Changes in the QT Translation (on-line & print)

[Ebad]

SALAAM,


AND his MESSENGER is the QURAAN it self!, part of the belief of the Ebadu el Rahmanii is that the QURAAN itself is the MESSENGER.

I like how the MESSAGE refers to the MESSENGER(QURAAN) and the Messenger-Prophet(Mohammad). WE do believe that the Quran is the SILENT MESSENGER who makes messengers out of HUMAN RECITERS.

I did barrow this CONCEPT of the QURAAN itself as a MESSENGER from the SIKH's who have elevated thier Scripture to that of the FINAL GURU, and at the same time those who RECITE it themselves become the VOICE of GURU, thus guru's themselves.

I guess i took to the SIKH's because they are MONOTHEIST, and  the FACT that ELLAH refers to the QURAAN as ONE who" BRINGS out of DARKNESS into LIGHT"(GURU). And this also confirmed the FACT that the QURAAN itself TOUCHES on many many other RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS, thus it is the MESSEGER-MESSAGE to the WORLD.

[jonny_k]

SALAAM,


AND his MESSENGER is the QURAAN it self!, part of the belief of the Ebadu el Rahmanii is that the QURAAN itself is the MESSENGER.

I like how the MESSAGE refers to the MESSENGER(QURAAN) and the Messenger-Prophet(Mohammad). WE do believe that the Quran is the SILENT MESSENGER who makes messengers out of HUMAN RECITERS.

I did barrow this CONCEPT of the QURAAN itself as a MESSENGER from the SIKH's who have elevated thier Scripture to that of the FINAL GURU, and at the same time those who RECITE it themselves become the VOICE of GURU, thus guru's themselves.

I guess i took to the SIKH's because they are MONOTHEIST, and  the FACT that ELLAH refers to the QURAAN as ONE who" BRINGS out of DARKNESS into LIGHT"(GURU). And this also confirmed the FACT that the QURAAN itself TOUCHES on many many other RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS, thus it is the MESSEGER-MESSAGE to the WORLD.

Khi- I agree the Quran Itself is also a messenger. GOD Bless!

[humility]

Peace,

After all the various information and research on the subject of the 'origins of the Scripture', I am pleased to announce that the QT has been modified to become more in-line with the believed original form of the revealtion.

http://www.free-minds.org/quran/ (on-line)
http://www.free-minds.org/QT.zip (download file)

Updates have also occured to various subjects/verses based on comments/observations.

If I have missed an update or comment, please post it here.

I have a question about the print version. When will it be available to retailers? I wanted to order a copy from Amazon uk and it's shipped within 24hrs but it looks like the older version.

Thanks

[Layth]

Peace,

I have a question about the print version. When will it be available to retailers? I wanted to order a copy from Amazon uk and it's shipped within 24hrs but it looks like the older version.

I would still give it 2-3 weeks as the proof for the new print was just completed yesterday.

God willing I will post an update here when Amazon is stocking the new edition (Amazon.com US are out of stock for the old version, so they will be the forst to carry the new one).

[Ali Omar]

Dear Layth,

What actual difference does it make, to the message from God, whether chapter 9 starts with ?Basmallah? or not?
The chapters names are, in any case, not from God; are the chapter numbers?

To my mind, the significance lays in the fact that we may refer to a verse through a number, or other means of easy identification, that is commonly agreed upon, but only for easy reference amongst ourselves.

To add in, or subtract, anything from the text of the scripture that we have, is based on conjecture, not facts, and I believe we should avoid that.
To only accept ?Basmallah? as breaks between chapters may, or may not, be according to Allah?s will.
I am more inclined to think of the whole scripture as one undivided message, but for the straight forward verses and the verses with multiple meaning.

Or have I missed something?

Best regds

Ali Omar

[Layth]

Peace Ali,

What actual difference does it make, to the message from God, whether chapter 9 starts with ?Basmallah? or not?
The chapters names are, in any case, not from God; are the chapter numbers?

I would answer by saying that the chapter 'breaks' are indeed by God (not inserted) and as we currently have the Scripture being printed, we only have 113 such 'breaks.'

Now, if we remove all the man-made inserted text (as you mentioned), then we are left with 113 chapters.

My finding is that the Scripture is 114 chapters and that chapter 9 is indeed a 'stand-alone' chapter (as reflected in the current printed editions, but not recognized by a basmallah).

That is the question...113 or 114.

To my mind, the significance lays in the fact that we may refer to a verse through a number, or other means of easy identification, that is commonly agreed upon, but only for easy reference amongst ourselves.

Again, you are looking at the generic numbers and mixing them with the unique nature of the Scripture which is in the form of 'verses' (marked by whatever you fancy to seperate them...i.e. a '*' or '/' or 'number').

To add in, or subtract, anything from the text of the scripture that we have, is based on conjecture, not facts, and I believe we should avoid that.

We have the King Fahad Hafs edition of the Scripture as the most common in use...There is nothing 'holy' or 'magical' about this printed edition over say the Warsh or the older written copies without verse numbers or chapter headings.

To only accept ?Basmallah? as breaks between chapters may, or may not, be according to Allah?s will.
I am more inclined to think of the whole scripture as one undivided message, but for the straight forward verses and the verses with multiple meaning.

The Scripture is divided into 'verses' and 'chapters' (not one undivided Script as you mentioned)...This is Allah's will according to His own revelations and design...My challenge is to the modern printed editions and not to the book or God (the two are not nessesarily the same).

[Ali Omar]

Dear Layth,

Well, I have tried my best to find further evidence of the Scripture having 114 chapters, but can not find anything conclusive.
I also do not see anything holy in King Fahad?s edition of the Scripture, in fact I do not see anything holy in the Scripture as such, to me it is purely a guide.

Also, I can not help but see what God says about listening to the words and follow the best of it.
What difference would it make to the message (through the words) of the scripture if it was divided into 113 instead of 114 chapters?
To me it would only mean that the easy verse-reference would be changed.

I am aware of, and like the idea of the number 19 being significant, but I am very doubtful to letting it become too significant.
My problem is that I can not see any circumstantial evidence, let alone straightforward proofs, of one missing ?Basmalah?.

To me, the message would be the same with, or without, a ?Basmalah? heading ?Chapter 9?, I just fail to see the significance.

Best regds

Ali Omar

[Layth]

Peace Ali,

Well, I have tried my best to find further evidence of the Scripture having 114 chapters, but can not find anything conclusive.

The most obvious indication/evidence is that all printed editions (and even historic ones) have split the Scripture into 114 chapters, eventhough chapter 9 was missing a Basmallah.

What difference would it make to the message (through the words) of the scripture if it was divided into 113 instead of 114 chapters?

The Scripture being split into 'chapters/suras' is the design it came with...That this design is significant can be seen in the refernces to 'suras' where God challnges the disbelivers into bringing a 'sura like it', or that the initials only begin 29 chapters (which I call Quran), or that chapter 24 was revelaed in its entirety in one shot (24:2).

It may make no big difference to you and I at this stage in our knowledge, but it may have long term consequences to future understanding we have yet to phathom (that chapters 8 & 9 remain seperated).

To me it would only mean that the easy verse-reference would be changed.

That may be so on the surface, and you may be correct...

I am aware of, and like the idea of the number 19 being significant, but I am very doubtful to letting it become too significant.

19 should be an 'indicator' of what may be a potential issue and not a reason for change or amendments in itself.

My problem is that I can not see any circumstantial evidence, let alone straightforward proofs, of one missing ?Basmalah?.

Splitting chapter 9 (eventhough there is no Basmallah) in all printed and historic editions is the circumstantial evidence and more.

To me, the message would be the same with, or without, a ?Basmalah? heading ?Chapter 9?, I just fail to see the significance.

To me most of the verse number changes appear to be the same between Hafs & Warsh, yet I know that only one possible way was revealed (which may be neither of the two) and this it becomes significant if we want to restore historic authenticity.

Why do the Sunnis and Shia split chapter 9 in a sura by itself even though it has no Basmallah? I have asked that question and found they can no longer recall why this is the case (while some of their writings show clear confusion in that they think 9 may be a continuation of 8 and not a stand-alone chapter).

113 or 114?

[Ali Omar]

Dear Layth,

Well, I do not consider something to be circumstantial evidence just because it was repeated by many; a mistake could have been made before the repetitions begun, which is also your reason for inserting the ?Basmalah?. Or the oldest source could, just as well be correct, it goes either way.
A reference to ?Sunnis? and ?Shias? does not weigh at all in my mind, sorry, I do not see that they follow the scripture in question.

As you say, it may be that we somewhere in the future will see the significance of this, but right now I fail to do so. Therefore I am inclined to leave it alone until such time when reassurance can be found, one way or another.
However, your work on all these matters is impressive.

Best regds

Ali Omar

[Layth]

Peace Ali,

Well, I do not consider something to be circumstantial evidence just because it was repeated by many; a mistake could have been made before the repetitions begun, which is also your reason for inserting the ?Basmalah?. Or the oldest source could, just as well be correct, it goes either way.

You are correct, it may have been 113 all along (and the mistake was splitting chapter 9), or it maybe that 114 all along (and the mistake was in dropping the Basmallah).

We must make decisions some times and this is an example of a place where a decisions must be made (will we merge 8&9 or will we insert a BAsmallah)...

Remove the man-made insertions, and ask yourself which way you will go with this issue...Not making a decision is not a luxury we can afford in light of the knowledge we now have (knowledge brings responsibility).

A reference to ?Sunnis? and ?Shias? does not weigh at all in my mind, sorry, I do not see that they follow the scripture in question.

It carries no weight in my mind as well...I should have simply made reference to the 'oldest surviving copies' which predates both the Sunni and the Shia distortions.