How Authentic is the Quran?
-
"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.
-
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,