Talk:Qur'án

On 'Discussion of individual surahs' section

I have read somewhere that Yusuf-Alis' system of verse numbering does not always correspond with the standard Cairo edition. And I can't remember from where I found out that Baha'u'llah had Himself signed a Qur'án. Is this true? If so, we could use it for the standard verse numbering system.Ernobe (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the signing of a Qur'an, but even if true, I'm not sure we can necessarily see that as an endorsement of the numbering system. (FWIW, 'Abdu'l-Baha was to have signed a Bible, per 'Abdu'l-Baha in London, pp. 17-18 (it'd be interesting to know if that copy were still around though presumably not in Baha'i hands.)) I think it could as well be a mere act of love for the recipient and endorsement of the sacredness of the Book. And while it would be practically useful to have a standard system (and perhaps the House will one day do so), I think quotations such as at Revelation suggest to me that the ordering of Revelation is not so critical, spiritually speaking. FWIW, I seem to remember a quote in the Writings speaking to how the Surah's were assembled into order after Muhammad's passing (if so, that might give some further indication). WikiSysop (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It may be that the ordering of Surahs or verses is not so critical from a spiritual point of view, but what I was referring to was not the ordering itself, but what is being ordered. Taken out of their proper context they can be made to assume the opposite of what was intended. For the ordering of Surahs, there is evidence that the ordering we now have is not the chronological one, and it is debatable that Muhammad had a role in the ordering we now have. Ernobe (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Muslims (nor Baha'is) have taken it to mean that the current order reflects a chronological order (on the contrary, I understand some propagators of violence use knowledge of the chronologically later revelation of a nevertheless low-numbered Surah 9 to assert that the call to holy war abrogated verses on peace (in later Surahs)). It has been observed that the Surah's are roughly arranged in descending length (with the particularly notable exception of the first Surah). There is apparently a tradition that the order was deliberate and not to be altered despite its non-chronological nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surah#Chronological_vs_traditional_order . WikiSysop (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

As for the verses, there is no disagreement among the various editors, except in a few places where one verse ends and the next begins, and changes in the pronunciation which can alter the meaning (since in the original vowels were not marked). The Cairo edition is the standard throughout the Muslim world, and is significant from a Baha'i point of view because it can be traced directly back to the one commissioned by the Imam Ali. It is the Kufan version (from the region of Kufah where Ali settled) as mentioned in the study by Adrian Alan Brockett Ernobe (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

While that appears to me to be a sound line of reasoning, I think we rely would need some guidance from the House to settle on this, and while they have started to ensure standard paragraphing, I wouldn't imagine they'd consider it timely to settle on this question (one which could also perhaps provoke quibbling against the Faith by those of different schools of thought so it might not be deemed wise, or perhaps merely not a priority given resources needed to study the issue toward making a decision). Looking at the practice of numbering used in official Baha'i translations at least (which I'll admit is not necessarily any final indicator of what may be chosen), Rodwell's verse numbering (though not Surah numbering) has been used in past authoritative translations (e.g., https://bahai-library.com/writings/abdulbaha/swab/swaball.html#vii ) though in recent years, the traditional numbering seems it may be the one referenced (e.g., Days of Remembrance refers to 7:107 where the verse would only match the traditional numbering). I'd venture this may be due to the emergence out of obscurity for the Faith and while our reference to Rodwell's numbering may have suited an earlier time as a choice of convenience when Shoghi Effendi relied on the translation at the time that he suggested was "more literary" (compared to Sale's, these being among the handful of alternatives of the time), whereas these days the use of Rodwell's numbering might be seen by a growing number of outsiders as an inevitable embrace of that numbering system which it might not have been. The Research Department, albeit in the context of choosing a translation rather than numbering, stated:

"As to translations of the Qur’án, it is the view of the Research Department that there are a number of very good translations, in addition to those done by Sale and Rodwell. To some extent, the choice of a particular translation is dictated by the specific needs and purpose of the reader–some translations have helpful notes, others number each verse, others include both the Arabic and English texts, some project the approach of the particular sect of Islám they support, some are literary, etc."

...perhaps also thereby pointing to a willingness for a relativistic approach at the current time. I agree it'd be helpful for a choice of standard though, whether for this wiki, for such as this "Baha'i Qur'an", etc. WikiSysop (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Should you venture to secure the UHJ opinion of this issue, make known to them that the Cairo edition is recognized as authoritative by a majority of both Sunni and Shih sects, that it is not a point of contention among them, and serves as a focal center of unity in the Muslim world. Barring this, wouldn't it be better to present the text without any numbering at all, as in Arberrys' version, and more consonant with its character as basically an inspired, poetic work? Arberrys' version, in fact, has good credibility to be chosen as the preferred translation. Ernobe (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't presume to know what the House would judge best. However, on the side of possible versification, there is this from the introduction to the Kitab-i-Aqdas:

"It has been recognized that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, being Sacred Scripture, should be presented in a form which can be read with ease and inspiration, uncluttered with the footnotes and index numbers that are common in scholarly texts. Nonetheless, to assist the reader in following the flow of the text and its changing themes, paragraph divisions have been added--such divisions not being common in works of Arabic literature--and these paragraphs have then been numbered for ease of access and indexing, as well as for uniformity of reference in all the languages in which the work will be published." (pp. vii-viii)

Given too that the Baha'i Writings reference specific verses and seek to offer helpful citations in the footnotes, I'd expect some numbering would continue, but that is just my opinion. WikiSysop (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

From the Dawn-Breakers I found a quote from the Qur'an which does not agree with the Fluegel or Cairo edition numbering: [1] It mentions verse 9:33 as corresponding to what in those editions is 9:32. Ernobe (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Since there can be mistakes even in the Dawn-Breakers (see Dawn-Breakers#Potential_for_historical_error), not to mention the footnotes or typographical errors (which themselves might be attempts to be based on Rodwell's numbering, as many other Baha'i publications have done), I'm not sure we could come to this conclusion. (Rodwell's translation too has had some publication errors in versification, though I haven't been made aware of any problem with numbering in that particular section.) WikiSysop (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)