Sigh.
I must not take this "discussion" overly important, must I? So again I shortcut it, it really is not worth to invest so much time into it:
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Watt/Chapter4.html
Quote:
The length of the verses, like the length of the suras, varies much. In some suras, and these generally the longer ones, the verses are long and trailing; in others, especially the shorter ones near the end of the book, the verses are short and crisp. This, however, is not an invariable rule. Sura 98, which is comparatively short, consists of 8 long verses; sura 26, which is long, has over 200 short verses. It may be noted, however, that as a rule the verses in the same sura, or at least in the same part of a sura, are of approximately the same length. There are exceptions even to this generalization, but on the whole it remains valid, particularly where the verses are short.
(...)
Consideration of the lengths of the suras tends to confirm this. A glance at the table will show that on the whole the suras stand in order of decreasing length, and this almost looks like the principle on which the suras have been arranged. It is equally evident that there are many deviations from the strict sequence, and it is necessary to guard against laying too much stress on a mechanical rule of this kind, which is not likely to have been carefully carried through. Some of the deviations from the rule of decreasing length, however, seem to be connected with these groups of suras. Thus, if we take the group 40-46, we find that the first is a little longer than 39, while 45, and especially 44, are short for their position. It looks as if the order of decreasing length had been departed from in order to keep the hawamim øawåmæm group as it stood before the final arrangement was undertaken. Again, taking the alif, lam låm, ra råŸ group, we find that 10, 11, 12 stand approximately in their proper position according to the length, but 13, 14, 15 are short, and with 16 we return again to something like the length of 10. It looks as if this group had been inserted as a solid block. On the other hand, the alif, lam låm, mim mæm suras are placed in different positions, suras 2 and 3, the longest, at the very beginning, 29-32 in a group much farther on, as if the deviation from the rule would have been too great, and the group had therefore been broken up.
|
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/texts/quran.htm
Quote:
|
The Qur'an is roughly the length of the Christian New Testament. It is divided into 114 surahs (chapters) of widely varying length, which, with the exception of the opening surah (fatihah), are generally arranged from longest to shortest. As the shortest chapters seem to date from the earlier period of Muhammad's revelation, this arrangement results in a reverse chronological order.
|
Use Google, you will find many sites, blogs, transcriptions like this. The general rule is like I say and like Western traditon of academic research on Islam sees it since 150 years: the whole thing generally follows the rule of decreasing length of suras from start to end, and the chronological order being ignored. If you do not believe that latter as well, google for it, there are many sites that give you Quran versions in which the Suras are sorted in chronological sequence. It helps to use such a version in order to solve contradictions between different passages, because you can easily see which of the two statements in different suras is the later one and thus: the valid (abrogation principle).
This cosmetic detail on length of suras is so very important, isn't it?! You just picked it because you thought you could easily discredit me when showing that I was "wrong" on something, even such an unimportant detail, eh? Well, mission failed, I would say.
I'll leave it to that, Konovalov. You are a Western convert, and you married a Muslim woman. I do not judge the one or the other decision and I do not attack you over it (though by attitude I question the wisdom of the first decision, but it is your life, not mine). But I conclude from both these decisions you made that it is extremely unlikely that you, as a
voluntary convert to Islam , will ever gain an objective stand towards Islam. I talked a very few original Muslims into apostacy, but with a convert I would not even try that. Fact is that converts tend to behave even more in conformity with the dogma as they see it then the original followers of said dogma, because they are driven by a desire or a feeling that they must "prove" how really devout they are indeed. That makes converts often even more orthodox than original orthodox - and not just in case of Islam, but in case of any religous converting.
Seen that way, the discussion is probably doomed to be lost from start on. You are defending Islam, and I would ideally favour a solution of no Islam in the West at all, or any other part of the world. I am adamant on this, and you are on your position. that makes the issue a question of what camp has the greater power to push back the other. and that is what puts us into different teams, forever. Personally, I do not have something against you, and in the first contatcs of ours I learned to know you as a kind and friendly guy, I assume you indeed mean it well. But that cannot change the fact that I think you are basing on dangerous illusions. I also see you as somebody who is dangerous himself but is not aware of it, because by your mere presence Islam in the west is by the number of heads in your family stronger than it would be if you would chose to live with your wife in Pakistan, which was her home, if I remember correctly, or any other Muslim country.
So, maybe we stay separate, you and me. I really do not enjoy colliding with you - but I also refuse to give ground to you, and if collision is the price for that, so be it.
However, for today I have to leave.