How much information from hadith do we actually use?
-
Peace Runninglikezebras
So what about that he couldn?t read and write. Do you think its another false hadith?I understand "Ummi" as gentile not as illiterate.
And what about that the Quran is without fault?
No human has produced anything like it.I don't think this is true. How to measure such a thing? There is evidence however Quran used other sources for its compilation (such as the Syriac story of Alexander the Great which perfectly matches the story in Quran about Dhul Qarnayn. The story itself is total fiction however, which should raise questions about it containing only truths).
The Bible is books collected over hundreds of years and are not Gods word entirely. But a collection of stories, prophecies, letters and so on.
The Bible is totally corrupted. And there aint such thing as an original New Testament. In this way the Quran is unique.
Nobody back then could have made it up from a Bibical background.I aint forcing you to believe. Cause thats only between you and God.
The Quran itself has a majority of biblical context. The sources for those biblical contents are even documented (Waraqa, Bahira). The Quraysh were originally located in Syria and had frequent contacts with Christians and Jews. Don't get me wrong, this is not about which book is superior to me. I'm just trying to make clear a large portion of Quran has biblical sources. What makes you think the Quran itself wasn't edited, changed and manipulated like the scriptures before it?
-
Peace runninglikezebras
I don't think this is true. How to measure such a thing? There is evidence however Quran used other sources for its compilation (such as the Syriac story of Alexander the Great which perfectly matches the story in Quran about Dhul Qarnayn. The story itself is total fiction however, which should raise questions about it containing only truths).
But the Quran doesnt say that this person are the very same as Alexander the great.
So if thats the only thing to point out it seems like that the claim stays intact.
The Quran itself has a majority of biblical context. The sources for those biblical contents are even documented (Waraqa, Bahira). The Quraysh were originally located in Syria and had frequent contacts with Christians and Jews. Don't get me wrong, this is not about which book is superior to me. I'm just trying to make clear a large portion of Quran has biblical sources. What makes you think the Quran itself wasn't edited, changed and manipulated like the scriptures before it?
Off couse the Quran has Bibical context. This is a correction of the stories in the Bible and also an eyeopener for the one who knew the previous scriptures.(5.83)
I think it wasn?t edited like the Bible since there aint any proff for that like for the Bible. And again because its without any major mistakes. -
There is a lot of evidence Quran has been modified, most likely up until the 8th century. See Sanaa psalimpsests, the work of Gerd R. Puin, the work of Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Patricia Crone and many others. It's not because you choose to remain ignorant to the evidence provided by the above that it means Quran is still original.
-
There is a lot of evidence Quran has been modified, most likely up until the 8th century. See Sanaa psalimpsests, the work of Gerd R. Puin, the work of Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Patricia Crone and many others. It's not because you choose to remain ignorant to the evidence provided by the above that it means Quran is still original.
Do you have references/links to this evidence
-
There is a lot of evidence Quran has been modified, most likely up until the 8th century. See Sanaa psalimpsests, the work of Gerd R. Puin, the work of Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Patricia Crone and many others. It's not because you choose to remain ignorant to the evidence provided by the above that it means Quran is still original.
Peace
And if the recent quranic fragment was similar to the text we have today, would this change your opinion?
Roshan
-
Peace Runninglikezebras.
There is a lot of evidence Quran has been modified, most likely up until the 8th century. See Sanaa psalimpsests, the work of Gerd R. Puin, the work of Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Patricia Crone and many others. It's not because you choose to remain ignorant to the evidence provided by the above that it means Quran is still original.
I tried to look at the works for these persons.
The first and second is about one reconstruction of some hidden manuscript. In my view is very weak to rely on that reconstruction. What was it in the first place. And what was it used for. In the comparing it look like there are some lacks in the reconstruction which could indicate that the work wasn?t complete
The third is about Alexander the great. That one we have discussed. So also no point.
The fourth is some work about the hadits as I see it. here I think I could agree with you.you seems like someone with knowledge.
If you really have some valid claims why dont you argue for them then? -
The research on the Sanaa psalimpsests is still ongoing. I often feel there is no point in debating this a lot. The majority here is convinced the Quran is some divine scripture, sent down from heaven by an angel. Rational arguments often fail to convince those who have taken that leap of faith.
The most convincing text manipulation is the adding of "and the nazarenes" to the polemic aimed at the rabbinical jews. The text manipulation can be detected by the breaking of the rythm (cantillation) of the verses. Next to it, it renders the quran to contradiction. In one verse it claims the Nazarenes are most closely related to the believers, on the other hand it forbids the believers to take Nazarenes (together with Jews) as allies and pictures them as enemies.
There is the change to "?ar-r al-qudus? dropping the "al" to make it fit the later discourse of revelation by Gabriel, whereas with the "al" it can only denote the christian concept of "the Holy Ghost". This text manipulation is linked to late introduction of the myth of the night journey.
Changes to Q 289 and Q 2101 to again, grant divine origins to Quran and the Rasul.
Compare
http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses_files/1muhammed_ila_rasul.gif (From verse 144, Sura 3 in folio 6v (Paris BNF arabe 328a)
vs
http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses_files/2muhammed_ila_rasul.png (From the Samarkand folio)
All of these are documented at http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm by EM Gallez.
There are many other examples. I'm not a scholar, these topics are actively being researched by academics way more knowledgeable than I am. They not only document these differences but also explain the motives for those manipulations.
@Roshan if you are referring to the 2 pages of the birmingham quran of which only the parchment has been carbon dated, it hasn't changed my opinion.
-
Do you have references/links to this evidence
A lot of it is documented in the translation of Olaf's book "the great secret of Islam" which I translated here.
-
I'm not a Quran aloner or a Quran worshiper.
Thus I don't see anything wrong of "using information from Hadith (or any other sources)".What's wrong is
Using it (or the Quran for that matter) as an absolute evidence, bypassing common sense, facts and empirical / observable evidence.This is known as "ad verecundiam" or "appeal to authority" fallacy.
A says P
A is HOLY
Therefore, P is correct.Example
The Hadith says you must push Jews to the narrowest part of the road as they're accursed people.
Hadith is holy.
Therefore, we must push the Jews to the narrowest part of the road as they're accursed people.Because the Hadith did said so, we can more correctly deduce that
The Hadith says you must push the Jews to the narrowest part of the road as they're accursed people.
The Hadith was written around 7th or 8th century in middle east.
There is an anti-jewish sentiment growing in Middle East around 7th or 8th century. -
Peace runninglikezebras
The research on the Sanaa psalimpsests is still ongoing. I often feel there is no point in debating this a lot. The majority here is convinced the Quran is some divine scripture, sent down from heaven by an angel. Rational arguments often fail to convince those who have taken that leap of faith.
But how can you have so much faith in something that isn?t finished. In my eyes it look like speculation. Or they failed to reconstruct correct.
Dont you find it peculiarly that its so hard to find even a small thing to point at the Quran. And nobody had come up with something so far.