How Authentic is the Quran?
-
Salaamun alaikum Roshan,
My point was that perhaps God via the Quran predicts that the Quran would be altered.
Altered? 'Adheen' means doesn't mean 'altered' . See 4/46 for 'altering' words from their right places. The word 'tahreef' is used.
Secondly, Allah has promised to protect az-zikr (15/9) and al-quraan is said to be the posessor of az-zikr (dhi az-zikr - 38/2) then no, Allah would be contradicting himself if he said the Quran would be altered.
The Quran is the Quran. There are no versions. But clearly if you look at a 'Quran' today there are speech marks in it. In older versions of the 'Quran' there were none. This is an addition.
Yes, where are you getting this 'older versions' from please? Who told you that these 'older versions' are al-quraan as Allah mentioned it?
I am trying to be a Muslim. Because of this I am not afraid to openly minded discuss issues. It is dissapointing that your mindset is still as those from whom we have tried to escape. In fact, it is the first time that I have seen such comments from a Muslim on this forum.
That's just the point. You're not 'openly' discussing anything. What you're doing is accepting definitions and presuppositions given by other than al-quraan itself, namely by Sunnis and Orientalists. The 7 qiraat nonsense came from Bukhari who surprise, surprise is the best purveyor of hadith! After that, you take a verse like 15/91 claim that Allah predicted its alteration! Is this open discussion?
I accept your point, but you do not understand mine. There are books with slightly different variations which are all called the 'Quran'. This is either true or not. From what I have read it is. The Sunnis choose to explain this through their religious boooks which state that God gave Muhammad 7 versions of the Quran. But either way, either we have only one 'Quran' in (mainstream) circulation or more than one.
Allah promised to protect az-zikr, the one in eminence. Rashad Khalifa tried to excise 2 verses and still called it the Quran. Did it ever reach eminence? Its the same with the Warsh. Its only known in the corner of North Africa. We need to employ the Quran to remove these attempts and believe me, when the ayats are employed, there's no issue. That's my problem with your position. You're not using the ayat but rather Sunni or Orientalist assumptions.
-
Salaamun alaikum KGB,
"We" simply means everybody
Do you mean everyone who calls themselves 'muslims' ? If so, please dont expect too much. You see KGB, when a factor of similarity(i.e. CALLING themselves muslims) is made based on other than God's laws, it's not real and will not stand the test of reality. When people go to a Sunni mosque, you cannot expect the same body of people to unite to launch a total overhaul of society. These people are just there to bend over a number of times, recite blindly and get back to 'real life'.
The unity of 'muslims' in a Quranic sense can be found in 2/122-152. These guys are the real deal.
-
An extract from Haykal's The Life Of Muhammad
Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an
The orientalists have written a great deal on this subject. We can select a passage by Sir William Muir from his book, The Life of Mahomet, in the hope that those who claim that the Qur'an has been forged will realize wherein they have erred, to the detriment of both the truth and their own scholarship. It should be remembered that our author, Muir, is a Christian, an engage and proud Christian, as well as a missionary who never misses occasion to criticize the Prophet of Islam or its scripture.
When he came to speak of the Qur'an and the veracity and precision of its text, he wrote
"The divine revelation was the cornerstone of Islam. The recital of a passage from it formed an essential part of daily prayer public and private; and its perusal and repetition were enforced as a duty and a privilege fraught with religious merit. This is the universal voice of early tradition, and may be gathered also from the revelation itself. The Coran was accordingly committed to memory more or less by every adherent of Islam, and the extent to which it could be recited was one of the chief distinctions of nobility in the early Moslem empire. The custom of Arabia favoured the task. Passionately fond of poetry, yet possessed of but limited means and skill in committing to writing the effusions of their bards, the Arabs had long been habituated to imprint these, as well as the tradition of genealogical and other tribal events, on the living tablets of their hearts. The recollective faculty was thus cultivated to the highest pitch; and it was applied, with all the ardour of an awakened spirit, to the Coran. Such was the tenacity of their memory, and so great their power of application, that several of Mahomet's followers, according to early tradition, could, during his life-time, repeat with scrupulous accuracy the entire revelation.
"However retentive the Arab memory, we should still have regarded with distrust a transcript made entirely from that source. But there is good reason for believing that many fragmentary copies, embracing amongst them the whole Coran, or nearly the whole, were made by Mahomet's followers during his life. Writing was without doubt generally known at Mecca long before Mahomet assumed the prophetical office. Many of his followers are expressly mentioned as employed by the Prophet at Medina in writing his letters or despatches . . . Some of the poorer Meccan captives taken at Badr were offered their release on condition that they would teach a certain number of the ignorant citizens of Medina to write. And although the people of Medina were not so generally educated as those of Mecca, yet many are distinctly noticed as having been able to write before Islam. The ability thus existing, it may be safely inferred that the verses which were so indefatigably committed to memory, would be likewise committed carefully to writing.
"We also know that when a tribe first joined Islam, Mahomet was in the habit of deputing one or more of his followers to teach them the Coran and the requirements of the faith. We are frequently informed that they carried written instructions with them on the latter point, and they would naturally provide themselves also with transcripts of the more important parts of the Revelation, especially those upon which the ceremonies of Islam were founded, and such as were usually recited at the public prayers. Besides the reference in the Coran to its own existence in a written form, we have express mention made in the authentic traditions of Omar's conversion, of a copy of the 20th Sura being used by his sister's family for social and private devotional reading. This refers to a period preceding, by three or four years, the emigration to Medina. If transcripts of the revelations were made, and in common use, at that early time when the followers of Islam were few and oppressed, it is certain that they must have multiplied exceedingly when the Prophet came to power, and his Book formed the law of the greater part of Arabia.
"Such was the condition of the text of the Coran during Mahomet's life-time, and such it remained for about a year after his death, imprinted upon the hearts of his people, and fragmentary transcripts increasing daily. The two sources would correspond closely with each other; for the Coran, even while the Prophet was yet alive, was regarded with a superstitious awe as containing the very words of God; so that any variations would be reconciled by a direct reference to Mahomet himself, and after his death to the originals where they existed, or copies from the same, and to the memory of the Prophet's confidential friends and amanuenses.
"It was not till the overthrow of Moseilama, when a great carnage took place amongst the Moslems at Yemama, and large numbers of the best reciters of the Coran were slain, that a misgiving arose in Omar's mind as to the uncertainty which would be experienced regarding the text, when all those who had received it from the original source, and thence stored it in their memories, should have passed away.
I fear,' said he, addressing the Caliph Abu Bakr,that slaughter may again wax hot amongst the reciters of the Coran, in other fields of battle; and that much may be lost therefrom. Now, therefore, my advice is, that thou shouldest give speedy orders for the collection of the Coran.' Abu Bakr agreed, and thus made known his wishes to Zeid ibn Thabit, a citizen of Medina, and the Prophet's chief amanuensis 'Thou art a young man, and wise; against whom no one amongst us can cast an imputation; and thou wert wont to write down the inspired revelations of the Prophet of the Lord. Wherefore now search out the Coran, and bring it together.' So new and unexpected was the enterprise that Zeid at first shrank from it, and doubted the propriety, or even lawfulness, of attempting that which Mahomet had neither himself done nor commanded to be done. At last he yielded to the joint entreaties of Abu Bakr and Omar, and seeking out the fragments of the Coran from every quarter, 'gathered it together, from dateleaves, and tablets of white stone, and from the breasts of men.' By the labours of Zeid, these scattered and confused materials were reduced to the order and sequence in which we now find them, and in which it is said that Zeid used to repeat the Coran in the presence of Mahomet. The original copy prepared by Zeid was probably kept by Abu Bakr during the short remainder of his reign. It then came into the possession of Omar who . . . committed it to the custody of his daughter Hap hsa, the Prophet's widow. The compilation of Zeid, as embodied in this exemplar, continued during Omar's ten years' Caliphate to be the standard and authoritative text.Cont...
-
"But variety of expression either prevailed in the previous transcripts and modes of recitation, or soon crept into the copies which were made from Zeid's edition. Mussulmans were scandalized. The Coran sent down from heaven was ONE, but where was now its unity? Hodzeifa, who had warred both in Armenia and Adzerbaijan and had observed the different readings of the Syrians and of the men of Irac, alarmed at the number and extent of the variations, warned Othman to interpose, and 'stop the people, before they should differ regarding their Scripture, as did the Jews and Christians.' The Caliph was persuaded, and to remedy the evil had recourse again to Zeid, with whom he associated a syndicate of three Coreish. The original copy of the first edition was obtained from Haphsa's depository, the various readings were sought out from the different provinces, and a careful recension of the whole set on foot. In case of difference between Zeid and his coadjutors, the voice of the latter, as conclusive of the Coreishite idiom, was to preponderate; and the new collation was thus assimilated exclusively to the Meccan dialect, in which the Prophet had given utterance to his inspiration. Transcripts were multiplied and forwarded to the chief cities in the empire, and the previously existing copies were all, by the Caliph's command, committed to the flames. The old original was returned to Haphsa's custody.
"The recension of Othman had been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance-we might almost say no variations at all-among the innumerable copies of the Coran scattered throughout the vast bounds of the empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mahomet, have ever since rent the Mahometan world. Yet but ONE CORAN has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by them all in every age up to the present day of the same Scripture, is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text. The various readings are wonderfully few in number, and are chiefly confined to differences in the vowel points and diacritical signs. But these marks were invented at a later date. They did not exist at all in the early copies, and can hardly be said to affect the text of Othman.
"Since, then, we possess the undoubted text of Othman's recension, it remains to be enquired whether that text was, an honest reproduction of Abu Bakr's edition, with the simple reconcilement of unimportant variations. There is the fullest ground for believing that it was so. No early or trustworthy traditions throw suspicion upon Othman of tampering with the Coran in order to support his own claims. The Sheeahs of later times, indeed, pretend that Othman left out certain Suras or passages which favoured Ali. But this is incredible ....
"When Othman's edition was prepared, no open breach had taken place between the Omeyads and the Alyites. The unity of Islam was still complete and unthreatened. Ali's pretensions were as yet undeveloped. No sufficient object can, therefore, be assigned for the perpetration by Othman of an offence which Moslems regard as one of the blackest dye . . . At the time of the recension, there were still multitudes alive who had the Coran, as originally delivered, by heart; and of the supposed passages favouring Ali-had any ever existed-there would have been numerous transcripts in the hands of his family and followers. Both of these sources must have proved an effectual check upon any attempt at suppression. Fourth The party of Ali shortly after assumed an independent attitude, and he himself succeeded to the Caliphate. Is it conceivable that either Ali, or his party, when thus arrived at power, would have tolerated a mutilated Coran-mutilated expressly to destroy his claims? Yet we find that they used the same Coran as their opponents, and raised no shadow of an objection against it. The insurgents are indeed said to have made it one of their complaints against Othman that he had caused a new edition to be made, and had committed the old copies of the sacred volume to the flames; but these proceedings were objected to simply as unauthorised and sacrilegious. No hint was dropped of alteration or omission. Such a supposition, palpably absurd at the time, is altogether an after-thought of the modern Sheeas.
"We may then safely conclude that Othman's recension was, what it professed to be, namely, the reproduction of Abu Bakr's edition, with a more perfect conformity to the dialect of Mecca, and possibly a more uniform arrangement of the component parts-but still a faithful reproduction. The most important question yet remains, viz., Whether Abu Bakr's edition was itself an authentic and complete collection of Mahomet's Revelations. The following considerations warrant the belief that it was authentic and in the main as complete as at the time was possible.
"First.-We have no reason to doubt that Abu Bakr was a sincere follower of Mahomet, and an earnest believer in the divine origin of the Coran. His faithful attachment to the Prophet's person, conspicuous for the last twenty years of his life, and his simple, consistent, and unambitious deportment as Caliph, admit no other supposition. Firmly believing the revelations of his friend to be the revelations of God himself, his first object would be to secure a pure and complete transcript of them. A similar argument applies with almost equal force to Omar and the other agents in the revision. The great mass of Mussulmans were undoubtedly sincere in their belief. From the scribes themselves, employed in the compilation, down to the humblest Believer who brought his little store of writing on stones or palm-leaves, all would be influenced by the same earnest desire to reproduce the very words which their Prophet had declared as his message from the Lord. And a similar guarantee existed in the feelings of the people at large, in whose soul no principle was more deeply rooted than an awful reverence for the supposed word of God. The Coran itself contains frequent denunciations against those who should presume to `fabricate anything in the name of the Lord,' or conceal any part of that which He had revealed. Such an action, represented as the very worst description of crime, we cannot believe that the first Moslems, in the early ardour of their faith and love, would have dared to contemplate.
"Second.-The compilation was made within two years of Mahomet's death. We have seen that several of his followers had the entire revelation . . . by heart; that every Moslem treasured up more or less some portions in his memory; and that there were official Reciters of it, for public worship and tuition, in all countries to which Islam extended. These formed a living link between the Revelation fresh from Mahomet's lips, and the edition of it by Zeid. Thus the people were not only sincere and fervent in wishing for a faithful copy of the Coran they were also in possession of ample means for realizing their desire, and for testing the accuracy and completeness of the volume placed in their hands by Abu Bakr.
"Third.-A still greater security would be obtained from the fragmentary transcripts which existed in Mahomet's life-time, and which must have greatly multiplied before the Coran was compiled. These were in the possession, probably, of all who could read. And as we know that the compilation of Abu Bakr came into immediate and unquestioned use, it is reasonable to conclude that it embraced and corresponded with every extant fragment; and therefore, by common consent, superseded them. We hear of no fragments, sentences, or word intentionally omitted by the compilers, nor of any that differed from the received edition. Had any such been discoverable, they would undoubtedly have been preserved and noticed in those traditional repositories which treasured up the minutest and most trivial acts and sayings of the Prophet.
"Fourth.-The contents and the arrangement of the Coran speak forcibly for its authenticity. All the fragments that could be obtained have, with artless simplicity, been joined together. The patchwork bears no marks of a designing genius or moulding hand. It testifies to the faith and reverence of the compilers, and proves that they dared no more than simply collect the sacred fragments and place them in juxtaposition.
"The conclusion, which we may now with confidence draw, is that the editions of Abu Bakr and of Othman were not only faithful, but, so far as the materials went, complete; and that whatever omissions there may have been, were not on the part of the compilers intentional . . . we may upon the strongest presumption affirm that every verse in the Coran is the genuine and unaltered composition of Mahomet himself.
-
Salaamun alaikum KGB,
Yes everyone who calls themseleves muslims including Sunnis and Shias. Beeing optimist for all my life this change will not come instantly. The change will come in 2 three centuries.
This isn't how the Quran defines an 'al-muslim'. A muslim in the world has certain traits, little or nothing of which has to do with al-quraan. So its not a question of being an optimist or pessimist. Its a question of giving everyone an equal chance. A muslim is a trait, not something u get from winning a lottery ticket of which family you're born into.
-
Those who know William Muir will recognise the validity of this article.
If we don't accept Bukhari, why should we accept Muir. This is not the right way to attain certainty about al-quraan. Al-quraan is a complete system in itself. It tells you how to attain certainty, besides telling you your purpose in life, how to get there and what 'there' is. You don't need Muir, Watt, Sale, Arberry, Rodwell or any other human being. Its between you and Allah.
-
Those who know William Muir will recognise the validity of this article.
If we don't accept Bukhari, why should we accept Muir. This is not the right way to attain certainty about al-quraan. Al-quraan is a complete system in itself. It tells you how to attain certainty, besides telling you your purpose in life, how to get there and what 'there' is. You don't need Muir, Watt, Sale, Arberry, Rodwell or any other human being. Its between you and Allah.
/ No.
This is an external (i.e. a source which seeks to gain nothing from the publishing of said informmation) account of how the text of the Qur'an was preserved by the Arabs circa 600 A.D. This has nothing to do with "you and Allah", this is not a "proof" of Qur'an - but rather a detail on the meticulous way in which the Qur'an was preserved.
-
This is an external (i.e. a source which seeks to gain nothing from the publishing of said informmation) account of how the text of the Qur'an was preserved by the Arabs circa 600 A.D.
I don't know your background. If you're a sunni who accepts bukhari, tabari, ibn hisham, ibn ishaq and thier cohorts of information terrorists, then sorry. You're right. You need these kind of people to validate you and also a guy who believed Muhammad wrote the Quran (quran calls these people 'disbelievers' btw).
This has nothing to do with "you and Allah", this is not a "proof" of Qur'an - but rather a detail on the meticulous way in which the Qur'an was preserved.
I would actually read my posts before commenting blindly. I said above Al-quraan is a complete system in itself. It tells you how to attain certainty, besides telling you your purpose in life. So 'between me and Allah' doesn't mean , hey its my dogma, dont challenge it. What it means is, Allah will show us the signs on the horizon and in our souls (41/53). We don't need some orientalist who rejected the Quran's divine origin.
-
SaLaM KGB
I believe that too.
And i believe the sky is red. Unfortunately, just becoz someone believes so, it dont make it true. I will advice you to do the same as mquran. There is an excellent thread on the forum addressing this issue. Look it up and let Allah guide you to the truth.
-
mquran, this is what the original poster stated
Is it free from corruption? How can we be sure that it was exactly the same Quran revealed to Muhammad? Do we have any reliable history on how the Quran came about aside from the sunni tradtions?
I am avoiding blind faith.
I need your comments. Thanks all.
Peace.
Tony
From this, it's pretty clear to me that he wants a discourse pertaining to the preservation and transfer of the Qur'an as a body of text. He also said that he's avoiding 'faith', hence I posted an article by someone who is NOT a Muslim to articulate how the Qur'an was perserved and transfered.
I don't know your background. If you're a sunni who accepts bukhari, tabari, ibn hisham, ibn ishaq and thier cohorts of information terrorists, then sorry. You're right. You need these kind of people to validate you and also a guy who believed Muhammad wrote the Quran (quran calls these people 'disbelievers' btw).
My background is in here is about as relevant as your favourite colour.
I would actually read my posts before commenting blindly. I said above Al-quraan is a complete system in itself. It tells you how to attain certainty, besides telling you your purpose in life. So 'between me and Allah' doesn't mean , hey its my dogma, dont challenge it. What it means is, Allah will show us the signs on the horizon and in our souls (41/53). We don't need some orientalist who rejected the Quran's divine origin.
For starters, it would be wise for you to take your own advice. The original poster asked for a secular proof of the authenticity of the Qur'anic text i.e. a historical proof of the fact that it has indeed not been changed from the revelation which Mohammad had received. This has nothing to do with the actual subject matter/implications of the content itself - but solely the preservation of the text. I think you're missing the point, firstly my post and then secondly the original post.
Basically what the OP was saying is why would someone who doesn't believe in Allah believe that the text of the Qur'an is unchanged? Well, the article I posted answers that question succinctly.