Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran" Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 17 Next >>
Author Message
Larry
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 632
Quote Larry Replybullet Posted: 03 October 2011 at 9:42pm
islamispeace,

   You state; "The codex (Hafsah's original compilation) was well known in the Islamic world, so if there were any differences, they would have been well known as well."

   You continue; "Yet, we find not one iota of evidence to suggest any differences between the Hafsah codex and Uthmanic writ."

   You quote Marwan; "I only did this (destroy Hafsah's original compilation) because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to these folios."

   Evidently, according to your statement, Marwan should have known well that Hafsah's codex was identical to Uthman's, but evidently, for some reason, he did not. The "reason" he gives for his destruction of the codex is ridiculous and absurd. If Hafsah's codex could be used to "foster doubt" then so would Uthman's IDENTICAL standardized Qur'an.

   This is your proof?

   I do agree with you on one point that you made, "mindless repitition is not evidence."

Larry

Edited by Larry - 03 October 2011 at 10:02pm
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2089
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 04 October 2011 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   You state; "The codex (Hafsah's original compilation) was well known in the Islamic world, so if there were any differences, they would have been well known as well."

   You continue; "Yet, we find not one iota of evidence to suggest any differences between the Hafsah codex and Uthmanic writ."

   You quote Marwan; "I only did this (destroy Hafsah's original compilation) because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to these folios."

   Evidently, according to your statement, Marwan should have known well that Hafsah's codex was identical to Uthman's, but evidently, for some reason, he did not. The "reason" he gives for his destruction of the codex is ridiculous and absurd. If Hafsah's codex could be used to "foster doubt" then so would Uthman's IDENTICAL standardized Qur'an.

   This is your proof?

   I do agree with you on one point that you made, "mindless repitition is not evidence."

Larry


LOL Larry, this isn't rocket science.  I will go over this with you one more time, step by step, from the very start.  After this, you are on your own with your crackpot theories.

1.  Abu Bakr (ra) had the first copy of the Qur'an compiled.  This copy was not like the standardized text of Uthman (ra), which was based on one reading style.  There were different reading styles because it was not until Uthman's decree that the Qur'an was standardized into one reading.  This copy was also not arranged the same way as Uthman's copy was.  The surahs were not arranged in order.  The text was the same, but there were differences in reading, which were all valid.   

2.  The Uthmanic writ was compiled into one reading style (qira'at), but incorporated the seven accepted dialectical styles (ahruf).  When Uthman ordered the committee led by Zayd ibn Thabit to make a master copy using Abu Bakr's copy as the template, he told them the following:

"If you and Zayd differ anywhere in the Quran write it in the language of the Quraysh because the Quran has been revealed in their language."


This shows that Abu Bakr's copy was not based on one reading style whereas Uthman's decree called for one such style. 

3.  When the project was finished, Uthman (ra) returned the copy to Hafsah (ra), who kept it until her death.  The reason it was returned to her is because Uthman promised her so.  There is no doubt that Hafsah (ra) did not wish to part with this copy, but it was not because it contained a "different" Qur'an.  It was the same Qur'an, just not in the same order or in the one standardized reading style.  That is why Marwan decided to have it destroyed because he feared ignorant people would create disagreements, much like the people in Iraq whose disagreements led to Uthman's committee being formed in the first place. 

4.  When Marwan did this, he was not met with any resistance or rebellion by anyone. 

5.  It also needs to be pointed out that Marwan was the one who led the funerary prayers for Hafsah!  Had there been any cover-up, do you think he would have been allowed to pray at her funeral?  I think not. 

So there you go.  I can't make it any easier to understand.  After this, if you are still confused, that is your problem.  You have no evidence for any of your crackpot theories.  All you can do is make stuff up or ask asinine questions like "what was Marwan hiding?".  Quite typical of a conspiracy theorist or perhaps more like one of those nuts who sees a ripple in the waters of Loch Ness and thinks he saw the Loch Ness monster!  Are you seeing ripples in the established history?  Is Marwan your Loch Ness monster?  Big%20smile

Also, you completely ignored the ample archaeological evidence I gave of the Qur'an's preservation, even though you were the one asked for it.  I gave you the evidence even though the burden of proof is on those who say the Qur'an has been altered...but that is only because I am such a nice guy!  LOL       


Edited by islamispeace - 04 October 2011 at 3:23pm
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 04 October 2011 at 3:41pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
The only point at which you can claim that the Holy Qur'an is pure is from Uthman's rewriting of the Holy Qur'an.  The fact is, he did rewrite the Holy Qur'an and the evidence is from your very mouth, he had reasons for doing it, but in the process, he destroyed the orriginal copies from eye witnesses.  Regardless as to the reasons he claims to justify his actions, Muhammad authorized other individuals and not Uthman to write down the Surah's.  So we have an unauthorized man gathering up the orriginals, making his own writing, then destroying the orriginals to destroy the possibility that other intelligent individuals might disagree with him or critique him.  As a Christian whose tradition did not compile the 4 authentic Gosepls then destroy the orriginals, I have to say that I do not trust the process used by Uthman.  Uthman got what he wanted, absolute loyalty from all Muslims for all time to one Qur'an.   But that one Qura'n cannot be absolutely prooven to be accurate because the orriginal source material has been destroyed.  One can say that since the Holy Qur'an contradicts the Torah and the Holy Bible, one must question its accuracy to the truth.  Uthman's actions did not help the cause of Muhammad in this respect accept to claim that now all of Islam must struggle endlessly to prove that the Holy Bible and the Torah are corrupt.  The only people who buy this Muslim claim about the Holy Bible and Torah are believers who don't really know their faith or their Holy books.  Uthman in solving one potential problem has created another and endless problem that one day may destroy all that Muhammad was trying to accomplish.
 
No, Larry is not presenting a laughable challange to your orriginal post, and you do yourself and your assertion a disservice by laughing at him or describing his common sense and intelligent questions/challenges with disrespectful adjectives.  Consider your posts a little more carefully, my friend IslamisPeace.
 
Allah bless you,
 
Jack Catholic
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2089
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 05 October 2011 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IslamisPeace,
 
The only point at which you can claim that the Holy Qur'an is pure is from Uthman's rewriting of the Holy Qur'an.  The fact is, he did rewrite the Holy Qur'an and the evidence is from your very mouth, he had reasons for doing it, but in the process, he destroyed the orriginal copies from eye witnesses.  Regardless as to the reasons he claims to justify his actions, Muhammad authorized other individuals and not Uthman to write down the Surah's.  So we have an unauthorized man gathering up the orriginals, making his own writing, then destroying the orriginals to destroy the possibility that other intelligent individuals might disagree with him or critique him.  As a Christian whose tradition did not compile the 4 authentic Gosepls then destroy the orriginals, I have to say that I do not trust the process used by Uthman.  Uthman got what he wanted, absolute loyalty from all Muslims for all time to one Qur'an.   But that one Qura'n cannot be absolutely prooven to be accurate because the orriginal source material has been destroyed.  One can say that since the Holy Qur'an contradicts the Torah and the Holy Bible, one must question its accuracy to the truth.  Uthman's actions did not help the cause of Muhammad in this respect accept to claim that now all of Islam must struggle endlessly to prove that the Holy Bible and the Torah are corrupt.  The only people who buy this Muslim claim about the Holy Bible and Torah are believers who don't really know their faith or their Holy books.  Uthman in solving one potential problem has created another and endless problem that one day may destroy all that Muhammad was trying to accomplish.
 
No, Larry is not presenting a laughable challange to your orriginal post, and you do yourself and your assertion a disservice by laughing at him or describing his common sense and intelligent questions/challenges with disrespectful adjectives.  Consider your posts a little more carefully, my friend IslamisPeace.
 
Allah bless you,
 
Jack Catholic


Jack, I am sitll waiting for you to answer my question regarding the credibility of the "Harvard House" guy and why you did not question his/her authority but did for an actual scholar. 

Your latest post is typical of you.  You resort to playing the "papa bear" routine where you try to lecture others and also repeat the same worn-out argument again and again.  Furthermore, you also resorted to a straw man argument by putting words in my mouth again.  For instance, you said:

Originally posted by Jack

The fact is, he did rewrite the Holy Qur'an and the evidence is from your very mouth
 

Not only is this a laughable statement (yes I am laughing at you, so you can take that any way you want), but you also made a claim against me which you cannot back up.  Where did I suggest that Uthman "rewrote" the Qur'an?  Are you so desperate to justify your own biased and a priori beliefs and to "prove" that the Qur'an has been "rewritten", that you have to put words in my mouth?  Bravo! Clap

No, the fact is not that Uthman "rewrote" the Qur'an.  The fact is that people like you and Larry said bye-bye to objectivity a long time ago.  You may think you can do a Google search and find some article written by an anonymous buffoon and present that as "evidence", and at the same time, reject (without any objective reason) the facts presented by actual scholars, but you would be greatly mistaken.     

Originally posted by Jack

he had reasons for doing it, but in the process, he destroyed the orriginal copies from eye witnesses.


...From "eye witnesses" you say?  The fact is, dear, that Uthman was not the one in charge of the committee to make an official copy.  That was left to Zayd ibn Thabit and three others.  So you see, there were eye witnesses who would have seen the copies.  Furthermore, the contents of those "original" copies have been preserved in the writings of the scholars of Islam and we find that the so-called "variants" are actually due to different styles of reading (qira'at) which do not change the meaning of the text.  People like you and Larry have no response to these facts.  Therefore, your only hope to "prove" your arguments is to make wild claims based purely on assumptions. 

Originally posted by Jack

Regardless as to the reasons he claims to justify his actions, Muhammad authorized other individuals and not Uthman to write down the Surah's.


Wrong.  There were many individuals, including Uthman, who were authorized to write down the Qur'an.  I have already dealt with this matter.  Go back to my response to "Harvard House" and stop repeating the same nonsense. 

Originally posted by Jack

So we have an unauthorized man gathering up the orriginals, making his own writing, then destroying the orriginals to destroy the possibility that other intelligent individuals might disagree with him or critique him.


LOL This is more nonsense which I have already refuted.  You have presented no proof for any of your claims nor are you an expert on the Qur'an's history.  Talk about being an "unauthorized man"!  

See, the problem is that ignoramuses such as yourself (sorry, it is the truth and the truth does hurt sometimes Wink) do not understand the difference between actual "versions" (as there are with the Bible) and "readings" (as there are with the Qur'an due to the intricacies of the Arabic language).  The former actually changed the meaning of the text whereas the latter did not. 

Originally posted by Jack

As a Christian whose tradition did not compile the 4 authentic Gosepls then destroy the orriginals, I have to say that I do not trust the process used by Uthman./Quote]

Oh woe is us!  Jack does not "trust the process used by Uthman"!  Let me clue you in on a little something Jack.  No one cares what a lay person such as yourself thinks about this matter.  I have supported my position with scholarly references.  You, on the other hand, have supported your claims with nothing more than your own preconceived notions and the ramblings of a pseudo-scholar.  As I asked Larry, which side do you think carries more weight?    

By the way, since you decided to bring the Gospels into this, the fact is that Christians simply edited the Gospels to their own liking so whether they actually burned any books or not is irrelevant.  For example, the Roman philosopher Celsus said the following about Christians and the repeated changes they made to the Bible:

"Certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Christians make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ’s life; hoping to spare individuals, and to expound the prophecies themselves, I admit the plausibility of the Christian interpretation of them. Nevertheless the use which they make of them may be overturned. One ought not hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds. The prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus." (Contra Celsus)

And even Origen lamented what he observed as scribal changes to the text:

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please" (Ehrman, p. 52).

The evidence for the corruption of the Christian Bible is undeniable.  On the other hand, no evidence exists to prove that the Qur'an has also suffered the same. 

Originally posted by Jack

Uthman got what he wanted, absolute loyalty from all Muslims for all time to one Qur'an.   But that one Qura'n cannot be absolutely prooven to be accurate because the orriginal source material has been destroyed.


Um, one would think that if he got "absolute loyalty from all Muslims..." then the idea of deliberate or even accidental alterations would be non-existent.  How could he have received this unanimous loyalty if changes were made?  Second, the fail-safe to protect the Qur'an from any changes, deliberate or otherwise, is the widespread memorization of it.  Third, we have plenty of archaeological evidence, which I have already provided, which proves that the Qur'an is the same now as it was in 1st century of the Islamic calendar. 

Originally posted by Jack

One can say that since the Holy Qur'an contradicts the Torah and the Holy Bible, one must question its accuracy to the truth.


Ahah!  This statement illustrates the only reason you cannot accept the facts about the Qur'an's preservation!  The reason is that to do so would jeopardize your faith.  Thank you for finally showing your true colors.  I am sure you did not intend to do so, but that's life.  You have no interest in objective discussion.  You had already made up your mind before this discussion even began! 

And by the way, one can also say that since the NT clearly contradicts the Tanakh in several places, "one must question its accuracy to the truth".  Of course, that in itself would not prove that the NT has been corrupted.  To prove that would require archaeological and historical evidence (some of which I presented above). 

Originally posted by Jack

Uthman's actions did not help the cause of Muhammad in this respect accept to claim that now all of Islam must struggle endlessly to prove that the Holy Bible and the Torah are corrupt.


Actually, non-Muslim scholars have already done that for us!  LOL  So don't blame the Muslims!

Originally posted by Jack

The only people who buy this Muslim claim about the Holy Bible and Torah are believers who don't really know their faith or their Holy books. 


Well, that's just because they follow their God-given reason instead of blind faith.   

[Quote=Jack]Uthman in solving one potential problem has created another and endless problem that one day may destroy all that Muhammad was trying to accomplish.
 

LOL Yes, I am sure that fantasy occurs in your mind all the time.  But don't worry, Jack!  What the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) accomplished will never go away.  You may wish it will but you will be disappointed, inshaAllah. 

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 05 October 2011 at 12:39pm
Jack/Larry,
here is the bottom line:
We, the Muslims can point to the two copies of the Quran present with us today in Museums, written fourteen hundred years ago be the same as what every Muslim have today in their homes. Too bad Christians cannot make such a claim about their book.
4:82 (Y. Ali) Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
Hasan


Edited by honeto - 05 October 2011 at 12:41pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 05 October 2011 at 2:37pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
You talk big talk for just being you.  I challange you to put your words into action.  You claim that the Holy Qur'an was not rewritten by Uthman.  Provide a Surah from each of the four Qur'ans that Uthman burned, and place them side by side with the Qur'an that Uthman put together to prove that they are the same accept for the wording choice.  Enough explaining and asserting and give exact evidence.  And stop your low-life disrespect toward others.  Cough up the evidence, buddy.  Let's have it out... on the table!Big%20smile
 
God bless you now and always, my friend, in all you say and do and may the love of God fill your life and soul, Amen.
 
Jack Catholic
IP IP Logged
Larry
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 632
Quote Larry Replybullet Posted: 05 October 2011 at 2:55pm
islamispeace,

   "Abu Bakr (ra) had the first copy of the Qur'an compiled. This copy was NOT like the standardized text of Uthman (ra) which was based on one reading style. There were different reading styles because it was not until Uthman's decree that the Qur'an was STANDARDIZED into ONE READING. This copy was not arranged the same way as Uthman's copy was. The surahs were not arranged in order. THE TEXT WAS THE SAME, BUT THERE WERE DIFFERENCES IN READING, WHICH WERE ALL VALID."

   So, why change God's revelations in seven dialects if they were all VALID? Because unless the readings themselves were not exactly the same there would be no need to change them into one dialect.

   Then you state, "If you and Zayd DIFFER anywhere in the Qur'an write it in the language of the Quraysh because the Qur'an has been revealed in THEIR LANGUAGE.

   But, according to you, the Qur'an was NOT revealed in only one dialect, that of the Quryash.

   All these doubts, rewritings and post-revelation changes in reading style are not exactly the definition of a PURE AND HOLY BOOK UNCHANGED FROM THE WAY IT WAS REVEALED TO MUHAMMAD BY GOD THROUGH THE ANGEL GABRIEL.

   And, why would it be neccessary to destroy all the Qur'ans that differed in writing style since they were all VALID? Because they read differently in each case?

   Like I said, all this is a little too slick. Language is good, merely different dialects, dialects changed because they might cause confusion by seven variant readings, Change the seven dialectical styles into only one of those dialects, that of the Quraysh, and then burn all Qur'ans that differed, for any reason, from Uthman's standardized and authorized Qur'an.

    Like I said before, it is of no concern to me because I do not believe that the Qur'an is from God at all, at least not from the God that I worship, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all Jewish Patriarchs named in the Torah or Old Testament millenia before Muhammad even existed.

   It always amazes me that Islam basically hijacked the Jewish (and Christian) religion, changed it, and then accused the Jews and Christians of "corrupting" the Word of God. In fact, in more than one place in the Qur'an, God calls the Children of Israel his "chosen" people. God makes the same statement exactly in the Old Testament more than a thousand years before Muhammad and Islam.

   Between the Old Testament, New Testament and the Qur'an, the Qur'an is the only book that differs in significant and profound detail from the Old and New Testaments.

   I think this subject is about beaten to death and no one is going to change their views. I really don't want to go on and on with this endless argument.

   Believe whatever you want to believe.

Larry



Edited by Larry - 05 October 2011 at 2:59pm
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 05 October 2011 at 10:00pm
Dear Hassan,
 
You said, "We, the Muslims can point to the two copies of the Quran present with us today in Museums, written fourteen hundred years ago be the same as what every Muslim have today in their homes. Too bad Christians cannot make such a claim about their book."
 
I am hereby going on record to make such a claim.  We, the Christians, can point to the Holy Bible and know that it is the same as that written by the hand of its authors 2000+ years ago.  Modern scholars have verified at least 99% of all words in it as authentic, and are working on the remaining 1% as we speak.  Our four Gospels have not been compiled and the orriginals burned.  We have most exactly the orriginal words of the authors who were eye witnesses and companions of Jesus, as well as those who gathered up the stories of other eye witnesses.  Can Islam make such a claim?
 
May Allah bless you,
 
Jack Catholic
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 17 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com