oldest fragments of Quran found
-
This would've had to be done extremely early in Islamic history, no later than Omar's reign really. Otherwise we'd have significantly different Qurans lying around.
And that would make it quite weird for the caliph's scribe to have chosen to repeat "day" 365 times instead of the Hijri 354.
In Omar's time, the compilation of Quran was not widespread, mostly exclusively accessible to the elite. There were heterodox copies around which were ordered to be destroyed.
365 days because of its judeonazarene origins (the hebrew calendar is based on 365 days in a year - lunisolar calendar).
-
-
It's not conjecture. Even the Moors who landed in Spain showed no knowledge of the Quran whatsoever. This widespread idea of Quran in the early days is a total myth. But you have to see the translation I have been posting in the "great secret of Islam" to understand why these assertions have historical grounds. The "muslims" who conquered Jerusalem did not call themselves "muslims" at all, they were Saracens. Islam was not a word they used in their discourse. All these are later evolutions. Even the dome of the rock does not contain any verse that is an exact match of a Quranic verse known today.
The hijra calendar is much more recent than the Islamic discourse wants it to be. The hebrew calendar was for a long time the standard in Primo-Islam. It's rather funny how you are using the "365" count as evidence for Qurans integrity while ignoring to see how it contradicts the historicity of the Hijra calendar (contradicted by the 365 count).
-
Peace ths
Actually what I posted in the "surah" thread is also relevant here.
GOD knew people will make the claim that Qoran is not original ,that the Qoran we have is nothing like the one given to the prophet!!!
16101
When we substitute one revelation in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, "You made this up!" Indeed, most of them do not know.16102
Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the Muslimeen."16103
We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue.16104
Surely, those who do not believe in God's revelations, God does not guide them...16105
The only ones who fabricate false doctrines are those who do not believe in God's revelations; they are the real liars.The Qoran I know,study and have checked is the original revelation to the last prophet ,according to my findings.
Bogus histories ,made up stories and theories are many. What is the truth? This is a question to ponder.
There will always be those who will believe "human revelations" instead of GODs revelations?
GOD bless. -
Isn't it peculiar the verses you quote nowhere cite Gabriel as the source when countering these arguments of being a human revalation, goodlogic?
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
My study of Qoran confirms for me that the " holy spirit " mentioned in verse 16102 is Gabriel.
Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the Muslimeen."
Check it out.
GOD bless you.
Peace -
Kinda weird to use ru l-qudusi instead of Gabriels name, don't you think? Even weirder that this verse doesn't clearly state from Gabriel to Muhammad, wouldn't you agree? Instead it says the Holy Spirit "has brought it down". The receiver is not mentioned, nor is the carrier. You can make of those words what you want, but it's not a literal understanding of yours. Ruhu I-qudusi is a judeo-christian understanding of revelation to Jesus and Moses.
-
peace runninglikezebras.
are you forgetting to check the context with the other verses?
Also KUL NAZZALAHU ALRUHU ALAMIN,ALA KALBIKA LITAKUNA MINA ALMUMINEEN" translated
"Say ,the trusworthy holy spirit(Gabriel) has brought it down to your heart ( prophet s heart) to be among the believers."
Like i advised, check Qoran to find out who is the "RUH AL KUDDUS/RUH AL AMIN..."?
GOD bless you.
Peace -
peace runninglikezebras.
are you forgetting to check the context with the other verses?
Also KUL NAZZALAHU ALRUHU ALAMIN,ALA KALBIKA LITAKUNA MINA ALMUMINEEN" translated
"Say ,the trusworthy holy spirit(Gabriel) has brought it down to your heart ( prophet s heart) to be among the believers."
Like i advised, check Qoran to find out who is the "RUH AL KUDDUS/RUH AL AMIN..."?
GOD bless you.
PeaceI'd like to see you making the same point without the text between brackets, which if you're honest you'll admit, is no part of Quran but later commentary - enforcing a certain interpretation.
-
Furthermore you are demonstrating how much you still rely on hadith interpretation (tafsir) of Quran
The proof that Jibril is the Ruh Al-Qudus is the statement of Ibn Mas
ud in explanation of this Ayah (fn. Ibn Abi Hatim 1269). This is also the view of IbnAbbas, Muhammad bin Kab, Ismail bin Khalid, As-Suddi, Ar-Rabibin Anas,Atiyah Al-`Awfi and Qatadah (fn. Ibn Abi Hatim 1270). Additionally, Allah said,
(Which the trustworthy Ruh (Jibril) has brought down. Upon your heart (O Muhammad ) that you may be (one) of the warners) (26193-194).Al-Bukhari recorded `A'ishah saying that the Messenger of Allah erected a Minbar in the Masjid on which Hassan bin Thabit (the renowned poet) used to defend the Messenger of Allah (with his poems). The Messenger of Allah said, "O Allah! Aid Hassan with Ruh Al-Qudus, for he defended Your Prophet."(fn. Fath Al-Bari 10562).
Abu Dawud recorded this Hadith in his Sunan (fn. Abu Dawud 5279) as did At-Tirmidhi who graded it Hasan Sahih (fn. Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi 8137). Further, Ibn Hibban recorded in his Sahih that Ibn Mas`ud said that the Prophet said, "Ruh Al-Qudus informed me that no soul shall die until it finishes its set provisions and term limit. Therefore, have Taqwa of Allah and seek your sustenance in the most suitable way."(fn. See As-Sunnah 14304).(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 288-289)
-
Salaam,
Just as a reminder
297 Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel - then indeed he brought it down on your heart by Allah's permission confirming what before it and a guidance and glad tiding for the believers."
298 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and It's Malaika, and It's Messengers, and Jibreel, and Meekael, then indeed Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.
299 And indeed We revealed to you Verses clear, and not disbelieves in them except the defiantly disobedient.
And now my two cents
From my understanding of the text, the text seems to imply that it was a "Muhammad", who is the messenger and prophet of God, and it is this person who the Quran is associated to and being revealed to.
The verses cited above therefore imply that it is "Jibreel" who is sending down the Quran by Allah's permission to Muhammad - the messenger and prophet of Allah.
Therefore 16102 and other verses where it is proclaimed that the Quran is being revealed, implies that it is through Jibreel.
We can say little about Jibreel (we know he is sending down the Quran by Allah's permission), but nothing about Meekael.
Furthermore, I think the integrity of the text should be based on what the text says currently, and not on claims on how it was compiled or by whom, because the text itself makes a different claim of where it's coming from.
-
Salaam,
Just as a reminder
297 Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel - then indeed he brought it down on your heart by Allah's permission confirming what before it and a guidance and glad tiding for the believers."
298 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and It's Malaika, and It's Messengers, and Jibreel, and Meekael, then indeed Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.
299 And indeed We revealed to you Verses clear, and not disbelieves in them except the defiantly disobedient.
And now my two cents
From my understanding of the text, the text seems to imply that it was a "Muhammad", who is the messenger and prophet of God, and it is this person who the Quran is associated to and being revealed to.
How do you know if the text doesn't state it? To Muhammad is your conjecture, which is only supported by hadith.
The verses cited above therefore imply that it is "Jibreel" who is sending down the Quran by Allah's permission to Muhammad - the messenger and prophet of Allah.
Even though the text doesn't mention "to Muhammad" you still believe it implies "to Muhammad". That is a prime example of conjecture.
Therefore 16102 and other verses where it is proclaimed that the Quran is being revealed, implies that it is through Jibreel.
We can say little about Jibreel (we know he is sending down the Quran by Allah's permission), but nothing about Meekael.
Furthermore, I think the integrity of the text should be based on what the text says currently, and not on claims on how it was compiled or by whom, because the text itself makes a different claim of where it's coming from.
We can say little about Jibreel but we can say at least this much in the verses you quoted about Jibreel, Muhammad is NOT mentioned!
-
How do you know if the text doesn't state it? To Muhammad is your conjecture, which is only supported by hadith.
Even though the text doesn't mention "to Muhammad" you still believe it implies "to Muhammad". That is a prime example of conjecture.
We can say little about Jibreel but we can say at least this much in the verses you quoted about Jibreel, Muhammad is NOT mentioned!
Salaam,
I agree that the Quran has no explicit statement naming both Jibreel and Muhammad, much like how the majority of the verses where the prophet/messenger is concerned, is not referred to by name but by the functioning title i.e. "O prophet, O messenger, the prophet, the messenger" and so on. This does lend some argument to the time-less quality of the text. However if you read the chapter 33, it addresses this prophet, rather more specifically and then further towards the end, names this prophet who the Quran is being revealed/inspired to.
331 O Prophet! Fear Allah and (do) not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Indeed, Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise.
Then immediately after this, we learn that a "something" is being given to this prophet to follow
332 And follow what is inspired to you from your Lord. Indeed, Allah is of what you do All-Aware.
337 And when We took from the prophets their Covenant and from you and from Nuh and Ibrahim and Musa and Isa, Maryam's son. And We took from them a covenant strong
...and to convey
3338 Not is upon the prophet any discomfort in what Allah has imposed on him. Allah's way in concerning those who passed away before. And is Allah's Command a decree destined.
3339 Those who convey Messages (of) Allah and fear Him and not fear anyone except Allah. And sufficient is Allah a Reckoner.
3340 Not is Muhammad father (of) any from your men but is Messenger of Allah and Seal (of) the Prophets. And Allah is of every thing All-Knower.
After reading the Quran in its entirety, I accept this "something" to be referring to itself, i.e. the Quran.
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
As AW pointed out, 297-99 make it clear that Jibreel is (1) an angel/controller, and (2) the one who 'sent down' by God's leave the revelations to the Prophet.
Regarding Muhammad's prophethood, he is mentioned in several verses, notably 472 and 4829 where it is made clear that he is (1) a prophet, and (2) the recipient of what was sent down.
It's not conjecture. Even the Moors who landed in Spain showed no knowledge of the Quran whatsoever. This widespread idea of Quran in the early days is a total myth. But you have to see the translation I have been posting in the "great secret of Islam" to understand why these assertions have historical grounds. The "muslims" who conquered Jerusalem did not call themselves "muslims" at all, they were Saracens. Islam was not a word they used in their discourse. All these are later evolutions. Even the dome of the rock does not contain any verse that is an exact match of a Quranic verse known today.
The hijra calendar is much more recent than the Islamic discourse wants it to be. The hebrew calendar was for a long time the standard in Primo-Islam. It's rather funny how you are using the "365" count as evidence for Qurans integrity while ignoring to see how it contradicts the historicity of the Hijra calendar (contradicted by the 365 count).
You seem to be of the habit of making broad claims without providing any sources or evidence. Please explain how you know that the Arabs and Berbers who conquered Spain had "no knowledge of the Quran whatsoever". And please explain how you know that the "Quran in the early days is a total myth". Particularly in light of this very thread where a Quran from Muhammad's lifetime was found.
Based on the other thread titled 'Forum Activity' where you expounded a little bit on your theories, I noticed that you have nearly no filter for proper sources. You should stick to academic secular sources instead of crappy internet forums full of teenagers and couch experts.
Lastly, regarding the Quranic integrity itself - at best you could argue that there were wildly differing Quran's for 20 years following Muhammad's death. We do not have extant differing codices today, which is extraordinarily impressive. We have codices with minor textual variations, which is more than expected considering thousands upon thousands of people over the last 1500 years were copying it by hand, and without vocalizations in the early periods.
Now Patricia Crone and Michael Cook and some other academic scholars used to argue that the Quran was developed over several centuries. This is now a moot point thanks to the Birmingham codex in this thread which predates Crone's claim of a 9th century Quran. This codex is far from complete, but it is dated to Muhammad's lifetime and shows that there was such a thing as 'the Quran' in the lifetime of Muhammad himself, matching word-for-word what we call the Quran today, even containing the correct verse endings. The Sanaa version has been proven to match the modern Quran, with what I consider minor differences in the lower text that was erased. I find it hardly surprising that a hand-copied Quran from 1400 years ago sitting in Yemen has things like "wa maa" instead of "fa maa", and occasional different words. The lower text has been dated to before Uthman's reign with 75% probability, and Yemen was one of the first places to convert to the new religion, making it hardly surprising at all that there would be variations in the text. What makes it surprising is that it doesn't have random hadiths strewn in left and right if it is based on one person's handwritten notes.
Regarding the "fluid Quran" argument of some scholars, at the moment I cannot believe that they have read the Quran in the way that we do. I started a project a few years ago that I abandoned out of laziness, where I tried to follow the Quran's logical argument. I found that the beginning of surah 2 has an extremely strong logical pattern. Just as an example
21-5 this is the book - an explanation of what the book is (hudan lil-muttaqeen). and an explanation of who these ppl are
5-20 definition of who the kuffar are > confrontations with others and lying (11,13,14)
17-20 analogies of the kuffar
21-26 therefore worship Him + reasons given for worship- creation, a catering environment, and paradise (25)
22-23 if you doubt then bring forth an equal surah or witnesses; this finishes the argument from beginning (let there be no doubt)
26 parable of a gnat
27-29 again describing the iniquitous. and giving reasons to believe.So to summarize what happens in the first 30 verses of surah 2, we get an introduction to what the book is, describing good and bad ppl, analogies to help ppl understand, instruction to worship, reasons for worship, challenge to deniers, 2nd description of bad ppl, questions how one can still deny, and then 2nd time same reasons given to worship.
So if there was a "fluid Quran" where scribes are sitting randomly cutting and inserting verses to make "day" match 365 an whatever else, you would find complete inconsistency. Here we have an absolutely perfectly coherent and methodical argument given over the span of 30 verses.
-
It is rediculous to speak of the conquest of spain by Arabs or berbers or whatever other variations want to be introduced. There was not such conquest.
The very fact that at the time what is called Spain now and the north of Africa con the other side of the Gibraltar straghit were the same state under the same state authority and there was nod ifference between them on that count, it could hardly be spoken of any conquest. The very concept is nonsense. And that is universla knowledge, although many suposedly learned people continue to speak as if they ignored that fact. What happened in th whole of the state was that most of the people were arrians, that is unitarian christians and that they were being oppressed for that reason by the gothics kings who were themselves roman christians, that is trinitarians, The kings won and all people were forced to be trinitarians it is in that context that islam was introduced into Spain, though not by conquest as the selk seeking legend goes but by raction to the religious oppression of the romans till with time many unitarian christians and others evolved into muslims.
Some people tend a lot to have opinions, strong opinions and confuse their own opinions with solid proof of something. And then they require that you prove whatever you say based on the requirer's opinion which is taken as soled proof. Weird.
Salaam
-
No it may be recorded but it is not proved that there was a conquest. At any rate, as I said, it could hardly have been a conquest when it is done within the same state. And yes a do feel strongly because that has been the weapon whereby the shole history of Spain has been highjacked by the Roman Church and its servants, conscious or unconscious of what they were and are doing. You say there are proofs, which are they?
Salaam
-
Huruf, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion as it has absolutely nothing to do with the Quran or the topic of this thread. Suffice to say that I've never before heard of anyone denying the Muslim conquest of Iberia, and what you are arguing without any sources or supporting evidence goes against all modern academic scholarship on this issue. If you have some new archaeological or historical evidence that casts doubt on the established narrative, then by all means make a new thread about the lies of Spanish and Iberian history.
-
Peace huruf,
I don't know why you feel so strongly about this issue. The conquest of Iberia from Africa is well recorded both archaeologically and through contemporary sources...
It is also well recorded that some Arabs crashed 3 NY buildings with umm 2 planes
Physics says it was recorded wrong, yet mainstream people mention it. -
Oh lovely. Is there anyone else who would like to air his favorite conspiracy theories? Let's get them all out now. I personally believe that there were no people in north America when Europeans arrived. It's all a hoax perpetrated by the illuminati and the Jewish-Muslim lobby based in Germany. Also, Germany doesn't exist. If you can prove it exists then bring your evidences!
