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: Quran Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 8 Next >>
Author Message
Experiential
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 23 November 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Quote Experiential Replybullet Posted: 02 March 2013 at 3:18pm

The motives of Dr Puin and Christoph Luxenberg are obvious. They are academic scholars. Dr Puin is a scholar of historical orthography, and a specialist in Arabic paleography.  And Christoph Luxenberg is an academic linguist specializing in Semitic languages. Their motives are scholarly. Not to undermine your religion. Muslim inability to respond intelligently to the facts undermines your religion.

Your response that their hidden agenda is, to question the authenticity of the Quran is typical Muslim paranoia, closed mindedness and evasion.

 

The facts speak for themselves. Please respond to the facts. -

How do you explain that the Koran found in 1972 in Yemen (which is the oldest Koran in existence) differs significantly from your present standard one?

 

How do you explain that this Yemen Koran showed versions of text written over even earlier washed off versions?

 

If it is true that Allah had guaranteed in the Quran that no one will ever be able to "distort, pervert, revise, modify and correct" then you need to explain the facts revealed from the analysis of the Sanaa Yemen Quaran.

 

You say “you will not find any Muslim sources that says the Quran is not the word of God.”  So what is the agenda of these Muslim sources ?

It is to support Islam rather than to look at the facts in an intelligent academic way.

Besides what Muslim in their right mind would criticize the Quran without risking a fatwa of apostasy and a death sentence.

 

You say you can quote many non-Muslim sources that acknowledged that the Bible is not a word of God.  I welcome truth so please go ahead and quote the many non-Muslim sources that acknowledge the Bible is not the word of God.

I’ve heard many of them before, many posted here on this discussion forum.

Muslims on this forum are quick to criticize the Bible. But when their own Quran is criticized Muslims can’t handle it. They tend to become defensive, and closed minded to argument, with no real intelligent reply to the good points being made. I welcome your response to the points above about the historical evolution of the Quran.

 

I pray that God may guide you on paths of wisdom.

  

IP IP Logged
Mahdi The Seeke
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 260
Quote Mahdi The Seeke Replybullet Posted: 04 March 2013 at 11:26am
Originally posted by Experiential

<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">How do you know they have a hidden agenda when you know nothing about them?


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </o:p>


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">If you want proof – here it is. In 1972 a Koran was found in Sanaa <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Yemen</st1:place></st1:country-region> that is the oldest Koran in existence. This Koran differs significantly from the present standard one.


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">The Sanaa Koran showed versions of text written over even earlier washed off versions.


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><o:p><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </o:p>


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">These differences show the Koran has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected. Textual alterations have taken place over the years by human hands.


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><o:p><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </o:p>


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">It also shows the claim in the Koran that nobody can alter the words of God is not true.


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><o:p><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </o:p>


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" =Msonormal><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">Its funny you say that “scholars are only special to illiterate people who cannot read for themselves,” when most of the Muslim world do not even know Arabic to read the Koran for themselves.

anybody who says Another Koran scholar by the name of Dr Gerd R Puin states -
“… the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself.”
is obviously intellectually dishonest. do not follow anything just because it is what you want to believe, find out if it is the truth first.
IP IP Logged
Caringheart
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2012
Online Status: Online
Posts: 1654
Quote Caringheart Replybullet Posted: 04 March 2013 at 9:42pm
"Please respond to the facts. "
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
IP IP Logged
Experiential
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 23 November 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Quote Experiential Replybullet Posted: 05 March 2013 at 1:57am

That sounds funny coming from you Mahdi. You are of all people are quick to pass judgment on the Bible and wanting to believe what you want to believe.

 

Here are the facts again -

 

 

  1. The Koran found in 1972 in Yemen (which is the oldest Koran in existence) differs significantly from your present standard one.

 

  1. This Yemen Koran showed versions of text written over even earlier washed off versions?

 

  1. No Muslim in their right mind would criticize the Quran without risking a fatwa of blasphemy / apostasy and a possible death sentence.

 

Once again. Why don’t you address the facts provided, or can you not?



Edited by Experiential - 05 March 2013 at 2:18pm
IP IP Logged
Mahdi The Seeke
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 260
Quote Mahdi The Seeke Replybullet Posted: 06 March 2013 at 11:17am
Originally posted by Experiential

<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" ="Msonormal"><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">That sounds funny coming from you Mahdi. You are of all people are quick to pass judgment on the Bible and wanting to believe what you want to believe.


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" ="Msonormal"><?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><O:P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </O:P>


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" ="Msonormal"><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">Here are the facts again -


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" ="Msonormal"><O:P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </O:P>


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" ="Msonormal"><O:P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </O:P>


<OL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" ="1">
<LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" ="Msonormal"><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">The Koran found in 1972 in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN w:st="on"><ST1:PLACE w:st="on">Yemen</ST1:PLACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN> (which is the oldest Koran in existence) differs significantly from your present standard one.
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" ="Msonormal"><O:P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </O:P>


<OL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" start=2 ="1">
<LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" ="Msonormal"><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">This Yemen Koran showed versions of text written over even earlier washed off versions?
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" ="Msonormal"><O:P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </O:P>


<OL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" start=3 ="1">
<LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" ="Msonormal"><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">No Muslim in their right mind would criticize the Quran without risking a fatwa of blasphemy / apostasy and a possible death sentence.
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" ="Msonormal"> 


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" ="Msonormal"><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">Once again. Why don’t you address the facts provided, or can you not?

any unsupervised person can write whatever they want in any place. we rely only on authoritative accounts. whatever was written on the papers earlier could be anything .did those 'scholars' analyse the underlying texts? what exactly are the differences between the texts in yemen and today's Quran?
IP IP Logged
nospam001
Male Agnostic
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 October 2012
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150
Quote nospam001 Replybullet Posted: 07 March 2013 at 7:33pm
There were variants of the Qur'an in circulation prior to the canonised revision of 'Uthmān ibn 'Affān. This fact is not contested by Muslim scholars, but neither is it seen as any reason to question the mass burning of all that was deemed unreliable. To the contrary, this irreversible act of quality assurance is now called 'world's best practice' and serves as ultimate proof - supposing any proof were needed - that the surviving edition must therefore be free from human error.
Pinch
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.
IP IP Logged
Experiential
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 23 November 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Quote Experiential Replybullet Posted: 10 March 2013 at 10:38pm

Mahdi Said

any unsupervised person can write whatever they want in any place. we rely only on authoritative accounts. whatever was written on the papers earlier could be anything .did those 'scholars' analyse the underlying texts? what exactly are the differences between the texts in yemen and today's Quran?

My Reply

Any unsupervised person? What does that mean? I wouldn’t say experts in semitic philology who specialise in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic palaeography would be ‘unsupervised’ what ever that means anyway?

I would say they understand the Koran better than you and most other Muslims on this planet.

 

You say Muslims rely on an authoritative account. What authoritative account would that be. No original copies of the Koran exist so how would you know due to Uthmans burning of all other accounts.

You say whatever was written on the papers earlier could be anything. Yes exactly that’s my point! The Quran could say any thing.

You ask did they analyse the underlying texts? Yes they did and this is what they found.

 

They analysed 16000 sheets or parchments of Koranic fragments and uncovered even more variants in the rasm that are not found in all eight volumes, Mu‘jam al-qirä’ät  al-qur’äniyyah dictionaries.

 

He found over ten thousand variants, of which about a thousand are variants of or deviations in the rasm. In just 83 sheets of Koranic fragments Puin discovered at least 5000 deviations in the rasm.

 

He found differences in the system of counting of verses and  even the sequence of suras is often different  with not only the Standard Egyptian edition of the Quaran but with the sequence of suras in the Korans of Ibn Mas‘üd and Ubayy.

 

These deviations cannot be dismissed as mere scribal (writer) errors since the so-called errors are repeated with the same word several times in several fragments studied.

 

An example in change of meaning is where Puin found that the long "a" sound could be rendered by the Arab letter yä’, and originally the name in the present Koran that is read as "‘Ibrähïm" must have been read "Abrähäm". In other words, at some stage that fact that the long "ä" was rendered with the yä’ was forgotten - hence the so-called oral tradition was not strong or even non-existent.

 

Another scholar Andrew Rippin analyzing the Sanaa Koran goes on to discuss Sura XXI.4 and 112. Should the two verses begin with the imperative "Say!", [in Arabic:qul] thus indicating that God is the speaker, or should the word be read as "He said" [qäla]? 

 

Puin says like other early Arabic literature, the Sa'na Koran was written without any diacritical marks, vowel symbols or any guide to how it should be read.

 

 "The text was written so defectively that it can be read in a perfect way only if you have a strong oral tradition." The Sa'na text, just like other early Korans, was a guide to those who knew it already by memory, he says. Those that were unfamiliar with the Koran would read it differently because there were no diacritical and vowel symbols.

 

Puin also questions that it was written in the purest Arabic. He has found many words of foreign origin in the text, including the word "Koran" itself. Muslim scholars explain the "Koran" to mean recitation, but Puin argues that it is actually derived from an Aramaic word, qariyun, meaning a lectionary of scripture portions appointed to be read at divine service. He says the Koran contains most of the biblical stories but in a shorter form and is "a summary of the Bible to be read in service".

 

In conclusion the Koran has undergone an evolution. In other words, the copy of the Koran you have today is not the one believed to have been revealed to the prophet.

 

All of this sheds doubt on the Koran as the eternal, literal Word of God, unchanging and permanent. On tablets in heaven passed down to Gabriel and then Mohammad and to the Koran you have today? Really ?

IP IP Logged
Experiential
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 23 November 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Quote Experiential Replybullet Posted: 10 March 2013 at 10:39pm
Originally posted by nospam001

There were variants of the Qur'an in circulation prior to the canonised revision of 'Uthmān ibn 'Affān. This fact is not contested by Muslim scholars, but neither is it seen as any reason to question the mass burning of all that was deemed unreliable. To the contrary, this irreversible act of quality assurance is now called 'world's best practice' and serves as ultimate proof - supposing any proof were needed - that the surviving edition must therefore be free from human error.
Pinch

Yes Nospam001, I agree. The issue for me however is whether the Koran is really the eternal, literal Word of God, unchanging, and really a Miracle book?

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 8 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