Our dear Matthew al-Tablighee told us he teaches "Philology" but he has no clue about Rasm al-Mushaf! I wonder why! Ignorance may be?

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jan 22, 2022 at 09:39

Our dear Matthew al-Tablighee told us that he teaches "Philology" and at the same time he has no clue what is really رسم المصحف!

For the readers: The basic Quranic text or the consonantal text is supposed to be the words of Allah and here is a link to one of the earliest Quranic fragments. It is the Samarkant Qur'an and it is written in the Kufic script.

Here is a link
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3100

This is the consonantal text and it has no short vowels, shadda, Hamza, it is missing many letter Alifs it is missing dots so the Ta could be a Ta but could be a Tha or a Ba or a Ya. This is why it is very difficult to read such text. And this is why Muslims do not agree on anything and this is why we have many versions of the Qur'an including the Hafs and Warsh Qur'ans

And the end result is al-Tabari Allah's editor in-chief is not sure if the word ملك , in Surat al-Fatiha, is مالك (the owner of) or ملك (the king of)! So which one is it our dear Matthew al-tablighee?

More examples? The word يعصرون in Surat Yusuf 49! We are told by al-Tabari: وأما قوله: (وفيه يعصرون)، فإن أهل
التأويل اختلفوا في تأويله

Or: And with regard to his saying and in it يعصرون (notice that I left the word untranslated and here comes the disaster) truly al-mufasereen disagreed in the tafsir of (وفيه يعصرون) .

What a disaster by the 3rd century of Islam al-mufasereen had no idea what it means or how to read it. And this is why when you read al-Tabari you will discover he is EDITING not just al-Rasm but also the short vowels and the rest of the Shish Kabab

Here is the link if you can read Arabic

https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary/sura12-aya49.html

The real question should be: Why would it be that by the 3rd century of Islam al-Tabari had no idea what the Quranic text is saying. This could only mean that the claim by Muslims that the Quranic text was as follows: Oral text------> Written is bogus.

In actual fact Quranic texts must have been written with no known context and provenance and the end result is the exact opposite or Written text-----> Oral text and this very well explains why the Qur'an is a confused and confusing text.

More disaster? You told us that the "correct" Arabic is النِّسَاءِ (and not your Allah's Rasm or النسا and now read by the Arabs as النساء) this can only mean that you are saying that your Allah did not know his Arabic and you the lost tablighee know more Arabic than him! Astaghfirullah

...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".