That's pretty interesting that the Japanese wrote a translation of the Qur'aan according to the 10 Qira'aat. I thought they just had a translation of the Qur'aan written according to Hafs relatively recently. Considering the relatively minor influence Islaam has within their current and historical sociopolitical context, I wonder what the driving force behind the project was.
According to Japanese Wikipedia it was because of the rise of practicing Muslims of Japanese ethnicity, as no prior translation had considered the needs of daily prayer and practice. So yes the first translation aimed at Muslims also tried to translate all the qiraat, something which is virtually never done in any translation.
The AUTHOR of THE BOOK is very smart indeed.Both groups are doing the killing actions together either in the physical sense or abstract.(conclusions that derived from the actions).
@@elliot7205 You should actually read scholarly works of islamic scholars on the issue rather than wandering around in YT comment section. For example the book being discussed is written by someone who is expert. Go to his YT channel '"Bridges translation" go to playlist and scroll a good chuck down until you read "Qirat" As for your Question Majority of the differences are dilectual and if we were to write all the non dialectal differences then it wouldn't even come to 10 pages [ With repetitative words] There is nothings for muslims to reconcile. As they believe all the "differences" are from god himself as prophet himself taught the differences. There are many Hadith for it. For instance read Sahih Bukhari 4992. Like hafs recitition say of Surah Fatiha verse 3 "Allah is king of the day of judgement" and harsh recitition say "Allah is Owner of the day of judgement" Both are correct there is no contradiction. There is no contradiction but CONTRADISTINCTION. Tea is made up of milk. Tea is made up of water. Tea is made up of sugar. Tea is made up of salt.Human is made up of bones. Human is made up of muscles. Human is made up of fibres. Human is made up of tissues. Human is made up of cells. Human is made up of atoms. Human is made up of nerves. Did I contradict in any of my statements? The differences in the Qirat are from God himself. They don't contradict but supplement each other like add additional layer of meaning.
You have got this channel mixed up with some of the podcasts you watch which invite an expert to interview. This is a joint presentation of joint research, which is made quite clear in the explanation and on the title slide (previously shared in Palermo). If you find listening to Dr. Sohaib so difficult then perhaps this channel isn’t for you.
Salam wa alaikoem akhi, JazakAllah ghairan for this insightful session. Regarding the differences in wording of the Qiraat which scholars don’t always agree upon and the (minor)differences between our current Cairo edition and the early Uthmanic rasm copies, how do we see these differences in light of: Quran 18:27 (O Prophet), “recite to them from the Book of your Lord what has been revealed to you for none may change His words.” Quran 15:9 “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” JazakAllah ghairan.
Wa ‘alaykum assalam, this is an important question which we can look at briefly. A lot of people have mistakenly assumed that discussing these particulars means that someone is doubting the preservation of the Quran. Now, while someone like Marijn might not see things through the lens of “preservation”, as a believing scholar I affirm that God’s words reached the Prophet ﷺ intact and were preserved by the community such that we read them today. So any discourse around preservation needs to incorporate these facts: the human efforts, and the variations which remain in what was preserved. While these do get mentioned, oftentimes their implications remain unexplored. Proper reflection should lead to a more refined idea of the meaning of “preservation”. As a lesser point, I don’t necessarily see those particular ayahs you quoted as being clear proofs of the fact of preservation. The first one is more likely about the broader concept of Allah’s kalimāt as His knowledge and decrees (see the tafsirs), and the latter means that distortion doesn’t enter it by the likes of devilish interference. Nevertheless, I believe there is an implication of the core issue we are discussing here: do we have the Quran as God intended it to reach us? I would say yes, as His promise was fulfilled through these amazing scholarly efforts. What I’m pushing against is to effectively negate what they did by positing a sort of “magical” preservation if you get what I mean. Already people have moved this issue of preservation (which, like qirā’āt, belongs to ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān) into the domain of i’jāz - and this will raise problems they possibly haven’t thought about. Allah knows best.
@@samkb6374 here is something Marijn wrote about that which should be helpful. twitter.com/phdnix/status/1555111863440101376?s=46&t=VQvo0OCDCuSVBdzSJJfSBA
This is a great discussion. I felt that Dr Van Putten did not get much of a chance to express his views. What is clear is that the moderator ( very knowledgeable without doubt )has multiple presuppositions and he wants Dr Van Putten to answer in his framework of thought process. Kind of introduces bias in discussion. Open ended questions are always great. Nonetheless I enjoyed it. Thank you
both are researcher of the same field and both have their PhD on same subject. I would guess Marijn didn't speak much because he was agreeing with him.
Glad to see you guys doing another video together! I deeply enjoyed the last one!
A more than wonderful dialogue that I really enjoyed raised a lot of questions in my brain:)
That's pretty interesting that the Japanese wrote a translation of the Qur'aan according to the 10 Qira'aat. I thought they just had a translation of the Qur'aan written according to Hafs relatively recently. Considering the relatively minor influence Islaam has within their current and historical sociopolitical context, I wonder what the driving force behind the project was.
Great question - perhaps we can draw some information from the front matter and share it here.
According to Japanese Wikipedia it was because of the rise of practicing Muslims of Japanese ethnicity, as no prior translation had considered the needs of daily prayer and practice. So yes the first translation aimed at Muslims also tried to translate all the qiraat, something which is virtually never done in any translation.
The AUTHOR of THE BOOK is very smart indeed.Both groups are doing the killing actions together either in the physical sense or abstract.(conclusions that derived from the actions).
1:02:58-1:04:27 🎯
How do you reconcile differences between hafs and warsh when meaning differs?
Their meanings do not clash but are an additional information
@@Mahad921they clash.
@@elliot7205 You should actually read scholarly works of islamic scholars on the issue rather than wandering around in YT comment section. For example the book being discussed is written by someone who is expert. Go to his YT channel '"Bridges translation" go to playlist and scroll a good chuck down until you read "Qirat"
As for your Question Majority of the differences are dilectual and if we were to write all the non dialectal differences then it wouldn't even come to 10 pages [ With repetitative words]
There is nothings for muslims to reconcile. As they believe all the "differences" are from god himself as prophet himself taught the differences. There are many Hadith for it. For instance read Sahih Bukhari 4992.
Like hafs recitition say of Surah Fatiha verse 3 "Allah is king of the day of judgement" and harsh recitition say "Allah is Owner of the day of judgement"
Both are correct there is no contradiction. There is no contradiction but CONTRADISTINCTION.
Tea is made up of milk. Tea is made up of water. Tea is made up of sugar. Tea is made up of salt.Human is made up of bones. Human is made up of muscles. Human is made up of fibres. Human is made up of tissues. Human is made up of cells. Human is made up of atoms. Human is made up of nerves. Did I contradict in any of my statements?
The differences in the Qirat are from God himself. They don't contradict but supplement each other like add additional layer of meaning.
@@elliot7205demonstrate
@@elliot7205example?
Sir if you invite someone and continue talking yourself. Why should you invite someone if you have to talk yourself.
You have got this channel mixed up with some of the podcasts you watch which invite an expert to interview. This is a joint presentation of joint research, which is made quite clear in the explanation and on the title slide (previously shared in Palermo). If you find listening to Dr. Sohaib so difficult then perhaps this channel isn’t for you.
@@IbnAshurI would like to ask you a question about the qira'at
One question that Mr Putten needs to be asked was the Quran sent out by itself by uthman or did he send a teacher with each book
Second option
Salam wa alaikoem akhi, JazakAllah ghairan for this insightful session.
Regarding the differences in wording of the Qiraat which scholars don’t always agree upon and the (minor)differences between our current Cairo edition and the early Uthmanic rasm copies, how do we see these differences in light of:
Quran 18:27 (O Prophet), “recite to them from the Book of your Lord what has been revealed to you for none may change His words.”
Quran 15:9 “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.”
JazakAllah ghairan.
Wa ‘alaykum assalam, this is an important question which we can look at briefly.
A lot of people have mistakenly assumed that discussing these particulars means that someone is doubting the preservation of the Quran. Now, while someone like Marijn might not see things through the lens of “preservation”, as a believing scholar I affirm that God’s words reached the Prophet ﷺ intact and were preserved by the community such that we read them today. So any discourse around preservation needs to incorporate these facts: the human efforts, and the variations which remain in what was preserved. While these do get mentioned, oftentimes their implications remain unexplored. Proper reflection should lead to a more refined idea of the meaning of “preservation”.
As a lesser point, I don’t necessarily see those particular ayahs you quoted as being clear proofs of the fact of preservation. The first one is more likely about the broader concept of Allah’s kalimāt as His knowledge and decrees (see the tafsirs), and the latter means that distortion doesn’t enter it by the likes of devilish interference. Nevertheless, I believe there is an implication of the core issue we are discussing here: do we have the Quran as God intended it to reach us? I would say yes, as His promise was fulfilled through these amazing scholarly efforts. What I’m pushing against is to effectively negate what they did by positing a sort of “magical” preservation if you get what I mean. Already people have moved this issue of preservation (which, like qirā’āt, belongs to ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān) into the domain of i’jāz - and this will raise problems they possibly haven’t thought about. Allah knows best.
@@IbnAshur
JazakAllah ghairan.
@@IbnAshur
Salam wa alaikoem,
What’s the (estimate) number of total variants that we have with the 10 Qiraat if I may ask?
@@samkb6374 here is something Marijn wrote about that which should be helpful.
twitter.com/phdnix/status/1555111863440101376?s=46&t=VQvo0OCDCuSVBdzSJJfSBA
@@IbnAshur
JazakAllah Ghairan and a blessed Ramadhan akhi.
This is a great discussion. I felt that Dr Van Putten did not get much of a chance to express his views. What is clear is that the moderator ( very knowledgeable without doubt )has multiple presuppositions and he wants Dr Van Putten to answer in his framework of thought process. Kind of introduces bias in discussion. Open ended questions are always great.
Nonetheless I enjoyed it. Thank you
both are researcher of the same field and both have their PhD on same subject. I would guess Marijn didn't speak much because he was agreeing with him.