Understandable, but still a little disappointing. If this OSS initiative is worth anything, the platforms need to be at parity for features and release.
This is a pretty Mono-focused article so I don't really think it's relevant to the recent release of VS 2015.
I'm currently working on Roslyn CoreCLR and cross-plat and Mono is working on integrating more of Roslyn into their stuff, but I don't think the two are necessarily connected, so I wouldn't strictly describe the two as duals.
Currently you could run coreclr apps on Linux / Mac, you just can't pull the dependencies without mono, since CoreCLR for Mac / Linux still misses NuGet mechanisms
It may actually work on *nix, I just haven't tried it. The powershell script won't run and you'll have to do it manually, but it's just a ten line script or so.
Did you read our comment thread? I'm complaining that there isn't parity for the dotNet/Roslyn development. You reply that you're working currently on CoreCLR as a response to this, so I asked for where I can do this. You state, it's not at parity. I jokingly refer you back to my original comment, and you glibly try to insult me? What the hell dude?
It's correct. There were thousands of people who memorized the verses at the time of Muhammad(pbuh). Muslims recite the Quran at least 5 times a day in the daily prayers from memory. Even today there are millions of people in all age groups who've memorized the whole Quran in Arabic
All evidence points to the contrary. The need of Uthman to canonize the text was due to the variation that existed. He ordered those variants destroyed, removing all evidence of their content. I even recall from college that the caliph ordered all verses, in any form, to be collected; some of the verse was from scraps of vellum, reed, antler, etc... If thousands of memorizers truly existed, such an exercise wouldn't be needed. He would only need to get a dozen of the people that memorized it to recite the exact verse again.
Variations existed in the written form not in the recitation because diacritics (tashkeel) were not standardized. It's a common misconception that the Quran is memorized through the written text. This is not how it is transmitted. Look up Tajweed, which are the rules of pronunciation of the Quran.
Furthermore, memorizers of the Quran can trace the chain of narration back to Muhammad himself. So there couldn't be any forgery or manipulation. Uthman doesn't have the power to erase people's memories.
In Arabic language different dialects/variations have different punctuations and pronunciations which changes how a word is pronounced but not what the word is or what it means.
>Thousands of people had the entire Quran committed to memory during the lifetime of Mohammad. //
Your comment doesn't address the claim.
Once the canonical written version of the Koran had been established memorising the entire text is relatively easy. Prior to that you would have had to be present when Mohammed revealed the narrations or had a precise rendition of that oration conveyed to you. At times Mohammed only spoke to one or two people when revealing surah. Having thousands of people memorise a number of separate orations exactly without any problem of conflicting versions is really impossible. Conveying the general meaning is within the realms of possibility; surahs revealed to large groups might even allow the preservation of some of the actual wording too.
Take an example - Armstrong's speech when stepping on to the moon, was it "one small step for a man" or was the "a" not spoken? This is probably the most pored over of all speeches ever, millions of witnesses. Did no camel ever brae in the tents of the Qureshi tribe in Mohammed's time?
Abrogation causes further problems to this claim as not only do all "thousands" have to remember the exact wording used but the exact order too, and they have only a couple of months from the end of Mohammed's narrations to learn the last of them. Not only do they need to know the order, for abrogation purposes (to learn the way to act) but they have to remember the narrations in the same non-temporal order as everyone else. I can believe even that many of Mohammed's followers remembered surah, mostly that they agreed on wording, but not at all that they remembered it in the "wrong" (ie not the delivered order) and that the order it was remembered in was identical (ie was "the entire Quran").
Doesn't 2:106 say that Allah causes ayats to be forgotten, those ayats must have been in the original - else they wouldn't have been narrated by Mohammed - but aren't now remembered and so are not in the "entire Quran".
Of course if surah 25:32 (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=25&verse=32) that says the Koran was revealed piecemeal is wrong and surah 2:185 is right then the whole Koran was passed on in one month (including future conversations) which makes it easier to attain unanimous agreement but also means that [if tradition that the Koran was passed on in 10 days is correct] the hearers were remembering > 600 ayats of prose each day for 10 days in a row; quite a feat for illiterate desert tribesmen regardless of whether they had a tradition of oral history or not.
I'm very interested in the Muqatta'at too - how were written character variations conveyed by the "thousands"?
Very fair argument. However there also existed a consistent, full-time effort by significant numbers of people, around 70 in number, (known as Ashab as Suffa or People of The Platform) whose sole job was to memorize the Koran (and learn its interpretations) during the lifetime of Mohammed. They lived in the mosque pretty much all day, and did nothing else. Their learning was regularly checked, and presumably feedback given by Mohammed, until his death. It is not impossible to imagine that they were able to memorize and organize the current canonical text in the right order, even though it was revealed piecemeal. After Mohammed's death, these people went on to travel all over the Islamic world and teach students, giving rise to the "thousands" of memorizers within the 2nd generation of Islam, with no recorded incidents of version conflicts among the 7 established dialects.
However even with that, it is understandably difficult to believe that no mistakes were made in transmission. That's why the Quran calls it a miracle, and calls it Allah's job, to safeguard the integrity the Quran. That fact there is an established canonical version today with zero conflicts among all major prints in all countries is somewhat of a miracle, considering the fact that Muslims across cultures argue and disagree about a lot of other things within the religion.
As for the Muqatta'at, they are a part of regular recitation - they are not simply written characters.
There is an established canonical version today because Uthman set about the task of destroying all texts except the one he preferred. It's obvious why Muslims would wish a standardized text, but from a secular perspective, this was no miracle, but a tragic loss of historical sources and artifacts.
> At times Mohammed only spoke to one or two people when revealing surah. Having thousands of people memorise a number of separate orations exactly without any problem of conflicting versions is really impossible.
And that's the point of why it is considered a miracle. Transmission of the Quran has always been orally and will continue to be. The general meaning is preserved within the text, however, the correct recitation(s) are not.
You can't pick up the Quran and expect to be reciting it correctly.
Ahh, but did you understand any of it? Many people, particularly Indians/Pakistanis do this without understanding it. It is a very odd thing for me to comprehend.
In college, we'ed leave messages on friends whiteboards with runes. Back in '93, there weren't a lot of 'nerd' girls, so it was usually a pretty safe way to hide in plain sight. Much better than a tie on the doorknob. Granted, it wasn't Ultima or LOTR, but Beowulf in the Olde English class that we would cite, because nerdy wasn't cool back then.
I accept that some people don't know how, or don't want to dedicate the time to making a responsive site. I get that, I have sites that don't make sense in mobile, so we don't bother with a mobile design. But don't take away the ability to zoom on mobile if you don't. You lose a good portion of your audience.
The page is not responsive. Hosting on Github pages doesn't mean the web page will be responsive. It depends on the template you have used which is not responsive apparently.
Yeah, I'm not a UX guy, I'm a programmer. It's plaintext rendered with HTML. The <meta> tag above prevented scaling on WebKit phones. I don't really believe in using templates or overlays because I'm afraid of them interfering with usability, disabling the ability of a viewer to read the text, or being distracting.
If you are interested in the content I've posted, you would be best off printing it out and reading it. It's probably easier on the eyes.
You still have widths expressed in pixels which still limits the chance of your text being readable on some smaller devices. At least I can report that your page is fully readable using Safari on iPhones in the "reader mode" (which avoids all the original formatting of the page).
xigency didn't say it was responsive, merely that the template they were using is disabling user scrolling by default, which they have said is now fixed.
Christie Blatchford's skew is quite heavy in this reporting. I've seen the other side of the argument with some of the behaviours and tweets in question, and it's not so clear cut. I would definitely feel harassed by this individual, and in Canada, we do not claim to have the free speech as defined in America. Hate speech is not tolerated here, and most Canadians are in agreement with this. You can have a difference of opinion, but if you attack someone with words, there are legal consequences.
'hate speech' has a very high bar and from the court details there is zero evidence that the defendant engaged in anything remotely approaching harrassment, never mind hate speech.
by their own admission and by the evidence, the plaintiffs however did engage in a pattern of behavior and organized others into the same pattern which resulted in a person not only being harassed but also losing their job.
it is not enough to say, 'I feel harrassed' or 'I feel hurt' - that does not meet the legal test. You have no right not to be offended.
by the token of 'feelings', I could say that your response is 'hate speech' towards me and that I 'felt' harrassed and I 'felt' that my personal safety was in jeopardy.
If I were to claim that, I should rightfully be pointed in the direction of a mental health professional, not a court of law.
Words may hurt. No one denied this. Saying words killed because of the actions a person took after being hurt is incredibly disingenuous. Only the person who took the action is responsible.
>Hate speech is not tolerated here, and most Canadians are in agreement with this.
Please don't speak for the majority of Canadians. I am not in agreement with this and I speculate that many people living in Canada would object to it as well.
Hey man I got a great app idea I am gonna let you in on. First, I need you to sign this NDA. I'll buy you lunch and tell you about. When this thing hits big, there could be a job in it for you. But for now, if you build the app I'll give you 5% of the company. When we sell this puppy, you're gonna be rich dude!!
Oh wait....you think that my advertising based business model is completely impossible and consider this the worst idea you have ever heard?? Well, you're clearly not very competent...:)
