ASAK,
It is around the 28:30 minute mark, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzSyGjsd9jY. I will quote him,
How do the ahruf differ from one another. The differences were in the pronunciation of words just like in England vs America we have different pronunciations of English. Similarly, the Arabian tribes had different pronunciations and sometimes they even had synonymous words that were changed because as I said the Arabic tribal dialect were much more different than modern English is and so sometimes a certain word would not be used by the Quraysh but might be used by the Yemeni tribe. So the Prophet would recite them with that word in the Yemeni dialect but not in the Qurayshi dialect. Sometimes a synonym would be used very rarely. There are recorded instances were a different synonym would be used.
This is the first time I am hearing the ahruf actually had different words. It is probably something similar to "Flat vs Apartment" in UK vs US English. So I am wondering what the source is for this claim. Where are these recorded instances?
That being said, there is something else that he said that caught my attention. At around 30:00, he says the following,
Uthman ibn Affan combined the ummah upon the recitation of the Qurayshi dialect. It was the Qurayshi dialect, and all of the other recitations or versions were gotten rid of. However, even though the other versions were gotten rid of, certain elements were left much more trivial than the actual differences in the ahruf and these elements primarily resolved upon the pronunciation of the letters. Why? Because Uthman ibn Affan preserved the writing of the Qurayshi dialect and so all of these synonyms that were used in these other dialects were gotten away with it.
First and foremost, I want to confirm whether he is claiming that these synonyms have been lost and not preserved in any text or in any oral traditions.
If that is the case, if the ahruf with the different wordings/synonyms are no longer available, then it can be rightly said that they have not been preserved.
In that case, the statement "Quran has been perfectly preserved" can only be considered as true with certain qualifications. But without any qualifications, it is not true that everything that was revealed as the Qur'an, and not abrogated, has been preserved. What would be the counter-argument if such a polemical argument were to be raised?
[link] [comments]
from Islam https://ift.tt/2vY2acR
No comments:
Post a Comment