Questions about Al Quran
-
lol, you misunderstood what I was saying there. I was not accusing Saudi Arabia of doing that for the past 1400 years. I was simply pointing out that those in power have the means to promote a specific reading/version. Thats it. I used Saudi Arabia's current printing and distribution of copies of the Qur'an as an example of how that can happen. Of course it is absurd to claim that they are solely responsible for all of that for the past 1400 years or so. And I wasn't claiming that.
Peace.The mushaf and translation used by Sunni's now mostly using Saudi Arabian's corridor as their authantics
In terms of historical sources, there won't be much to verify I don't think. The oldest recording of the Quran is from the 1880s I believe. Interesting that this is when we started developing such technology.
Maybe one thing is to look at the nature of the structure of the Surahs, the nature of the structure of verses e.g. We and Me referring to God (or other things if you believe that) can change in one verse, the fact that the Quran is recited and memorized by people who don't understand what they are reading or if they understand some of it, they don't know the actual Arabic - meaning is important for memory, this is one thing you will know if you've ever had to revise or memorize anything (else). You can use mnemonics, a memory strategy but some type of meaning, rhyme, rhythm, device is always used.
Peace.
I believe that 1880s is time for modernizing the Quran, create translation and giving harakat in manuscript, so the quranic text can be read by all kind of people.
We must thankful to Allah, that He sent down Quran in the Arabic, because arabic is easy to memorized even a child cappable to became Hafidz Quranhttp//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyVoOcZZ3cE
This miracle is one of Allah promised that He will protecting Quran.
159 Indeed it is We who have sent down the Reminder, and indeed it is We who will preserve it.
-
Peace.
I believe that 1880s is time for modernizing the Quran, create translation and giving harakat in manuscript, so the quranic text can be read by all kind of people.
We must thankful to Allah, that He sent down Quran in the Arabic, because arabic is easy to memorized even a child cappable to became Hafidz Quranhttp//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyVoOcZZ3cE
This miracle is one of Allah promised that He will protecting Quran.
159 Indeed it is We who have sent down the Reminder, and indeed it is We who will preserve it.
Peace,
I'm not sure what you're saying here... especially in relation to my post. I don't know how we can modernise the Quran given that it's preserved. Maybe you meant something else though, although I can't say what you meant.
If Arabic itself is easy to memorise, then what's the miracle/sign? That means any Arabic text could be preserved the way the Quran has been through memorisation. I feel like we can search for examples of how the Quranic text and message itself as it stands today shows preservation but in terms of knowing 'how' - I don't think we will know entirely. It's a bit like saying so how did Allah swt give you a certain blessings. What was the actual entire process that Allah swt used? Is it really supposed to be fully known?
If Allah swt is the One who preserves it, then is it really down to just memory and people? I don't think we can say that, but yes Allah is the One who preserves it.
-
Peace sister
I'm not sure what you're saying here... especially in relation to my post.
Because my english is poor
If Arabic itself is easy to memorise, then what's the miracle/sign?
That means any Arabic text could be preserved the way the Quran has been through memorisation. I feel like we can search for examples of how the Quranic text and message itself as it stands today shows preservation but in terms of knowing 'how' - I don't think we will know entirely. It's a bit like saying so how did Allah swt give you a certain blessings. What was the actual entire process that Allah swt used? Is it really supposed to be fully known?
Then just try to ask an Christian evangelist, can they memorized a single chapter in the Bible with similiarity on the original text?
Different from the Quran, in this world you can found Quran memorizer/hafidz Quran who can memorize a verse, a chapter, even a whole chapter in the Quran, like that youtube link I provided to you.It's what I say about miracle.
Just try to ask some people from Christian, Hinduism, or etc, Can they memorize just one chapter from their scripture?Then you will realize that very-very rarely or even nothing to meet a single of them who capable to do this perfectly.
There are Islam vs Christian debate in my place.In that debate an Imam chalengge a Christian priest to recite a single chapter from Bible without reading from It, but he can't so the audience was laughing.
It's better we still following current history of quran, because it's a most validate ever known.
-
Peace sister
Because my english is poor )
Then just try to ask an Christian evangelist, can they memorized a single chapter in the Bible with similiarity on the original text?
Different from the Quran, in this world you can found Quran memorizer/hafidz Quran who can memorize a verse, a chapter, even a whole chapter in the Quran, like that youtube link I provided to you.It's what I say about miracle.
Just try to ask some people from Christian, Hinduism, or etc, Can they memorize just one chapter from their scripture?Then you will realize that very-very rarely or even nothing to meet a single of them who capable to do this perfectly.
There are Islam vs Christian debate in my place.In that debate an Imam chalengge a Christian priest to recite a single chapter from Bible without reading from It, but he can't so the audience was laughing.
It's better we still following current history of quran, because it's a most validate ever known.
Peace brother,
I'll explain my point again If it is just that Arabic is an easy language in which to remember texts and so on, then there is nothing special about memorising the Quran. However, I think there is something special and divine in origin about the Quran. Please read on to understand the point that I am explaining to you again. In your original post you said
We must thankful to Allah, that He sent down Quran in the Arabic, because arabic is easy to memorized even a child cappable to became Hafidz Quran
http//www.youtube.cwatch?v=cyVoOcZZ3cE
This miracle is one of Allah promised that He will protecting Quran.
159 Indeed it is We who have sent down the Reminder, and indeed it is We who will preserve it.
I am not sure that when the Quran mentions that it has been made made easy to remember (at least in translations), that it is because the Quran is in Arabic. If this is the case then, I reiterate my point above there there would be nothing particularly miraculous or divine about the Quran.
I believe it is because of the NATURE of the Quran - that is the reason it is able to be preserved the way it has.
I am not saying at all that Christians or other groups can memorise their holy books like the Quran. That was the exact opposite of my original post. In fact, I would say that shows even more the sign of the Quran itself. That the Quran can be memorised by so many people who do not have Arabic at their native tongue but this would not be expected with other Arabic texts - in fact thats why people say the oral tradition is weak because of lapses in memory but that's not the case with the Quran. We also would not expect perservation through memorisation with other books like the Bible as mentioned.
I also thought the original texts of the Bible were lost?
Where we appear to differ is I am saying it is because of the unique and divine origin of the Quran that the Quran is perserved. You appear to be saying that Arabic is an easy language to remember texts in so thats why its preserved. - That is what you said in your original post to me.
I hope I explained that. Before you respond, could you just check over that you understand those main points? I really don't think we should keep repeating the same points at each other.
-
Ah, you completely missed the point. The individual who opened the thread wanted to know if there is a way to historically verify the texts and memorization...
Dear Student of Allah,
All over your post you?ve been reminding me of the individual who opened the thread. Although in the last two lines of my response to YOU, I did answer the question of ?the individual?, I should remind you that my post was aimed mainly as a response towards the contents of YOUR post, not ?the individual".
Here I quote myself again
?Historical documentations for these kinds of global phenomena with none-stop and continuous existence are logically rare, because their practice have not been interrupted through their history.?To prove me wrong, I ask you and ?the individual? to bring about your reliable historical proof that The Qur?aan has not been preserved and/or not memorized.
BTW, would you explain the meaning of the verse 159 in The Qur?aan?
Peace,
Khalil -
My appreciation would be that if the Qur'an is learnt and recited in many countries, in many societies in the whole world and if there is no divergence between the recitations, it would be a miracle. In the normal run of things, there should have sprung divergences for whatever reason. So, if a needed proof of the authenticity of the Qur'an, for me that unanimous recitation int he whole world would be valid, unless somebody can proove documentally that that uniformity has been contrived by other means than actual memory preservation, that is, that there are reasons why there is no divergence which are not attributable to it being the same text throughout.
Another thing is who needs the proof. Those hadithers who want it what are they saying then? That they still consider the Qur'an the word of God or that they doubt it? Or that they would consider it only of the hadith (that hetergeneous and contradictory collection) sustains it?
If they say that, it is obvious they do not believe in the Qur'an as divine revelation. Because if they need historical proof for that, that means that they read the Qur'an and they see nothing. Not the expression of God.
So what is all the ado about?
You read the Qur'an and you do not know whether it is God speaking or some fraud? Rather hopeless I think.
The hardore hadithers do not need any proof. They need something that opens up their hearts. And that they will not find that in any "proof".
Salaam
-
My appreciation would be that if the Qur'an is learnt and recited in many countries, in many societies in the whole world and if there is no divergence between the recitations, it would be a miracle. In the normal run of things, there should have sprung divergences for whatever reason. So, if a needed proof of the authenticity of the Qur'an, for me that unanimous recitation int he whole world would be valid, unless somebody can proove documentally that that uniformity has been contrived by other means than actual memory preservation, that is, that there are reasons why there is no divergence which are not attributable to it being the same text throughout.
Another thing is who needs the proof. Those hadithers who want it what are they saying then? That they still consider the Qur'an the word of God or that they doubt it? Or that they would consider it only of the hadith (that hetergeneous and contradictory collection) sustains it?
If they say that, it is obvious they do not believe in the Qur'an as divine revelation. Because if they need historical proof for that, that means that they read the Qur'an and they see nothing. Not the expression of God.
So what is all the ado about?
You read the Qur'an and you do not know whether it is God speaking or some fraud? Rather hopeless I think.
The hardore hadithers do not need any proof. They need something that opens up their hearts. And that they will not find that in any "proof".
Salaam
Peace huruf,
That's similar to the point I was raising here. I haven't seen many people phrase it this way although I have seen people talk about the general idea, like Nouman Ali Khan. Although, having said that, all knowledge and truth is from Allah swt.
-
Peace,
I feel that huruf is absolutely right. The hadithers will still not believe no matter what your do because God has cursed them and only He can remove their curse. The horrible thing is that these people even question the revelation from God and that it is His exact wordings and instead rely on man-made conjecture which seems to have been written down by delusional men if you consider what is in the hadith. Hey come on, who believes that people even followed Muhammad to the bathroom to learn how many stones he used to wipe his rear end?
It is more like a comedy book than actual study literature these hadith.
God bless you
-
I'll explain my point again If it is just that Arabic is an easy language in which to remember texts and so on, then there is nothing special about memorising the Quran.
I am saying it is because of the unique and divine origin of the Quran that the Quran is perserved. You appear to be saying that Arabic is an easy language to remember texts in so thats why its preserved. - That is what you said in your original post to me.
Not only because it's in the Arabic, but Quranic language is good structural books that contains some hidden formulas.The example is there is some verses in the Quran that repeated from verse to verse, from chapter to chapter (its called Al-Tikrar)
" So which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?"
This is verse from surah Ar-Rahman who repeatedly written for 31 times (5113,16,18,21,23,25,28,30,32,34,36,38,40 etc)"And God is the Rich, the Praiseworthy."
This quote repeatedly written in 2264, 3126, 3515.There are still some repeated verses in Quran but imposibble I wrote all of them.The more simple ways is you can find Luth's story in some chapters in the Quran.So that's why Quran is easy to be memorized even by a child.
If Quran easy to be memorized because it's in Arabic, then why the hadiths is hard to memorized and even they're distorted..
The real Quran is that arabic text and cannot be changed by anything else.Translation is only method to understand Quran -
Peace Man of Faith,
It may not be a curse and we could say the same for Christians or atheists etc. Some of them could simply be rejecting it for now but come to the path later. There are some amongst those who follow hadith who do now follow Quran only. So I would just be a little cautious of saying whether a whole group has had a curse put on them by God. I agree with your sentiments though.
-
Not only because it's in the Arabic, but Quranic language is good structural books that contains some hidden formulas.The example is there is some verses in the Quran that repeated from verse to verse, from chapter to chapter (its called Al-Tikrar)
" So which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?"
This is verse from surah Ar-Rahman who repeatedly written for 31 times (5113,16,18,21,23,25,28,30,32,34,36,38,40 etc)"And God is the Rich, the Praiseworthy."
This quote repeatedly written in 2264, 3126, 3515.There are still some repeated verses in Quran but imposibble I wrote all of them.The more simple ways is you can find Luth's story in some chapters in the Quran.So that's why Quran is easy to be memorized even by a child.
If Quran easy to be memorized because it's in Arabic, then why the hadiths is hard to memorized and even they're distorted..
The real Quran is that arabic text and cannot be changed by anything else.Translation is only method to understand QuranPeace Earthdom,
I don't know why you are debating me over this then if that's the case (the bit I highlighted in bold and italics because some of it was already in bold text). In which case we both mostly agree that it is because of the Quran's nature as well as possibly a manner of other things known only to Allah.
I already told you twice that I don't think its just because the Quran is in Arabic that makes it preserved. I think its because the Quran is divine in origin, because its a revelation. So of course I wouldn't think the hadith can be preserved because they are in Arabic
In fact, you were the one who said the point about the Quran being easy to remember because its in Arabic first... was that because you didn't phrase it correctly in your original post? I really don't understand what is going on here and I feel like what ever I say - you aren't going to understand it and this is going to keep going on...
Maybe you should list what you think I'm saying and then I can say whether or not that is what I have actually said or meant. We are really going round in circles here, and tbh I've really tried to make it clear twice now... I don't think there is another way for me to rephrase my points.
-
Peace sis.
Because you wrote statement like this
'll explain my point again If it is just that Arabic is an easy language in which to remember texts and so on, then there is nothing special about memorising the Quran. However, I think there is something special and divine in origin about the Quran.
I think you still didn't believe of the miracle of Quran's arabic text and thats why I reply your statement like that.
Something special and divine origin? then I ask you, you reject hadith entirelly/fully or not?Do you believe on sira' of Muhammad?I won't debate you but I just want try to respond your post with my own ability
In fact, you were the one who said the point about the Quran being easy to remember because its in Arabic first... was that because you didn't phrase it correctly in your original post? I really don't understand what is going on here and I feel like what ever I say - you aren't going to understand it and this is going to keep going on...
Then you must understand from where I came from.I'm an Indonesian from Javanese ethnic,so english is my fourth language.That's why maybe if I misintepreted your post, yeah I'm just ask apologize to you.
-
Peace everyone
Thank you for your helpful posts. I appreciate it.
It seems that some of the sunni muslims don't understand that the validity of Al Quran lies in its content. They claim that we need historical sources to prove that Al Quran has been preserved. They claim that we need historical sources to prove that Al Quran is true. We don't need historical sources to prove that Al Quran has been preserved. Since there are no internal (inner) and no external (outer contradictions) in Al Quran, this proves that Al Quran has preserved its original message. And this proves that Al Quran is true. Minor changes in Al Quran doesn't make it invalid. Its true message has been preserved. And that's what matters. Having said all that, if we had a "Quran manuscript" that could be dated back to the time when Prophet Muhammed lived, then we would have had rock solid historical proof that Al Quran has been preserved. Unfortunately, such a "Quran manuscript" either don't exists, or exists but haven't been discovered yet.
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
All over your post you?ve been reminding me of the individual who opened the thread. Although in the last two lines of my response to YOU, I did answer the question of ?the individual?, I should remind you that my post was aimed mainly as a response towards the contents of YOUR post, not ?the individual".
I know well that you responded to me. The reason I am referring back to the thread opener is because my response should be interpreted by using the original and the first post as the context. I was responding to that post.
Here I quote myself again
?Historical documentations for these kinds of global phenomena with none-stop and continuous existence are logically rare, because their practice have not been interrupted through their history.?To prove me wrong, I ask you and ?the individual? to bring about your reliable historical proof that The Qur?aan has not been preserved and/or not memorized.
No. No no no. You can't do that. Stop right there. The burden of proof is on you. I have no way to verify that Qur'an was preserved or memorized throughout the ages in a way that preserves it. I did not claim that it was not preserved or that it was preserved. I rejected the claim that it was preserved. If you make the claim that it was preserved, that necessitates you providing evidence. If you claim that you have a unicorn friend, it isnt my duty to disprove that you have a unicorn friend. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you have a unicorn friend. Not me to demonstrate that you don't. Unless of course I make a positive claim that you absolutely don't have a unicorn friend. But until the time you demonstrate that you do have a unicorn friend, I am justified in not accepting your claim as true. In a similar fashion, I am not claiming that the Qur'an was not preserved in those 2 ways or that the Qur'an was preserved in those 2 ways. I am simply stating that I have no reason to believe either way because these claims have not met their burden of proof.
BTW, would you explain the meaning of the verse 159 in The Qur?aan?
159 Indeed it is We who have sent down the Reminder, and indeed it is We who will preserve it.
The way I understand this verse is that the author is stating that the author is the one that transmitted the reminder from the source to destination and the author is also stating that he/she/it will guard the reminder. I understand the author to be the Abrahamic monotheistic God and the reminder to be the book globally known as Al-Qur'an.
Peace
---------- Student of Allah -
Shalom Aleikhem Mario,
We don't need historical sources to prove that Al Quran has been preserved. Since there are no internal (inner) and no external (outer contradictions) in Al Quran, this proves that Al Quran has preserved its original message. And this proves that Al Quran is true.
For the following I will assume that there are no contradictions in Al-Qur'an. So that I have to write less P
Regarding the highlighted red parts in the quote, can you please explain how that is true? Lets look at the first one. You are saying that the lack of internal/external contradictions proves that the content is intact. How is that valid? If I can point out to you 3 chapters from a book that do not contradict internally/externally, will you automatically assume that this book is intact in its entirety? I hope not. Now think about a book that contains contradictions. How does having contradictions prove that the book was not preserved? Lets say I write a book about Topic X with my limited knowledge. Due to my limited knowledge I make mistakes and introduce 10 contradictions in my book. Now in the future, you are reading my book. Just because you found contradictions, will you assume that the copy of the book you have is incomplete or changed/not preserved? I hope not. The point I am trying to make is that the lack of contradictions in no way validates the preservation of the contents. There is no logical link between them.
Secondly, you stated that this lack of contradiction proves that Al-Qur'an is true. How in the world does that make any sense? If a book does not contradict with itself, do you assume that whatever the book says is therefore true? I hope not. Think about the statement " I am Madam X. I am 40 years old. I have a million dollars in my bank account". There is nothing contradictory in that statement. But I don't think just because it does not contradict with itself, you will assume that its "true".
Anyways, feel free to explain if I misunderstood what you tried to say. Oh, and have fun.
Peace
------------- Student of Allah -
Peace.
To me, people with knowledge (those who study ayats of Allah in the heavens and the earth truthfully) and people who are incline towards being truthful (in their thoughts and actions) are more likely to recognize that the Quran is from the God. When they recognize that, they shiver when ayats of the God is read/revealed upon them. Others may find it difficult to recognize Truth even when Books from heaven falls on their heads.
Historical records on events of people are far from truth. Archeological findings such as fossils/remnants of buildings/bones/remains can be considered proof/evidences of a phenomenon.
-
...No. No no no. You can't do that. Stop right there. The burden of proof is on you...
1st I did not know you were not a Muslim.
2nd You sound more like an argumentative kind of philosopher, not interested in an honest fact finding, and fruitful discussion.
3rd I rest my case.
Peace,
Khalil -
Peace sis.
Because you wrote statement like this
I think you still didn't believe of the miracle of Quran's arabic text and thats why I reply your statement like that.
Something special and divine origin? then I ask you, you reject hadith entirelly/fully or not?Do you believe on sira' of Muhammad?I won't debate you but I just want try to respond your post with my own ability
Then you must understand from where I came from.I'm an Indonesian from Javanese ethnic,so english is my fourth language.That's why maybe if I misintepreted your post, yeah I'm just ask apologize to you.
Peace brother,
Ok, I understand that English is not your first language... but please also understand that it can be quite difficult to try to find different ways to explain the same thing. If you asked me what I meant or what I believed, it would have been easier... but you kept making a counter argument. I even asked you if you could just take a look over what I said to make sure you understand. So, as a suggestion, you could have asked a question like Do you believe that the Quran is preserved? Or do you believe in the miraculous nature of the Quran's Arabic text? I mean, that's a suggestion but it would really have cleared the confusion much earlier.
I would also like to say I mentioned in that post "please read on" and I said that it is the nature and unique composition of the Quran that means that its preserved. So if I didn't make it absolutely clear to you for any reason, then I thought surely that would have given you a little inkling/idea that I do believe that Quran is preserved. I just checked one of my earlier posts and the point about preservation is what I actually said.
It was a little confusing for me as well, because you seemed to initially say that the Quran is preserved because Arabic is easy to remember. Then you seemed to be telling me the opposite.
And the reason I said the Quran is divine in origin is because (please read this carefully!) I didn't want to say the Quran is Divine - PERSONALLY, this is a PERSONAL thing (I want to make that very clear) that I only use the word Divine in relation to God. I'm not really happy saying that the Quran itself is Divine, its just doesn't seem appropriate to me. I'll also say that Divine in origin basically means it originates from God/it's a revelation from God. If you didn't know that, you could have just asked me...
In terms of the hadith issue I said ''special and divine in origin" to describe the Quran in RESPONSE to the point about Arabic being an easy language to remember. You have to place that phrase in context.
And, no, I do not follow Hadith, and I don't know why you would think I would because of that phrase... really... if you want to explain that to me, I'd be interested in knowing why you'd think that.
So Earthdom, next time (if there is a next time) it would be a LOT easier if you just ask me if you aren't sure. I don't mind answering such questions, but when I try to keep explaining, I have to admit, it gets tiring. No offense intended.
-
Salam Student of Allah
First you must know what I mean by the following concepts Internal (inner) and external (outer) contradictions.
I think it would be prudent if you can can explain what these concept are before we engage in a discussion about their relevance to the preservation of Al Quran. If you do not know what these concepts are and how they relate to reality, then it wouldn't be prudent to claim that a lack of internal and external contradictions don't prove that Al Quran has been preserved.
So here is my question to you
What are internal (inner) and external (outer) contradictions?
-
Shalom Aleikhem Khalil,
1st I did not know you were not a Muslim.
Irrelevant. One can be a Muslim or a non Muslim. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on what the person may or may not believe in or not believe in.
2nd You sound more like an argumentative kind of philosopher, not interested in an honest fact finding, and fruitful discussion.
I don't know what you mean when you say that I sound like an "argumentative kind of philosopher". So I will ignore that remark for now. However, the later part of your statement is not something I can afford to not speak about. You are asserting that I am not into honest fact finding and fruitful discussion. You claimed something as true, I simply wanted you to demonstrate that it is true. How is that dishonest? Do you not comprehend the importance of the "burden of proof"? I can claim that I am God, and when you ask for supporting evidence, should I call you a dishonest person? You can believe in whatever you want, that is none of my business. But when you state that as fact which is not evidently true, that is what I understand to be "dishonesty". I don't even know what to say, but I will leave you with a link so that you understand what the burden of proof is, who bears the burden of proof and why asking for it is not dishonesty.
-Legal Burden of Proof
-Philosophical Burden of Proof
-Scientific Burden of ProofIf I somehow hurt your feelings, then I apologize and I should let you know that I never intended to. However, if you still cannot figure out why the burden of proof is on you or why it is not dishonest to ask for evidence when you make a claim, then this conversation has no point.
Peace
----------- Student of Allah