Those are the short vowel markings, and yes, sometimes it is not obvious.

But in the Persian hand the dots that distinguish one consonant from another are also missing. For example, the letters for s and sh are alike, except sh has three dots above it. The letters for b, t, and th are also the same, except that b has one dot above, t has two dots above, and th has three dots above The dots are missing in the Persian hand.

So you see the letter for s or sh and the letter for b, t, and th and no short vowel. In English, that could be sob, sat, set, sit, sot, Seth, scythe, shat, shit, or shot.

Arabic words typically have three root consonants, so the possibilities could be even greater. More consonants have the same shape then the ones I listed. The letters for j, h, kh have the same shape, as do the letters for d and th (a lighter th than previously listed) and r and z. And so on for a number of other consonants in the alphabet.

There is nothing obvious about what the words are when written in the Persian hand--it is really more an aide de memoire. The person writing it down could perhaps use his memory to reconstruct and there would be some context, but when faced with lines of this there is a huge amount of inferring one would have to do in reconstructing. To think it was reconstructed exactly as it was recited is fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a lovely saying of Muhammed: "There is no compulsion in Islam." But read with different vowel markings it would be translated as "There is no bachelorhood in Islam." A big difference. And guess what the fundamentalists think the right word is? They have destroyed Islam.

You are correct on the diacritical marks but that's not the saying of Muhammad. That's a direct quote from the Quran, and considering that it is followed directly by "Truth stands clear from the error," chances are, it actually does mean "compulsion."

And to be completely accurate, it doesn't mean "there is no compulsion in Islam." It means there is no compulsion in religion, la ikraha fi 'd'deen. "Deen" just means religion. It doesn't necessarily mean Islam. It's very common for someone to be asked, "ma huwa dinnak?", or "what is your religion?" It "deen" necessarily meant Islam, that couldn't have been possible.

+1!

The diacritical marks, are these called the tashkeel? I spoke to someone who reads Arabic and he said those diacritical marks were not used in the original Quran because Arabs can understand the meaning based on context.

For example, to illustrate in English, if tashkeel are not used, a sentence could either be
- the moon is luminescent tonight
- the min is luminescent tonight, or
- the man is luminescent tonight

Which makes the most sense? Obviously the first sentence. This is how it was explained to me. The diacritical marks did not affect the meaning.

it's not always so obvious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a lovely saying of Muhammed: "There is no compulsion in Islam." But read with different vowel markings it would be translated as "There is no bachelorhood in Islam." A big difference. And guess what the fundamentalists think the right word is? They have destroyed Islam.

You are correct on the diacritical marks but that's not the saying of Muhammad. That's a direct quote from the Quran, and considering that it is followed directly by "Truth stands clear from the error," chances are, it actually does mean "compulsion."

And to be completely accurate, it doesn't mean "there is no compulsion in Islam." It means there is no compulsion in religion, la ikraha fi 'd'deen. "Deen" just means religion. It doesn't necessarily mean Islam. It's very common for someone to be asked, "ma huwa dinnak?", or "what is your religion?" It "deen" necessarily meant Islam, that couldn't have been possible.

+1!

The diacritical marks, are these called the tashkeel? I spoke to someone who reads Arabic and he said those diacritical marks were not used in the original Quran because Arabs can understand the meaning based on context.

For example, to illustrate in English, if tashkeel are not used, a sentence could either be
- the moon is luminescent tonight
- the min is luminescent tonight, or
- the man is luminescent tonight

Which makes the most sense? Obviously the first sentence. This is how it was explained to me. The diacritical marks did not affect the meaning.

Anonymous wrote:Check Wikipedia for "Gospel of the Ebionites." The Ebionites document is a fragment of 7 passages and you can read it online.

OP, now I know why you have been so coy about telling us to call Dirks, when we can read all 7 passages online for ourselves. Why? The Ebionites deny Jesus is a man and they say instead he's an archangel. That's totally inconsistent with a Islam too! And perhaps that's why only 1 guy out of the 10,000s who read this felt a need to convert to Islam.

Best of all, the Ebionites, according to Epiphanius, believed the Holy Gost descended, in the form of a dove, during Jesus' baptism. Do I need to pint out that the Holy Ghost is part of the Trinity....

To be fair to the Ebionites, we only know about them from these 7 lines written by somebody who disliked them, Epiphanius, who may not be a reliable witness. No, we don't have original Ebionite manuscripts, whatever OP says.

OP, could you please comment? There are only 7 lines to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites. It seems pretty clear that the Ebionites weren't contesting Jesus' divinity. Rather, the point of contention was the Ebionites' view that Jesus became divine during his baptism, compared to the writer Epiphanius' view that Jesus was born divine. The Holy Ghost does indeed make an appearance at the baptism. Epiphanius reports that the Ebionites consider Jesus an archangel. Also, Epiphanius and the Ebionites apparently agreed that Jesus abolished animal sacrifice, and that seems like another difference with Islam that makes converting to Islam on the basis of this document a little surprising.

Do you still think this "debunks" the Trinity?

Gulfie dialect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a lovely saying of Muhammed: "There is no compulsion in Islam." But read with different vowel markings it would be translated as "There is no bachelorhood in Islam." A big difference. And guess what the fundamentalists think the right word is? They have destroyed Islam.

You are correct on the diacritical marks but that's not the saying of Muhammad. That's a direct quote from the Quran, and considering that it is followed directly by "Truth stands clear from the error," chances are, it actually does mean "compulsion."

And to be completely accurate, it doesn't mean "there is no compulsion in Islam." It means there is no compulsion in religion, la ikraha fi 'd'deen. "Deen" just means religion. It doesn't necessarily mean Islam. It's very common for someone to be asked, "ma huwa dinnak?", or "what is your religion?" It "deen" necessarily meant Islam, that couldn't have been possible.

Yes--you are right. Doing this all from memory as can't be bothered to look up. Clearly not a line ISIS believes in.

Fundamentalism is strangely selective. Like the first thing they do when they take control is lower the age of marriage for girls to 11 or make women wear veils over their faces (not Koranic, not permitted on Hajj) instead of making everyone pay zakat to help out the poor. It's really a pity the silent nonfundamentalist Muslim majority puts up with this idiocy.

What dialect is ma huwa? Used to Ash dieeak, Shu deenak, or Lematha deenak.

Anonymous wrote:There is a lovely saying of Muhammed: "There is no compulsion in Islam." But read with different vowel markings it would be translated as "There is no bachelorhood in Islam." A big difference. And guess what the fundamentalists think the right word is? They have destroyed Islam.

You are correct on the diacritical marks but that's not the saying of Muhammad. That's a direct quote from the Quran, and considering that it is followed directly by "Truth stands clear from the error," chances are, it actually does mean "compulsion."

And to be completely accurate, it doesn't mean "there is no compulsion in Islam." It means there is no compulsion in religion, la ikraha fi 'd'deen. "Deen" just means religion. It doesn't necessarily mean Islam. It's very common for someone to be asked, "ma huwa dinnak?", or "what is your religion?" It "deen" necessarily meant Islam, that couldn't have been possible.

There is a lovely saying of Muhammed: "There is no compulsion in Islam." But read with different vowel markings it would be translated as "There is no bachelorhood in Islam." A big difference. And guess what the fundamentalists think the right word is? They have destroyed Islam.

I absolutely do not get why OP and the vast majority of Muslim religious teachers (not sure what else to call them) spend their time defending every last little letter in the Koran and the accepted hadiths as perfect instead of working on reforming Islam and restoring it to its former glory, before the door of ijtihad was closed (and not by God).

And all those idiots running around saying they will restore the Islamic caliphate by killing every non-Muslim in sight (in direct contradiction to well-established Islamic doctrine with regard to people of the book). But guess what? The Islamic caliphates were at their pinnacle when they were most tolerant of other religions. Do the countries of the Middle East want to be become powerful again? Embrace the tolerance of the old caliphates, open the door of ijtihad, and become once again the refuge of persecuted people elsewhere so free and creative thought can once again flow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...

All this stuff about the Koran being absolutely 100 percent authentic really does not hold up. Mohammed's followers were said to have written down his recitations on palm leaves and to have collected them together. Let us set aside the friability of palm leaves, but I do think that matters. More important is that the recitations were written down in what is now called the Persian hand--no diacritical marks or vowel markers were used. This is critical. The shape of many Arabic consonants are the same and are distinguished by dots over or under the shape. In addition, short vowels are not written down as they are in English; rather they are denoted by marks.

Believe me, there can be very large differences in word meaning based on whether one consonant is used or another and whether one short vowel or another is used. So yes there were many versions around. Uthman perhaps felt compelled to choose one as authentic, but it doesn't follow that that version exactly replicated Mohammed's recitations. Not at all. A trove of Korans was found in Yemen a decade or two ago and they were carbon dated to be very early. And guess what? They differ in many ways from what is said today to be the official Koran.

Very interesting, PP. I read recently that a German scholar has suggested that martyrs don't get 7 virgins after all, instead they get 7 white grapes. This is because of the diacritical marks.

I mean, the lack of diacritical marks, which creates ambiguity in places.

Anonymous wrote:
-older doesn't mean accurate
Well thats what the experts in Christianity say, who has refuted that these are the originals?
-islam changed their holy book too
The standardized Quran was created from the original. No add ons. No edits.

So unless someone has something else to offer, what hasn't been answered??

This is not how it works. If you claim something is original, it's on you to prove it. What does it really mean apart from the fact that it's a very old manuscript?

We will never know if the Quran ha been added or amended since Mr. Uthman destroyed all variations. It also doesn't mean that it's the word of God, similarly to all the other books claimed as holy.

Anonymous wrote:

...

All this stuff about the Koran being absolutely 100 percent authentic really does not hold up. Mohammed's followers were said to have written down his recitations on palm leaves and to have collected them together. Let us set aside the friability of palm leaves, but I do think that matters. More important is that the recitations were written down in what is now called the Persian hand--no diacritical marks or vowel markers were used. This is critical. The shape of many Arabic consonants are the same and are distinguished by dots over or under the shape. In addition, short vowels are not written down as they are in English; rather they are denoted by marks.

Believe me, there can be very large differences in word meaning based on whether one consonant is used or another and whether one short vowel or another is used. So yes there were many versions around. Uthman perhaps felt compelled to choose one as authentic, but it doesn't follow that that version exactly replicated Mohammed's recitations. Not at all. A trove of Korans was found in Yemen a decade or two ago and they were carbon dated to be very early. And guess what? They differ in many ways from what is said today to be the official Koran.

Very interesting, PP. I read recently that a German scholar has suggested that martyrs don't get 7 virgins after all, instead they get 7 white grapes. This is because of the diacritical marks.

Anonymous wrote:

So, the Koran is really not the authentic replication of Mohammed's recitations and for Muslims to attack the New Testament as not the word of Jesus because there were many versions based on recall (which in a generally illiterate society is actually more reliable than in a literate society) is ironic.

Even if it was the authentic replication of Mohammed's recitation, it means absolutely nothing apart from the fact that Mohammed recited it and someone wrote it down.

It doesn't prove that it's the word of God or anything like it.

Check Wikipedia for "Gospel of the Ebionites." The Ebionites document is a fragment of 7 passages and you can read it online.

OP, now I know why you have been so coy about telling us to call Dirks, when we can read all 7 passages online for ourselves. Why? The Ebionites deny Jesus is a man and they say instead he's an archangel. That's totally inconsistent with a Islam too! And perhaps that's why only 1 guy out of the 10,000s who read this felt a need to convert to Islam.

Best of all, the Ebionites, according to Epiphanius, believed the Holy Gost descended, in the form of a dove, during Jesus' baptism. Do I need to pint out that the Holy Ghost is part of the Trinity....

To be fair to the Ebionites, we only know about them from these 7 lines written by somebody who disliked them, Epiphanius, who may not be a reliable witness. No, we don't have original Ebionite manuscripts, whatever OP says.

NP here--just saw this thread and have been amused going through it.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are remarkably similar. Why remarkably--Christian had Judaism as a base and Islam had Christianity and Judaism as a base. Of course they should be similar: Nothing remarkable about that.

Muslims I have spoken to do find the Trinity a big point of differentiation between Christianity and Islam. But, if a Christian no longer believed in the Trinity but still bought a lot of the rest, the natural fall back would be Judaism not Islam. To think Islam would be the fall back is almost laughable.

Christ made a number of representations that he was the son of God. But Christ himself was clearly monotheistic as were his earliest followers, who were Jews. How to reconcile Christ as the son of God with monotheism was a central theological problem of early Christianity, and there were many nasty fight about it. These were closely related to disputes about the nature of Christ--man or God? In any case, what won out was the trinity--three persons in one God and that Christ had two natures, man and God, in one person. The latter was not held by Nestorians, who believed Jesus was human with some loose association with God the Son. Nestorianism was the main type of Christianity in western Arabia at the time and there is evidence that Mohammed had close association with Nestorian monks.

Of course if Christ were God, as well as man, that would be the end of it. No need for another prophet since God himself had come to earth, no need for Mohammed. But if Jesus were just a man and just another in a line of prophets, there is room for another prophet. So the Trinity poses a problem to Muslims. If the Trinity is true, there is no need for Islam. So one can see why some Islamic religious thinkers see a need to attack the Trinity. While there may be Muslims who believe the doors of heaven are open to Christians, I have been told personally by Muslims in the Middle East back in the 1980's when Islamic fundamentalism started getting underway that I would go to hell because believing Christ was God was polytheism, a brand of belief that Islam is very harsh on. I was even told this by a ten year old girl.

I will note that those saying that were clearly not sticking to Koranic dictates to respect people of the book--that includes Jews, Christians, and Zorastrians (and maybe even Yazidis as I believe they have a book that is an offshoot of the Zorastrian texts.)

And yes these discussions were in Arabic. And yes I have read (many years ago) the Koran in Arabic. It is a lot better in Arabic because it rhymes and the language is poetic. But frankly, it is not very interesting apart from that--very dominated by lots of descriptions of the end of days--there are some good nuggets here and there though. And, if it is not outrageous to say this, hearing Usama Bin Ladin recite the Koran would be privilege--he had the most beautiful classical Arabic, and hearing him speak in that language is hypnotic; this is something I have heard said about listening to Hitler in German. The first time I heard him, I totally got how he attracted followers--how he said it is just that good.

All this stuff about the Koran being absolutely 100 percent authentic really does not hold up. Mohammed's followers were said to have written down his recitations on palm leaves and to have collected them together. Let us set aside the friability of palm leaves, but I do think that matters. More important is that the recitations were written down in what is now called the Persian hand--no diacritical marks or vowel markers were used. This is critical. The shape of many Arabic consonants are the same and are distinguished by dots over or under the shape. In addition, short vowels are not written down as they are in English; rather they are denoted by marks.

Believe me, there can be very large differences in word meaning based on whether one consonant is used or another and whether one short vowel or another is used. So yes there were many versions around. Uthman perhaps felt compelled to choose one as authentic, but it doesn't follow that that version exactly replicated Mohammed's recitations. Not at all. A trove of Korans was found in Yemen a decade or two ago and they were carbon dated to be very early. And guess what? They differ in many ways from what is said today to be the official Koran.

So, the Koran is really not the authentic replication of Mohammed's recitations and for Muslims to attack the New Testament as not the word of Jesus because there were many versions based on recall (which in a generally illiterate society is actually more reliable than in a literate society) is ironic.

Circling back to the subject of the moment, the trinity and Jesus as man/God therein, I do find it ironic as well that some Muslims--including those on this thread--get so over-heated about this. For if Christianity is about God made man, Islam is about God made book. Consider this: In Islam, the Koran is considered co-eternal with God. It may not be a trinity, but Islam seems to have its own duo going on: God the father and God the book. Pretty reminiscent of the first verse of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Except of course, in Christianity, the Word is thought to be Jesus. in Islam it's an actual book.

So maybe not so different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's absurd for you to claim expertise on the Ebionites and their writings, based only on your 24-hour acquaintance with them and the one guy, out of tens of thousands of guys, who converted to Islam after reading them.

You have no idea how unpersuasive you are. Looking forward to your regular 3am declaration of victory, though.

Im up because I generally can't sleep more than 5 hrs. But-- why are you up at 3 am reading my posts?

Go find where I claimed to have expertise. Its a simple question, if it was the Ebionites (jewish christians) who did not have concepts of divinity or trinity, then how did these get added later?

You are assuming the older one is correct, and the fact of the matter is they may both be crap.