Menu
Accueil
Forums
Nouveaux messages
En ce moment
Nouveaux messages
Nouveaux messages de profil
Connexion
S'inscrire
Quoi de neuf
Nouveaux messages
Menu
Connexion
S'inscrire
Forums
Catégorie Principale
Islam
Différentes versions du Coran: Hafs et Warsh
JavaScript est désactivé. Pour une meilleure expérience, veuillez activer JavaScript dans votre navigateur avant de continuer.
Vous utilisez un navigateur obsolète. Il se peut que ce site ou d'autres sites Web ne s'affichent pas correctement.
Vous devez le mettre à jour ou utiliser un
navigateur alternatif
.
Répondre à la discussion
Message
[QUOTE="Begum, post: 7062557, member: 252271"] Brockett goes so far as to provide examples with which the interested reader can carry out an extended analysis. Thus, he states: "The definitive limit of permissible graphic variation was, firstly, consonantal disturbance that was not too major, then unalterability in meaning, and finally reliable authority." In the section titled, "The Extent To Which The Differences Affect The Sense", the author repeats the same point: "The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought.[28]" The above is supported by the following: "Such then is the limit of the variation between these two transmissions of the Qur'an, a limit well within the boundaries of substantial exegetical effect. This means that the readings found in these transmissions are most likely not of exegetical origin, or at least did not arise out of crucial exegetigal dispute. They are therefore of the utmost value for the textual history of the Qur'an.[29]" And interestingly enough the author went on to say: The limits of their variation clearly establish that they are a single text.[30] Furthermore, we read: "Thus, if the Qur'an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as are seen in the hadîth and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as in the different transmissions of the original document of the constitution of Medina would be found. But neither is the case with the Qur'an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption.[31]" The investigation led to another conviction: "The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.[32] " Finally, we would like to establish Adrian Brockett's conclusion on this matter: "There can be no denying that some of the formal characteristics of the Qur'an point to the oral side and others to the written side, but neither was as a whole, primary. There is therefore no need to make different categories for vocal and graphic differences between transmissions. Muslims have not. The letter is not a dead skeleton to be refleshed, but is a manifestation of the spirit alive from beginning. The transmission of the Qur'an has always been oral, just as it has been written.[33] " Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Christian missionaries like Jochen Katz find themselves "refleshing" a dead skeleton in order to comply with their missionary program of outright deception. Of course, regular participants in the newsgroups have time and again witnessed Jochen's tiring displays of dialectical acrobatics - the misquoting of references and the juggling of facts. Surprisingly enough, missionary Katz cannot even support his point of view using the reference [23], which undermines his missionary agenda of twisting the facts. The reference [23] has firmly established that: There is only one Qur'an, The differences in recitation are divinely revealed, not invented by humans The indisputable conclusion that the Qur'an was not tampered with. [/QUOTE]
Insérer les messages sélectionnés…
Vérification
Répondre
Forums
Catégorie Principale
Islam
Différentes versions du Coran: Hafs et Warsh
Haut