News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu

Dealing with apparent contradictions in Quran variations

Started by Euphoric, May 11, 2024, 11:42:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Euphoric

By contradiction I mean "a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another" - webster dictionary.

One example would be how the verse of washing/wiping Q 5:5 is read in two variations, one saying to wash the feet and another saying to wipe the feet.

- This can be reconciled by wiping the feet while running the water over your feet.

Another example is the verse about end of menstruation Q 2:222 which also have two variations. One permits having sex with the woman after he menstruation ended but not cleansed herself, while the other only permits having sex after cleansing.

- The safest is to the second, although first one is equally reliable.

Euphoric

Another apparent contradiction is in the variation of verse 2:125 with وَاتَّخِذُوا or وَاتَّخَذُوا either this verse applies today or it doesn't.

"and they took from the standing place Ibrahim a place of prayer"

or

"and take from the standing place of Ibrahim a place of prayer"

As you can see, the first is in the past tense and a history account of what people did, and the second one is a present tense which commands the people to take from the standing place of Ibrahim. How can this apparent conflict be resolved?

I take it as a specific case for the people of Mecca in time of revelation and not general, it becomes historical either way.

Bajram Hoxhaj

Quote from: Euphoric on May 11, 2024, 11:42:50 PMBy contradiction I mean "a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another" - webster dictionary.

One example would be how the verse of washing/wiping Q 5:5 is read in two variations, one saying to wash the feet and another saying to wipe the feet.

- This can be reconciled by wiping the feet while running the water over your feet.

Another example is the verse about end of menstruation Q 2:222 which also have two variations. One permits having sex with the woman after he menstruation ended but not cleansed herself, while the other only permits having sex after cleansing.

- The safest is to the second, although first one is equally reliable.

It does not say to wash the feet
5:6
fāghsilū/so washes ye of faces yours and hands yours to the elbow
wa amsaĥū/and wipes ye of in heads yours and feet yours to the ankles two

there are not two variations
2:222
Wa Lā Taqrabūhunna Ĥattá Yaţhurna
and not thou approach ye them (f) until purified they (f)

Fa'idhā Taţahharna Fa'tūhunna
so when of are purified (f) so approach ye them (f)

Quote from: Euphoric on May 12, 2024, 03:26:58 PMAnother apparent contradiction is in the variation of verse 2:125 with وَاتَّخِذُوا or وَاتَّخَذُوا either this verse applies today or it doesn't.

"and they took from the standing place Ibrahim a place of prayer"

or

"and take from the standing place of Ibrahim a place of prayer"

As you can see, the first is in the past tense and a history account of what people did, and the second one is a present tense which commands the people to take from the standing place of Ibrahim. How can this apparent conflict be resolved?

I take it as a specific case for the people of Mecca in time of revelation and not general, it becomes historical either way.

there is nothing to resolve
2:125 وَإِذْ  Wa 'Idh/and when (past) ...
وَاتَّخَذُوا Wa Attakhadhū/and have taken (past) they of

example which clarifies slight difference
5:57 O ye the ones believes ye of not
تَتَّخِذُوا Tattakhidhū/thou take (present) ye of the ones

اتَّخَذُوا  Attakhadhū/have taken (past) they of creed yours mock of

Euphoric

Quote from: Bajram Hoxhaj on May 13, 2024, 08:01:27 AMIt does not say to wash the feet
5:6 fāghsilū/so washes ye of faces yours and hands yours to the elbowwa amsaĥū/and wipes ye of in heads yours and feet yours to the ankles two

The variation 5:6 is in وَأَرْجُلِكُمْ and وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ which implies to wipe or wash the feet. Both are accepted readings by scholars of the Quran.



Quotethere are not two variations2:222
Wa Lā Taqrabūhunna Ĥattá Yaţhurna and not thou approach ye them (f) until purified they (f)Fa'idhā Taţahharna Fa'tūhunna
so when of are purified (f) so approach ye them (f)there is nothing to resolve2:125 وَإِذْ  Wa 'Idh/and when (past) ...
وَاتَّخَذُوا Wa Attakhadhū/and have taken (past) they of example which clarifies slight difference
5:57 O ye the ones believes ye of not
تَتَّخِذُوا Tattakhidhū/thou take (present) ye of the ones اتَّخَذُوا  Attakhadhū/have taken (past) they of creed yours mock of

The variations is يَطَّهَّرْنَ and يَطْهُرْنَ.  Again, scholars have accepted them as valid. One is not better than the other.

This is actually major thing since it involves sinning. Can you have sex without her purifying herself after menses or not?

Euphoric

I made a post about the apparent inconsistency between Book or Books https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9612624.0

"All scholars of the Quran read the verse of Al-Birr 2:177 as Al-Kitab, the other verses mentioned were 2:285, 4:136, 66:12 and their variations influence belief of Book or Books."

This is big since it involves belief.

If I believe in Al-Kitab then what about more than one? If I believe in more than one it would go against Al-Kitab.

Bajram Hoxhaj

Quote from: Euphoric on May 13, 2024, 02:47:46 PMThe variation 5:6 is in وَأَرْجُلِكُمْ and وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ which implies to wipe or wash the feet. Both are accepted readings by scholars of the Quran.

The variations is يَطَّهَّرْنَ and يَطْهُرْنَ.  Again, scholars have accepted them as valid. One is not better than the other.

This is actually major thing since it involves sinning. Can you have sex without her purifying herself after menses or not?

both mean "and your feet" in Arabic.

5:6 O ye the ones believes ye of
when of stand you for the prayer
فَاغْسِلُوا so washes ye of faces yours and hands yours to the elbow
وَامْسَحُوا and wipes ye of in heads yours
وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ and feet yours to the ankles two


وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ is in the accusative case, and it serves as the direct object of the verb امْسَحُوا (imsahū), meaning that the listener is being instructed to wipe their feet. Deserts don't have water to drink, let alone for millions to wash their feet numerous times a day.

Likewise, this verse is clear!

2:222 and not thou approach ye them (feminine) until
يَطْهُرْنَ (yatḥurna): they (f) purify/cleanse (majority of the reciters)
يَطَّهَّرْنَ (yattahharṇa): they (f) purify/cleanse thoroughly (minority)

Quote from: Euphoric on May 13, 2024, 03:56:10 PMI made a post about the apparent inconsistency between Book or Books https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9612624.0

"All scholars of the Quran read the verse of Al-Birr 2:177 as Al-Kitab, the other verses mentioned were 2:285, 4:136, 66:12 and their variations influence belief of Book or Books."

This is big since it involves belief.

If I believe in Al-Kitab then what about more than one? If I believe in more than one it would go against Al-Kitab.

Scholars (parrots parroting parrots), missionaries, atheists, numerologists, etc., butcher every other verse on every topic - inheritance, underage marriage, sex with menstruating women, etc., especially those in Arab garb on YouTube, with bookshelves behind them seeking attention and justifying nonsense. Read in context, use common sense.

Salaam!

Euphoric

You are over your head. All these readings are accepted by scholars of the Arabic language as valid and authentic.

If you reject washing the feet, you're a disbeliever in the Quran which said to wash the feet.

If you reject wiping the feet, you're a disbeliever in the Quran that reads as wipe.

Are you a disbeliever?

Quote from: Bajram Hoxhaj on May 13, 2024, 10:33:57 PMboth mean "and your feet" in Arabic.


Bajram Hoxhaj

Quote from: Euphoric on May 14, 2024, 05:45:24 AMYou are over your head. All these readings are accepted by scholars of the Arabic language as valid and authentic.

If you reject washing the feet, you're a disbeliever in the Quran which said to wash the feet.

If you reject wiping the feet, you're a disbeliever in the Quran that reads as wipe.

Are you a disbeliever?


Indeed, I washed my feet after they became quite muddy while I was doing yard work in sandals the other day. It seems apparent that you didn't quite grasp the subject or what you've posted, so for the benefit of others, here's the grammar.

The two words you have provided, وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ and وَأَرْجُلِكُمْ, are both Arabic words that mean "and your feet".

وَأَرْجُلِكُمْ (wa'arjulikum) is in the genitive case, meaning it is possessive. It could be modifying the noun رُءُوسِكُمْ (ru'ūsikum), which means "your heads". In this case, the phrase would mean "and the feet of your heads", which is obviously absurd.

If modifying the noun وُجُوهَكُمْ (wujuhukum), which means "your faces", then the phrase would mean "and your feet, along with your faces", which is the grammatical spin to interpret it as washing faces, hands, and feet.

The logical (no need for rivers or lakes!) and simpler reading without doing grammatical backflips.

5:6 O ye the ones believes ye of when of stand you for the prayer
فَاغْسِلُوا (so washes ye of) faces yours and hands yours to the elbow
وَامْسَحُوا (and wipes ye of) in heads yours
وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ (and feet yours) to the ankles two


As you can see, the phrase وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ (wa'arjulakum) is in the accusative case, and it is the direct object of the verb امْسَحُوا (imsahū). This means that the listener is being instructed to wipe their feet.

Likewise, don't fret about my beliefs, for as Thomas Jefferson once said: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." I would also suggest doing your own research.

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/107/page/1r?sura=17&verse=36

17:36-39
 and not thou pursue what not is to you in it knowledge
 indeed the hearing (enquiry)
 and the eyesight (evidence)
 and the heart (inner emotion, knowing right and wrong)
 each those be about it questioned of
 and not thou walk in the land insolent of
 indeed you never breach the land
 and never thou reach the mountains height of
 each such be evil its near Lord yours disliked of
 such from what inspires to you Lord your from the wisdom
 and not thou make with الله deity of another
 so cast in abyss blameworthy of forsaken of


Salaam!

Euphoric

Arabic scholars consider both verses grammatically correct. Both are equally Quran. You put yourself in a conundrum.

Either you believe in both or you disbelieve in both.

Again, are you a disbeliever?


Quote from: Bajram Hoxhaj on May 14, 2024, 06:49:22 PM!

Euphoric

Another variation is about the ability of Allah, in Q 5:112

"...can your Lord send down to us a table from the sky?" يَسْتَطِيعُ

"...can you (ask) your Lord to send down to us a table from the sky?" تَسْتَطِيعُ

Obvious answer would be yes, but the readings are both transmitted and accepted by scholars of the Quran.

Layth

Salam Euphoric.

I would not call these "variations," rather they are "errors".

In the process of copying the Qur'an and spreading its message, it is clear that scribal errors have taken place where a word or words have been mispelt or even omitted (I think there was a verse 57:24 where "Huwa" was missing from some versions).

The solution is a little bit laborous but simple. All scribal errors are to be reviewed, with the context being the prime determiner of which was is correct.

In the absence of context, then we need to look at other verses that support or reject the scribal difference (is God "King" of Judgement Day or "Possessor" of Judgement Day?).

Take for example 30:2-3, all "codified" versions have Rome losing then winning. Yet, the context screams the opposite. Digging a bit deeper, we find that there were some versions of the Qur'an that did indeed have Rome "winning and then losing" - as I said, it is quite a task.
`And when God Alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!` (The Quran 39:45)

Bajram Hoxhaj

Quote from: Euphoric on May 14, 2024, 07:32:23 PMArabic scholars consider both verses grammatically correct.
:nope: again, it clearly says "wipes" ye of
see old manuscript 11th line from top 3rd word وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ 'Arjulakum (lam لَ)
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/59/page/38v?sura=5&verse=6

5:6 وَامْسَحُوا (and wipes ye of) in heads yours وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ and feet yours
Wa Amsaĥū Biru'ūsikum Wa 'Arjulakum
5:6 فَامْسَحُوا (so wipes ye of) in faces yours and hands yours
Fāmsaĥū Biwujūhikum Wa 'Aydīkum
4:43 فَامْسَحُوا (so wipes ye of) in faces yours and hands yours
Fāmsaĥū Biwujūhikum Wa 'Aydīkum

Quote from: Euphoric on May 14, 2024, 07:49:43 PMAnother variation is about the ability of Allah, in Q 5:112

"...can your Lord send down to us a table from the sky?" يَسْتَطِيعُ

"...can you (ask) your Lord to send down to us a table from the sky?" تَسْتَطِيعُ

Obvious answer would be yes, but the readings are both transmitted and accepted by scholars of the Quran.
:nope: It's written with prefix يَ ya (he/they) and not with تَ ta (it/thou)
use context see all 23 occurrences likewise all over the entire Qur'an

4:129 and never تَسْتَطِيعُوا (Tastaţī`ū) thou experience ye of that تَعْدِلُوا (Ta`dilū) thou equitable ye of between the womenfolk

18:67 said indeed you (sing.) never تَسْتَطِيعَ (Tastaţī`a) thou capable with me patience of

2:282 or not يَسْتَطِيعُ (Yastaţī`u) he capable that يُمِلَّ (Yumilla) he dictate

5:112 when said the disciples being O Isa son Maryam shall يَسْتَطِيعُ (Yastaţī`u) he capable lord your (sing.) that يُنَزِّلَ (Yunazzila) he descend upon us table spread from the sky said heeds ye of الله if be you (pl.) who believers


the same old manuscript clearly shows:
1.    fatha and two dots under the 1st first يَ ya
2.    fatha and the two dots over the letter تَ ta
3.    and two dots under the 2nd ي ya

6th line from the bottom 3rd word يَسْتَطِيعُ (Yastaţī`u)
Topkapı Palace Museum (Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi):
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/59/page/45r?sura=5&verse=112


Bajram Hoxhaj

Quote from: Layth on May 15, 2024, 03:32:38 AMI would not call these "variations," rather they are "errors".

In the process of copying the Qur'an and spreading its message, it is clear that scribal errors have taken place where a word or words have been mispelt or even omitted (I think there was a verse 57:24 where "Huwa" was missing from some versions).

The solution is a little bit laborous but simple. All scribal errors are to be reviewed, with the context being the prime determiner of which was is correct.

Yes, there are numerous errors, and it's a main topic in Qur'anic studies. Similar to error-correcting codes, we can use quorums or tiebreakers.

57:24 and who turned away so indeed الله He the ample the praiseworthy
60:6  and who turned away so indeed الله He the ample the praiseworthy


Hafs 706-796CE; Warsh 728-812CE (هو Huwa/He missing 57:24)

7th line from top هو missing "Saray Medina 1a" (700 - 800CE)
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/56/page/351v?sura=57&verse=24

10th line from top 1st word is هو Emanet 13 (650 - 750CE)
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/59/page/192v?sura=57&verse=24

3rd line from bottom 2nd word is هو Bibliothèque France Arabe 331 (650 - 750CE)
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/32/page/52v?sura=57&verse=24

3rd line from bottom 1st word is هو Wetzstein II 1913 (660 - 710CE)
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/163/page/191v?sura=57&verse=24

Another example: من who (missing in oldest dated manuscript)

22:4 decreed upon him that he (word missing?) befriends him
so indeed he misguided him and guided him towards punishment the blaze


10th line from bottom من (who) missing? Bibliothèque nationale de France Arabe 328 (c) 568-645 CE
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/158/page/82v?sura=22&verse=4


From the context above, the error is obvious, as with other examples, albeit more nuanced.

2nd line from bottom last word is من (who) Tübingen Ma VI 165 (650 - 700CE)
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/107/page/24r?sura=22&verse=4

Quote from: Layth on May 15, 2024, 03:32:38 AMIn the absence of context, then we need to look at other verses that support or reject the scribal difference (is God "King" of Judgement Day or "Possessor" of Judgement Day?).

Kings are confined to ruling over people, entities, territories, etc. A sovereign, however, can also rule over time.

1:4 Māliki (Sovereign/Owner) day Ad-Dīni

82:17-19 and what makes know you what day Ad-Dīni?
furthermore what makes know you what day Ad-Dīni?
day not Tamliku (it sovereignty) soul for soul thing of
and the directive day thereof لله (to God)

114:2 Maliki (King) An-Nāsi (the people)


Quote from: Layth on May 15, 2024, 03:32:38 AMTake for example 30:2-3, all "codified" versions have Rome losing then winning. Yet, the context screams the opposite. Digging a bit deeper, we find that there were some versions of the Qur'an that did indeed have Rome "winning and then losing" - as I said, it is quite a task.

Same as 2:249 23:106 Ghalabat (prevail she/it/they)

Salaam


centi50

Quote from: Bajram Hoxhaj on May 13, 2024, 08:01:27 AMIt does not say to wash the feet
5:6
fāghsilū/so washes ye of faces yours and hands yours to the elbow
wa amsaĥū/and wipes ye of in heads yours and feet yours to the ankles two

there are not two variations
2:222
Wa Lā Taqrabūhunna Ĥattá Yaţhurna
and not thou approach ye them (f) until purified they (f)

Fa'idhā Taţahharna Fa'tūhunna
so when of are purified (f) so approach ye them (f)

there is nothing to resolve
2:125 وَإِذْ  Wa 'Idh/and when (past) ...
وَاتَّخَذُوا Wa Attakhadhū/and have taken (past) they of

example which clarifies slight difference
5:57 O ye the ones believes ye of not
تَتَّخِذُوا Tattakhidhū/thou take (present) ye of the ones

اتَّخَذُوا  Attakhadhū/have taken (past) they of creed yours mock of




Salam bro,

I agree with you is wipe your head and feet and this is what I do. If maybe I came from muddy place or dusty I wash my feet. But clearly the verb is wipe the head and feet

God bless you

Wakas

peace BH,

You need to write a book ar article on these findings. They are helpful.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. [url="http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/"]My articles[/url]

[url="//www.studyquran.org"]www.studyQuran.org[/url]

Bajram Hoxhaj

Quote from: Wakas on August 07, 2024, 08:22:20 PMpeace BH,

You need to write a book ar article on these findings. They are helpful.

Salaam Wakas,

There are thousands of recitations https://erquran.org/

22:2 سُكْرَىٰ وَمَا هُمْ بِسُكْرَىٰ sukrā wa-mā hum bi-sukrā (14 letters)
22:2 سَكْرِىٰ وَمَا هُمْ بِسَكْرِىٰ sakrē wa-mā hum bi-sakrē (14 letters)
22:2 سَكْرَىٰ وَمَا هُمْ بِسُكْرَىٰ sakrā wa-mā hum bi-sukrā (14 letters)
22:2 سَكْرَىٰ وَمَا هُمْ بِسَكْرَىٰ sakrā wa-mā hum bi-sakrā (14 letters)

22:2 سُكَارَىٰ وَمَا هُمْ بِسَكْرَىٰ sukārā wa-mā hum bi-sakrā (15 letters)
22:2 سَكْرَىٰ وَمَا هُمْ بِسُكَارَىٰ sakrā wa-mā hum bi-sukārā (15 letters)

22:2 سَكَارَىٰ وَمَا هُمْ بِسَكَارَىٰ sakārā wa-mā hum bi-sakārā (16 letters)
22:2 سُكَارَىٰ وَمَا هُمْ بِسُكَارَىٰ sukārā wa-mā hum bi-sukārā (16 letters)

While the oldest manuscripts are different...

22:2 سكرىا وما هم بسكرىا spelled with trailing alifs (16 letters)
a drunken state (sukārāan) and not themselves in a drunken state (bisukārāan)

Arabe 328 (c) see 5th line from Bismillah
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/158/page/82v?sura=22&verse=2

Ma VI 165 see 4th and 5th line from bottom
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/107/page/24r?sura=22&verse=2

"Emanet 13" see 3rd line from the top
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/59/page/117v?sura=22&verse=2