Re: Volunteers, Unicode, previous examples and things

[Abdalla Alothman <abdalla at pheye dot net>]

On Thursday 30 June 2005 01:12, Mete Kural wrote:
> 
> Salaamu Alaikum Abdalla,

Wa alaikum asalam wa rahmatullaah.

> I don't quite understand what you mean here in trying to distinguish the Quran
> from being a scripture but only a recital. 

I didn't make the distinction, it's already there before I was born. Hence,
a written Quran is called a MuS-Haf where as a Tilaawa is not called a MuS-Haf.
Moreover, I didn't deny that the Quran takes various forms, of which one is the
written form (MuS-Haf). As for exclusively saying that it is a recital, what can
I do? It's called Quraan. Insinuating that I deny that the Quran is a kitaab is a
bit unappropriate. I simply denied that the Quran is a kutbaan (something that is
only written before it is distributed.) From a developer's perspective, think of it
as raw text that you can format as HTML, XML, PDF, or pass it to a speech engine to
be read outloud.

> A scripture is recited.

Yes, but it remains a scripture. If you burn all of its copies in the whole
world, nobody can reproduce it, because it is depended on the written sources.
This cannot happen to the Quran because it is not a scripture, but a recital.
Moreover, a scripture is not recited the way the Quran should be recited (wa
rattil al-qur-aana tarteela. Surat Al-Muzzamil)

Because the Pentatuech (Torah) is a scripture, it is non-existent today (the
people of Musa (s) lost it many times before the last time; and whenever they
lost it they had bad luck in battles. See Albaqrah:248). What exists is what
it supposedly contained. The Quran, however, is exists.

In its original format, the scripture has its sources in manuscripts. The sources
of the Quran are not manuscripts or divine materials.

> As you know, the second ayah of the second surah start 
> with "dhaalika l-kitaabu laa rayba fiih" translated in many translations similar
> to  "This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt".
> Also the third ayah of the third surah mentions "nazzala `alayka l-kitaaba bi-l-haqq"
> translated in Pickthall as "He hath revealed unto thee the Scripture with truth". In addition, please find:     
>
> Also the third ayah of the third surah mentions "nazzala `alayka l-kitaaba bi-l-haqq"
> translated in Pickthall as "He hath revealed unto thee the Scripture with truth".
[...]

Shakir translates  it as:  This Book, there  is no  doubt in it,  is a
guide to those who guard (against evil).

Yusuf Ali translates it as: This  is the Book; in it is guidance sure,
without doubt, to those who fear Allah;

See: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html

Khan  and Hilali  translate  it as:  This  is the  Book (the  Qur'ân),
whereof there  is no  doubt, a guidance  to those who  are Al-Muttaqûn
[the pious and righteous persons who fear Allâh much (abstain from all
kinds of  sins and evil deeds  which He has forbidden)  and love Allâh
much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].

See: http://quran.nu/en/

Among the favored  translations by Ahl Al-Sunna, I  only see Pickthall
using  "scripture."   And  that  might  be related  to  his  pre-Islam
background or maybe it's his  personal opinion.  Nevertheless, I am by
no means trying to discredit Pickthall and his fine works. Also, whoever
wants to refer to the Quran as a "scripture" let them do so, it's not
really my concern.

When it comes to the Quran being  a book, nobody is denying that it is
a "kitaab,"  but the question is  that the "kitab" is  not prepared by
any human being. It is a  kitab alright, but the question is who wrote
it? And where is it? And what does it look like? That's why I clarified
that the book is free format--it has the capability to spread in thin
air as radio waves, paper and ink, stones, or whatever.

When it comes to the Pentatauech, those books where sent down on Moses
in a  physical format. So they  take the word  "scripture;" that's not
the end  of their  scriptures, though.   The word is  a wrong  word to
describe the Quran for reasons  that are unsuitable as a discussion in
this mailing list.

The summary  of the opinion I  presented is very simple.  The Quran is
not bound by  any physical format (i.e., paper and  ink, etc.) When we
hear the Quran in radio, what we are listening to is called "The Noble
Quran" and so on.

The idea is  that when an application developer  wishes to develop any
application related  to the Quran,  she or he  should ask: "What  am I
trying to present?"  If the content is to present  a "soft" MuS-Haf --
something that  looks like a  MuS-Haf on a  computer screen --  then I
guess the  application developer should  comply with what  the Muslims
have agreed upon on what constitutes a MuS-Haf, visually speaking. But
if the goal is to do  some operations with the Quran, the text doesn't
have to look exactly like the MuS-Haf.

> Even the most traditional accounts record that the transmission was
> both oral and written.

Of course,  and nobody is  denying that as  well. And nobody  can deny
that if  it wasn't for  tawaatur, we would  not have at hand  a single
authentic qiraa-ah. ;)

It is not wrong  to write the Quran, but IMHO, I  think it is wrong to
claim  that the Quran  is a  scripture only.  When preachers  of other
religions appear  on TV an say, "This  is the word of  God!" They fall
into numerous  problems that  we Muslims do  not need (e.g.,  in their
ancient  scriptures, the  word "god"--as  is--is not  there.)  such as
letting others imagine that the written Quran should only appear as it
is in the MaSaaHif. As time  passes by, people will tend to ignore the
rulings related  to the text  of the Quran  if the text does  not look
like  a MuS-Haf  (e.g., maintaining  a cleanliness  state  and wearing
appropriate clothing as a means of respect).

> Remember that surah 85 ayah 21-22 says:       
> 
> "bal huwa qur'anu mujeed. fee lawhum mahfoodh."

This has  nothing to  do, IMHO, with  constraining the Quran  into its
written format only,  and can be answered back with  an aya from surat
Al-Qiyama:

Fa itha qar-anahu fattabi' qur-aanah. (Thuma in 'alayna bayanah)

It doesn't  say fa itha katabnahu for obvious reasons...

Allah (tt)  did not send down a  book that has a  physical format just
like what  the Messenger  Musa (a) received  from Allah as  Allah (tt)
says in many places including surat Al-A'laa:

Ina hatha lafi al-suHuf al-Uoola, suHufi Ibraheema wa Musa.

There are  no suHuf or alwaaH  (tablets) that were sent  down by Allah
(tt), IMHO.  Moreover, looking at various Quran manuscripts throughout
the Islamic history reveals undeniable facts that:

1. In  the early stages  of its  writing, the  Quran was  written with
   plain letters.

2. Dotting notations was added in more than one stage.

3. Simple diacritical marks where added in slow steps.

4. There wasn't any aya numbers or sections

Yet, what  they held  in their  hands was indeed  called The  Quran. I
doubt that anyone can deny  that the Sura (Surat Taaha) 'Umar snatched
from his  sister's hands  before his Islam--that  sura that  caused an
earthquake in his heart-- looked like  Surat Taaha we see today in the
MuS-Haf. The same thing applies when we were in highschool and we were
asked to write down a passage  from the Quran. I doubt anyone can deny
that  what  we wrote  was  a  Quran (We  even  wrote  it down  without
diacritical  marks!)  If nobody  doubts,  then  I  ask: Why  then  are
numerous  Quran  related projects  are  postponed  until  what can  be
presented will match  the MuS-Haf? I don't know  about the others, but
I'm not going to wait. :)

Copying  the Quran  and  inventing  numerous ways  to  present it  and
simplify its readings was an  amazing process that the SaHaaba and the
tabi'een overtook and amazed the  world with it [at times when reading
was a  crime in some  societies]. But those methods are not closed to
development.

Wishing you and your family peace and good health.

Salam,
Abdalla Alothman