/WKlSJa-ZnJQ/video.html
Another link of proof that the Quran is preserved. From Birmingham University and tested in Oxford University.
czcams.com/video/C-HDFiC2boQ/video.html
czcams.com/video/n281Zyywyn4/video.html
How to Proof that the Quran has been preserved accurately
The Quran wasn't created before Prophet Mohammad
czcams.com/video/klr3Jy2e3mk/video.html
The Quran IS in a league of it's own.
czcams.com/video/BwZ7S2C4Mtw/video.html
czcams.com/video/on0ntDST0mU/video.html
Reid N. Moon
czcams.com/video/N_Pmk2KI7l4/video.htmlsi=xpL6nAT0i9pQLuFs
Marjin Van Putten was hired by the European Research Council. They are funded by 16 billion euros each year, and their council is governed by the Scientific Council.
He was paid 2 million Euro to show if Muslim Scholars were correct to say that the Quran was standardized in 647 CE. He is specialized in linguistic history of Arabic and Berber. He is not a Muslim.
He said "the first thing that strikes you is how EXTREMELY similiar they are, really similar. A totally different story with the New Testament and the early Hebrew Bible stuff. The Quran is the same thing over and over again. One word is spelled one way and the other is spelled another way but its is the same thing. It is CAREFULLY copied. It's not just generally the same, but the same even with specifications. The copies are meticulously detail...... and identical.
You can sense the surprised and the pure astonishment of his voice from the manuscript.
The 2 million Euro question is has the Quran been faithfully preserved? That is the bold claim Islam makes. Marjin had to compare the current text with the earliest Quran.
In his researched and finding he can say that the Quran was standardized at the latest 650 CE or slightly before that. Which is aligned with Mislim Scholars. Hundredths of copies were made between 650 CE to 700 CE. This means that the Quran was standardized after 15 years or 17 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Here is the full video below.
☝ have you gathered enough quotes of the Prophet (pbuh) to compare the language with the language in the Quran , you must be able to tell that the Quran is not the prophets speech?????🤷♂️
Nd dnt frgt, the spch ov the Quran cme 1st, not the ltrtre, so as lng as wtvr is wrttn , is undrstud accrtly nd prnounced as it was dlvrd , then its job done.. the prmry is the recitation ... u cn ndrstnd ths txt cos u knw the lngo. U will not make mistakes. ✌✌✌
This is text from Fadhil SalihAssamirra’i:
ما اللمسة البيانية في كلمة (عليهُ) في قوله تعالى (ومن أوفى بما عاهد عليهُ الله) في سورة الفتح؟
(إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُبَايِعُونَكَ إِنَّمَا يُبَايِعُونَ اللَّهَ يَدُ اللَّهِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِمْ فَمَن نَّكَثَ فَإِنَّمَا يَنكُثُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِمَا عَاهَدَ عَلَيْهُ اللَّهَ فَسَيُؤْتِيهِ أَجْراً عَظِيماً) آية ١٠. هذه الآية في سورة الفتح جاءت في سياق الحديث عن صلح الحديبية. ولم ترد هذه الصيغة بالرفع أو بغيره في القرآن إلا في هذا الموضع.
أولاً (عليهُ) بضم الهاء هي لغة قريش وكذلك يقولون فيهُ أما سائر العرب فيقولون عليهِ وفيهِ وإليهِ وبهِ. وقد ورد هذا الأمر (أي الضم) مرتين في القرآن كله في هذا الموضع وفي سورة الكهف (قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِذْ أَوَيْنَا إِلَى الصَّخْرَةِ فَإِنِّي نَسِيتُ الْحُوتَ وَمَا أَنسَانِيهُ إِلَّا الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ أَذْكُرَهُ وَاتَّخَذَ سَبِيلَهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ عَجَباً ﴿٦٣﴾) والقياس أن يقول أنسانيه بالكسر.
قوله تعالى (عليهُ الله) في سورة الفتح ليس للموضوع علاقة بكون (عليه) حرف جر لكن هناك أكثر من سبب لاختيار الضم في عليهُ أولها أن الكلام في صلح الحديبية والعهد الذي كان بينهم وبين الرسول وهو عهد على الموت فكان الضم في عليهُ يؤدي إلى تفخيم لفظ الجلالة لتفخيم العهد فأراد سبحانه أن يتسق ويتناسق تفخيم العهد مع تفخيم لفظ الجلالة حتى لا يُرقق لفظ الجلالة بالكسرة. والأمر الثاني أن الضمة هي أثقل الحركات بالإتفاق وهذا العهد هو أثقل العهود لأنه العهد على الموت فجاء بأثقل الحركات مع أثقل العهود.
So as you see professor the purpose was not about ‘showing off’ nor ‘flexing. I hope you weigh your words more carefully in the future. Thank you.
@@BenM61 ماذا فهم او سيفهم البروفيسور من تعليقك الاول باللغة العربية لكي تقول له لترى ان هدف حفص لم يكن showing off nor flexing
A very poor argument based on weak, individual-case examples. Clearly the guest knows nothing about about the Qur’an or Arabic. But his audacity is quite admirable.
Many of us know that the text of the Quran was manipulated even as early as the time of Uthman ibn Affan, the 3rd caliph, whose ad hoc and dubious Quran committee made changes, one of which even got discussed by the likes of Jalaluddin as-Suyuuti and Shaukani in their respective exegeses:
*Jalaaluddin al-Suyuuti, a very well-known SUNNI shaafi'i Sunni scholar (died 1505 CE) refers to the original codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud where the name of Ali ibn Abi Talib, supported by Shias, and the Prophet's first cousin and 'wasi', was mentioned in certain verses. Read the tafaaseer of al-Suyuuti - a Sunni tafseer, of course - called "al-Durr-ul-Manthuur" and that of al-Shaukaani (also a Sunni)called al-Qaadiir, and you find this* :
اخرج ابن ابي حاتم, وابن مردوية, وابن عساكر, عن ابن ابي سعيد الخدري قال : نزلت هذه الاية : (يا ايها .... ما انزل اليك ) على رسول الله (ص) يوم غدير خم, في علي بن ابي طالب رضي الله عنه. واخرج ابن مردوية, عن ابن مسعود قال: كنا نقرا على عهد رسول الله (ص): يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس )
تفسير القدير للشوكاني ص: ٣٨٤
" *Ibn Abi Haatim took from Ibn Mardawaiyah. from Ibn 'Asaakir, from Ibn Abi Sa'eed al-Khudri, who said: This verse was revealed on the Prophet (saaw) on the Day of Ghadeer Khumm about Ali Ibn Abi Taalib,radhiallah 'anho, and Ibn Mardawiyah took from Adullah Ibn Mas'uud, who said, We used to read (this) in the time of the Prophet as* ":
يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس
Surah al-Maa'idah, 67
*Here is a longer excerpt from Jalaaluddin al-Suyuuti's tafseer "al-Durr-ul-Manthuur
{ يَـٰأَيُّهَا ٱلرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَٱللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلْكَافِرِينَ }
أخرج أبو الشيخ عن الحسن أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال " إن الله بعثني برسالة فضقت بها ذرعاً، وعرفت أن الناس مكذبي، فوعدني لأبلغن أو ليعذبني، فأنزل { يا أيها الرسول بلِّغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } "
وأخرج عبد بن حميد وابن جرير وابن أبي حاتم وأبو الشيخ عن مجاهد قال: لما نزلت { بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } قال: يا رب، إنما أنا واحد كيف أصنع ليجتمع عليّ الناس؟، فنزلت { وإن لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته }.
وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم وابن مردويه وابن عساكر عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: نزلت هذه الآية { يا أيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم غدير خم، في علي بن أبي طالب.
وأخرج ابن مردويه عن ابن مسعود قال: كنا نقرأ على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم { يا أيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } أن علياً مولى المؤمنين { وإن لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من الناس
www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=26&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=67&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
" *O'Prophet* ! *Convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord that Ali is the mawlaa (master / leader) of the believers* and if you do not then you have conveyed God's message, a God will protect you from the peope (who mean harm)."
.... and Umar's congratulations: بخ بخ لک یا علی اصبحت مولای و مولی کل مؤمن و مؤمنة!
"Congratulations O' Ali, today you have become the master of all Muslims, men and women!"
More readable here!
Aayat-ul-Ghadiir Surah al-Maa’idah (5), verse 67:
books.google.nl/books?id=hzdMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT522&lpg=PT522&dq=%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85,&f=false
And here in Tafseer Fath-ul-Qadeer of al-Shaukaani (also a SUNNI). SAYS THE SAME* !
وهنا في تفسير فتح القدير للشوكاني (وهو من اھل السنة). يقول نفسہ !
سورة المائدة, 67
books.google.nl/books?id=vsR9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT488&lpg=PT488&dq=%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85,&f=false
More readable here!
** يمكن قراءته هنا !
books.google.nl/books?id=hzdMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT522&lpg=PT522&dq=%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85,+%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9,&f=false
وهنا في تفسير فتح القدير للشوكاني (وهو من اھل السنة). يقول نفسہ !
سورة المائدة, 67
The same here in Tafseer Fath-ul-Qadeer of al-Shaukaani (also a SUNNI)!
books.google.nl/books?id=vsR9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT488&lpg=PT488&dq=%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85,+%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC%20%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86%20%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9%2C%20%D8%B9%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D8%A8&f=false
*Means, the Shia-Sunni schism is fundamentally THEOLOGICAL. The Sunni rulers of early dynasties in Islam and their lackey scholars tried to portray the issue of the Prophet's succession as merely a political issue, which was a blatant distortion! Additionally, we read from well-known Sunni scholars that both , Abu Bakr and Ummar ibn al-Khattab were illiterate, by their own admission, incidentally, i.e. they never ever read the Quran - because couldn't, yet declared themselves leaders of a largely illiterate nascent Muslim polity. So just who was leading who* ?
No.
you are either shia or desperate for anything to disprove the qurans authenticity
No the Quran is legit. Here are the other testimonies. These are studies by non Muslims and experts in their field saying the Quran has been preserved.
Another link for proof
czcams.com/video/WKlSJa-ZnJQ/video.html
Another link of proof that the Quran is preserved. From Birmingham University and tested in Oxford University.
czcams.com/video/C-HDFiC2boQ/video.html
czcams.com/video/n281Zyywyn4/video.html
How to Proof that the Quran has been preserved accurately
The Quran wasn't created before Prophet Mohammad
czcams.com/video/klr3Jy2e3mk/video.html
The Quran IS in a league of it's own.
czcams.com/video/BwZ7S2C4Mtw/video.html
czcams.com/video/on0ntDST0mU/video.html
Reid N. Moon
Here are the changes to the bible incomparison.
Changes to the Bible and how the Quran is preserved.
There are many big changes in the Bible. For example, the first Bible tells you that pork is forbidden, but the second copy says it is okay. That's why all of you are eating pork now. The funny thing is that evangelical Christians (who don't go out for 24 hours from Friday nights to Saturday nights) don't eat pork. The same thing with Jews. They don't eat pork either.
Over 30,000 changes were made, of which more than 5,000 represent differences between the Greek text used for the Revised Version and that used as the basis of the King James Version. Most of the other changes were made in the interest of consistency or modernization.
The people who wrote the Bible had never met Jesus, according to the video titled "10 changes made to the Bible" by Trey the explainer, Parts 1 and 2". He is a Christian. Meaning they're 3rd, 4th, etc. parties who can easily alter, miss, and misinterpret words.
After that, so many church leaders and religious councils altered the Bible into so many books. at least 63 to around 100 between Christians and Catholics. With the Quran, certain people actually heard directly from Prophet Mohammad. His few successors were Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali. Who diligently heard Prophet Muhammad preach. They memorized it and later wrote it down.
We have 40,000 people around the world who have memorized the Quran word for word since it was revealed. The source is Holy Quran Memorization International. I'm sure we have millions more who have memorized the Quran who are not under the organization. Every generation, every single year, there are many very young Muslims around the world who study to memorize it.
These people are called Hafiz (for males) or Hafiza (for women). The youngest is a prodigy who is only 3 years old and from Algeria. It is estimated that more than 200 million Muslims have memorized the Quran word for word throughout the world and for generations. There was one event in my country, Indonesia, where, in one day, 120,000 people graduated from Quran memorization in Arabic. This is how we know the Quran has been preserved for centuries. Even when the Quran is translated into different languages, many still have Arabic writing on them to maintain preservation.
I don't hear anyone in the Christian community memorizing the Bible, the New Testament, or the Old Testament. There is only 1 person who memorized 15 and another 20 books. Maybe that's the same person. Another proof said there were 7 Christians who memorized the New Testament but not the old one.
czcams.com/video/7bC9kPS9xLA/video.html
"That's the (so call) greatness of the Bible"
Actual changes ofnthe Bible
There are 66 copies for Protestant Bibles, 73 in Catholic and over 81 Orthodox, and they separated in 2 main sections. We Muslims only have one book. There are only 2 types of Muslims and those are Shia and Sunni. I heard that Indonesians (like me) are Sunni.
According to the video there were many clear changes. There are changes to the story of the adulteress, but in other books someone deletes the whole story. There might be 1, 2, or 3 women going to the cave, but no one knows how many percisely. Also for the number of men. There might be 1, 2 or 3. There was a verse taken out when Jesus was crusified, but in another Bible it wasn't taken out.
Words were deleted and added in several Bibles. Jesus actually had a bit of a temper and looked annoyed and angry when a woman comes up to him and ask him to heal her. This happened before he had to go to the city. He did heal her looking a bit mad, but someone decided to changed his angry expression into a compassion and pity expression, so that Jesus would look better. Which was changing the all truth of what really happened.
For Mark 16-9 -18, no one could verify if that whole verses was ever true. On Mark 16-9-20 many were deleted in some copies. Many paragraphs were taken out all together. Also there wasn't an ending. There was changes to rapid fire round. Many books were eliminated such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Truth, the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, the Gnosis of the Invisible God, the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Noah, Enoch, Giants, Tobit, the letter of Jeremiah, and the Wisdom of Sirach. Women were omitted. Even the ones that were originally named apostles and changing them to make them just regular women.
Another changed was the part when Jesus was mentioned to be a carpenter but one guy such as Origen (a Church Father) didn't like that and had it changed to "son of a father" (on Mark 6:3 or P45), which is changing the facts.
This so called Arabic expert has no clue where exactly the Arabic language came from and its distribution during the time of the prophet Muhammad.
These are studies by non Muslims and experts in their field saying the Quran has been preserved.
Another link for proof
czcams.com/video/WKlSJa-ZnJQ/video.html
Another link of proof that the Quran is preserved. From Birmingham University and tested in Oxford University.
czcams.com/video/C-HDFiC2boQ/video.html
czcams.com/video/n281Zyywyn4/video.html
How to Proof that the Quran has been preserved accurately
The Quran wasn't created before Prophet Mohammad
czcams.com/video/klr3Jy2e3mk/video.html
The Quran IS in a league of it's own.
czcams.com/video/BwZ7S2C4Mtw/video.html
czcams.com/video/on0ntDST0mU/video.html
Reid N. Moon
czcams.com/video/N_Pmk2KI7l4/video.htmlsi=xpL6nAT0i9pQLuFs
Marjin Van Putten was hired by the European Research Council. They are funded by 16 billion euros each year, and their council is governed by the Scientific Council.
He was paid 2 million Euro to show if Muslim Scholars were correct to say that the Quran was standardized in 647 CE. He is specialized in linguistic history of Arabic and Berber. He is not a Muslim.
He said "the first thing that strikes you is how EXTREMELY similiar they are, really similar. A totally different story with the New Testament and the early Hebrew Bible stuff. The Quran is the same thing over and over again. One word is spelled one way and the other is spelled another way but its is the same thing. It is CAREFULLY copied. It's not just generally the same, but the same even with specifications. The copies are meticulously detail...... and identical.
You can sense the surprised and the pure astonishment of his voice from the manuscript.
The 2 million Euro question is has the Quran been faithfully preserved? That is the bold claim Islam makes. Marjin had to compare the current text with the earliest Quran.
In his researched and finding he can say that the Quran was standardized at the latest 650 CE or slightly before that. Which is aligned with Mislim Scholars. Hundredths of copies were made between 650 CE to 700 CE. This means that the Quran was standardized after 15 years or 17 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Here is the full video below.
Integration project! light at end of the tunnel.
On the matter of Quran u need to ask from an Islamic scholar preferably an Arab native. U ask this Dr who learned a few things and now claims to know everything just like yourself. The acknowledge u two have can be googled lol😂 the information will be much more accurate
@apostate_prophet you should collaborate with this guy
His channel is dedicated to apologetics and I'm not so sure that would be a good idea
Al Fadi & Jay Smith would definitely be interested in his work.
@@bellasbane
Yes but for the wrong reasons.
@@bellasbane Marijn despises Jay Smith for the crass apologetic he is and he said so publicly
@@zeustn9525 What an awful thing for you to say. Are you trying to make Marijn look bad? Or is it Jay Smith you're trying to discredit? Either way, gossiping about people that way is malicious and I'm not interested in hearing it. 🙉