How Authentic is the Quran?
-
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.
-
Why the hell these guys living in UK stick like viruses? Why the hell they think that they are the only ones with knowledge and wisdom? I fond them very arrogant and irritating.
Yes, who are those upstarts that they think they know it all and live in the UK!!! -) -)
Regards,
-
SaLaM LT
LT you traitor! wink
You missed my smileys!!!!
But I got you -)People who know it all are a nuisance to people who do really know!!!
-) -)Regards,
-
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.
This being a free forum and not a High School Islamic Studies exam, I'm actually thinking outside the suggested box. Is that ok with you or should I check with Adolf first?
My background is in here is about as relevant as your favourite colour.
Oh its very relevant. If you're a sunni, you'd find these fairy tales to be credible. However, if you're Quranic, you'd follow its own internal system of proof. So no, your favourite colour comparsion doesn't fit.
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.
Once again, I'm addressing the article YOU POSTED. Im asking you, how do YOU KNOW Muir is a neutral, objective observer? Have you met the guy?
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.
They wouldn't. Because if they followed THIER OWN epistemology, i.e. historical texts are valid, from the texts itself we can see that the Quran is in fact a modifed text. However, thank God that Allah foresaw this and stated in his text what's what. Shame people prefer to believe in history and not in the Quran for giving evidence.
-
Looooooooooooool DAMN! brother how can u even say that???? HOW???? looooooooooool DAMN!! There is a very nice thread on this forum which highlights JUST that. Search and God will guide you mquran loll
Jaxal, grow up. If you cannot speak for yourself, as I told you, Sunnism is best for you. If you believe the Quranic text has been changed, BRING YOUR EVIDENCE. People who read this forum tend to need more evidence than 'lol damn'. This is evidence for, im sorry to say this, idiots. If you want to believe without ever substantiating your beliefs, thats fine. I will ignore your posts henceforth.
-
SaLaM mquran
I will ignore your posts henceforth.
What part of There is a very nice thread on this forum which highlights JUST that. Search and God will guide you mquran exactly did you miss? You want to ignore my posts? Do and see if i care http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
-
Salaamun alaikum,
What part of There is a very nice thread on this forum which highlights JUST that. Search and God will guide you mquran exactly did you miss?
You asked me my beliefs and I stated so openly. I asked for your beliefs and you point me to a whole thread. That's how open you are.
You want to ignore my posts? Do and see if i care
See if I care? Did you do well in your 11-pluses ?
-
What part of There is a very nice thread on this forum which highlights JUST that. Search and God will guide you mquran exactly did you miss?
With due respects to you, Jaxal, can you not find this thread for us all?
Regards,
-
SaLaM mquran
You asked me my beliefs and I stated so openly. I asked for your beliefs and you point me to a whole thread. That's how open you are.
And you have a problem with that becoz....?
See if I care? Did you do well in your 11-pluses ?
Ok no idea what 11-pluses is. But let me tell you something. Altho u ARE a brother to me mquran, i have no need for you to respond to my posts for me to post in this great forum.
With due respects to you, Jaxal, can you not find this thread for us all?
LT, all someone has to do is ASK ME. Just like i ASK other members. ASK and ye shall be given http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
-
Once again, I'm addressing the article YOU POSTED. Im asking you, how do YOU KNOW Muir is a neutral, objective observer? Have you met the guy?
The article is an objective piece of information open to scrutiny; if you feel that it is inaccurate you're welcome to challenge it with some historical references of your own. However, character assasination, especially one based entirely on the archaic and darkagesque idea of "prove your innocence" will get you nowhere. What motive does Muir, a person who criticises Islam in every turn have in praising the Qur'an for its authentic preservation? If you can find a viable motive, or some proof that he did in fact introduce false notions borne of his bias then you're welcome to challenge his credibility - but until then realise that we are now living in the 21st century and we operate on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty" and as far as I know the Qur'an does too.
Not to mention that character assasination is the weakest defense/attack anyone can take against a piece of objective text.
They wouldn't. Because if they followed THIER OWN epistemology, i.e. historical texts are valid, from the texts itself we can see that the Quran is in fact a modifed text. However, thank God that Allah foresaw this and stated in his text what's what. Shame people prefer to believe in history and not in the Quran for giving evidence.
Did you read the article? The so-called modifications are mentioned in it, however these modifications do not affect the overall authenticity of the Qur'an.
-
The article is an objective piece of information open to scrutiny
Objective article? It was written by a person. Can any man-made article be objective?
if you feel that it is inaccurate you're welcome to challenge it with some historical references of your own.
Sorry, i dont trust any historical source for this. The Quran doesnt allow it but its ok for traditionalists.
However, character assasination, especially one based entirely on the archaic and darkagesque idea of "prove your innocence" will get you nowhere. What motive does Muir, a person who criticises Islam in every turn have in praising the Qur'an for its authentic preservation?
Once again, from the top
I DONT KNOW MUIR, YOU DONT KNOW MUIR. USING HIM BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH YOU SHOWS HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST YOU ARE. GOD ALREADY PROVIDES A SYSTEM OF VERIFICATION. IT DOESNT INCLUDE MUIR'S NAME IN IT.
whew...
However, character assasination, especially one based entirely on the archaic and darkagesque idea of "prove your innocence" will get you nowhere. What motive does Muir, a person who criticises Islam in every turn have in praising the Qur'an for its authentic preservation?
so i'll spend my life researching these people. is that what god told me to do? ah, im assuming u care what God told us..silly of me,
-
Objective article? It was written by a person. Can any man-made article be objective?
Do you know what "objective article" means? The term "objective" here isn't used as an adjective for the word "article", but rather "objective article" is the term for an article that does not discuss personal values but seeks to explain an issue using evidence.
Sorry, i dont trust any historical source for this. The Quran doesnt allow it but its ok for traditionalists.
Lol.
I DONT KNOW MUIR, YOU DONT KNOW MUIR. USING HIM BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH YOU SHOWS HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST YOU ARE. GOD ALREADY PROVIDES A SYSTEM OF VERIFICATION. IT DOESNT INCLUDE MUIR'S NAME IN IT.
Turn your caps lock key off, it makes you look severely impeded. And I wasn't using "him", I was using the article firstly as an objective source of information pertaining to the preservation of Qur'an and I cited his reputation because he clearly has no motive for putting Islam on a 'good' light. You need to understand what people are saying before hitting "reply" and filling the textbox up with capslocked-drivel.
so i'll spend my life researching these people. is that what god told me to do? ah, im assuming u care what God told us..silly of me,
If you want to make a claim of course you have to research into it. We don't live in 1300 England; you don't just brand people heretics left and right because you're a lazy sod. If you make a statement, prepare to back yourself up. Muir made a series of statements and he provided proof for his statements (for a full list of reference read the book from which it was quoted - yes I know reading is arduous but one of these days you must). Seriously, you're sounding quite ignorant sitting there going "no i wont believe you i wont ever believe you and i dont want to know why".
So my challenge still stands if you want to prove the article wrong, provide some factual evidence to counter it. Else, shut up.
-
With due respects to you, Jaxal, can you not find this thread for us all?
LT, all someone has to do is ASK ME. Just like i ASK other members. ASK and ye shall be given http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
I am asking you Jaxal -)
Thanks.Regards,
-
Do you know what "objective article" means? The term "objective" here isn't used as an adjective for the word "article", but rather "objective article" is the term for an article that does not discuss personal values but seeks to explain an issue using evidence.
Oh gosh , Neo. You're more like Cypher than Neo, I think. Even the choice of words in his expression is a personal value, to say nothing of his epistemological choices. Every decision you make is a reflection of personal value and this bunkum about academic neutrality is good to keep people like you as eternal information consumers.
Turn your caps lock key off, it makes you look severely impeded. And I wasn't using "him", I was using the article firstly as an objective source of information pertaining to the preservation of Qur'an and I cited his reputation because he clearly has no motive for putting Islam on a 'good' light. You need to understand what people are saying before hitting "reply" and filling the textbox up with capslocked-drivel.
Once again, YOU NEVER MET HIM. Perhaps he was saying it to suck up to some Arab guy. Im not saying this happened but im saying, if you believe Allah and his verses, Muir really IS as irrelevant as your favourite colour. The fact that you bring him here tells us that you don't care what Allah says. Ok, that's fine, but do be honest about it. Dont hide behind academia.
If you want to make a claim of course you have to research into it. We don't live in 1300 England; you don't just brand people heretics left and right because you're a lazy sod. If you make a statement, prepare to back yourself up. Muir made a series of statements and he provided proof for his statements (for a full list of reference read the book from which it was quoted - yes I know reading is arduous but one of these days you must). Seriously, you're sounding quite ignorant sitting there going "no i wont believe you i wont ever believe you and i dont want to know why".
Lazy? Ok, if you think so. To me, I've done my work and it brought me to one conclusion. Man-authored texts will get you nowhere. The thing to do is to follow Allah's path and act on it, not be stuck with these flowery reports. Allah already warned us (6/112-113) and told us what to do (6/114) but I supposed we need to ask you to get Muir to provide the tafseer for us.
So my challenge still stands if you want to prove the article wrong, provide some factual evidence to counter it. Else, shut up.
That's just it. Im not proving the article wrong or right. This article is not my furqaan and Muir is not my god or prophet. Im just saying, MUSLIMS DONT NEED THIS. If you think they do and u think of urself as one who believes in the Quran, please provide evidence. Else, shut up.