![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Sanaa text has 2 additional phrases compared to the standard text. That leads me to question if he ever spoke those words! Or is this another example of the Quran being revised to strengthen a theological point? 63:3 That phrase is nowhere else to be found in the Quran attributed to Zachariah. We find an additional word “Rabbi” (Lord) in the Sanaa text. ![]() 19:4Īgain we observe the phrase “Indeed my bones have weakened, and” is absent in the Sanaa text. The current version omits the more violent reading. The word Jihad is not synonymous to praying and giving charity. The standard text reads “and establish prayer and give zakat” whereas the Sanaa text reads “and do Jihad in the way of Allah”. Sanaa text omits and exchanges some words for synonyms. The sanaa text has major sentence structural deviations from the standard text similar to the previous example. This verse appears significantly different and it could be argued that the difference between “withdraw from them” and “do not come near them” can have different implications 2:222 The Sanaa text has a significant addition of “by what Allah has revealed in it” and “Judge by it” while omitting the word “naas”. The words “Light” and “Guidance” are switched in order. This verse has significant additions and changes to the sentence structure. We also notice the omission of the word “Your Heads” in the Sanaa text which could raise the question whether other bodily hair needs to be shaved. The standard text offers you 3 ways to fulfill the compensation: a) Fasting for three days b) Sadaqah c) Animal Sacrifice: but the “Sadaqah” option does not exist in the lower text. Of particular interest is the omission of the word “Sadaqah” which translates to charity. That's not deductive!- Marijn "i before j" van Putten JanuSanaa Manuscript and the Standaard Text Baqara 2:196 But it is *not* a Quran of the Uthmanic text type. I don't think anyone else follows her in this idea. The Sanaa Palimpsest absolutely is a Quran. Marijn van putten has stated that Asma Hilal is wrong and nobody else follows her in this idea that the Sana’a manuscripts were a student copy. Let us look at some variants found in the lower text of the Sanaa palimpsest, an alleged companion codex hidden under the Uthmanic text. Was it really worth it for Allah to go to such lengths to reveal the Quran in several ahruf for the sake of the the banu this or that… but then cause such controversy – and even fighting – later on and for the next 1400 years? If Allah was going to worry about some tribes not understanding it then what about the Greek and Persian speaking populations in the north of Arabia who would be the majority of the population of the Ummah within a couple of decades? Perhaps Allah should have revealed a Greek and Persian Version also!ģ. There is absolutely no way different tribal dialects required to either exclude or include things like a “waw” or a “huwa” What dialect would be confused by saying “ and those” instead of “those”? Can you imagine some Arab in the desert saying – “Yeah I can’t understand that because it says “ Those” when we normally say “ And those“. The common response by Muslim apologists is that “these variants are different tribal dialects that allah revealed in to make it easier for them”. The hadith of 7 ahruf is the only saving grace.Ģ. Because the Quran claims to be preserved but the existence of variants debunks the Quran. This is similar to Shias saying one of the most important articles of faith is the 12 infallible imams yet nowhere in the Quran do we find their mention! So if the variants are a feature not a bug, where are they mentioned in the Quran? They aren’t! This is also a big problem for Quranists. The Quran doesn’t even mention these Variants which makes it more comical. These are examples of some of the holes that Yasir Qadhi was mentioning.ġ. Get ready because this is going to blow apart the preservation myth. He has summarized this beautifully with examples from the Sanaa Manuscript and variants in the Standard Quran. This is not NEW information, but this is information that has been available in academia that has not been widely disseminated. Abdullah Gondal has taken the time to put together some information that is extremely damaging to the standard narrative. This is your friendly neighbourhood exmuslim. Is the Quran perfectly and miraculously preserved? Is there only one Quran? Are there any differences in the text? Do the differences affect the meaning? Do the manuscripts match the Quran we have today? Did the companions of Muhammad recite the Quran differently? If you are confused then you came to the right place! ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |