2,743
edits
Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions
→Differences in the Hafs and Warsh Texts
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 305: | Line 305: | ||
Some apologetics say that variants (aka corruption) of the dots and vowel marks may have occured when the text was written down, but that the simple consonantal text without these diacritics is preserved (even though not all examples, including those listed above, depend on the placement of dots and vowel marks). Yet the Qur'an itself is more than simply a written text, and certainly more than its earliest basic written form without diacritics, where some different consonants are written identically. There are clearly corruptions in the recital of the actual words from when they were originally spoken, which became more apparent as the written Arabic language developed to include vowel sounds and to distinguish different but identical looking consonants with dots. | Some apologetics say that variants (aka corruption) of the dots and vowel marks may have occured when the text was written down, but that the simple consonantal text without these diacritics is preserved (even though not all examples, including those listed above, depend on the placement of dots and vowel marks). Yet the Qur'an itself is more than simply a written text, and certainly more than its earliest basic written form without diacritics, where some different consonants are written identically. There are clearly corruptions in the recital of the actual words from when they were originally spoken, which became more apparent as the written Arabic language developed to include vowel sounds and to distinguish different but identical looking consonants with dots. | ||
Another apologetic defence of the preservation doctrine has it that even when the variants are completely different words or when words are added or ommitted, that these are all divinely revealed alternatives. This doesn't address variants that contradict each other. In any case, such obviously contrived attempts to salvage the preservation doctrine in such a way as to make it almost meaningless and unfalsifiable are incredible, even by the standards of Islam, a religion built full of contrivances to escape difficult questions. | Another apologetic defence of the preservation doctrine has it that even when the variants are completely different words or when words are added or ommitted, that these are all divinely revealed alternatives. This doesn't address variants that contradict each other, nor explain the suspicious fact that the variants words sound similar to each other. In any case, such obviously contrived attempts to salvage the preservation doctrine in such a way as to make it almost meaningless and unfalsifiable are incredible, even by the standards of Islam, a religion built full of contrivances to escape difficult questions. | ||
==Diacritical Marks and Grammatical Mistakes== | ==Diacritical Marks and Grammatical Mistakes== | ||