Compilation of the Quran
-
Premise
There exists within the Islamic community a major fallacy which has been circulating amongst the public in regards to Muslim Scripture, al-Qur'an. The fallacy relates to the supposed textual preservation of the Qur'anic text, and the notion that the Qur'an remains virtually intact, without additions or deletions, without any variant readings which would call into question the integrity of the Muslim text.
This fallacious argument, unfortunately, has convinced many lay people to believe that whereas the Bible has suffered textual corruption, the Qur'an is free from such tampering. It is thus claimed that based on this fact the Qur'an is rendered superior and is a more reliable document than the Holy Bible.
However, a close examination of the historical references regarding the compilation of the Qur'an, demonstrates that the weight of the evidence does not support the Muslim claims. On the contrary, the evidence tends to support the fact that the Qur'an has suffered much in the way of transmission.
Let's examine the REAL TRUTH of the QUR'AN......http//abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/compilation%20of%20the%20quran.html
-
Let's examine the REAL TRUTH of the QUR'AN......http//abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/compilation%20of%20the%20quran.html
That article is absolutely illogical, very biased.
Why?
Because it blindly believes that all the hadith it qouted was "REAL TRUTH", so the QURAN was not preserved.
I do understand that the Quran is indeed not preserved character by character, and it didn't claim that it would be preserved character by character. Let's see what it claimed, in 159 - the rememberance. The Quran contains the rememberance 381 - it is not the rememberance itself.
Yes, this is often misunderstood as you say. But it's message as a whole is still the same across the different versions/transmissions that differ very less, even after thousand of years. See http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/WhichQuran.pdf
If that article or the nonsense hadith it qouted were true, then things such as in http//www.free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/koran.htm could not happen. Now after you see those clear signs and then you see that this "book" that has very little differences and great signs in it says something like
7517 It is for Us to gather it into a compilation.
7518 So when We compile it, you shall follow its compilation.(Yes, in the quran, these occurance of "We" refer to God, see its use in 5147. "We" is also used in other languages for the king speaking of himself to show greatness. Therefore, this book states that God compiled it.)
Then what has more weight about the truth of its compilation
-The way this book (quran) says about how it was compiled.
OR
-Those hadith books which don't even have any great signs and even full of contradictions.
What has more wieght?
Let's be sincere. Let's be unbiased.
May God Guide.
-
All hearsay sources. When they bring physical evidence of pieces of the Quran being removed, then they will have a point.
"The dog ate it" never cut it when I ever failed to do schoolwork, why should "the goat ate it" cut it when it comes to the deen? Be serious...
What makes a goat(PBUH) more reliable than a dog?
-
"The dog ate it" never cut it when I ever failed to do schoolwork, why should "the goat ate it" cut it when it comes to the deen?
It seems there were quite a few "beasts" involved. ohttp//portal.unesco.org/ci/photos/showphoto.php/photo/1257
http//portal.unesco.org/ci/photos/showphoto.php/photo/3449
http//portal.unesco.org/ci/photos/showphoto.php/photo/3450
http//portal.unesco.org/ci/photos/showphoto.php/photo/3451
http//portal.unesco.org/ci/photos/showphoto.php/photo/3456
What makes a goat(PBUH) more reliable than a dog?
The answer in your question (PBUH). rotfl -
I'd like to see actual evidence that parchment was handled by goats, thank you very much
The answer in your question (PBUH).
If the hadeeth are true, there is nothing wrong with declaring that, since the goat would be a messenger of negative information.
-
I'd like to see actual evidence that parchment was handled by goats, thank you very much
Well, in that case I'd like to see the actual evidence that it was a fathomless God named "Allah" who revealed the Quran to Muhammad? I'd also like to see the actual evidence of how it was revealed since the Quran has conflicting views? hmmIf the hadeeth are true, there is nothing wrong with declaring that, since the goat would be a messenger of negative information.
Ahadith, manuscripts, archeological findings, other holy books and ancient history are all important pieces of collective information in exegetical and epistemological renderings. -
Well, in that case I'd like to see the actual evidence that it was a fathomless God named "Allah" who revealed the Quran to Muhammad? D I'd also like to see the actual evidence of how it was revealed since the Quran has conflicting views? hmm
Ahadith, manuscripts, archeological findings, other holy books and ancient history are all important pieces of collective information in exegetical and epistemological renderings.
A) Can't put a name on god
B) Hearsay and conjecture is useless.
-
A) Can't put a name on god
Can't put attributes either. But regardless, bring the evidence requested without dodging.B) Hearsay and conjecture is useless.
I bet it is unless you bring forth the evidence as requested. -
Having looked at the site, basically I will conclude that it is done by some amateur who does not even know the basic difference between TEXT and READING (pronounciation or recitation style). Whoever did this site obviously did not post any images of ancient manuscripts which have a completely different text than what we presently have as the Holy Quran, but relied on ahadeeth which are not even dealing with the text of the Quran but with its various modes of recitation.
The only good argument he makes regarding the text is sourced by some "Burton" and he gives no authentic Islamic sources for that argument. When he does quote Sahih Bukhari, etc., he presents facts Muslims already know and have nothing to do with preservation of the text.
-
Whoever did this site obviously did not post any images of ancient manuscripts which have a completely different text than what we presently have as the Holy Quran, but relied on ahadeeth which are not even dealing with the text of the Quran but with its various modes of recitation.
If they are not images of ancient manuscripts then what are they? The present Quran is obviously not the same. Do you think the Kaba and its entire area present today was exactly what it used to be 1400 years ago?"The only good argument he makes regarding the text is sourced by some "Burton" and he gives no authentic Islamic sources for that argument. When he does quote Sahih Bukhari, etc., he presents facts Muslims already know and have nothing to do with preservation of the text.
The dig at the Great Mosque in San?a', Yemen, had found a large number of manuscripts of the Qur'an dating from first century of hijra. The date of building the Great Mosque in San?a' goes back to 6th year of hijra when the Prophet Muhammad entrusted one of his companions to build a mosque. The mosque was extended and enlarged by Islamic rulers from time to time. In 1385 H/1965 CE heavy rains fell on San?a'. The Great Mosque was affected and the ceiling in the north west corner was damaged. During the survey, the workers discovered a large vault full of parchment and paper manuscripts of both the Qur'an and non-Qur'anic material." http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/COPIES OF THE QUR'AN FROM THE ORIGINAL
During the time of Othman, the third Caliph, Islam spread fast and many companions moved out of Arabia. Amongst the many countries and provinces that accepted Islam were Syria and Iraq, but their language was not Arabic. One of Prophet's companions, Hothaifah-ibn el-Yaman, during his visit to Syria and Iraq learnt that people were reciting the Qur'an in different modes or style. This disturbed him very much and upon his return, he requested Othman to reproduce and distribute copies of the Qur'an that would help Muslims read or recite the Qur'an in a single consistent manner to avoid any conflict. http//www.talkislam.com/ecard/gbrowse.php?cat_id=41http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_R._Puin
http//answering-christianity.com/karim/mosque_of_sanaa.htm
-
You have only proved my point Genteel, and the Sana manuscripts are a testament to the textual integrity and preservation of the Holy Quran.
Do you think the Kaba and its entire area present today was exactly what it used to be 1400 years ago?
Excluding the modern hotels and facilities added by the Saudi govt, what reason should I not believe it is the same place as 1400 years ago.
-
You have only proved my point Genteel, and the Sana manuscripts are a testament to the textual integrity and preservation of the Holy Quran.
Excellent! Then it stands correct that some (figurative) as seen in those images and reproduced by others long after the death of Muhammad. No wonder the Quran that we have today has remarkedly distinguished complications of all sorts. Besides, it also proves that the alleged "god" could not preserve it in its original form and forced humans to innovate his words further. ???Excluding the modern hotels and facilities added by the Saudi govt, what reason should I not believe it is the same place as 1400 years ago.
Your reason is not based upon opnion. Hotels and facilities are not the only stuff added. Everything that resides today in that loaction has been totally and overly dramatized, including the Kaba inside out. Read history, do some research and study. I wasn't talking about its precise point of location, but perhaps that too is questionable. -
Excellent! Then it stands correct that some (figurative) as seen in those images and reproduced by others long after the death of Muhammad. No wonder the Quran that we have today has remarkedly distinguished complications of all sorts. Besides, it also proves that the alleged "god" could not preserve it in its original form and forced humans to innovate his words further.
You have no proof whatsoever, all you have is your wishful thinking. The proof on the other hand lies with us, and Islamic awareness is an excellent site with images of early Quranic manuscripts and fragments dating as early as the 1st century A.H., and possibly even the lifetime of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) himself. No other religious scripture has such historical evidence and proof of its complete authenticity and preservation, especially not the bible.
Everything that resides today in that loaction has been totally and overly dramatized. Read history, do some research and study.
It's easy to say get educated, do research, learn, etc., but here if you make these kinds of assertions than I think you should give some evidence for it.
-
Can't put attributes either. But regardless, bring the evidence requested without dodging.
I bet it is unless you bring forth the evidence as requested.Yes, I'll just prove God exists here and now in a single forum post. brickwall
-
You have no proof whatsoever, all you have is your wishful thinking. The proof on the other hand lies with us, and Islamic awareness is an excellent site with images of early Quranic manuscripts and fragments dating as early as the 1st century A.H., and possibly even the lifetime of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) himself. No other religious scripture has such historical evidence and proof of its complete authenticity and preservation, especially not the bible.
The wishful thinking comes from the delusional concept of an unperceivable and fathomless god that the religionist (and most ardently the Muslims) have vehemently and deliberately shed attributes upon and you claim that you have every proof. elektro You can't even answer my questions previously requested barefaced but run around diverting attention to something else. OPF is the best example.Anything and everything ever claimed against Quran becomes involuntarily and unimaginably twisted in YOUR favour just to claim its alleged integrity and superiority over all others and most fashionably amongst yourselves. And you call that proof when the "beasts" ate the verses and an almighty god couldn't "preserved" it, yet claim otherwise and magically an ancient man-made book becomes Allah's words. This is the height of lunacy and the key term is "circumambulating in extreme denial" with or without the Kaba. Its either the Quran or Quran + Kaba. Sorry mate.
It's easy to say get educated, do research, learn, etc., but here if you make these kinds of assertions than I think you should give some evidence for it.
Don't expect people to hold your finger at every step. Do your own research when needed most, then you have grounds to counter. -
Yes, I'll just prove God exists here and now in a single forum post. brickwall
rotfl -
and possibly even the lifetime of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) himself. No other religious scripture has such historical evidence and proof of its complete authenticity and preservation, especially not the bible.
So you do believe in conjectures and hearsies as deemed useless by your rival (OPF). voodooB) Hearsay and conjecture is useless.
-
So you do believe in conjectures and hearsies as deemed useless by your rival (OPF).
OPF believes in the Holy Quran only and rejects the vastly useful corpus of ahadith which is essential for understanding the historical dimension of Islam among other things.
-
OPF believes in the Holy Quran only and rejects the vastly useful corpus of ahadith which is essential for understanding the historical dimension of Islam among other things.
Though I would agree with you here but not wholly since ahadith and Quran are not the only sources in understanding the Islamic historical dimensions. On the contrary, all Quran alone groups would disagree with you here to the extent of mocking each other and throwing tempertantrums from the Quran, just like all Muslim sectarians would do to a non-Muslim as well.