Cult 19 and Missionaries -the "differences" between "versions" of Quran
Sometimes back, at Rope forum, a devoted believer of code 19, sent the list of differences between different versions of Quran which she pick up from the christian missionaries` site in order to prove corruption of Quran and to prove that we must believe in the code if we want to know which Quran is real and which is corrupted.This is very similar to christian missionaries who actualy brought that list to confuse people by presenting these differences as proof of human origin of Quran in order to invite them to leave the Quran and accept their doctrines-Bible and a mortal who ate food as god.(Jesus)
This is an analysis of these "differences" which shows that the differences are superficial(do not change the meaning) and are not significant, but imo actually shows that Quran is not changed... and also there is a insightfull comment after analysis of differences which explains due to which reason these differences appeared...
Cult 19 and Missionaries
by Mirghani Hamed
As salamu aleykum. At the very beginning you will see that what I have stated (and I could make a mistake for sure) about only one word different between Warsh and Hafs(two most spread versions of quranic text) will turn to be true so far.
Let us now analyze the whole list, word by word.
3:81 “ateynakum”/We have given you, and “ateytukum” /I have given you.
The same letters completely (without dots). Do you know how many times God uses the first person plural to refer to Him and how many times He uses the first person singular for the same? Does this change the message in the slightest form. …..
2:259 “nunshizuha” and “nunshiruha”.
The same letters completely (without dots). In this particular verse both words convey the same meaning that is, to raise the (bones alive) again. For more understanding for the same please refer to, (for the root nushuz see 4:34, 128, 58:11) and for the second see (21:21, 25:3, 40, 35:9, 43:11, 44:35, 67:15, 80:22) ------
2:140 “yaquloon” they say and “taquloon” you say.
The same words completely (without dots) and conveys the same meaning.
2:140 “Or do you say that/Or do they say that Ibraheem and Isma&eel and Ishaq and ya&qoob and the tribes were Hoodan and Nasara, Say (QUL). “Do you know better then God?”
Both forms of addressing are within the Quran in many places. ----
2:132 “w ‘awsa”/enjoined upon and “w wasa”enjoined upon.
Completely the same meaning. Both are possible forms of the same verb in the past for the third person singular. The first one with a “hamza &ala alif/ “ a hamza on an alif between W and W which changes nothing in the meaning.
….
3:133 “sari&oo”/be quick and “w sari&oo”/and be quick
The same words completely and the same meaning. The other one with a WA/and. The WA/and is at the beginning of a new ayat and as though changes nothing in the meaning. Many translators do not mention I at all.
See if the meaning is changed;
“And be quick in the race of forgiveness” or “Be quick in the race of forgiveness …..
5:54 “yartadid”YRTDD /turns back, and “yartad”YRTD/turns back.
Two possible forms of the same verb in the third person. The first one with two D but without TASHDEED (double pronunciation of a letter) and the other with one D but with tashdeed (pronounced as two D). As you see absolutely the same meaning. …….
43:68 “ya&ibadi” YA &BADY /O my servants, and “ya&ibad” YA &IBAD/ O my servants.
As you see absolutely the same meaning. Both are correct forms for the vocative case. Notice that the other one without Y at the end have the same pronunciation but based on KASRA and not Y. …..
5:53 “yaqoolul ladheena” and “w yaqoolul ladheena”
Completely the same words one with WA at the beginning and one without WA. The same meaning completely.
“And those who believe will say…” and “ Those who believe will say…”
And at the beginning changes nothing. ……
9:107 “Al ladheena…”/Those, and “wal ladheena” /And those.
The same words completely but one with WA and one without. Completely the same meaning.
“Those who set up a mosque..” and “ And those who set up a mosque..” …….
18:36 “minhuma”/than them and “minha”/better than it.
No change in the meaning at all.
In the first case MINHUMA/THAN THEM can refer to the two gardens (mentioned in 18:32, 33) and in the second case NINHA/THAN IT can refer to ONE GARDEN (the one he entered) as mentioned in the previous ayat (18:35, and he entered his GARDEN (singular).
….
40:26 “w an” and “aw an”
Here are the translations of the meaning of both cases;
“I fear that he (Musa) will change your deen and spread disorder in the land” “I fear that he (Musa) will change your deen or spread disorder in the land”
If Musa, according to Fir&awn, changes the deen/system established by Fir&awn, then he will automatically, according to Fir&awn, spread disorder in the land. And if he spreads disorder then this automatically means the change of the deen/system of Fir&awn according to Fir&awn himself.
So, no change of the meaning. …..
42:30 “f bima” and “bima” “if a misfortune befalls you, IT IS THE RESULT of your own labours”
The same meaning. ….
57:24 “allahu alghaniy” and “allahu HUWA al ghaniy”
As I mentioned before, THE ONLY CASE WITH A WHOLE WORD DIFFERENCE. We have HUWA which is the pronoun for the third person singular, that is, HE in English.
Putting HE /HUWA or omotting it from this sentence CHANGE NOTHING. Here are the two possible translations;
“God is self-sufficient and worthy of praise” “God, He, is self-sufficient and worthy of praise”
…….
26:217 “f tawak kal” and “w tawak kal”
Both means “And put your trust”
…..
91:15 “f layakhafu” and “w layakhafu”
Both means “And he does not fear”
…..
2:72 “f dara’tum” and “f dara’tum”
“ The same words, with the same pronunciation but in one case the HAMZA is on an ALIF and in the other case it is on the line. Both right and possible ways for putting the HAMZA. Even in the cas efor the HAMZA on the line there is a small mark (life alif) to show that an alif is felt when reading.
Both means “fell out with one another” …..
72:16 “w an law istaqamoo” and “w al law istaqamoo”
The same words. In one case the AN is shown and in the other one it is joined with the L in the following LAW. This kind of joining is very often in Arabic and the Quran is full of such examples.
The meaning is the same. The translation would be “if they had remained on the path” ….
73:20 “&alima an lan” and “&alima al lan”
This is a very interesting case for the reasons that you will GW see.
The same case of joining letters N and L as in the previous case (72:16). The meaning stays as we have stated unchangeable.
But, what is interesting in this case? Only in Hafs, we have different uses of the same rule. In the first case (72:16) we have L and N jointed together ( AL LAW) and not (AN LAW) and in this case (73:20) in Hafs itself, we have L and N separated and not jointed together (AN LAN) and not (AL LAN). So, Hafs and Warsh use the same rule interchangeably.
So, the cult code followers want us to believe that in the first case it is divine (AL LAW) and in the other case it is not (AN LAN)?
As already mentioned the meaning remains the same in both cases. The translation would be;
“He knows that you are unable to keep count thereof” …..
4:66 “ila qaleel(un) minhum” and “ila qaleela(n).
Some put A at the end of a noun after ILA and some does not (grammar). The same meaning which can be translated as;
“Except for a few of them” …..
6:32 “w lal darul akhiratu” and “w la darul akhirati”
The same meaning. In the first case the definite article is used and in the other case the same meaning achieved by using the genitive.
So, here are all the words that appear in this list.
As we have seen, there is only ONE WHOLE WORD difference. There is no one single case where the meaning is changed. We have seen that the differences are in one or two letters that do not change the meaning at all.
As I have said before it could be due to difference in understanding in grammar. If someone consider the Arabic grammar to be Divine then this is their problem. In English you can say “more healthy” or “healtheir” and both cases are correct but a group of people uses one and another group uses the other and there is no DIVINITY in any of them. Both carry the same meaning.
I can remember exactly but I think that the modal verb for instance USED TO can be put in the the negative by DID NOT USE TO or USEDN”T!.
Anyhow it is obvious that the so call TAMPERING with the message is far from being so. If those who were in the situation to tamper with the message could do so, then they would have for sure added many ayaats to support their teaching for which they claim they were “revealed” but deleted or eaten by goats and so on. But they did not as we know.
I could not know for sure, why is that they could not add many “ayaats” of crucial meaning to their teachings when they “could”. What stopped them? This is not important to me really but may be can be analyzed some time.
As I have mentioned previously, that they brought this list to show that people have changed and played with the message of God but they have only proved the contrary. If this all that the people could “play” with, then I dare say that this is a proof that this message has not been tempered with and that was only a justification for those who have sickness in their hearts for tampering.
The same sick hearted accuse those who follow the SIGNS of the Quran which they believe and know that it does lead them from darknesses to light for worshipping letters and words and not the message.
The same people see that (or do not see) that the meaning of message is completely the same but want to get THE READING OF MUHAMED.
Well, I have to disappoint them. All the above examples can not be detected by their messenger’s code if we accepted that it were “perfect”. Their messenger’s code is helpless and useless and of no power at all.
This was the wish of their messenger of covenant too, to get the reading of Muhamed but unfortunately for them he died not knowing what was it for the simple reason that he went on the wrong way to look for that.
See this example. Let us accept for a while that their messenger of covenant “verified ” the letters of the word GH L B T in 30:2 are correct by his code. He still could not get the right meaning.
Is it GHULIBAT AR ROOM or GHALABAT AR ROOM.
You see, in both cases the words are completely the same but the meaning is not? Their messenger’s code is helpless here. Who knows may be by the time the coders would make up a new addition of the code to solve this problem for them. Like, you see, the number of DAMAAs and FATHAs and KASRAs are “verified” and “authenticated” by the code! I dare say that they would not forget the SHADAs and even the SUKOONs. Is not it one of the “greatest miracles”?
As it is clear that the code is of no power for them to get to the READING of Muhamed, their messenger of covenant died following his ancestors’ reading?
The code could not help him to get to the right reading because the code is of no help.
He read the above (one example) as found in the hadeths of his ancestors. He could have, for sure, got the right reading but he was not interested in the MESSAGE but in the letters and once he “got” them everything was absolutely the same for him.
So, back gain to the hypocrites. They say that the Quran is full of grammar mistakes and they intend to set down and change these mistakes?
Their correcting of mistakes is not tampering with the message, but they attacked me when I said that the differences in the readings (almost all the letters are the same and the meaning remained the same too) could be looked at as different understanding of grammar.
I supported my views from examples from reality and the fact that ARABIC IS NOT GOD’S LANGUAGE(14:4). IT IS NOT THE LANGUAGE OF JANNAH (PARADISE). IT IS SIMPLY THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARABS, MUHAMED’S PEOPLE. IT IS NOT HIS OWN (MUHAMED’S) LANGUAGE.
A grammar rule could differ from a place to another. This is clear to anyone who are normal and who have an open heart and not blind defenders and followers.
So, as said at the beginning. The missionaries show that list to confuse people and after that invite them to accept a mortal who ate food for a god.
The cult 19 followers do the same to invite the same to join them in their club, cult 19.
The mortal Isa who ate food was not god and is of no help to anyone.
The cult/code 19 is a false god and is of no help to anyone.
God is the one who guides to the truth. His SIGNS sent down to help people find the right way (14:1), 65:11, 57:9.
Their proof is in the message. The message that is in absolute consistence with the reality seen all over the place. These ayaats fit with the ayaats in the universe and in ourselves (3:191-194)
Those who want to be guided can recognize them easily and use them to find the right way (5:83).
But those, whose heart is full of sickness, would ask “ How do we know that this is from God? What is the proof? What is the exact reading of Muhamed? Why 19 malaika on hell fire? Why God’s &arhs is carried by 8?
By doing so, they will only increase their sickness in their hearts.
They are no different than those who would put the Quran under their pillows at night to drive away satans and who would put it in their cars to protect it. Who will have pieces of it around their necks to protect them.
Peace MH