yes its ok cause al-mudhattir is chap 74 which is what I listed after 96. this is some good stuff... still unsure abt verses being re-arranged..but take your word for it.

flag objectionable content

No. the beginning of chapter 96 came first, then the beginning of another chapter (al-muddaththir), and then heaven knows what and then the latter part of 96.

flag objectionable content

OK thats chapter 96 with 19 verses. So my chronology is pretty upto mark. If you or others claim that Muhammad became fearful and only 6 initially were sent to him, then the rest.....but they were all contained in a sura(96). That much Muhammad verifeid(sura).... Uthman and others only re-arragned chapters not verses.... validity(around sura/verse manipulation) is obviously out the window though.

flag objectionable content

BannedItem:

Can u provide an example.

Sure. Chronologically the first revelation was:

Iqra bi ism rabbik alladhee khalaq. khalaq al-insaan min 'alaq. iqra' bi ism rabbik alladhee qalam.allama al-insaan maa lam ya'lam.

The rest of this chapter (kallaa inna al-insaan la yatghan..and so on) was not a part of the first revelation.

Tradition has it that the first revelation experience was so traumatic for Mohammad that he confined himself inside the house wrapped up in sheets, and that's when the second revelation came down:

yaa ayyuha almuddaththir, qum f'andhir,...wa ilaa rabbika fakabbir.

These lines are in a completely different chapter that occurs before the surah containing the Iqraa passage.

I'm sure i can come up with other examples if I think about it.

flag objectionable content

a lot of people are working on the "New Quran" - Pakis must join in to rework the entire book as per the chronology of revelation- that would help contextualizing a lot of hate verses as well.

flag objectionable content

MNI,
Apologies on outburst of frustration on Uthman. But why change the sequence? was the one from god not good enough? And I know that obviously you were not there but its i guess thinking out loud as to why people that loved muhammad and his message would decide to re-arrange suras(as thats how it was revealed)
Regarding your comment

"No, because even a chapter was not "revealed" as a whole in one sitting or consecutive spurts."

Can u provide an example.

flag objectionable content

tahmeedi saab (Same reason man had to rearrange chairs on the Titanic)

the titanic sank saab

flag objectionable content

"Why did man had to re-arrange Quran?"

Same reason man had to rearrange chairs on the Titanic.

flag objectionable content

BannedItem:

Okay, guilty as charged on mis-judging your intention. As you say yourself, this compilation problem exists in almost every holy book. And the reason is simple: no book comes down in its entirity. No sage or sadhoo goes into a cave and comes back with a neat book with chapters and paragraphs.

Giving Uthman a gali is not going to help here, except with the Shi'ah crowd. You broke the chapters into periods, but can you really arrange them in strict chronological order? No, because even a chapter was not "revealed" as a whole in one sitting or consecutive spurts. Verses that are in one chapter were chronologically followed by verses that sit in a completely different chapter, and then back to the first chapter and so on. All this doesn't make any sense. But Uthman had no choice. It was bad enough that different people had different kinds of versions and permutations. He had to come up with one single version in a relatively short time before the firsthand scribes started kicking the bucket. Maybe he could have done a better job. Who knows. Of course some Shias (not all) accuse him of redacting large chunks altogether. If this were true, I guess they're justified in giving him gaalis.

flag objectionable content

Post by MNIPhirSay on May 8, 2008 2:00:52 pm
.............
But Banneditem is just interested in scoring a cheap shot.....
MNI,
If I wanted to score cheap points/shots I would have posted a horny hadith or wished Salim a Happy you know what. Or I could have posted a cartoon of Muhammad to "score cheap shots". Obviously you missed the post where all the chapters are broken into the periods when they were received.
I think that about covers your "speculation" on other posters as to what they were thinking while opening or typing a post.
Now onto why that was done? Any momin/moninitta.

BTW The same was done in the old testament, the books after Kings are not in sequence, however the chapter manipulation did not occur only the order of books was changed/shifted (which too is a pain in the arse).



Scoutie,
When the Lord God saith "Be, and it is", he meaneth. So why would Uthman(maderchod) change the order, was the word of Allah in the order in which it was received not good enough for a fuckwad calipa.
MNI now you can accuse me of calling a "deity"..LOL a maderchod/fuckwad....but I dont give a fuck. But that wouldnt be a speculation, rather stating a fact that you now can atlest back.
Warmest Regards

flag objectionable content

Scoutoo:
Heads I win, tails you lose type baat ki hai tum nay

flag objectionable content

what does it matter? allah wouldn't be allah if we could predict Her ways

flag objectionable content

Abey Phirsay Sahib,
You don't read pages in the Holy Koran, you read verses. A verse is totally self-contained as far as context, location, and time of revelation is concerned.

A PARAGRAPH, or several paragraphs together might be self-consistent, certainly not one verse. And revelations happened in paragraphs, not one verse at a time.

A chronological order would at least show the changing directions of Allah to His Messenger (PBUH) as time progressed. So, I agree with banned.

Again, I am not saying that the current arrangement makes sense, but a chronological arrangement wont make any more sense unless you accompany it with extra-Qur'anic historical context. For example, in your world the beginning of the Qur'an would start with the "Iqra" paragraph till 'allama al-insaan ma lam ya'lam, then it would jump to 'yaa ayyuha al-muddaththir, qum f'andhir...'. I don't think that would make any more sense either. And frankly, by the time they sat down to compile the Qur'an, no one knew the exact chronological order. People knew roughly what period things got revealed in, and that was about it.

flag objectionable content

{"Do you usually read books whose pages are sorted in a random order? "}

Abey Phirsay Sahib,
You don't read pages in the Holy Koran, you read verses. A verse is totally self-contained as far as context, location, and time of revelation is concerned. A chronological order would at least show the changing directions of Allah to His Messenger (PBUH) as time progressed. So, I agree with banned.

flag objectionable content

See, the Holy Koran is organized now by longest suras first and shortest last. Instead of making it chronological (which it should have been)

This is not true. al-Fatiha is one of the smallest surah's. It occurs first. al-Kauthar is the shortest, it is not the last. al-A'raf is longer than both the preceding and succeeding chapters.

Regardless of the organization, which was a human undertaking by fallible mortals like Hazrat Usman (RA), and not a divine one, as in transmitting the message to the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the message is the important matter, not its organization.

The stuff in bold is ridiculous. Do you usually read books whose pages are sorted in a random order?

But Banneditem is just interested in scoring a cheap shot. How about this Banneditem: verses were sent in a contextual setting as to clarify their meaning. Since the contextual setting cannot be recreated for posterity, god willed that man arrange them in a somewhat reasonable way. You can argue whether the current arrangement is reasonable or not. But it is downright stupid to say that the chronological order would make it more readable or reasonable.

flag objectionable content

My advice to my Jamaat is this they should include the 'Kingdom of English' in their 'Olil Amr' (charged with authority) and remain wholeheartedly
you lemlin.u have always like to suck up to power not to right & justice princible

flag objectionable content