Some of these affect the meaning, but none change the basic ideas of the Koran. For example, reciters disagreed over whether verse 57 in sura 6 says God "tells" the truth yaqussu or "judges" truthfully yaqdi , two words that look similar in the Arabic script. But since both ideas are ubiquitous in the Koran, the overall message of the scripture is not affected by either reading. From the above, it is evident that Muslims have lived with a measure of diversity within an otherwise largely stable and uniform text since the beginnings of Islam.
Muslim theologies have assimilated this historical reality in various ways. While opposing opinions have always existed and persist today, the predominant view has been that the different versions and readings of the Koran that are traceable to early Islam all enjoy God's endorsement. This idea was embodied in the early statement that God revealed the Koran in multiple forms, and it was fleshed out later by authors such as the 15th-Century scholar, Ibn al-Jazari.
For many centuries, there has been a rich and sophisticated tradition of Koranic scholarship. However, it is in the nature of knowledge to evolve. Early Koranic manuscripts present one of the resources that can add new insights and nuance to our knowledge of the text's history. Radiocarbon dating, thanks to technical advances in recent decades and the rigorous efforts of numerous scientists, has developed into an effective and accurate way of dating manuscripts, particularly when performed at the best labs, such as those in Oxford, Arizona, and Zurich.
However, experimental error can creep into the work of the best scientists. One can control for error by testing more than one sample from a manuscript. Several tests on a Koranic manuscript called "Sanaa 1" including a new test that Mohsen Goudarzi and I will publish soon have dated it to the first half of the 7th Century. Researchers continue to test more and more manuscripts, many of them datable to the first century of Islam. All of this presents a pleasing prospect for Koranic scholarship.
Why depicting the Prophet Muhammad causes offence. English is a language that has absorbed words from other language with enormous vigour.
This has given it by far the largest vocabulary of any language. In due course, I expect words like Quran, Shariah; and also various terms used in Islamic finance such as musharaka, mudaraba, takaful and ijara for example, to become normal English words, just like algebra an import from Arabic longer ago. However, this will not happen if the word contains an apostrophe, as that will always mark it as a foreign word.
However, over the last few years I have noticed something. I suspect that in most cases this derives from simple ignorance; the writer is genuinely unaware that Muslim is the preferred usage instead of Moslem. However, if the writer is unaware of that simple point, realistically they are not likely to know much about Islam, and hostility towards Islam is frequently based upon limited knowledge of it.
I would like to explain the point with the benefit of an extreme analogy. Many large organisations have official style guides. I have consulted some to confirm that they concur that "Muslim" is the correct usage. Each heading below links through to the relevant style guide.
Paragraph Islam is the faith, Muslim not Muhammedan, Mohammedan a member of that faith. The EU still updates its style guide, but the latest version I have seen issued in does not stipulate spellings of words in general.
Do you find our language too insensitive? Hitherto, Anglicisation of foreign place names has been an accepted custom Nevermind the fact that it's not pronounced ko-ran, or kor-an. It's said just like we spell it. If you need pronunciation spelling, it would be closest to kur-on. It's the name of a holy book. Use the accurate title and learn the correct way to pronounce it.
It's not difficult. I think many people who do this are motivated by the fact that "Quran" doesn't look at all like a native English word. By implication, therefore, it might be an original "native Arab" form.
Obviously it isn't , since any relevant "native Arabs" didn't even use our alphabet, let alone our written conventions regarding the letter q. But most dictionaries will have several words starting with the letter q where it's not followed by u , and they're invariably to do with "things Arabic".
The form we're looking at here looks like an effort to allude to that " u -less q ". I don't speak Arabic, so I don't know if the lack of a "pronounceable" vowel after qu may also reflect the fact that native speakers of the relevant languages don't normally enunciate much of a vowel before -ran.
But I doubt that's really a significant factor. Mostly it's just a somewhat clumsy attempt to show respect for what might have been a traditional native spelling but in fact it's not.
By long-standing convention, we use that latter representation, even though it "breaks the rules" for English, because there's no reasonable alternative in that particular circumstance. I wouldn't object to Quoran which has been used, though not so often. But I don't see why we should welcome a relatively new trend that runs counter to an otherwise strictly-observed aspect of English orthography, simply to represent a phonemic difference that doesn't actually exist for us Sign up to join this community.
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Why "Koran" changed to "Quran"? Ask Question. Asked 8 years, 4 months ago. Active 6 years, 3 months ago. Viewed 4k times.
0コメント