7:69 vs 2:247

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Kodanshi
- La solitude s'eprend de mon coeur
- Ex-Muslim
- *Careful Plague & Scarred Joy*
- offline
7:69 vs 2:247
OP - August 27, 2011, 03:09 PM

A word occurs in both 7:69 and 2:247. This word comes from the root bā sīn ṭā (ب س ط). It reads as ‘bastatan’. HOWEVER, I have noticed that in 7:69 all my ‘Arabi copies of the qur’an spell it with a Sad (ص), and then append a sīn (س) on top of it!

What the ruddy bloody hell is THAT about?! A spelling mistake in the qur’an possibly? The final redactors did not know which S sound to use, so put both in?!
- 7amzah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #1 - August 27, 2011, 03:16 PM

interesting how they wrote it here with a sin over the saad:

http://quran.com/7/69
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #2 - August 27, 2011, 03:25 PM

I think it could be one of those tajweed letters that you see above words in the Arabic script that help guide pronunciation, etc., as with the ta, mim, gim, etc.
- MnfqKfrMrtd
- Vowels aren't written dude.
- Member
- Sub7anallah! MIRACLE
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #3 - August 27, 2011, 03:26 PM

Nothing special,- just a sort of tajweed to ease pronunciation and make it sound nicer.

I shouldn't be here. Really. Shaytan SWT deluded ALL of us. Amen.
- Kodanshi
- La solitude s'eprend de mon coeur
- Ex-Muslim
- *Careful Plague & Scarred Joy*
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #4 - August 27, 2011, 03:27 PM

Quote from: 7amzah on August 27, 2011, 03:16 PM
interesting how they wrote it here with a sin over the saad:

http://quran.com/7/69

That’s exactly what I meant in my first post!

Quote from: MnfqKfrMrtd on August 27, 2011, 03:26 PM
Nothing special,- just a sort of tajweed to ease pronunciation and make it sound nicer.

If it IS such a letter, then where else in the qur’an does it occur with that specific letter, and how does it modify the pronunciation? Why is there no such letter in the same word in 2:247?
- MnfqKfrMrtd
- Vowels aren't written dude.
- Member
- Sub7anallah! MIRACLE
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #5 - August 27, 2011, 03:32 PM

There is no need for such a thing in 2:247 as the word there already is spelled with a sin. However, in 7:69 it originally was with a saad, but because of reasons I mentioned it is pronounced as a sin.

Just like the combination "an-ba" becomes "am-ba",- this is just another sort of tajweed.

I shouldn't be here. Really. Shaytan SWT deluded ALL of us. Amen.
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #6 - August 27, 2011, 03:35 PM

What's the deal with that anyway? I notice it always has the little 'mandatory stop' meem between adjacent nuns and bas.
- MnfqKfrMrtd
- Vowels aren't written dude.
- Member
- Sub7anallah! MIRACLE
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #7 - August 27, 2011, 03:39 PM

It is easier and more natural to pronounce it like "am-ba" (=as your mouth closes when saying M) than pronounce it like "an-ba".

It's called tajweed. Similar things happen when the L of the "al" gets assimilated when followed by a "shamsi"(=sun) letter. So, instead of al-shams(=the sun), it becomes ash-shams.

I shouldn't be here. Really. Shaytan SWT deluded ALL of us. Amen.
- Kodanshi
- La solitude s'eprend de mon coeur
- Ex-Muslim
- *Careful Plague & Scarred Joy*
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #8 - August 27, 2011, 03:41 PM

Yes, but a Sad and a Sin are pronounced the same, no? A slightly more forceful emphasis on the Sad, but it is still an S sound. It is not like the difference between an L or M or an N.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #9 - August 27, 2011, 03:50 PM

Quote from: Kodanshi on August 27, 2011, 03:09 PM
A word occurs in both 7:69 and 2:247. This word comes from the root bā sīn ṭā (ب س ط). It reads as ‘bastatan’. HOWEVER, I have noticed that in 7:69 all my ‘Arabi copies of the qur’an spell it with a Sad (ص), and then append a sīn (س) on top of it!

What the ruddy bloody hell is THAT about?! A spelling mistake in the qur’an possibly? The final redactors did not know which S sound to use, so put both in?!

Clearly a scribal error. It should be بسطة and NOT بصطة - The mistake was noticed by another copyist and the correction س written above it as no-one dared cross anything out - and thus the mistake is immortalised until Yawm al-Qiyama.
- Alex Lam Meem
- Restricted
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #10 - August 27, 2011, 04:21 PM

Lo, when disbelievers see a clear error in 7:69 and 2:247 they say 'what'! Amistake from the most high? Do they not consider 3:96? Thus we make our mistakes as signs to the deluded.

"That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
- Kodanshi
- La solitude s'eprend de mon coeur
- Ex-Muslim
- *Careful Plague & Scarred Joy*
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #11 - August 27, 2011, 08:20 PM

3:96 doesn’t say that!
- Alex Lam Meem
- Restricted
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #12 - August 27, 2011, 08:30 PM

What does it say?

"That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
- Kodanshi
- La solitude s'eprend de mon coeur
- Ex-Muslim
- *Careful Plague & Scarred Joy*
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #13 - August 28, 2011, 02:25 AM

Roughly translates into English as ‘Indeed, the first House set up for Humanity is the one at Bakkah, blessèd, and a guidance for the worlds.’
- Alex Lam Meem
- Restricted
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #14 - August 28, 2011, 04:39 PM

I thought so. Of course, it could be not related to your verses at all, but on the other hand why not consider all weird spelling cases in the Koran together? Every other instance of Mecca is spelled with meem in Alkitaab.

"That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
- Kodanshi
- La solitude s'eprend de mon coeur
- Ex-Muslim
- *Careful Plague & Scarred Joy*
- offline
Re: 7:69 vs 2:247
Reply #15 - August 28, 2011, 06:03 PM

It is indeed. Naturally, muslims come up with many explanations to support their viewpoint. I have no idea if Makkah was once called Bakkah or not…
1« Previous thread | Next thread »