Print Page | Close Window

Who wrote Quran?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islam for non-Muslims
Forum Discription: Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1677
Printed Date: 24 October 2014 at 1:34pm


Topic: Who wrote Quran?
Posted By: beloved
Subject: Who wrote Quran?
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 10:59am
I have a straight forward question.

If God were the revealer and Muhammad were the one who heard it, who is the writer?

Thanks.



Replies:
Posted By: ummziba
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 11:11am

Hello beloved,

Here is a great article that goes into much detail on the subject, it is called: "The Qur'an: A Divine Guidance or a Historical Document?"

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, skip down to the last section of the piece called: "The Qur'an...The History of Documention".

http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/08/Article05.shtml - http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/08/Arti cle05.shtml

I hope that you find this article helpful!

Peace, ummziba.



-------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words...they break my soul ~


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 8:41pm

Hello ummziba!

Been there, read it, already.  But it does not give the writer's name.  And there is a lot of doubt even to the writer (Dr. Aslam Abdullah) about the authenticity, "The Prophet is reported to have approved the Qur'an after listening to it from men and women who had memorized it and written it."

And "A copy of this Qur'an was with his wife Hafsa bint Omar."  Who wrote this copy?

He is basing the evidence on the hadith."These two accounts require closer examination on the basis of several other narrations that are mentioned in several books of hadith."  When was the hadith written, before or after the compilation of Quran? And who wrote the hadith?

Thanks.



Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 01 August 2005 at 9:16am

The Holy Qur'an is literally the Word of Allah, subhananhu was ta'ala. These words were placed in the heart of Saiduna Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wassalam who then recited them.

The indisputable evidence that the Qur'an is Allah's speech is contained in the speech itself. Any honest and intelligent reader will immediately recognize its superiority over any text produced by human hand.

The extratextual evidence for the Holy Qur'an's authenticity, however, would not withstand modern academic methods of research. If you are sincere in your search for such evidence, you will be disappointed. If you are simply attempting to create doubt in the hearts of the believers by attacking the Qur'an with these methods of research, you will be equally disappointed.



-------------
Yusuf


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 01 August 2005 at 12:25pm
The extratextual evidence for the Holy Qur'an's authenticity, however, would not withstand modern academic methods of research. If you are sincere in your search for such evidence, you will be disappointed.

Why brother?

If you are simply attempting to create doubt in the hearts of the believers by attacking the Qur'an with these methods of research, you will be equally disappointed.

I never had such an attitude towards Quran. So no need of any disbelief regarding my belief.


Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 01 August 2005 at 1:13pm

Originally posted by beloved

The extratextual evidence for the Holy Qur'an's authenticity, however, would not withstand modern academic methods of research. If you are sincere in your search for such evidence, you will be disappointed.

Why brother?

Because the Qur'an was revealed at a time prior to the establishment of methods of record preservation that are acceptable to modern research. The Ahaadith, for example, were collected and written generations after the departure of Saidnuna Rasulallah Salallahu alaihi wassalam. Even the Holy Qur'an was not placed into its final form until the Caliphate of Uthman, radiallahu anhu, and the rationale for the final composition was not recorded. Further, other redactions of the Qur'an that were determined to be inaccurate were destroyed. These are pieces of data that a contemporary researcher requires. Naturally it causes no problem for a believer, since Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala tells us clearly:

XV. 9. We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

However, as I mentioned before, the Holy Qur'an is its own proof.



-------------
Yusuf


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 02 August 2005 at 7:48am
That was a straight forward answer. thank you brother Yusuf.

Can you please elaborate on how Holy Quran is its own proof?

Thanks.


Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 02 August 2005 at 8:31am
II. 23. And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.

24. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.



-------------
Yusuf


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 03 August 2005 at 7:38am
Yusuf brother, I know those verses since my childhood.  And also 10:38, 11:13, 17:88 and many more similar verses. But did you ponder on what the verses tell us or challenge us?

I could not understand the challenge brother.

Can you please elaborate on this also?

Thanks.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 04 August 2005 at 10:00am

Originally posted by beloved

I have a straight forward question.

If God were the revealer and Muhammad were the one who heard it, who is the writer?

Thanks.

A usual term is "scribe" as to those who were appointed by Prophet Mohammad to write down the verses of Quran as and when they were revealed to him. So are you asking for the names of these scribes or what?  



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 04 August 2005 at 8:39pm
I didn't knew that Prophet appointed scribes.  I thought that his relatives, friends and followers wrote them down.

Yes, I want the names of the scribes who have written them down and which scribes' version are we having presently.

Thanks.


Posted By: Sarkeranwar
Date Posted: 05 August 2005 at 12:28am

Originally posted by beloved

I didn't knew that Prophet appointed scribes.  I thought that his relatives, friends and followers wrote them down.

Yes, I want the names of the scribes who have written them down and which scribes' version are we having presently.

Thanks.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

Peace and blessings of Allah be upon Prophet Muhammad, his family and his companions

Assalamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh

Insha Allah, you will find the answer to your question below:

(Taken from http://www.witness-pioneer.net/ - http://www.witness-pioneer.net  )


Brief History of Compilation of the Qur'an
Adapted from an article in Perspectives, Vol 3, No. 4, Aug/Sept 1997

------------------------------------------------------------ ------

During the life of the Prophet (saas) (570-632 CE)

-The Prophet (peace & blessings of Allah be upon him) used to recite the Qur'an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death. Jibreel also taught the Prophet ( Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) the seven modes of recitation.

-Each verse received was recited by the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and its location relative to other verses and surahs was identified by him.

-The verses were written by scribes, selected by the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), on any suitable object - the leaves of trees, pieces of wood, parchment or leather, flat stones, and shoulder blades. Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.

-Some of the companions wrote the Qur'an for their own use.

-Several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart.

During the caliphate of Abu Bakr (632-634 CE)

-Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr to preserve and compile the Qur'an. This was prompted after the battle of Yamamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorized the Qur'an.

-Abu Bakr entrusted Zayed Ibn Thabit with the task of collecting the Qur'an. Zayed had been present during the last recitation of the Qur'an by the Prophet to Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).

-Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)..

During the caliphate of Uthman (644-656 CE)

-Uthman ordered Zayed Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Al Zubayr, Saeed Ibn Al-Aas, and Abdur-Rahman Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham to make perfect copies of the authenticated copy kept with Hafsa. This was due to the rapid expansion of the Islamic state and concern about differences in recitation.

-Copies were sent to various places in the Muslim world. The original copy was returned to Hafsa, and a copy was kept in Madinah.

Three stages of dotting and diacritization

-Dots were put as syntactical marks by Abu Al-Aswad Al Doaly, during the time of Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufian (661-680 CE).

-The letters were marked with different dotting by Nasr Ibn Asem and Hayy ibn Ya'amor, during the time of Abd Al-Malek Ibn Marawan (685-705 CE).

-A complete system of diacritical marks (damma, fataha, kasra) was invented by Al Khaleel Ibn Ahmad Al Faraheedy (d. 786 CE).

............................................................ ...........................

May I suggest something to you "beloved"! Although it is absoultely correct to ask questions about Islamic issues which you have no knowledge about, it would be more safe on your part to ask questions in a way which do not imply anything offensive. In my opinion, your first question implied "doubts" in regard to the authenticity of the Holy Quran! It is not fitting for a muslim to doubt anything about the Holy Quran. So, if you are a muslim, please ponder over the following Verses of the Noble Quran to know the quality of true believers: 

002 - Al-Baqarah   285. The Messenger (Muhammad SAW) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. They say, "We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers" - and they say, "We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your Forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all)."

024 - An-Nur   51. The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allah (His Words, the Quran) and His Messenger (SAW), to judge between them, is that they say: "We hear and we obey." And such are the prosperous ones (who will live forever in Paradise).

004 - Al-Nisaa   46. ....And if only they had said: "We hear and obey", and "Do make us understand," it would have been better for them, and more proper, but Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except a few.

May Allah guide us to His Straight Way.



-------------
"Our Lord! Give us in this world that which is good and in the Hereafter that which is good, and save us from the torment of the Fire!" Quran 2:201


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 05 August 2005 at 8:06am
Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.

Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an.

So you mean to say that Ali Idb Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit and many others wrote Quran? Or Zayed Ibn Thabit compiled Quran from many writers?

In my opinion, your first question implied "doubts" in regard to the authenticity of the Holy Quran!

The "doubts" implied by you are not my "doubts" but your own.  My question was not regarding "authenticity" but regarding the writer. 

Scholars are very divided on this issue.  Not all agree with what you have said.  Different Islamic websites give different writers and some does not even give any names. The names you have given  were companions of Prophet and the word "scribes" is a newly found word. 

Its not enough that we know that Quran is the word of God.  There should be no insecurity in faith.

So, if you are a muslim, please ponder over the following Verses of the Noble Quran to know the quality of true believers:

I find your statements offencive brother.  Do you think you need to remind me of these verses?


Posted By: MOCKBA
Date Posted: 05 August 2005 at 9:20am

Bismillah

To make things a little clearer may I suggest using the rightly mentioned word "scribes" instead of "writers". It is a good attempt to confuse readers, but fortunately these matters are well taken care of in Islam... as opposed to Christianity.



-------------
MOCKBA


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 05 August 2005 at 2:46pm

Dear Bro Beloved, as far as you question

Yes, I want the names of the scribes who have written them down and which scribes' version are we having presently.

is concerned, it has been reasonably answered.

Do you see any ambiguity in it? Put forward your hypothesis, if you have any, and we shall see how can we respond to it, Inshallah?



Posted By: Deus
Date Posted: 05 August 2005 at 3:27pm

Also, is it safe to say that even though the Quran was written down by different people (the above mentioned "scribes"), they all did indeed write down the same material? So it is not like the Gospel which was written differently by an undetermined number of unknown people.



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 06 August 2005 at 5:26am
To make things a little clearer may I suggest using the rightly mentioned word "scribes" instead of "writers".

But wasn't the Quran written?  Of course it was.  Then whats the point you want to make?

It is a good attempt to confuse readers, but fortunately these matters are well taken care of in Islam... as opposed to Christianity.

People have been confused not by my question as you think.  If you feel confused, its your insecurity.  And why to bring Christianity into our discussion?


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 06 August 2005 at 5:33am

Dear Bro Beloved, as far as you question

Quote:

Yes, I want the names of the scribes who have written them down and which scribes' version are we having presently.

is concerned, it has been reasonably answered.

Did you read my post completely.  Let me paraphrase myself again, " Scholars are very divided on this issue.  Not all agree with what you have said.  Different Islamic websites give different writers and some does not even give any names. The names you have given  were companions of Prophet and the word "scribes" is a newly found word. "

Do you see any ambiguity in it? Put forward your hypothesis, if you have any, and we shall see how can we respond to it, Inshallah?

Hope that you have understood the ambiguity.



Posted By: MOCKBA
Date Posted: 06 August 2005 at 9:29pm

Bismillah

Beloved,

Since you have mentioned that "scholars are very divided on the issue" of who wrote the Quran, please provide some reference for your statement.

We have numerous cases of 5 or 7 year old children who have memorised the Qur'an long before they have learnt how to write. Now if one of these children, once he/she has mastered writing skills, decides to write the Qur'an down from his memory, would you also consider him/her a "writer of the Quran"? And call it his/her version of the Quran (from John, from Matthew, from Luke etc.)? Nonsensical reasoning.

You are hitting the wall with the question you posted, yet refuse to withdraw.

 



-------------
MOCKBA


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 07 August 2005 at 9:40am

Since you have mentioned that "scholars are very divided on the issue" of who wrote the Quran, please provide some reference for your statement.

Brief History of Compilation of the Qur'an
Adapted from an article in Perspectives, Vol 3, No. 4, Aug/Sept 1997

The "Perspectives" magazine has its own perspective about the compilation of Quran saying that anonymous writers wrote it and Zayed Ibn Thabit compiled it.

http://www.memphisdawah.com/PDF/who_wrote.pdf

The Memphis Dawah Team says God authored It but does not mention anyone who has written it.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_who_wro te.htm

TheModernReligion.com tells us that "God wrote it!".

http://www.submission.org/mo-write.html

http://www.submission.org/khalifa.html - Dr. Rashad Khalifa
says that "Prophet Muhammad Wrote God's Revelations With His Own Hand".

Though I have quoted these from the internet (which I feel are not reliable), I can even quote from the books available in the market on this subject.

We have numerous cases of 5 or 7 year old children who have memorised the Qur'an long before they have learnt how to write. Now if one of these children, once he/she has mastered writing skills, decides to write the Qur'an down from his memory, would you also consider him/her a "writer of the Quran"? And call it his/her version of the Quran (from John, from Matthew, from Luke etc.)? Nonsensical reasoning.

Thats your reasoning, not mine.
I think you know more about Holy Bible than Holy Quran.  But we shall keep the Holy Bible aside.

As Muslims believe, Quran is the word of God.  Mohammad listened to it thru arch angel Gabriel.  But now we have only the verbal form which had to have a hard copy. 

As we understand, the hard copy was compiled from anonymous sources.  We believe that Zayed Ibn Thabit has compiled it without any ambiguity believing in the verses 2:23, 10:38, 11:13, 17:88 etc which themselves form the part Zayed's compiled Quran. (Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)..)

And this hard copy has again been turned into verbal for many people have memorized it.

You are hitting the wall with the question you posted, yet refuse to withdraw.

Thank you for your concern, but I would rather be happy if you don't hurt yourself with my question.

P.S. 1. Mockba said, "from John, from Matthew, from Luke etc.".  I say, "Atleast Christians reveal to us from whom they have heard the revelation for the second time (first time from Jesus Christ) and agree that some of their revelations have been taken from anonymous writers or sayers."

2. I also want to know what is the purpose of "dotting and diacritization" of the Holy Quran?


Posted By: Lehua
Date Posted: 07 August 2005 at 12:36pm

Beloved,

I can only try to answer you first question for I have no knowledge of the second.

The Holy Bible and Holy Koran cannot be compared.  The Holy Bible is compiled first person accounts of Prophet Isa (Jesus) (pbuh).  While the Holy Koran is the acctual ravealed word of God.  Prophet Mohammed (phub) instructed his close companions to enscribe it because he was illiterate and he instructed multiple people to inscribe it to ensure authenticity of it.  If only one person was to enscribe it, it would be easy to manipulate.  However multiple people enscribed it to ensure that it would not be altered.  And the authenticity was ensured by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) reciting it angel Gabriel (as mentioned above).

Lehua



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 08 August 2005 at 6:14am
Even Jesus Christ's words are the inspired words of God for He was the Beloved Son of God.

We still don't know the names of the scribes who inscribed Holy Quran.  It implies that Quran was compiled from anonymous writers, which is not true.


Posted By: MOCKBA
Date Posted: 08 August 2005 at 7:53am

Bismillah

Beloved,

I could site you a numerous list of other self-acclaimed "Islamic" websites that would strongly support your argument and add many more. Fortunately, all these websites, including those you have quoted have nothing to do with Islam other than trying to establish deviant teachings and later attribute them to the Qur'an and Sunnah.

There is no requirement for someone like yourself educate members of this forum on authenticity of the Quran and methodology used in writing it down. It is indeed unfortunate that Bible did not retain its original content and evolved to contain blasphemy, and as such there is no need to compare it to the Quran.

  



-------------
MOCKBA


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 08 August 2005 at 9:31am

My dear bro beloved, your response

" Did you read my post completely.  Let me paraphrase myself again, " Scholars are very divided on this issue.  Not all agree with what you have said.  Different Islamic websites give different writers and some does not even give any names. The names you have given  were companions of Prophet and the word "scribes" is a newly found word. "

First off, Yes, I did read your post complelety. However, since you had been answered completely as far as your foremost question was concerned without any logical arguments to contradict it, hence, your later comments were without specifics. Not to assume anything, I asked for the specific differing veiws that may seem troubling to someone.

Secondly, I think you know the difference between a "scribe" and a writer. Don't you? So, then you clarified that your questions were pertaining to scribes and not the writer, since we all know that the writer of Quran is Allah and Allah alone. It is in this context, I think, now you would be able to see the things matching up.

To those websites which do not provide the names of the scribes, I think, its not logical to construe that none of the scribes existed. Isn't it? Its the deficiency of the websites and nothing else.

The names of the scribes, that have been provided in earlier posts, though are the names of the companions of the Prophet, but they were specially appointed scribes as well. From where else one can think that such scibes could come from, if not from within the companions of the Prophet himself? Hence, this is not a refutation of the point that those indeed were the scribes of the Prophet for the purpose of writing down the Quran.

If "scibe" is a newly found word for you, what do you expect from us? Open up the dictionary and find the meaning yourself. I think its not a big deal. Isn't it?

Now, coming to your posts in other replies where some refernce to other website has also been given.

"The "Perspectives" magazine has its own perspective about the compilation of Quran saying that anonymous writers wrote it and Zayed Ibn Thabit compiled it." 

You haven't provided any reference to your statement. Kindly do that to dissect it to reveal the truth. Thanks

"http://www.memphisdawah.com/PDF/who_wrote.pdf

The Memphis Dawah Team says God authored It but does not mention anyone who has written it
."

"Doesn't mention anyone who wrote it" could only be the weakness of the website authors and nothing more than it.

"http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_who_wro te.htm

TheModernReligion.com tells us that "God wrote it!".
"

 
Its a true statement. Kindly distinguish between "writer" and the "scribe". This is the source of confusion if someone doesn't realize the difference between the two.

"http://www.submission.org/mo-write.html

http://www.submission.org/khalifa.html - Dr. Rashad Khalifa
says that "Prophet Muhammad Wrote God's Revelations With His Own Hand".
"

Dr. Khalifa has neither rejected nor debated the source of this information concerning the scribes of Quran. Hence doesn't merit any consideration. Clearly, people like Dr. Khalifa, who don't accept the ahadith literature even if it is authentic, needs to invent some new ways to make his followers believe his concocted theory. 

Now as far as your comments are concerned "As we understand, the hard copy was compiled from anonymous sources.......... "

I can only say that this is totally a unsubstantiated statement despite clear evidence that there were many numorous scribes, some of whose names have also been shown on this forum, who wrote down the verses of Quran as they used to reveal to Prophet Mohammad. Among them Zayed ibn Thabit was the one who also presided the committee later on, which was formed for the duty of binding the Quran in the Book form later at the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam.

 

 



Posted By: Yusuf.
Date Posted: 08 August 2005 at 11:15am

Originally posted by beloved

the word "scribes" is a newly found word. 

In English, perhaps. The Arabic word "kaatib" can be translated as both "scribe" and "writer" in English. Thus the nonsense over the "recent" introduction of the term scribe is only a misunderstanding based upon ignorance of Arabic.

So we have a four step delusion:

1. Failure to understand that "scribe" and "writer" in Arabic are in fact the same word.

2. Implying that the change in English texts from one term to the other implies a revisionist hand which, as the Arabic texts all demonstrate, does not exist.

3. Equating the English term "writer" with "author."

4. Assuming that such an equation exists in Arabic.

A very weak attempt at deception.



-------------
Yusuf


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 08 August 2005 at 8:39pm
I could site you a numerous list of other self-acclaimed "Islamic" websites that would strongly support your argument and add many more. Fortunately, all these websites, including those you have quoted have nothing to do with Islam other than trying to establish deviant teachings and later attribute them to the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Mockba brother, I just said the same, "Though I have quoted these from the internet (which I feel are not reliable), I can even quote from the books available in the market on this subject."

http://www.islamicity.com/education/understandingislamandm uslims/default.asp?ContentLocation=/Education/UnderstandingI slamAndMuslims&CurrentPageID=12&Top=&Bottom=& ;Right=&Left=&SideBarWidth=&RightWidth=&Left Width=&SideBarLocation=&Style=&CatID=&Destin ation=/Education/UnderstandingIslamAndMuslims/12.asp

The Quran is a record of the exact words revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. It was memorized by Muhammad and then dictated to his Companions, and written down by scribes, who cross-checked it during his lifetime. Not one word of its 114 chapters, Suras, has been changed over the centuries, so that the Quran is in every detail the unique and miraculous text which was revealed to Muhammad fourteen centuries ago.

This is from Islamicity.com.  Is this a belief or something which has enough proof?  That is what I was searching for.

I want to know what reliable resources are available with us so that I can know more about Holy Quran.

There is no requirement for someone like yourself educate members of this forum on authenticity of the Quran and methodology used in writing it down.

I ain't educating anyone, I am just educating myself.  I hope that I am also a member of this forum.

It is indeed unfortunate that Bible did not retain its original content and evolved to contain blasphemy, and as such there is no need to compare it to the Quran.

I had been insisting not to bring Holy Bible into our discussion.  You started it and you conclude it by saying "as such there is no need to compare it to the Quran."




Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 7:30am
However, since you had been answered completely as far as your foremost question was concerned without any logical arguments to contradict it, hence, your later comments were without specifics.

Are you conscious?

"answered completely"..."without any logical arguments to contradict it"

He just gave some statements from a website.  As Mockba said,"I could site you a numerous list of other self-acclaimed "Islamic" websites that would strongly support your argument and add many more."

So, then you clarified that your questions were pertaining to scribes and not the writer, since we all know that the writer of Quran is Allah and Allah alone. It is in this context, I think, now you would be able to see the things matching up.

So you want to sideline.

Do you know what is meant by writer?  When you say "the writer of Quran is Allah and Allah alone", what do you mean to say?  If you say Allah wrote it, on what did he write? (illogical assumptions lead to illogical conclusions)

Is a scribe not a writer?  Does that mean Quran has no writer or writers?  Then how come it exists now?

To those websites which do not provide the names of the scribes, I think, its not logical to construe that none of the scribes existed. Isn't it? Its the deficiency of the websites and nothing else.

Thank God!  At last I got someone who can tell me the names of all the scribes who have written them.

If "scibe" is a newly found word for you, what do you expect from us? Open up the dictionary and find the meaning yourself. I think its not a big deal. Isn't it?

Thank you.  But I did not say that its a newly found word.  I said it was a newly found word when refering to his companions.

You haven't provided any reference to your statement. Kindly do that to dissect it to reveal the truth. Thanks

It was the site(or answer) you were also refering to when you said, "However, since you had been answered completely as far as your foremost question was concerned without any logical arguments to contradict it, hence, your later comments were without specifics."
The "complete" answer (as you think) was from the Perspective magazine.

Kindly distinguish between "writer" and the "scribe".

From Marriam-Webster Online

writ·er
javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?writer01.wav=writer'">
Pronunciation: 'rI-t&r
Function: noun
: one that http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=writes - writes : as a : http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=author - au·thor javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?author01.wav=author'">
Pronunciation: 'o-th&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English auctour, from Old North French, from Latin auctor promoter, originator, author, from augEre to increase -- more at http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=eke - - SOURCE
<software authors> <the author of this crime> b capitalized : http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=god+ -
Pronunciation: 'skrIb
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin scriba official writer, from scribere to write; akin to Greek skariphasthai to scratch an outline
1 : one of a learned class in ancient Israel through New Testament times studying the Scriptures and serving as copyists, editors, teachers, and jurists
2 a : an official or public secretary or clerk b : a copier of manuscripts
3 : http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=writer - - JOURNALIST


I can only say that this is totally a unsubstantiated statement despite clear evidence that there were many numorous scribes, some of whose names have also been shown on this forum, who wrote down the verses of Quran as they used to reveal to Prophet Mohammad. Among them Zayed ibn Thabit was the one who also presided the committee later on, which was formed for the duty of binding the Quran in the Book form later at the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam.

We have clear evidence that there were many numorous scribes (as you say), then do we know who they are?  From whom were the verses taken during "binding the Quran in the Book form"?

That is what when I said, "We believe that Zayed Ibn Thabit has compiled it without any ambiguity believing in the verses 2:23, 10:38, 11:13, 17:88 etc which themselves form the part Zayed's compiled Quran. (Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)..)"

If you find time please read all of my posts which will make it easy for me not to paraphrase myself again.


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 7:33am

Thank you Yusuf for your reply.  Of course I don't know Arabic and I know basic English (I have to use a dictionary most of the time).



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 09 August 2005 at 8:13pm
Topic has been moved to a non-Muslim forum


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 12 August 2005 at 7:12am
anyone answer please


Posted By: Deus
Date Posted: 12 August 2005 at 9:30am

I was hoping to contribute to this thread, but every question has already been answered (some more than once, too.)



Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 12 August 2005 at 10:17am

Here are some articles that express some concerns and offers some comments about the origin of Quran.

Quote:

Some highlights:

’Ibn Umar al–Khattab explicitly admits,
"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available"’ (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72).

A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,
"During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses)
The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says,
"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’

The Zamakh-shari also cited it in his book, "al-Kash-Shaf’ (part 3, page 518).
These are unquestionable statements made by the pillars of the Islamic religion who transmitted Muhammad’s sayings and biography,
"The Tradition", and who interpreted the Qur’an— among them Ibn ’Umar, A’isha, Ubay Ibn Ka’b and ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Ibn ’Umar states that a large part of the Qur’an was missed. A’isha and Ubay Ibn Ka’b assert that dozens of verses from the "Chapter of the Parties" have been lost. ’Ali confirms that, too.
Events Which Led To The Loss Of Some Verses A Domesticated Animal Eats Qur’anic Verses
In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235 and 236), Ibn Hazm says plainly,
"The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Qur’anic) copy. When Muhammad died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it."

And, if Muhammad died while these verses were still recited who abrogated them? Did the domesticated animal abrogate them? It is evident that this really did occur according to the witness of the companions, Muslim scholars, and A’isha herself.

The question which presents itself is, why did not Muhammad give orders to collect the Qur’an? Why did not the angel Gabriel suggest to him to do such an important task to avoid the disagreement, dispute, and the fight which spread among the people?

1.Sahih Bokhari Khitabul Tafseer Bab “ Tabbat Yada”
Ibn Abbas narrates that the verse “ Lama nazalta wa Anzar Asheera takal Aqrabaina wal Rahthaka minhumul Mukhliseen” is not includedin Mashaf Usmani.

2.Shahih Bokhar Vol-III page-139

Ibrahim ibn Alqamah narrates that when I arrived to the companions of Abdullah, Abu Darda came to us and asked “ Is there any reader of Quran?” I said yes. Abu Darda asked me to read “Wal-Laile- iza yaghsha Wan-Nihar iza Tajalla Wazakra Wal Unsa” Abu Darda asked me do you have listen this verse from the tongue of prophet. I replied yes. Abu Darda said I have also listen the same but these people do not believe on me.”

3. Sahih Bokhar Vol-III Tafseer Sura Qarariah

Abdullah Ibn Masood narrates that the verse” Kalfarashel-Mabsoos” was “Kalssoful Mabsoos” but in the present Quran Kalsoof is not exist.

4. Sahih Bokhar “Khitabul Yasoo”

Ibn Abbas narrates that the verse was like “ Laisa Alaikum Junah Untabtagho Fazlum-me-rrabbe-kum fe mawase-mul Haj” but in the present version “ fe mawase-mul-Haj “ is excluded.

( Also see: Ibn Abu Daud Khitabul Masahif)

5.Sahih Muslim Vol-I

Aisha got write a Quran by her slave and said when you arrived at the verse Hafizoo Alus Salth then informed me. As he reached, he informed Aisha. Aisha told him write this verse as” Hafizoo Alus’Salath Was-Salathul Wasta wa Salathul Asr wa Quoom ullah Qaniteen” because she have heared the verse from prophet.

(See also: Mansnad Imam Ahmed Vol-VI (2) Al-Mashibul Sajistani page-83). In the present Quran this verse is not present.

6. In the last year of Khilafat Hazrat Umar addressed the people from the pulpit of Mosque of Nabvi”

Allah has sent Muhammad with right and descended book upon him. Whatever descended by Allah among them was a verse of Rijm. We recited this verse. Prophet acted upon the verse and we also acted upon this verse……… This verse is the part of Quran. We have always recited this verse.

See:
a.Sahih Bokhar Vol-IV
b. Sahih Muslim Bab Haduz Zina
c. Sanan Ibn Maaja Babur Rijm

7. Aisha narrates that a goat ate verses of Rijm and Rizae Kabeer…..

Ref: Masnad Imam Ahmed Vol-6
Motha Imam Malik
Ibn Maaja
Sanan Dar Qutni Vol-II
Taveel Mukhtaliful Haditrhs page-310

8. Renowned Shiekhul Hadith, Sadrul Madraseen Darul Uloome Deoband Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri wrote in his world famed book “ Faizul Bokhari sharahe Sahih Bokhari Vol-III

“ To me it has been proved by researched that there are changes in the words of Quran made by Companions either intentionally or mistakenly”

9. Tafseer Dura Mansure Vol-I and Iteqan fe Uloomul Quran Vol-II :

“Abdullah Ibn Umar narrates that a large part of Quran has spoiled …I know only the Quran which is present.

10. Iteqan fe Uloomul Quran Vol-II and Roohul Maani by Allama Aloosi Bughdadi:

“ Two sura “ Alhafad” and “Al’Halae” were revealed. Umar Ibn Khitab and Ibe Ka ab used to recit these surah in prayers.”

These two sura are completely excluded at the time of collection of Quran.
Allama Sayyooti after Tafseer of Sura Na’as has mentioned both the Sura in his facous Tafseer Durri Mansure Vol-6.

11. There are various errors and modification made in Quran for further detail read:

- Tafseer Kabeer, Fakhrud Din Razi Vol-4
- Moalimut TanzeelVol-I page-264
- Itiqan fe Uloomul Quran Vol-I Jalal ud Din Sayyoti
- Jami ul Ihkamul Quran Vol-11 page 145.

12. Roohul Moani by Allama Aloosi :-

Sura Al Ihza was consist of 200 verses but Usman excluded many verse from it.

13. Tafseer Khazin Bughdadi Vol-I page 517-518 has written a detail tradition regarding changes occurred in Quran.

14. Itiqan fe Uloomul Quran Vol-I page-70

“Umar ibn Khitab narrates that the words in Quran are 1027000 .Now, there are 260753 words in the present Quran “

759948 words are missing from the Quran.


15. At the time of Hajj every year Saudi Government distributed a Quran among Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian Muslims with the cooperation of Shah Fahad and Rabita Aalam Islami. This Quran printed by Quran Karim Printing Complex Madina Munawar. This worthy Quran is with the translation and Tafseer of Shiekh ul Hind Maulana Mehmoodul Hassan and Shiekhul Islam Hazrat Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani.

In this Quran on the foot notes the changes in Quranic verses have also been pointed out. A list from this is hereby reproduced which is irrefutable proof that Quran has been changed:

1. Para-4 Alimran verse-144
2. Para-4 Al-Nisa verse-12
3. Para-8 Al-Inaam verse-158
4. Para-16 Maryam verse-55
5. Para-18 Al-Noor verse-2
6. Para-21 AlIhzad verse-6
7. Para-23 Yaseen verse-35
8. Para-23 Saf Faat verse-130
9. Para-20 Alankabootverse-11
10. Para-24 Zumar verse-53
11. Para-24 Momin verse-6
12. Para-25 Shura verse-23
13 Para-27 Al-Hadeedverse-29
---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------

Quote:

Koran - The Word Of God?

source: http://www.flex.com/%7Ejai/satyamevajayate/koran.html -
(Koran 113:1)
I take refuge with the Lord of the Dawn.

One can clearly see, its Mohammed and NOT GOD HIMSELF who is seeking refuge in God.

(Koran 6:104)
Now have come to you, from your Lord, proofs
(To open your eyes): If any will see, it will
be for (the good of) his own soul; If any will
be blind, it will be to his own (harm): I am not
(here) To watch over your doings.

In this verse the speaker of the line "I am not to watch over your doings"- is clearly Mohammed. In fact Dawood in his translation adds a footnote that the "I" refers to Mohammed here.

(Koran 27:91)
For me, I have been commanded to serve the
Lord of this city, Him Who has sanctified it
and to whom (Belong) all things; and I am
commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to
Allah's Will

Again, the speaker here is clearly Mohammed who is trying to justify killing of innocent Meccans who were not willing to follow Mohammed's version of God. Dawood and Pickthall both interpolate "say" at the beginning of the sentence which is lacking in the original Arabic version of the sura.

(Koran 81:15)
So veriy I call To witness the planets that recede...

Again, here it is Mohammed and NOT God who is swearing by the turning planets.

(Koran 84:16-19)
I swear by the afterglow of sunset, and by the night,
and by the moon when she is at the full.

Once again it is Mohammed and NOT God. He is unable to disguise his pagan heritage. He swears again in the name of the Sun and Moon, both of which were considered as holy deities by pre-Islamic Arabs.

(Koran 6:114)
Should I seek other judge than God, when
it is He who has sent down to you, the
distinguishing book (Koran)?

Any sane person can comprehend that those words are not spoken by God but Mohammed himself. Yusuf Ali in his translation adds at the beginning of the sentence "say", which is not there in the original Arabic and he does so without comment or footnote.
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Here are some sahih ahadith that shed some light on the issue of origins of "revelations" found in Quran.

Sahih al-Bukari

 

كتاب الصلاة (The Book of Prayer)

No. 396 - Narrated 'Umar (bin Al-Khattab):

 

My Lord agreed with me in three things:

1. I said,"O Allah's Apostle, I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two Rakat of Tawaf of Ka'ba)". (2.125)

 

2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.

 

3. Once the wives of the Prophet made a united front against the Prophet and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (66.5).

Sahih al-Bukari

(The Book of Exegesis of the Quraan)

No. 4349  - Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari:

who was one of those who used to write the Divine Revelation: Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra' were killed). 'Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, 'Umar has come to me and said, The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra' (those who know the Qur'an by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost, unless you collect it.

And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Qur'an." Abu Bakr added, "I said to 'Umar, 'How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done?' 'Umar said (to me), 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing.' So 'Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal, till Allah opened my bosom for it and I had the same opinion as 'Umar." (Zaid bin Thabit added:) Umar was sitting with him (Abu Bakr) and was not speaking. me). "You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness): and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript). " By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?" Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened my bosom for that which He had opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started locating quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba which I had not found with anybody else, (and they were):--

"Verily there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty He (Muhammad) is ardently anxious over you (to be rightly guided)" (9.128)

The manuscript on which the quran was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him, and then with 'Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and finally it remained with Hafsa, Umar's daughter.
---------------------------------------------------------- ------

Sahih al-Bukari

(The Book of Military Expeditions)

No. 3778  - Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

When we wrote the Holy quran, I missed one of the Verses of Surat-al-Ahzab which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. Then we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. The Verse was:--

'Among the Believers are men Who have been true to Their Covenant with Allah, Of them, some have fulfilled Their obligations to Allah (i.e. they have been Killed in Allah's Cause), And some of them are (still) waiting" (33.23) So we wrote this in its place in the quran.
---------------------------------------------------------- -------

Sahih al-Bukari

(The Book of Jihaad)

No. 2619  - Narrated Kharija bin Zaid:

Zaid bin Thabit said, "When the quran was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. I could not find it except with Khuzaima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah's Apostle regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was:-- "Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah." (33.23)
---------------------------------------------------------- --------

Sahih al-Bukari

(The Book of the Virtues of the Prophet and His Companions)

No. 3267  - Narrated Anas:

Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-'As and 'AbdurRahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts of the Holy Qur'an in the form of book in several copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons. " If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the quran, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the quran was revealed in their language." So they acted accordingly. (Said bin Thabit was an Ansari and not from Quraish ).

---------------------------------------------------------- -------
Sahih al-Bukari

(The Book of Military Expeditions)

No. 3820  - Narrated Anas bin Malik :

The Prophet invoked evil upon those (people) who killed his companions at Bir Mauna for 30 days (in the morning prayer). He invoked evil upon (tribes of) Ril, Lihyan and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. Allah revealed a quranic Verse to His Prophet regarding those who had been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma'una, and we recited the Verse till later it was cancelled. (The Verse was:) 'Inform our people that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him."
---------------------------------------------------------- --------

Sahih al-Bukari

(The Book of Military Expeditions)

No. 4116  - Narrated Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:

Ibn Abbas said, "When Allah's Apostle was on his deathbed and there were some men in the house, he said, 'Come near, I will write for you something after which you will not go astray.' Some of them ( i.e. his companions) said, 'Allah's Apostle is seriously ill and you have the (Holy) quran. Allah's Book is sufficient for us.' So the people in the house differed and started disputing. Some of them said, 'Give him writing material so that he may write for you something after which you will not go astray.' while the others said the other way round. So when their talk and differences increased, Allah's Apostle said, "Get up." Ibn Abbas used to say, "No doubt, it was very unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing for them that writing because of their differences and noise."

So Mohammed could write afterall, and what's more he was going to write something other than Quran, even though the people were seeking to accept the quran only, was not Allah's word sufficient to not go astray?..........why should Mohammed's additional writing (not from Allah) ensure that people would not go astray?...........did Mohammed not have enough faith in Allah's words, so much so that he felt what he had to say would be better?
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Sahih al-Bukari

(The Book of Exegesis of the Quraan)

No. 4208  - Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:

I said to 'Uthman, "This Verse which is in Surat-al-Baqara:

"Those of you who die and leave widows behind...without turning them out." has been abrogated by another Verse. Why then do you write it (in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "Leave it (where it is), O the son of my brother, for I will not shift anything of it (i.e. the quran) from its original position."
---------------------------------------------------------- ---

No. 4319  - Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Abu Jahl said, "O Allah! If this (quran) is indeed the Truth from You, then rain down on us a shower of stones from the sky or bring on us a painful torment." So Allah revealed:-- "But Allah would not punish them while you were amongst them, nor He will punish them while they seek (Allah's) forgiveness..." (8.33) And why Allah should not punish them while they turn away (men) from Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the Sacred Mosque of Mecca)..." (8.33-34)

It seems anyone could ask Allah for a revelation and Allah would oblige.

------------------------------------------------------------ -----

Here is an interesting article from the Guardian about origins and preservation of Quran

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00. html

Querying the Koran

Orthodox Muslims believe that this ancient Islamic text is the unchanging Word of God. One scholar is daring to question it

Abul Taher
Guardian Tuesday August 8, 2000


A German academic fears a violent backlash from orthodox Muslims because of his "blasphemous" theory that the Koran has been changed and revised. Such a backlash is not to be taken lightly; the Salman Rushdie affair is a solemn reminder of the power of an angry Muslim community. After the author wrote his novel Satanic Verses, which was considered by Muslims to be blasphemous, a fatwa , or religious decree, was pronounced against him in 1989 that left him fearing for his life. Rushdie has only recently reappeared in public after nearly 10 years in hiding.

According to Muslim belief, the Koran is the eternal, unaltered Word of God, which has remained the same for 14 centuries. But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.

Puin's conclusions have sparked angry reactions from orthodox Muslims. "They've said I'm not really the scholar to make any remarks on these manuscripts," he said. The semitic philologist, who specialises in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic palaeography, has been studying Sa'na manuscripts, ancient versions of the Koran discovered in Sa'na, the capital of Yemen.

So controversial are his findings that the Yemeni authorities have denied him further access to the manuscripts. He says they shed new light on the early development of the Koran as a book with a "textual history", which contradicts the fundamental Muslim belief that it is the unchanging Word of God.

Any questioning of the authenticity of the Koranic text as the Word of God can expect a hostile reaction. The fatwa , or death sentence, was issued against Rushdie for hinting in Satanic Verses that the Koran may include verses from other sources - chiefly Satan.

Academics offering radical interpretations of the Koran put their lives at risk. In 1990, Dr Nasr Abu Zaid, formerly a lecturer in Koranic Studies at Cairo University, provoked a national outcry in Egypt over his book The Concept of the Text. There were death threats from Muslim extremists, general public harassment, and in 1995 he was branded an apostate by Egypt's highest court. The court forced him to divorce his wife because under Islamic law, marriage between an apostate and a Muslim is forbidden.

Zaid's proposal was arguably less radical than Puin's. Zaid's book argued that "the Koran is a literary text, and the only way to understand, explain, and analyse it is through a literary approach". A Muslim, Zaid remained in Egypt for a time to refute the apostasy charges, but fled with his wife to Holland in the face of increasing death threats.

Puin believes that he will not receive the same reaction, because unlike Zaid or Rushdie he does not have a Muslim name. His claim that the Koran has changed since its supposed standardisation, and that pre-Islamic texts have crept in, would nonetheless be regarded as highly blasphemous by Muslims. He has not yet written a book on his radical findings, but says it is "a goal to achieve" in the near future.

Dr Tarif Khalidi, lecturer in Islamic Studies at Cambridge University, warns that the book may generate a controversy similar to Satanic Verses. "If Dr Puin's views are taken up and trumpeted in the media, and if you don't have many Muslims being rational about it, then all hell may break loose." Khalidi fears Muslims will not accept Puin's work on the Sa'na manuscripts as having been done with academic objectivity, but see it as a deliberate "attack on the integrity of the Koranic text".

The manuscripts, thought to be the oldest surviving copies of the Koran, were discovered in the ancient Great Mosque of Sa'na in 1972, when the building was being restored after heavy rainfall, hidden in the loft in a bundle of old parchment and paper documents. They were nearly thrown away by the builders, but were spotted by Qadhi Isma'il al-Akwa, then president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who saw their importance and sought international assistance to preserve and examine them. Al-Akwa managed to interest Puin, who was visiting Yemen for research purposes in 1979. Puin in turn persuaded the German government to organise and fund a restoration project. The restoration revealed that some of the parchment pages dated from the seventh and eighth centuries, the crucial first two centuries of Islam, from which very few manuscripts have survived.

Until now, there were three ancient copies of the Koran. One copy in the Library of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, and another in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, date from the eighth century. A copy preserved in the British Library in London, known as the Ma'il manuscript, dates from the late seventh century. But the Sa'na manuscripts are even older. Moreover, the Sa'na manuscripts are written in a script that originates from the Hijaz - the region of Arabia where the prophet Mohammed lived, which makes them not only the oldest to have survived, but one of the earliest copies of the Koran ever.

Puin noticed minor textual variations, unconventional ordering of the chapters (surahs), as well as rare styles of orthography. Then he noticed that the sheets were palimpsests - manuscripts with versions written even earlier that had been washed off or erased. These findings led Dr Puin to assert that the Koran had undergone a textual evolution. In other words, the copy of the Koran that we have is not the one believed to have been revealed to the prophet.

This is something that Muslims would find offensive.The idea that the Koran is the literal Word of God, unchanging and permanent, is crucial to Islam.The traditional Muslim view holds that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by God in fragments between 610 and 632 AD. The revealed verses were "recorded on palm leaves and flat stones and in the hearts of men [meaning memorised]," and remained in this state during the prophet's lifetime.

About 29 years after Mohammed's death during the rule of the third Muslim caliph, Uthman, a standard copy of the Koran in a book form, was made, because already divergent readings and copies were circulating in the growing Islamic empire. This Uthmanic recension, according to the Muslim view, was produced with meticulous care, based on earlier copies of the Koran made according to the instructions of the prophet.

Orthodox Muslims insist that no changes have occurred to the Koran since the Uthmanic recension. But this view is challenged by the Sa'na manuscripts, which date from shortly after the Uthmanic recension. "There are dialectal and phonetical variations that don't make any sense in the text", says Puin. "The Arabic script is very defective - even more so in the early stages of its literature."

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, says Puin. "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.

As years went by, the correct reading of the Koran became less clear, he says. People made changes to make sense of the text. Puin gives as example Hajjaj bin Yusuf, governor of Iraq from 694-714 AD, who "was proud of inserting more than 1,000 alifs [first letter of the Arabic alphabet] in the Koranic text".

Professor Allen Jones, lecturer in Koranic Studies at Oxford University, agrees. "Hajjaj is also responsible for putting the diacritical marks in the Koran. His changes are a defining moment in the history of the Koran". After Hajjaj's changes in around the 700s, "the Koranic text became pretty stable", he says.

Puin accepts this up to a point, but says that certain words and pronunciations were standardised in the ninth century. He says the Uthmanic text was the skeleton upon which "many layers of interpretation were added" - causing the text to change.

This is blasphemy, according to orthodox Muslims, and is not entirely accepted by other academics. Jones admits there have been "trifling" changes made to the Uthmanic recension. Khalidi says the traditional Muslim account of the Koran's development is still more or less true. "I haven't yet seen anything to radically alter my view," he says. He believes that the Sa'na Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet. "It's not inconceivable that after the promulgation of the Uthmanic text, it took a long time to filter down."

Puin's other radical theory is that pre-Islamic sources have entered the Koran. He argues that two tribes it mentions, As-Sahab-ar-Rass (Companions of the Well) and the As- Sahab-al-Aiqa (Companions of the Thorny Bushes) are not part of the Arab tradition, and the people of Mohammed's time certainly did not know about them. "These are very unspecific names, whereas other tribes are specifically mentioned," said Dr Puin.

His researches have shown that the ar-Rass lived in pre-Islamic Lebanon and the al-Aiqa in the Aswan region of Egypt around 150AD, according to the Atlas of Ptolemy. He argues that pre-Islamic sources entered the Koran, presumably when the growing Islamic empire came into contact with those regions and sources. Khalidi says finding pre-Islamic registers in the Koran does not discredit the Muslim belief in any way, because it does not threaten the integrity of the Koran. "The Koran was revealed at a particular time in the vocabulary of the age", he says. Puin also questions another sacred belief that Muslims hold about the Koran, 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".

Orthodox Muslims have always held that the Koran is a scripture in its own right, and never a shortened version of the Bible, even if both texts contain the same prophetic tradition. Khalidi says he is weary of constant attempts by western Islamicists to analyse the Koran in a parallel way to the Bible. Puin, however, sees the need for a "scientific text" of the Koran, and this is what he intends to achieve. He says that Muslims believe that "the Koran has been worked on a thousand years ago" and "is not a topic anymore".

Not all Muslim reaction to him has been hostile. Salim Abdullah, director of the German Islamic Archives, affiliated to the powerful pan-Islamic Muslim World League, has given him a positive response. "He asked me if I could give him the permission to publish one of my articles on the Sa'na manuscripts", said Puin. Warned of the possible controversy it could raise, he replied: "I am longing for this kind of discussion on this topic."






Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 12 August 2005 at 3:00pm

Originally posted by beloved

anyone answer please

I really couldn't get your call for? If you are refering to something by giving the dictionary meanings of "writer", "author" and "scribe", then it may be recalled that I said "distingusih" the difference between them and not the "resemblence". Therefore, when a website refered that Allah is the writer of Quran, within the dictionary meaning, it implies that Allah is the creator of it. Whereas Prophet Mohammad was  its messanger through whom this message came to humans. The "scribes" were those who were especially appointed by Prophet Mohammad for transferring the verbal Quran to written Quran. Though the names of these "scribes" have already been provided to you, but if you are not satisfied, somehow, do let me know, and I shall dig up that info for you. Not a big deal. However, one thing must not be forgotten, that since Quran was revealed over a period of almost 23 years, it wasn't revealed in chronological order. So, once all the Quran had been revealed, Prophet Mohammad dictated its order of compilation as well, after which it used to be recited in that order regularly especially in the month of Ramadan when whole quran is recited at least once. Not only this, it is reported that in the last year of his life, Prophet Mohammad twice recited whole of the Quran to Angel Jibreel. Hence even if some of the names of the scribes during this period of 23 years may not be fully known, it hardly matter since the messanger himself authenticated its completion before his death. Hence leaving No doubt about it.  



Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 12 August 2005 at 3:08pm
A word for bro Jazz for taking pains to post such lengthy "cut and paste" kind of things. My bro, honestly, if you have any thing specific to ask, you are most welcome, other wise pasting such typical rhetorics won't do any purpose. They are nothing new and have much been pretty appropriately replied back. I don't find any purpose of replying you back in the same way of tit for tat. Hopefully, you would present your own arguments, though, whatever your source of info may be.


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 13 August 2005 at 6:21am
I really couldn't get your call for?

Its not a call or is it.  Because the topic was shifted to a non-Muslim forum, I just want to give a message.

If you are refering to something by giving the dictionary meanings of "writer", "author" and "scribe", then it may be recalled that I said "distingusih" the difference between them and not the "resemblence".

I have given the exact meanings from the Marriam-Webster Dictionary.  I am neither tried to "distinguish" nor tried to "resemble".

Its for you to do what you want to do.

Therefore, when a website refered that Allah is the writer of Quran, within the dictionary meaning, it implies that Allah is the creator of it.  Whereas Prophet Mohammad was  its messanger through whom this message came to humans.

Now a new reference is given.  I know that Allah is the Creator of the Quran.  In fact everything was, is and will be created by Allah.

Please refer my premier question.  "If God were the revealer and Muhammad were the one who heard it, who is the writer?"

Though the names of these "scribes" have already been provided to you, but if you are not satisfied, somehow, do let me know, and I shall dig up that info for you. Not a big deal.

Only a few names were provided, isn't it?  I would like to know.  But since you concluded "Hence even if some of the names of the scribes during this period of 23 years may not be fully known", I would like to atleast "dig up" their names as it is not an impossible task.

However, one thing must not be forgotten, that since Quran was revealed over a period of almost 23 years, it wasn't revealed in chronological order.

I know it.  But some authors do not reveal this.

So, once all the Quran had been revealed, Prophet Mohammad dictated its order of compilation as well, after which it used to be recited in that order regularly especially in the month of Ramadan when whole quran is recited at least once. Not only this, it is reported that in the last year of his life, Prophet Mohammad twice recited whole of the Quran to Angel Jibreel. Hence even if some of the names of the scribes during this period of 23 years may not be fully known, it hardly matter since the messanger himself authenticated its completion before his death. Hence leaving No doubt about it. 

Can I know from where you got this information?  Because it is a well known fact that Holy Quran was not compiled during Prophet's time but was only remembered and recited.  People generally combine the time of Abu Bakr(the Caliph) and the Prophet and then say that Holy Quran was authenticated by the Prophet Himself. Isn't it?


Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 13 August 2005 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by AhmadJoyia

A word for bro Jazz for taking pains to post such lengthy "cut and paste" kind of things. My bro, honestly, if you have any thing specific to ask, you are most welcome, other wise pasting such typical rhetorics won't do any purpose. They are nothing new and have much been pretty appropriately replied back. I don't find any purpose of replying you back in the same way of tit for tat. Hopefully, you would present your own arguments, though, whatever your source of info may be.


Dear AhmadJoyia,

The length of the article and whether it was cut and paste is irrelevant.
It is the information contained within the article that matters, whether it be new or old to you, has little bearing on the content.

The argument is, that the assertion of unaltered, perfectly preserved Quran and that it was authored by God may not be true, the evidence supporting this argument is sound, logical and reasonable.

This sound, logical evidence which refutes the claims of unaltered and perfectly preserved Quran and that it was authored by God presently stands unrefuted in this thread.

Bear in mind that proof of preservation, if it were to be established, is not proof of authorship.........and proof of authorship (apparently impossible to establish) is not proof of preservation.

Believing something to be true does not make it true.

Here is more evidence to consider:-

Here is an hadith where it appears Abu Bakr is the first to produce a "revelation".........read the last part (in blue)

Sahih al-Bukari

كتاب الجنائز (The Book of Funerals)
No. 1171 - Narrated 'Aisha :

Abu Bakr came riding his horse from his dwelling place in As-Sunh. He got down from it, entered the Mosque and did not speak with anybody till he came to me and went direct to the Prophet, who was covered with a marked blanket. Abu Bakr uncovered his face. He knelt down and kissed him and then started weeping and said, "My father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Prophet! Allah will not combine two deaths on you. You have died the death which was written for you."
Narrated Abu Salama from Ibn Abbas : Abu Bakr came out and 'Umar , was addressing the people, and Abu Bakr told him to sit down but 'Umar refused. Abu Bakr again told him to sit down but 'Umar again refused. Then Abu Bakr recited the Tashah-hud (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle) and the people attended to Abu Bakr and left 'Umar. Abu Bakr said, "Amma ba'du, whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, Allah is alive and will never die. Allah said: 'Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed (many) Apostles have passed away before him ..(up to the) grateful.' " (3.144) (The narrator added, "By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and then whoever heard it, started reciting it ")
---------------------------------------------------------- --------

jazz


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 13 August 2005 at 10:24pm
The length of the article and whether it was cut and paste is irrelevant.
It is the information contained within the article that matters, whether it be new or old to you, has little bearing on the content.

The argument is, that the assertion of unaltered, perfectly preserved Quran and that it was authored by God may not be true, the evidence supporting this argument is sound, logical and reasonable.

This sound, logical evidence which refutes the claims of unaltered and perfectly preserved Quran and that it was authored by God presently stands unrefuted in this thread.

Bear in mind that proof of preservation, if it were to be established, is not proof of authorship.........and proof of authorship (apparently impossible to establish) is not proof of preservation.

Believing something to be true does not make it true.


Good bit of philosophy brother.
Keep flying.

Anyway, other members and I are not discussing authorship(which as you said is impossible to establish).  But we were discussing how the Holy Quran which exists now, exists?

There are many conflicts about this and no one knows where the first compiled Holy Quran is.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 14 August 2005 at 10:08pm

Originally posted by beloved


So, once all the Quran had been revealed, Prophet Mohammad dictated its order of compilation as well, after which it used to be recited in that order regularly especially in the month of Ramadan when whole quran is recited at least once. Not only this, it is reported that in the last year of his life, Prophet Mohammad twice recited whole of the Quran to Angel Jibreel. Hence even if some of the names of the scribes during this period of 23 years may not be fully known, it hardly matter since the messanger himself authenticated its completion before his death. Hence leaving No doubt about it. 

Can I know from where you got this information?  Because it is a well known fact that Holy Quran was not compiled during Prophet's time but was only remembered and recited.  People generally combine the time of Abu Bakr(the Caliph) and the Prophet and then say that Holy Quran was authenticated by the Prophet Himself. Isn't it?

Sure, my brother. Quran was duly compiled (placed in its proper order and format) within the life span of Prophet Mohammad. Here is the reference for the above information.

"The order and arrangement was of course well known to the Muslims due to the daily recitation of the Qur'an in the prayers at the mosque of the Prophet and at other places. Finally there are three ahadith in Sahih Bukhari, informing us that the Angel Gabriel used to recite the Qur'an with the Prophet once a year, but he recited it twice with him in the year he died. The Prophet used to stay in i'tikaf for ten days every year (in the month of Ramad. an), but in the year of his death, he stayed in i'tikaf for twenty days. [Bukhari, VI, No. 520; see also Nos. 518, 519.] "

On the more here is another reference "

Zaid is reported to have said:

'We used to compile the Qur'an from small scraps in the presence of the Apostle.' [Itqan, I, p. 99; Salih, p.69.]

"

and yet another reference "

'Uthman said, that in later days, the Prophet 'used to, when something was revealed to him, call someone from among those who used to write for him and said: Place these ayat in the sura, in which this and this is mentioned, and when (only) one aya was revealed to him, he said: Place this aya in the sura in which this and this is mentioned'. [Jeffery, A.: Materials for the history of the text of the qura'n, (incl. Kitab al-masahif by Ibn Abi Dawud (abbr. as Ibn Abi Dawud, masahif) Leiden, 1937, p. 31.]

"

 

 



Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 14 August 2005 at 10:55pm

Originally posted by Jazz

]
Dear AhmadJoyia,

The length of the article and whether it was cut and paste is irrelevant.
It is the information contained within the article that matters, whether it be new or old to you, has little bearing on the content.

Yes, indeed my brother you are correct in this statement, however, fact remains that all these issues have been replied as well. Isn’t it? Hence, it would not be honesty on someone’s part to bring them here without bringing the counter arguments or replies received on these questions. Though, anyone can reinitiate these issues, but then he has to understand them first and only then reason them out if they really make sense. The classical example to this is clearly reflected once you picked up one such issue and pasted at the end of this post. I shall show through dissecting this issue more fully at the end.



The argument is, that the assertion of unaltered, perfectly preserved Quran and that it was authored by God may not be true, the evidence supporting this argument is sound, logical and reasonable.

You have not presented any of your logic or argument except the one below and I shall see how do you understand it.



This sound, logical evidence which refutes the claims of unaltered and perfectly preserved Quran and that it was authored by God presently stands unrefuted in this thread.

Here you go, my brother. So, elsewhere, from where you got this material, this so called “logical evidence” was indeed refuted, though not on this thread. Hmm!!!. Not very late, my brother, keep bringing them one by one within your understanding, and I shall see how things get straighten up here as well.



Bear in mind that proof of preservation, if it were to be established, is not proof of authorship.........and proof of authorship (apparently impossible to establish) is not proof of preservation.

Believing something to be true does not make it true.

Surely,my brother. This is a perfectly reasonable approach. I hope you would also abide by the same once we get to discussing the Bible as well.



Here is more evidence to consider:-

Here is an hadith where it appears Abu Bakr is the first to produce a "revelation".........read the last part (in blue)

So, my dear brother what do you understand by this narration. Do you know who is the narrater and what was his/her relation with Abu-Bakr? Without these basic questions, how can one even claim to understand the subject of such “snap-shot” like narrations? Yes, these are indeed “snap-shot” narrations as the narration itself doesn’t provide any details as what happened before and after this narration, which is highly important to understand the context under which such narrations occurred. Now, coming to your fallacy of “where it appears Abu Bakr is the first to produce a "revelation".........read the last part (in blue)

Ok, though there are so many things that can be used to refute your understanding, but I shall restrict myself to some very obvious ones.

This is the narration of the events right at the time of death of our beloved Prophet Mohammad. People around him who used to love him more than their own very close near and dear ones got shocked on the news of his death. They didn’t believe that such a person can ever die. So they were not satisfied with the news and were arguing on this news. So when Abu Bakr came to this place, he immediately recalled them the verses of the Quran that “Then Abu Bakr recited the Tashah-hud (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle)” and then recited from the Quran that “Allah said: 'Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed (many) Apostles have passed away before him ..(up to the) grateful.' " (3.144)”.  These verses indicated that indeed Prophet Mohammad was a natural human being just like other Prophets of Allah before him. Since they all died, hence the same way Prophet Mohammad had to die as well. Also note his own famous sayings at that moment of shock “"Amma ba'du, whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, Allah is alive and will never die”, Hence, the people now realized that indeed its Allah who is their guardian and protector and Prophet Mohammad was simply a messenger to convey His message. It is in this sense that the narrator added that “"By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and then whoever heard it, started reciting it ")

On the more, if someone looks at the blue highlighted text a little more closely now than before, “it was as if” part of it clearly shows that people, in the time of shock, had forgotten those verses which Abu Bakr simply made them remind and the narrator made a note of effect of this reminder on the people.

I hope with this example, one would understand the shallowness of all such accusations presented above. Anyhow, if you still feel uncomfortable with this or with any other example like this, feel free to bring it forward.



Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 14 August 2005 at 11:06pm

Originally posted by beloved

Good bit of philosophy brother.
Keep flying.

Anyway, other members and I are not discussing authorship(which as you said is impossible to establish).  But we were discussing how the Holy Quran which exists now, exists?

There are many conflicts about this and no one knows where the first compiled Holy Quran is.

Oh, I see. So you mean bro Jazz is diverting from the topic and I am being dragged too in this direction. Hmm! I better correct myself but only if bro Jazz don't blame me for avoiding his precious questions on Quran.



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 15 August 2005 at 1:51am

Can I know from where did you get this information?

If it is from the Hadith, please give me the reference aptly.

This is what my second post in this topic refers to, "When was the hadith written, before or after the compilation of Quran? And who wrote the hadith?"

The first reference definitely does not tell us that it was written.  It was only verbally compiled isn't it?

Zaid is reported to have said:

'We used to compile the Qur'an from small scraps in the presence of the Apostle.' [Itqan, I, p. 99; Salih, p.69.]

This reference though seems good, but never closer to the answer.  Why does it have the continuous tense?  Was it compiled verbally or in written form?  If the Quran was compiled during the time of Prophet in written form, then what was the need to compile it again soon after the demise of Beloved Prophet?  And if this statement is true then can you please tell me was this "compiled Qur'an" used as a reference to compile It "again"?

The third reference does not tell about the compilation of the entire Holy Quran, it only tells about some suras and ayats being placed in them.

Thanks.

P.S. By the way, why do you think Holy Quran was not revealed in chronological order? And one of my old questions, what was the need of dotting etc., of the Holy Quran?



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 15 August 2005 at 1:51am

Oh, I see. So you mean bro Jazz is diverting from the topic and I am being dragged too in this direction. Hmm! I better correct myself but only if bro Jazz don't blame me for avoiding his precious questions on Quran.

You can continue your talk with Jazz Ahmad.  I liked his philosophy thats why I appreciated him, if you don't like it, what should I do?  I told Jazz about my problem, that is all in it.



Posted By: mazallen
Date Posted: 16 August 2005 at 1:44am

As Salamu Alaikum,

I've heard from certain internet sources, and Arabic textbooks, that signs for short verbs (the dotting) were added to the Qur'an because non-Arabic speakers were misinterpreting phrases from it (since they were unfamiliar with the Arabic language and frequently misprounounced key words.)  In a word, Khalifa Uthman (may Allah, s.w.t., be pleased with him) added the dotting and dashes so that new believers would not remain ignorant of their religion.  Unfortunately some saw this, too, as "innovation."

Peace



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 16 August 2005 at 7:50am
that signs for short verbs (the dotting) were added to the Qur'an because non-Arabic speakers were misinterpreting phrases from it (since they were unfamiliar with the Arabic language and frequently misprounounced key words.)

Does that mean Arabic did not have short verbs?


Posted By: Deus
Date Posted: 16 August 2005 at 10:47am

Originally posted by beloved


P.S. By the way, why do you think Holy Quran was not revealed in chronological order? And one of my old questions, what was the need of dotting etc., of the Holy Quran?

The dotting in Arabic was implemented so that one can distinguish between different letters (for example, the letter ba and ta look the same, except that ba has a dot under, while ta has 2 dots over.) Arabic was much more of an oral language before Islam, and the written Quran had no dots or pronounciation marks (which are quite similar to vowels in English). Someone who had memorized or was familiar with the Quranic verses would easily read the ambiguous written Quran that lacked dots and pronounciation marks. However, for someone reading it for the first time, or someone learning Arabic, it would be near impossible to read a sentence that lacked the dots and pronounciation marks. And this is the reason why dots were added to the written Arabic language. Later on, pronounciation marks ("vowels") were introduced by al-Hajjaj (not Uthman) to further clarify the written Arabic leaving no room for ambiguity.

(References: mostly from my own memory, but you can check Wikipedia, look up "Arabic language")

As to why the Quran was not revealed in chronological order... I guess you mean why the Quran is not canonized in chronological order? As far as I know, the reasons are not very clear or concrete. It was simply decided to place the surah's in the order of length, from longest to shortest.

(On a personal note, I find it interesting that the end of the Quran speaks about the end of the world, while the first third of it talks about stories of the past. The middle chunk talks about laws and current affairs (of the time of revalation).)



Posted By: mazallen
Date Posted: 16 August 2005 at 11:53am

As Salam Alaikum wa rahmatu'llah,

Thank you Br. Deus for the clarification -- Khalifa Uthman ibn Affan was responsible for the first authenticated version of the Qur'an, but the marks were added by Al-Hajjaj bin Yusef.  The point still stands though: that it was for the purposes of clearing all ambiguity.  Anyways, here is the reference to the short vowels I referred to (and yes it is from Wiki):

Diacritics

Vowels

Arabic short vowels are generally not written, except sometimes in sacred texts (such as the Qur'an) and didactics, which are known as vocalised texts. Occasionally short vowels are marked where the word would otherwise be ambiguous and cannot be resolved simply from context.

Short vowels may be written with diacritics placed above or below the consonant that precedes them in the syllable. (All Arabic vowels, long and short, follow a consonant; contrary to appearances: there is a consonant at the start of a name like Ali — in Arabic ʻAlî — or a word like ʼalif.)

Returning to the discussion, Arabic had short vowels, but these were not written in earlier texts because everyone knew where the short vowels belonged (as the readers of those early texts were all native Arabic speakers.)  If there are any errors in this post, remember, only Allah (s.w.t) is perfect.  The writer of this post is only a man (and, moreover, one trying to become better acquainted with Islam.)

Peace  



Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 17 August 2005 at 12:27am

My dear brother, though I have already spent alot more time than is usually required for such simple questions that you have asked, but nevertheless, you don't seem to go through them. All the evidence presented has full reference mentioned along with them. Kindly either refute those references as false, so that I shall open up the books for you or make little efforts on your ownself to verify the facts. Other than that it seems you have nothing else to ask for. Anyhow, I shall continue to respond to your comments, how simplistic they may appear. 

Originally posted by beloved

Can I know from where did you get this information?

I think since all references are self sufficient, there is hardly any need for such a question.

If it is from the Hadith, please give me the reference aptly.

Any student of Islamic literature would recognize this, though the reference themselves says it also. e.g. Bukhari, VI, No. 520; see also Nos. 518, 519.]

This is what my second post in this topic refers to, "When was the hadith written, before or after the compilation of Quran? And who wrote the hadith?"

Definitely, ahadith collection was done very much after Quran was compiled.

The first reference definitely does not tell us that it was written.  It was only verbally compiled isn't it?

It indeed tells us that Quran was compiled right in the presence of Prophet Mohammad and hence not a later addition. Also, though verbally, it doesn't preclude that it wasn't done in the written form as well. Isn't it? This is especially true in the light of second evidnec.

Zaid is reported to have said:

'We used to compile the Qur'an from small scraps in the presence of the Apostle.' [Itqan, I, p. 99; Salih, p.69.]

This reference though seems good, but never closer to the answer.  Why does it have the continuous tense?  Was it compiled verbally or in written form? 

Is this the reason that you think that it doesn't get closer? So my dear, the person in the reference is narrating his own duties that he used to perform when he was with Prophet Mohammad as a scribe. Hence his selection of tense would show his direct action of compiling the Quran.

 If the Quran was compiled during the time of Prophet in written form, then what was the need to compile it again soon after the demise of Beloved Prophet? 

My dear, this compilation, as we understand is, to put all the Quranic verses in order and in one place as we also know that Quran was not revealed in choronological order. Hence, this compilation must relate to this job of putting the verses in order as what we now have Quran with us, right in the presence of Prophet Mohammad.

 And if this statement is true then can you please tell me was this "compiled Qur'an" used as a reference to compile It "again"?

Later day compilations were to make it in one or more bound copy/ies of Quran as per need basis.

 

The third reference does not tell about the compilation of the entire Holy Quran, it only tells about some suras and ayats being placed in them.

Yap. You are right to some extent, but it does show that the ordering of the verses of Quran, as is also shown in reference 2, was done right in the time of Prophet Mohammad when he was alive.

Thanks.

P.S. By the way, why do you think Holy Quran was not revealed in chronological order?

O my brother, there is no thinking on my part. Its all from the evidence that I have shown you. Also the formation of verses in Quran when correlated with Islamic history, confirms this.

And one of my old questions, what was the need of dotting etc., of the Holy Quran?

I think you have already been answered on this by other brothers on this forum.



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 17 August 2005 at 8:45pm
Thank you Deus for your prompt answer.  Cheers!

Can I know how old is the Arabic language is?


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 17 August 2005 at 8:50pm
Thank you Mazellen, but your statement, "Unfortunately some saw this, too, as "innovation."" is biased.  Obviously it was an innovation though not a verbal innovation, it was a literal innovation.  A language with an alphabet(i.e., a written language) is not complete until it does not contain the alphabet for all its verbal conterparts.


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 17 August 2005 at 8:56pm
My dear brother, though I have already spent alot more time than is usually required for such simple questions that you have asked, but nevertheless, you don't seem to go through them.

Brother, I first thank you for your valuable time given to me.

My questions are critical.  They are ought to be.  But they are not simple questions simply because, as you yourself see, every Muslim has his own opinion and it is very hard to know what the truth is.  Just read this whole topic once and you will find a lot of ambiguity in it.
And even your replies aren't complete.  They lack the essential element, i.e., confidence.  I had been to many Muslim forums and have asked the same question.  One person does not agree with the other.

Your recent post raised many questions.  I will ask them in the next post as I have to leave to work.

Until then, good bye!


Posted By: mazallen
Date Posted: 17 August 2005 at 10:33pm

Originally posted by beloved

Thank you Mazellen, but your statement, "Unfortunately some saw this, too, as "innovation."" is biased.  Obviously it was an innovation though not a verbal innovation, it was a literal innovation.  A language with an alphabet(i.e., a written language) is not complete until it does not contain the alphabet for all its verbal conterparts.

I was referring to the first authorized version of the Qur'an -- which (according to some historians on Wikipedia) certain people saw as "innovation" or bid'a.  Fortunately these were a very small minority.  However, the point is moot since (as Br. Deus has pointed out) the diacritical marks were not added to the Qur'an until well in the Umayyad Khalifat (by Al Hajjaj bin Yusef, r.a.)  May none of these postings lead anyone astray.

Subhan'allah and Peace  



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 18 August 2005 at 8:14am
Any student of Islamic literature would recognize this, though the reference themselves says it also. e.g. Bukhari, VI, No. 520; see also Nos. 518, 519.]

That is why I did not quote it.

Definitely, ahadith collection was done very much after Quran was compiled.

Yes, I know it, but you missed my question, "
And who wrote the hadith?"

The fact that Ahadith were writtne after Holy Quran leads to a lot of deviation of facts.  How can we believe in Ahadith which is purely based on memory and that too long term memory?

It indeed tells us that Quran was compiled right in the presence of Prophet Mohammad and hence not a later addition. Also, though verbally, it doesn't preclude that it wasn't done in the written form as well. Isn't it? This is especially true in the light of second evidnec.

But you don't even know whether it was compiled in hard copy from the Ahadith's Bukhari.  It is, to say, an open statement.  Let's take the second evidence you have given.

'We used to compile the Qur'an from small scraps in the presence of the Apostle.' [Itqan, I, p. 99; Salih, p.69.]

The statement is not comprehensive.  It does not convincingly say that Holy Quran was written again.  If it was written, can we know where that Holy Quran is present?
Above all I did not find this Salih in the Ahadith.  Can you please give me the reference.


My dear, this compilation, as we understand is, to put all the Quranic verses in order and in one place as we also know that Quran was not revealed in choronological order. Hence, this compilation must relate to this job of putting the verses in order as what we now have Quran with us, right in the presence of Prophet Mohammad.


I still did not get any answer for why was the Holy Quran not revealed in the chronological order?  From your answer at the end of the topic, can I take it that no one knows the answer?

Please tell me whether It was written or just remembered verbally.

Later day compilations were to make it in one or more bound copy/ies of Quran as per need basis.

Acha, is this your assumption or something with enough proof?

Thank you.


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 18 August 2005 at 8:18am
I was referring to the first authorized version of the Qur'an -- which (according to some historians on Wikipedia) certain people saw as "innovation" or bid'a.

Brother Mazallen, thanks for being prompt.


Posted By: ontherise2
Date Posted: 18 August 2005 at 10:14am

This is what he writes:

My dear brother, though I have already spent alot more time than is usually required for such simple questions that you have asked, but nevertheless, you don't seem to go through them.

Brother, I first thank you for your valuable time given to me.

My questions are critical.  They are ought to be.  But they are not simple questions simply because, as you yourself see, every Muslim has his own opinion and it is very hard to know what the truth is.  Just read this whole topic once and you will find a lot of ambiguity in it.
And even your replies aren't complete.  They lack the essential element, i.e., confidence.  I had been to many Muslim forums and have asked the same question.  One person does not agree with the other.

Your recent post raised many questions.  I will ask them in the next post as I have to leave to work.

Until then, good bye!

He must have forgotten that this is an even greater problem with his own christian religion.

I wouldn't call it ignorance, just deception....as usual.

Dear muslim brother and sister, don't spend too much time discussing with these guys, their only purpose is to make you weak in your faith.

On the positive side (they don't want this) you will actually learn more about Islam and your faith will be stronger. You will learn that christians are totally misled.

May ALLAH s.w.t guide you and strengthen your faith. And you christian or non-muslim reader, may ALLAH s.w.t (GOD) guide you too so you can come back to basics and the true religion of GOD.

Peace

 



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 18 August 2005 at 7:04pm
Brother, ontherise2, if you are so confident that Holy Quran is the word of God, then why are you so sad about such a simple question?

Whether it is ignorance or deception, God knows best.

No need to blame me, if your faith is good enough no one can make you weak.

So first be a good Muslim then try to suggest others.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 18 August 2005 at 7:55pm

My dear beloved, thanks for your comments and concerns, however, I do now realize that you don't know even the ABC of Islamic literature. This is clearly evident once you ask such questions and once replied you start posing as though everything was already known to you. "Definitely, ahadith collection was done very much after Quran was compiled.

Yes, I know it, but you missed my question, "
And who wrote the hadith?""

This kind of arguments are sicken in nature, if nothing else, simply because any ordianary student of Islamic literature would know this.

On the more, here is a lot more what reveals your true knowledge once you say 

........The fact that Ahadith were writtne after Holy Quran leads to a lot of deviation of facts.  How can we believe in Ahadith which is purely based on memory and that too long term memory?....

 It seems that you really need to learn about the fundamentals of science of hadith. Surely, I am not the one who is going to teach you a lesson.



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 18 August 2005 at 8:30pm
Brother, I need not know the science of Ahadith.  I would be grateful to you if you can help me out in the History of Holy Quran, thats all.

Atleast give me the reference of,'We used to compile the Qur'an from small scraps in the presence of the Apostle.' [Itqan, I, p. 99; Salih, p.69.]

I will read it by myself.

But I find you to be very intelligent reading your posts on Christianity etc.  But why are you so saddened of my question?


Posted By: Deus
Date Posted: 18 August 2005 at 8:52pm
A simple wikipedia search on " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith - hadith " will give you a good introduction, though http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/atit.html - this page focuses more on the science of hadith and is more detailed (can be overwhelming for the first time). If you still have any questions regarding hadith, you're welcome to start a new thread (this one is concerned with Quran and it is getting long.)


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 20 August 2005 at 1:59pm

Originally posted by beloved


.....Atleast give me the reference of,'We used to compile the Qur'an from small scraps in the presence of the Apostle.' [Itqan, I, p. 99; Salih, p.69.]

I will read it by myself.

O my dear brother, not everything is online, so you need to go and search for the Islamic literature from some library etc. Search of "Jalal al-Din Suyuti, 'Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Quran" would do the needful you asked for.

Cheers!



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 22 August 2005 at 6:14am
Thank you Deus.

But we shall stick to the topic.


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 22 August 2005 at 7:01am
Thank you Ahmad.

Brother Ahmad, you may be very confident about the Ahadith, but even the earliest Hadith was written more than a century after Prophet Muhammad's demise.  Then how is it reliable?  Even if the science is good, it is mainly based on belief.  It is better not consider Ahadith which is of the topic.

You said,"Later day compilations were to make it in one or more bound copy/ies of Quran as per need basis."

But from the answer which you thought was complete, "Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr to preserve and compile the Qur'an. This was prompted after the battle of Yamamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorized the Qur'an."
This means that the later day compilations were not to make It in one or more bound copy/ies of Holy Quran, but the compilation was an imminent need.
So can we assume that the Holy Quran which we have now is a compilation of Abu Bakr?



Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 22 August 2005 at 9:59am

Dea brother beloved thanks for your reply. As far "Then how is it reliable?" is concerned or even more stringently, about authenticity of ahadith is concerned, all comes in the domain of 'science of ahadith'. All issues of reliablity, authenticity and various gradation in them are scientifically looked upon and then accepted and is not a matter of faith at all. This is the reason, I referred you to that knowledge which is the basic before even alluding to it with such questions.

Now coming to your concern about "compilation", important thing to note is as what is meant by compilation at the two occassions i.e. compilation at the time of Prophet Mohammad and the compilation after wards. Compilation at the time of Prophet Mohammad refers to the process of putting all the written material in an ordered format, that is to say, the process of putting all the verses at their due positions; not necessarily in the form of a one unified book that we now see it. The later processes of compilation refers to making this loose but ordered peices/fragments transfer onto one and same kind of material on which it could be in written and thus forms one or more bound book/s.

 



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 24 August 2005 at 6:10am
scientifically looked upon and then accepted and is not a matter of faith at all.

Is there any mistake in the spelling?

Whatever was passed on, was in oral form.  That too for more than a century.  And it is the collection of history, an event in time, which means it cannot be repeated.  Then how can you say "scientifically"?  It is based on memory and the belief that the person is truthful.  Moreover different sects believe in different Ahadith.  Then how can you say that it is not a matter of faith at all?

Compilation at the time of Prophet Mohammad refers to the process of putting all the written material in an ordered format, that is to say, the process of putting all the verses at their due positions; not necessarily in the form of a one unified book that we now see it.

So you mean to say that the compilation was verbal.  But my question(and topic) were with regard to a hard copy which we are having at present.  So here we go again(but without straying away)...

The later processes of compilation refers to making this loose but ordered peices/fragments transfer onto one and same kind of material on which it could be in written and thus forms one or more bound book/s.

This compilation was made after the demise of our Prophet by Zayed Ibn Thabit.  Now this compilation was made from people based on their memory.  You also promised me about digging up their names for me which you said is not a big deal.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 August 2005 at 7:14am

O my dear brother beloved (with blinking eyes), its really not as difficult to understand as someone may think. Instead of arguing baselessly, hairspliting with "spelling mistakes" or otherwise, it would be more prudent to spend time in opening up the references that are provided.

Regarding your comments "So you mean to say that the compilation was verbal...." is not the logical outcome from my reply especially once the second paragraph is read along with it where I mentioned the process of later compilations as "..making this loose but ordered peices/fragments transfer ..". These both compilations were physical actions and not verbal alone. Though the orders for compilation from Prophet Mohammad must have been verbal, same way as the revelations were communicated to the scribes, but the actions of scribes to obey these commands to put them in an ordered format can't be considered verbal alone.

Regarding the names of the scribe, I realised that not all Islamic literature is available online, hence not readily accessable as I initially thought. Nevertheless, once you open up the Islamic literature books, you would definitely come across them as well. 



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 25 August 2005 at 10:19am
< http-equiv="content-" content="text/;charset=UTF-8"> < style ="text/css">

O my dear brother beloved (with blinking eyes), its really not as difficult to understand as someone may think. Instead of arguing baselessly, hairspliting with "spelling mistakes" or otherwise, it would be more prudent to spend time in opening up the references that are provided.

The references you provided(what you call science) is based on belief that the person is truthful.  And different sects have different Ahadith.  The reference you provided,
Jalal al-Din Suyuti(about Itqan) bases his conclusions on those Ahadith.

Do you say these arguments to be baseless?  Without answering my questions, "
Whatever was passed on, was in oral form.  That too for more than a century.  And it is the collection of history, an event in time, which means it cannot be repeated.  Then how can you say "scientifically"?  It is based on memory and the belief that the person is truthful.  Moreover different sects believe in different Ahadith.  Then how can you say that it is not a matter of faith at all?"

Your own argument is interesting.

Regarding your comments "
So you mean to say that the compilation was verbal...." is not the logical outcome from my reply especially once the second paragraph is read along with it where I mentioned the process of later compilations as "..making this loose but ordered peices/fragments transfer ..". These both compilations were physical actions and not verbal alone. Though the orders for compilation from Prophet Mohammad must have been verbal, same way as the revelations were communicated to the scribes, but the actions of scribes to obey these commands to put them in an ordered format can't be considered verbal alone.

Yes you are right, at the same time they cannot be considered as being compiled in a hard copy form.

And so we are considering Zayed's compilation.

Regarding the names of the scribe, I realised that not all Islamic literature is available online, hence not readily accessable as I initially thought. Nevertheless, once you open up the Islamic literature books, you would definitely come across them as well.

Can you please give the names of the scribes and also which books to search for?  Thank you.



Posted By: masad
Date Posted: 04 September 2005 at 10:58pm

Hello and Salam

If "Beloved" really wanted to understand, then it would be great to search around for articles and do deep research but unfortunately having made his way from the faithfreedom.org anti-Islam site to dupe unknowing believers he or she has a different motive, or so it seems ( http://www.faithfreedom.org/holiday/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=143&start=15 - http://www.faithfreedom.org/holiday/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1 43&start=15  )

That being clarified, we know that the Quran was written because it claims to be written and it records observations of people who didnt believe who SAW that it was being written, we don't have to look at outside sources that come much later in history:

Sura 98:2 "A messenger from Allah, reading purified pages"

This mentions "pages"

Sura 25:5 "And they say: The stories of the ancients-- he has got them written-- so these are read out to him morning and evening."

Here the Quran reproduces the speech of unbelievers who were accusing the prophet, much like the faithfreedom group of inventing something that they could SEE was authorized by the prophet to be written.

There are other references as well but these two should suffice.

 

 

 

 



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 11:17pm
If "Beloved" really wanted to understand, then it would be great to search around for articles and do deep research but unfortunately having made his way from the faithfreedom.org anti-Islam site to dupe unknowing believers he or she has a different motive, or so it seems ( http://www.faithfreedom.org/holiday/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=143&start=15 - http://www.faithfreedom.org/holiday/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1 43&start=15  )

Interesting Masad.  First thank you for giving me that site.  I am nowhere connected to that forum.

anti-Islam site to dupe unknowing believers he or she has a different motive, or so it seems

By the way, Muslims consider the other 80% of the world population to be "anti-Islam".

Whats wrong is asking questions?  This topic was moved from "Quran and Sunnah" to this non-Muslim discussion without any tag.


That being clarified, we know that the Quran was written because it claims to be written and it records observations of people who didnt believe who SAW that it was being written, we don't have to look at outside sources that come much later in history:

Sura 98:2 "A messenger from Allah, reading purified pages"

Surahs form the part of written Holy Quran.

And my question is not "Was Quran written", but my question is who wrote Holy Quran.


Sura 25:5 "And they say: The stories of the ancients-- he has got them written-- so these are read out to him morning and evening."

Here the Quran reproduces the speech of unbelievers who were accusing the prophet, much like the faithfreedom group of inventing something that they could SEE was authorized by the prophet to be written.

<>There are other references as well but these two should suffice.


This is directly opposite of what I want.  Here no one is accusing the Prophet.


Posted By: masad
Date Posted: 08 September 2005 at 7:33pm

Very surprising that you do not know that forum since they seem to know you very well. Anyway,

Please clarify what your point is in asking "who wrote the Quran". If you are asking pointless questions like people at faithfreedom, assuming that because of your pointless questions believers will automatically develop doubt, then you are wasting my time and the time of others, who go through much effort in answering you. Since people have limited time, there is something definitely WRONG in asking pointless questions to waste people's time and deliberately push put them in a quest for futile nonsense.

What do you want to prove or disprove by asking the questions "Who wrote the Quran"- develop a logical argument so I can frame a logical response, just don't throw out pointless questions like Ali Sina of faithfreedom. If you are unknowingly using this tactic then get an education and if you're deliberately using it, then shame on you.



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 08 September 2005 at 8:50pm
Very surprising that you do not know that forum since they seem to know you very well.

If they know me, its not my mistake.  This is interenet brother.

Please clarify what your point is in asking "who wrote the Quran". If you are asking pointless questions like people at faithfreedom, assuming that because of your pointless questions believers will automatically develop doubt, then you are wasting my time and the time of others, who go through much effort in answering you.

Its upto you how you take my questions.  People in some other forum take my questions to be an attack and yet another a search for knowledge.  Can you point where my questions are pointless?
And I never ever thought of creating doubt.  This was first pointed out by Yusuf and then by you.  Why do you people feel so insecure?

Since people have limited time, there is something definitely WRONG in asking pointless questions to waste people's time and deliberately push put them in a quest for futile nonsense.
What do you want to prove or disprove by asking the questions "Who wrote the Quran"- develop a logical argument so I can frame a logical response, just don't throw out pointless questions like Ali Sina of faithfreedom. If you are unknowingly using this tactic then get an education and if you're deliberately using it, then shame on you.


I feel this to be a personal attack and I hope the moderators are watching it.  This is illogical to identify me with some other.

I respect other people's time and I never forced anyone into this discussion.

Please point out where my questions are pointless.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 09 September 2005 at 9:06am

Coming back to my normal routine from some other diversions in life, I may like to continue with your comments, though they are nothing but baseless.

Originally posted by beloved

< http-equiv="content-" content="text/;charset=UTF-8"> < style ="text/css">


The references you provided(what you call science) is based on belief that the person is truthful. 

Do you have any problem with this concept? Even the modern day courts accept this rule i.e. a person is considered truthfull untill proven other wise. Isn't it? So whats the problem?

 And different sects have different Ahadith.  The reference you provided, Jalal al-Din Suyuti(about Itqan) bases his conclusions on those Ahadith.

Authenticity of ahadith is done through science of higher criticism, the same way all other other histroical documents of the world are analysed. Do you deny this science? Differing sects agreeing on different ahadith is not a weekness but is based on logical argumentation; differing on the rules of admissability of a particular hadith. But again, everyone presents their logical reasoning to accept or reject a hadith, hence not a matter of faith alone.


Do you say these arguments to be baseless?  Without answering my questions, "
Whatever was passed on, was in oral form.  That too for more than a century. 

This is just a hypothesis without specific proof. It can easily be contrasted with the science of ahadith collection/acceptance.

 And it is the collection of history, an event in time, which means it cannot be repeated.  Then how can you say "scientifically"? 

As I have already said, "textual higher criticism" is a science of evaluating the authenticity of a proclaimed historical document. Its not unique to ahadith only but is widely applied on all historical documents. Probably, early Muslim scholars were among the poineers of using this science to evaluate their own books before putting their faith in them. This is the reason that they have classified these ahadith into different categories. I hope this would motivate the readers to go and understand this science of higher criticism before casting aspertions on the validity of oral transmission.

 It is based on memory and the belief that the person is truthful.  Moreover different sects believe in different Ahadith.  Then how can you say that it is not a matter of faith at all?"

Your own argument is interesting.

I hope I have presented you sufficient information for self reflection than simply interesting.



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 09 September 2005 at 11:10am
Coming back to my normal routine from some other diversions in life, I may like to continue with your comments, though they are nothing but baseless.

Hope I am not wasting your time as some members want others to believe.
And the answers I mostly get are similar, "baseless", "pointless" etc.

Do you have any problem with this concept? Even the modern day courts accept this rule i.e. a person is considered truthfull untill proven other wise. Isn't it? So whats the problem?

I don't even bother about that concept because it is based on the recordings of, may be, second or third generation.  I wonder how people believed in the Holy Quran until the Ahadith were written.

And your arguement, "Even the modern day courts accept this rule i.e. a person is considered truthfull untill proven other wise." has nothing to do with our present discussion just because the collection is based on belief and not on factual or physical evidence.  And later in the topic you said something about "textual higher criticism" which means that their existed some text which is what our present topic deals with.  So "until proven otherwise" is out for now.

Authenticity of ahadith is done through science of higher criticism, the same way all other other histroical documents of the world are analysed. Do you deny this science?

The science of higher criticism is a western science and it was "invented" a long time after Holy Quran was written.  And this western science neither supports Holy Quran nor Ahadith.  So it is better not to discuss about it.

Differing sects agreeing on different ahadith is not a weekness but is based on logical argumentation; differing on the rules of admissability of a particular hadith. But again, everyone presents their logical reasoning to accept or reject a hadith, hence not a matter of faith alone.

Do you mean to say one sect's logic is totally different from another sect's?  Then how can you call it "logic"?  Its like logic disproving logic, a cyclic redundancy check.

This is just a hypothesis without specific proof. It can easily be contrasted with the science of ahadith collection/acceptance.

Whatever you call as "science" was "invented" more than a century after the demise of our beloved Prophet.  And there are more counter-proofs than there are proofs for your claim about Ahadith.

As I have already said, "textual higher criticism" is a science of evaluating the authenticity of a proclaimed historical document. Its not unique to ahadith only but is widely applied on all historical documents. Probably, early Muslim scholars were among the poineers of using this science to evaluate their own books before putting their faith in them. This is the reason that they have classified these ahadith into different categories. I hope this would motivate the readers to go and understand this science of higher criticism before casting aspertions on the validity of oral transmission.

Comaparing science of Ahadith with science of higher criticism is not at all logical because as you said "differing on the rules of admissability of a particular hadith".  This means different sect had different rules unlike the science of higher criticism which is a common evaluation tool.

And we have gone way beyond our present topic.  Please, can we continue with the Zayed's compilation(which is much before any Hadith was written)?  From where Zayed has compiled Holy Quran if not from anonymous sources?  To be more precise, I would ask you to tell me about the "text" when you said "textual higher criticism".

Thank you.


Posted By: masad
Date Posted: 09 September 2005 at 12:56pm

Here is an article on hadith for those who are interested

http://hadith.rationalreality.com



Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 10 September 2005 at 6:21am
Here is an article in it's entirety, for those whom may be interested.

Read it all and offer your comments about it........the author is somewhat of a christian zealot in that he has a need to believe that Jesus was endowed with godly divinity.......personally I don't need to be wooed by claims of zealots' claims of divinity, miracles, virgin mother, son of God, walking on water, resurrection from death, etc to take-on the guidance and message of Jesus, the guidance he gave stands and is lasting without any need to be impressed or swayed by any such trappings......................try to grasp the logic in this article anyway.

Quote:

For nearly two thousand years, Christians have proclaimed Jesus’ death and resurrection. Islam rejects both of these doctrines and offers a different account of what happened at the cross and afterwards. However, the Muslim explanation comes at a tremendous price: Their version of the story portrays God as a horrible deceiver, and Jesus as the most stupendous failure in the history of the prophets. Hence, while Muslims claim that “Allah is Truth”[1] and that Jesus is to be revered as one of Allah’s mightiest prophets, these claims are hollow, for Islamic dogma comes with a great deal of heresy.

Allah Starts Christianity . . . By Accident

If we examine the teachings of Islam, we find that Allah not only started Christianity, but also made Christianity the world’s dominant religion. This fact should seem strange to everyone, for Muslims believe that Christianity is a false religion. Of course, Muslims will respond by arguing that Christianity is a false religion because it was corrupted by man, but that in its original state it was the message of Allah given to Jesus the son of Mary.

While there isn’t a shred of evidence that the followers of Jesus ever believed anything similar to Islam, this is beside the point. According to Islam, Christianity was corrupted by Allah himself. To understand why Islam demands such a view, let us review a few facts.

FACT #1: The Qur’an states that Jesus was a messenger of Allah and a prophet of Islam. Indeed, Surah 19 tells us that Jesus began preaching Islamic theology the moment he was born:

And the throes (of childbirth) compelled [Mary] to betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten! Then (the child [i.e. the infant Jesus]) called out to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you; And shake towards you the trunk of the palmtree, it will drop on you fresh ripe dates: So eat and drink and refresh the eye. . . . Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet; And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live; And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed; And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.[2]

Jesus continued to preach the message of God throughout his life, until he was taken to heaven. According to the Qur’an, the Gospel that Jesus brought was no different from the message of the prophets before him. Jesus, a servant and prophet of God, preached Islam:

The same religion has He Established for you as that Which He enjoined on Noah—That which We have sent By inspiration to thee—And that which We enjoined On Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain Steadfast in Religion, and make No divisions therein.[3]

[Jesus] was no more than A servant: We granted Our favour to him, And We made him An example to the Children of Israel. . . . When Jesus came With Clear Signs, he said: “Now have I come To you with Wisdom, And in order to make Clear to you some Of the (points) on which Ye dispute: therefore fear Allah And obey me. For Allah, He is my Lord And your Lord: so worship Ye Him: this is A Straight Way.”[4]
Thus, Jesus spent approximately 33 years, from his birth to his ascension, preaching Islam to the children of Israel. Prior to his apparent crucifixion, his preaching was moderately successful, as the conversion of some of his listeners indicates.

FACT #2: The Qur’an states that Jesus won a number of followers. Since Jesus spent his entire life preaching an early form of Islam, his message to his disciples must have centered around the basic tenets of Islamic theology. These disciples would have become something similar to Muslims, which is exactly what Islam teaches about Jesus’ followers:

When Jesus found Unbelief on their [i.e. the Jews’] Part He said: “Who will be My helpers to (the work Of) Allah?” Said the Disciples: “We are Allah’s helpers: We believe in Allah, And do thou bear witness That we are Muslims.”[5]

And behold! I inspired The Disciples [of Jesus] to have faith In Me and Mine Messenger; They said, “We have faith, And do thou bear witness That we bow to Allah As Muslims.”[6]

Then, in their wake, We followed them up With (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, And bestowed on him The Gospel; and We ordained In the hearts of those Who followed him Compassion and Mercy.[7]

If the Qur’an is correct, then Jesus converted at least some of the children of Israel to Islam. Though there is absolutely no historical evidence for any such conversions, let us assume for the sake of argument that there were first century Jews who believed the message of Jesus and became Muslims. As we shall see, this assumption only presents problems for Muslim apologists.

FACT #3: If there were first-century Jews who converted to Islam at the preaching of Jesus, they didn’t last very long. The idea that Jesus’ earliest followers were Muslims raises an obvious question: Why have we never heard of any Muslims existing in the first century? We have a great deal of historical information about Jesus’ first-century followers, but we have no evidence at all of any Muslims. Defenders of Islam will most likely claim here that Christianity wiped out all the records of Jesus’ non-Christian followers, but such a view is absurd. We have both Christian and non-Christian sources that report early Christian beliefs, yet none of these sources mention the existence of any Muslim-Christians. At the very least, we can say with absolute certainty that Jesus’ death was well-known among ancient authorities, and that Jesus’ earliest followers—including Peter, James, and John—came to believe that Jesus had died on the cross for their sins and that he had risen from the dead. (We also know that the disciples held Jesus to be the divine Son of God, but this isn’t necessary for my argument.) All four New Testament Gospels confirm the early Christian belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection, as does the book of Acts. Paul’s letters also repeatedly proclaim Jesus’ death and resurrection. Further, an ancient creed recorded in 1 Corinthians 15 has been dated to within a few years of Jesus’ life and therefore provides extremely early testimony about Christian beliefs during the time of the apostles. It reads:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve.[8]

We also have early Christian writings from outside the New Testament that report the beliefs of Jesus’ followers. For instance, Clement of Rome, who was ordained as Bishop of Rome by the Apostle Peter, writes about the apostles’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.[9] Polycarp, who was ordained by the Apostle John, mentions Jesus’ resurrection numerous times.[10] There are even several ancient non-Christian sources that report crucial information about Jesus and the apostles. According to both the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus, Jesus was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate.[11] Lucian of Samosata, a Greek satirist, states, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”[12] Even the Jewish Talmud reports the crucifixion of Jesus.[13]

Hence, the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that the Qur’an is wrong when it says (1) that Jesus never died and (2) that Jesus’ early followers were Muslims. Nevertheless, let us be generous and grant, in spite of the facts, that there were a number of first-century Muslims, but that all evidence of their existence was later destroyed by Christians. Even if we grant such an outlandish assumption, this still presents Muslims with an enormous problem: What happened to these first-century Muslims? Why was Islam replaced by belief in Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection from the dead? Why didn’t Jesus’ 33 years of preaching amount to anything that lasted?

Muslims will most likely respond to these questions by arguing, once again, that Christianity corrupted Jesus’ message and that the Christian church erased all memory of Jesus’ Islamic teachings. However, no true Muslim should accept this position, for it conceals the true Qur’anic account of what happened.

FACT #4: The Qur’an states that Allah deceived people into believing that Jesus had died on the cross. According to the Qur’an, Jesus was able to convert at least some Jews to Islam. But we know from history that Jesus’ early followers became convinced of his death and resurrection. Hence, the obvious reason that there were no Muslims after Jesus ascended into heaven is that all of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he died on the cross and rose from the dead. And where did they get this idea? According to Islam, the idea that Jesus died on the cross was started by Allah:

That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah”—But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, But so it was made To appear to them, And those who differ Therein are full of doubts, With no (certain) knowledge, But only conjecture to follow, For of a surety They killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise.[14]

Even if we allow that Allah’s only goal was to deceive the people who wanted to kill Jesus, it is clear that the disciples also fell for Allah’s deception. So who is responsible for the Christian belief that Jesus died on the cross? If Islam is correct, God started this idea when he decided to trick Jesus’ enemies into thinking that they had killed Jesus. This leads to even more problems. If the deception of the disciples was unintentional, then we must conclude that God didn’t realize that he was about to start the largest false religion in the world. If it was intentional, then God is in the business of starting false religions. Therefore, the God of Islam is either dreadfully ignorant or maliciously deceptive.

Muhammad’s position also means that Jesus was the greatest failure in the history of the prophets. He spent 33 years preaching (again, he began preaching Islamic theology at birth), yet shortly after his death, the children of Israel were divided into two broad camps. Those who believed his message became Christians, all of whom were guilty of the worst sin imaginable (shirk[15]), while those who rejected his message were guilty of rejecting one of God’s greatest messengers. Thus, whether people believed in Jesus or rejected him, everyone would ultimately be condemned and cast into the hellfire. It’s strange, then, that Muslims consider Jesus to be one of the greatest prophets ever. It seems that he should have been able to win at least one lasting convert to Islam. But he didn’t. Further, a true prophet of Islam should have warned his followers not to turn away from Islam by falling for God’s deception. But Jesus never got that message across. Indeed, millions of people from around the world now refuse to accept Islam because they believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, a teaching that goes back to a deceptive God and an incompetent Messiah.

Allah Spreads the False Religion He Accidentally Started

If we follow the teachings of Islam through to their logical conclusion, we see that God either intentionally or unintentionally started Christianity. But the Qur’an doesn’t stop there. Instead of correcting the mess he made, Allah took Christianity to the next level.

FACT #5: The Qur’an states that Allah helped spread Christianity. Once God had caused belief in Jesus death and resurrection, he then worked diligently to aid the Christians in spreading their false message:

O you who believe! be helpers (in the cause) of Allah, as [Jesus] son of Marium said to (his) disciples: Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the cause) of Allah. So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became uppermost.[16]

This verse is extremely important, for it means that Allah helped the followers of Jesus against the Jews who rejected Jesus, and that these followers “became uppermost.” So who were these followers of Jesus who became stronger than the Jews? The only people in history who fit such a description are orthodox Christians, who believe in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and divinity. In other words, Muslims can’t claim here that Jesus’ message was corrupted and that the true Gospel was wiped out, because that clearly isn’t the group that the Qur’an refers to in this passage. Even if there was a group of first century Muslim-Christians, this group never gained an upper hand over anyone. Indeed, they must have been snuffed out immediately. The only group of Jesus’ followers that ever became strong enough to overshadow the Jews was composed of Christians, once Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire. These Christians believed in the foundational doctrines that Christians hold even today. Yet, according to the Qur’an, Allah helped these people rise to power!

How, then, did Christianity spread and become the dominant world religion? It spread by the power of Allah! And who started the Christian message about Jesus’ death on the cross? God invented this message! Even non-Christian historians are convinced that Jesus’ death is one of history’s best-established facts.[17] Where did historians get this idea? They got it from God, who tricked so many people into believing in Jesus’ death that we now have tons of historical evidence for this event. Since there are roughly two billion Christians on earth at the present moment, it seems that Jesus and God are responsible for starting the only religion in the world that overshadows Islam.

If Islam Is True . . .

Needless to say, I think the Islamic view is extremely problematic. It requires us to believe that God deceived billions of people. God even led Jesus’ followers astray by tricking so many people into believing that Jesus died. This could have been avoided if God hadn’t been so intent on deceiving people. But this leads to more questions: Why would God want people to believe that Jesus was dead when he really wasn’t? Muslims can’t argue that God did it to protect Jesus from the Jews or Romans, since God was taking Jesus away safely anyway. So, why would God want to give Jesus’ enemies the satisfaction of seeing Jesus killed? Why not raise Jesus up without deceiving everyone about it? There seems to be no reason at all for God to deceive these people, especially since such a deception would soon lead to the formation of Christianity.

This is a difficult pill to swallow, yet Islam forces us to view the origin of Christianity in this way. If Islam is true, God deceives people who believe the prophets he sends. If Islam is true, God spreads false teachings until they become dominant in the world. If Islam is true, Jesus, the Messiah, was completely incompetent and should never have been sent by God, since Jesus’ life ended up leading more people astray than any other life in history. Because the Muslim view is at odds with any traditional understanding of God’s nature (including the Islamic understanding), Islam is an incoherent religious system, which should be rejected by all rational people. Islam has a poor and contemptible explanation for the origin of Christianity. If Islam is true, the existence of Christianity makes no sense at all.

If Christianity Is True . . .

Christianity, on the other hand, easily accounts for the rise of Islam. Indeed, if Christianity is true, the rise of Islam makes perfect sense. If it isn’t immediately clear why Christianity entails the rise of religions such as Islam, consider the following line of thought.

If Christianity is true, then the following statements are also true:

(1) People can only come to God through Jesus Christ.
(2) Satan is a real spirit being who wants to keep people from God.[18]

With these statements in mind, let’s see if we can figure out a little something about Satan. Now, if Satan wants to keep people from God, and if the way to God is through Jesus Christ, what would Satan’s highest priority be? His main goal wouldn’t be to get people to lead immoral lives (though he would prefer that we do, since this corrupts God’s created order); instead, his primary aim would be to incite people to reject Christ, for this rejection is what keeps them separated from God.

But how would Satan convince people to reject Christ? We should note here that there are plenty of people in the world who simply don’t care about God. Satan doesn’t have to worry about them, because they aren’t interested in salvation anyway. Since his goal is to keep as many people from God as possible, we would expect Satan to be more focused on people who are to some extent concerned with religious matters. There are two ways to keep such people from God. Satan would either have to convince them that all “religious talk” is nonsense (i.e. by spreading secularism, which we see around the world) or he would have to offer them a substitute for the truth (i.e. a religion that rejects what is necessary for salvation).

Thus, if Christianity is true, we would expect Satan to inspire religions that reject Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection, even though these religions may be similar to Christianity in other (non-essential) respects. Now that we have a clear picture of what we would predict if Christianity were true, let us see how Islam matches up with our prediction.

The message of Islam is something like this: “Believe in God. Do good deeds. If you do enough of them, you’ll get to heaven. Respect Jesus, for he was a mighty prophet, who delivered God’s message to the children of Israel. Also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he performed many miracles, and that he was the Messiah. But whatever you do, don’t believe that he died on the cross for your sins. And don’t believe that he rose from the dead. In fact, the worst possible sin you can commit is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God.” Notice that Islam rejects Christianity’s essential requirements for salvation while accepting certain other doctrines. For instance, Muslims are commanded to believe in God, but even Satan and his demons believe in God. Muslims are commanded to do good deeds, but all religions teach this. Muslims are allowed to believe certain things about Jesus (such as his prophet status and virgin birth), but these beliefs do not save a person. Yet when we come to beliefs that are essential for salvation—the deity of Christ, his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead—we find that Islam is violently opposed to these crucial doctrines.[19] Islam, then, looks exactly like the religion we predicted that Satan would form, for it denies what is necessary for people to come to God.

There is, of course, an easier way for us to see that Christianity predicts the rise of Islam. We can look at some of the prophecies in the Bible. For example, Jesus said that “Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.”[20] Paul added that some people would follow “deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.”[21] (The phrase “deceitful spirit” is reminiscent of the Qur’anic claim that Allah deceived people about the death of Jesus.) The Bible warns over and over again that false teachers and false prophets would come in order to distort the Gospel. Apparently, few people in Muhammad’s time heeded this warning.

Final Thoughts

Throughout history, many people have claimed to be prophets. Indeed, there are many self-proclaimed prophets even today, and there will be more tomorrow. Suppose a prophet arises at some point in the future, one who claims to have a new revelation from God.[22] Both Muslims and Christians would reject him. But suppose this prophet says to Muslims, “Brothers, you have believed in the teachings of Muhammad, but I’m here to tell you that Islam was started by God to deceive people. The pagans in Arabia were doing awful things, such as killing their daughters and marrying hundreds of women. God decided to punish them by leading them astray and making all of you believe something that isn’t true. But I’m here to tell you the truth! I am God’s greatest prophet, sent to rescue you from evil!” Would Muslims believe him? Most certainly wouldn’t. But why would Muslims reject this new prophet? They would reject him because they would refuse to believe that God knowingly deceived millions of people. Yet this is exactly what Muslims believe when it comes to the death of Jesus. So if Muslims believe in a God who deceives people, even those who follow his prophets, how can Muslims be confident that they have been given the truth?

Muslims boast about their reverence for God and their respect for the prophets. Yet, upon closer examination, we see that Islam accuses God of one of the greatest religious deceptions ever. This should cause us to pause and think for a moment. Why would a religion that prides itself on its view of God proclaim that God starts false religions? Why would people who claim to respect Jesus suggest that he was a tremendous failure? It appears that Islam is so incredibly desperate to destroy Christianity, that it doesn’t mind destroying itself. In other words, Islam can only explain away Jesus’ death and resurrection by making God out to be a deceiver, which destroys the Islamic conception of God. This desperation only makes sense if Christianity is true, and if Islam was designed by Satan to keep people from being saved.

Muslims can object to this all they want. They can continue to proclaim their devotion to God and their respect for his prophets. But there’s something strange about the way they explain Christianity. There’s something very odd about a God who leads the world astray. If Islam is true, God and Jesus are failures. But if Christianity is true, God and Jesus were victorious at the cross, for the door to salvation was opened to all, in spite of those who tried to keep the door shut.

Jesus warned his followers that false prophets would come. He also commanded us not to believe them. One of the ways we can spot false prophets is by carefully discerning when their teachings lead to unacceptable beliefs about God. God is Truth, and he is Love. Islam, when carefully examined, would have us believe otherwise.

Notes:

1 See Qur’an, 24:25. Unless otherwise noted, Qur’an quotations are taken from The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, tr. (Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1989).

2 Qur’an 19:23-26, 30-33, M. H. Shakir, tr. (Elmhurst: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an Inc., 2002).

3 Qur’an 42:13.

4 Qur’an 43:59, 63-64.

5 Qur’an 3:52.

6 Qur’an 5:111.

7 Qur’an 57:26.

8 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. All Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

9 See 1 Clement 42:3.

10 See Polycarp, To the Philippians 1:2, 2:1-2, 9:2, 12:2.

11 See Josephus, Antiquities 18.64, and Tacitus, Annals 15.44.

12 Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13.

13 Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.

14 Qur’an 4:157-158. According to Muslim tradition, Allah made Judas Iscariot look like Jesus, so that Judas was crucified in Jesus’ place.

15 To associate partners with God is to commit the sin of shirk.

16 Qur’an 61:14, M. H. Shakir Translation.

17 For instance, John Dominic Crossan, of the notoriously anti-Christian “Jesus Seminar,” says “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography [San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991] p. 145).

18 This spirit being is not to be confused with the popular image of a harmless red figure with a pointy tail and a pitchfork!

19 One may wonder why I have not included belief in God among the doctrines necessary for salvation. I’m certainly not denying the necessity of belief in God. However, I do draw a distinction between a necessary doctrine and a necessary and sufficient doctrine. Belief in God is necessary for salvation, but it is not sufficient to produce it. In contrast, the Christian doctrines of confession of the lordship of Christ and belief in his resurrection from the dead are necessary and sufficient. That is, these doctrines are sufficient to guarantee the salvation of the Christian. Yet it is these doctrines that Islam most vehemently opposes.

20 Matthew 24:11.

21 1 Timothy 4:1.

22 Even Islam has had its share of self-proclaimed new prophets. Most notably, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad announced his prophethood towards the end of the 19th Century. He also claimed to be the second coming of Jesus. Millions of people have followed him. However, the vast majority of Muslims consider these “Ahmadiyyas” to be a heretical sect. The Ahmadiyyas, though they profess to be Muslims, aren’t even allowed to take the pilgrimage to Mecca. The Ahmadiyya movement is significant in that Ahmadiyyas say that true Islam was corrupted, just as Muslims claim that Christianity was corrupted. Hence, Ahmadiyyas claim that God sent another prophet to restore the true message of God. Muslims reject this, because they don’t believe that Islam has been corrupted. They conclude that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad must have been a false prophet. But this is the same reason Christians reject Muhammad. We don’t believe that Christianity has been corrupted, so Muhammad must have been a false prophet.

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm - http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm


Posted By: masad
Date Posted: 19 September 2005 at 3:09pm

A basic ignorance of what Islam means and what Muslim is has prompted this long post by Jazz. Jesus was submitting to God, he was a submitter, a Muslim, as were his followers, did he not say , "I seek not my own will but the WILL of him who sent me" (John 5:30)

Second, the Quran does not say that Allah deceived the people into believing that Jesus was crucified, it merely says that they preceived so, "walakin shubey a lahum". It is physically impossible for a person, a young person to die in six hours on the cross unless his legs are broken so he cannot push himself up to breathe. The gospels are clear that "they did not break his legs", therefore Jesus was not killed on the cross as he didnt die on the cross, it merely appeared so to them. Modern researchers agree with the Quran.

The faith freedom site in which Jazz has a big following uses similar baseless arguments to try to disprove Islam, but they fail miserably, so they copy and paste 60 more objections. This merely shows their own ignorance. As the Quran says, "

"I will turn away from My signs those who are proud in the earth without justice; and if they see every sign they (still) do not believe in it; and if they see the way of rectitude they do not take it for a way, and if they see the way of error, they take it for a way; this is because they rejected Our signs and were heedless of them." (Koran 7:146)

Have no doubts about it, the purpose of Jazz and the others on Faith Freedom is to trap unsuspecting believers, plant baseless seeds in their minds so that they quit Islam without knowledge.

Christianity, though it might have its zealots, is totally illogical. They believe one is three and three is one for God's sake!!!

Here is a url for those who want to find out about the Bible and Christianity http://christianity.rationalreality.com - http://christianity.rationalreality.com



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 20 September 2005 at 12:48am
For God's sake, Jazz and Masad, can we stick to the topic?


Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 20 September 2005 at 2:45am
Originally posted by beloved

For God's sake, Jazz and Masad, can we stick to the topic?


Of course Beloved,

My apologies to all for going off topic.

The question....."who wrote Quran"?

In my opinion Quran was written by many people starting at the behest of Abu Bakr, who was concerned that there would be no living memory of the alleged "revelations" that Mohammed had claimed were recited to him by an angel.

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=60 -
No. 4349 - Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari:

  


who was one of those who used to write the Divine Revelation: Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra' were killed). 'Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, 'Umar has come to me and said, The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra' (those who know the Qur'an by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Qur'an." Abu Bakr added, "I said to 'Umar, 'How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done?' 'Umar said (to me), 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing.' So 'Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal, till Allah opened my bosom for it and I had the same opinion as 'Umar." (Zaid bin Thabit added:) Umar was sitting with him (Abu Bakr) and was not speaking. me). "You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness): and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript). " By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?" Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened my bosom for that which He had opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started locating Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba which I had not found with anybody else, (and they were):--

"Verily there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty He (Muhammad) is ardently anxious over you (to be rightly guided)" (9.128)

The manuscript on which the Quran was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him, and then with 'Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and finally it remained with Hafsa, Umar's daughter.



Here is sahih hadith that might shed some light on the origins of some of the ayats of Quran....

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=8 -
No. 396 - Narrated 'Umar (bin Al-Khattab):

  


my lord agreed with me in three things:

1. I said,"O Allah's Apostle, I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two Rakat of Tawaf of Ka'ba)". (2.125)

2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.

3. Once the wives of the Prophet made a united front against the Prophet and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (66.5).




Here is a sahih hadith which may shed some light on who wrote Quran and it seems by the claims of the "christian", researched christian and other sources for material to include in Quran...

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=56 -
No. 3372 - Narrated Anas:

  


There was a christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." Then Allah caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is the act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from them." They again dug the grave deeply for him, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is an act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from them." They dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. So they believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and had to leave him thrown (on the ground).


It is reported in recognized and authenticated ahadith that caliphe Uthman decided to establish one singular, standard version of Quran due to there being a variety of differing Qurans, and Uthman destroyed those versions that he did not like.

It seems Uthman was intent on making some changes....

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=8 -
No. 442 - Narrated 'Ubdaidullah Al-Khaulani:

  


I heard 'Uthman bin 'Affan saying, when people argued too much about his intention to reconstruct the mosque of Allah's Apostle, "You have talked too much. I heard the Prophet saying, 'Whoever built a mosque, (Bukair thought that 'Asim, another subnarrator, added, "Intending Allah's Pleasure"), Allah would build for him a similar place in Paradise.' "

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=20 -
No. 1021 - Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

  


I offered the prayer with the Prophet, Abu Bakr and 'Umar at Mina and it was of two Rakat. 'Uthman in the early days of his caliphate did the same, but later on he started praying the full prayer.

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=26 -
No. 1473 - Narrated Marwan bin Al-Hakam:

  


I saw 'Uthman and 'Ali. 'Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu' and Hajj-al-Qiran (Hajj and 'Umra together), and when 'Ali saw (this act of 'Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and 'Umra together saying, "Lubbaik for 'Umra and Hajj," and said, "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet on the saying of somebody."

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=60 -
No. 4201 - Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:

  


I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place."

 


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 20 September 2005 at 10:20am

O my dear beloved, though your response doesn't merit much consideration, yet I have tried to explain your misunderstandings. Hopefully, this may provide any help.

Hope I am not wasting your time as some members want others to believe.
And the answers I mostly get are similar, "baseless", "pointless" etc.

Your points are baseless simply because of your unfamiliarity with the science of collection of ahadith. Your assertion of “anonymous writings” is yet another key word referring towards this ignorance. Now coming to your response, let us see, what you argue, is it really worth considering?



Do you have any problem with this concept? Even the modern day courts accept this rule i.e. a person is considered truthfull untill proven other wise. Isn't it? So whats the problem?

I don't even bother about that concept because it is based on the recordings of, may be, second or third generation.  I wonder how people believed in the Holy Quran until the Ahadith were written.

And your arguement, "Even the modern day courts accept this rule i.e. a person is considered truthfull untill proven other wise." has nothing to do with our present discussion just because the collection is based on belief and not on factual or physical evidence.  And later in the topic you said something about "textual higher criticism" which means that their existed some text which is what our present topic deals with.  So "until proven otherwise" is out for now.

You have not provided any logical arguments to refute the evidences, though these might have remained verbal for a considerable amount of time in history; as you say. Verbal testimonies are legally admissible evidence even now than ever before. Dismissing them without any critical reasoning is not a valid criterion especially once the witnesses of writing down of Quran themselves existed among the population.



 
The science of higher criticism is a western science and it was "invented" a long time after Holy Quran was written. 

Is there anything known as “western science”? I don’t know when this science was invented by the “west” but I am only referring you to the science of collection of Ahadith i.e. a methodology for the collection of ahadith based on critical analysis. These ahadith are still under study in different part of the Muslim world and remain under debate and discussions through the use of any modern tools, you name it, to attest their authenticity. Those, which don’t pass such tests, are never considered to be reliable for any purpose. Hence as these tools get more refined, so is the authenticity of the ahadith literature.

 

 And this western science neither supports Holy Quran nor Ahadith.  So it is better not to discuss about it.

One would be naïve to say this. Mere blank assertions are not enough. Bring your evidence on the table and we shall dissect it our selves.



Differing sects agreeing on different ahadith is not a weekness but is based on logical argumentation; differing on the rules of admissability of a particular hadith. But again, everyone presents their logical reasoning to accept or reject a hadith, hence not a matter of faith alone.

Do you mean to say one sect's logic is totally different from another sect's?  Then how can you call it "logic"?  Its like logic disproving logic, a cyclic redundancy check.

I would still refrain cutting figurative humors in my writings, though your icon seems to reflect back onto your illogical conclusions. Difference of opinions among scholars is based upon merits or standards to which they emphasize more on one aspect than the other. Again, I think, this reflects your total ignorance about this science. BTW, CRC is a useful networking tool, if you happen to know about it.

  

This is just a hypothesis without specific proof. It can easily be contrasted with the science of ahadith collection/acceptance.

Whatever you call as "science" was "invented" more than a century after the demise of our beloved Prophet.  And there are more counter-proofs than there are proofs for your claim about Ahadith.

In the absence of any counter arguments, your assertions remain “baseless”. Isn’t it?

 


As I have already said, "textual higher criticism" is a science of evaluating the authenticity of a proclaimed historical document. Its not unique to ahadith only but is widely applied on all historical documents. Probably, early Muslim scholars were among the poineers of using this science to evaluate their own books before putting their faith in them. This is the reason that they have classified these ahadith into different categories. I hope this would motivate the readers to go and understand this science of higher criticism before casting aspertions on the validity of oral transmission.

Comparing science of Ahadith with science of higher criticism is not at all logical because as you said "differing on the rules of admissability of a particular hadith".  This means different sect had different rules unlike the science of higher criticism which is a common evaluation tool.

 

Oh, really? Since when this has become a “common evaluation tool”? Do you intend to say all scholars (100%) agree to one and the same issue every time? Only fools would think like that. I think, my brother has to learn the ABC of understanding of argumentative logic. A split decision by the panel of judges, who encounter the same evidence before them, is a better way of looking at this as an example of “difference of opinion”.

 

And we have gone way beyond our present topic.  Please, can we continue with the Zayed's compilation(which is much before any Hadith was written)?  From where Zayed has compiled Holy Quran if not from anonymous sources?  To be more precise, I would ask you to tell me about the "text" when you said "textual higher criticism".

 

I really couldn’t understand your assertion of “anonymous sources” here, if not from your ignorance of science of ahadith. Kindly bring any logic to refute this science especially once we know anonymity is the foremost dissecting tool to shrug off this kind of material from the list of authentic resources. Mere assertions would not help, nor your iconic impressions.

May Allah help all of us to understand the right path. Amen.



Posted By: howard
Date Posted: 29 September 2005 at 5:48am
Just one little comment on the 'who wrote the Quran'
debate. I find it very interesting when Muslims say
"Allah wrote the Quran". Of course, upon reflection
even Muslims must reject this as for them the
Koranic "isnad" is Allah then Jibril then Mohammed
then scribes then Zaid ibn Thabit one, then Zaid ibn
Thabit two plus four Quraishi scribes. Allah might
have revealed the Quran but he did not WRITE it! And
humans are fallible!

However the uncosncious error that so many
Muslims make is not without its hidden signification.
It shows that for Muslims God became TEXT.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 30 September 2005 at 9:35am

Originally posted by howard

Just one little comment on the 'who wrote the Quran'
debate. I find it very interesting when Muslims say
"Allah wrote the Quran". Of course, upon reflection
even Muslims must reject this as for them the
Koranic "isnad" is Allah then Jibril then Mohammed
then scribes then Zaid ibn Thabit one, then Zaid ibn
Thabit two plus four Quraishi scribes. Allah might
have revealed the Quran but he did not WRITE it! And
humans are fallible!

However the uncosncious error that so many
Muslims make is not without its hidden signification.
It shows that for Muslims God became TEXT.

Thanks bro howard for your comments, though totally off the mark. The issue of "Allah wrote the Quran" was well addressed in the very begining of my posts where the term "scribe" was introduced to clarify this anomolly on the part of the originator of the topic.

Indeed humans are falliable, yet my brother howard believe that the Bible (NT) is inspired gospels of God, though, to anonymous people. 



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 07 October 2005 at 5:59am
Your points are baseless simply because of your unfamiliarity with the science of collection of ahadith.

Huh... The thing what you call science was "invented" more than a century after Prophet Muhammad's death.  And it is not a perfect science as you want to project it.

And if you find it hard to answer the question, you need not say that the points are baseless(and yet you have tried to "explain" my "misunderstandings")

Your assertion of “anonymous writings” is yet another key word referring towards this ignorance.

If they were not anonymous writings, then what's the difficulty in giving the names of the authors?

Brother, you have written so much.  But you haven't given me the required.  You keep on going to the Ahadith.  Until you give me the names, the source remains anonymous.  You told something about "textual higher criticism" yet you haven't answered my question about it, "
To be more precise, I would ask you to tell me about the "text" when you said "textual higher criticism"."

If you want to tell about Ahadith, please start a different topic.

Thanks.

P.S. CRC is not only a networking "tool" but a concept used everywhere. 
BTW, its not a "tool", but a concept.


Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 07 October 2005 at 6:02am
Indeed humans are falliable, yet my brother howard believe that the Bible (NT) is inspired gospels of God, though, to anonymous people.

So much for the "anonymity" tag.  But what about the people of Holy Quran?


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 07 October 2005 at 1:06pm

Originally posted by beloved

Your points are baseless simply because of your unfamiliarity with the science of collection of ahadith.

Huh... The thing what you call science was "invented" more than a century after Prophet Muhammad's death.  And it is not a perfect science as you want to project it.

Which science, you think, is perfect? Science is ever increasing phenomena with time and hence never consdiered to be "perfect".



And if you find it hard to answer the question, you need not say that the points are baseless(and yet you have tried to "explain" my "misunderstandings") 

I don't don't think there is any outstanding question that is left over, though you may like to close yourself to them.



Your assertion of “anonymous writings” is yet another key word referring towards this ignorance.

If they were not anonymous writings, then what's the difficulty in giving the names of the authors?

Now this is amazing. Kindly scan back to the thread and you shall find your answer; aren't you being circular in your questions?



Brother, you have written so much.  But you haven't given me the required.
I am not the only one who responded you for your questions. Don't you think their replies are for your questions? Hmm!!

  You keep on going to the Ahadith.  Until you give me the names, the source remains anonymous. 
Closing one's eyes from the fact, won't help either.

 You told something about "textual higher criticism" yet you haven't answered my question about it, "To be more precise, I would ask you to tell me about the "text" when you said "textual higher criticism"."

So you mean the ahadith are not considered as "text"? This is really getting more interesting than I thought.


If you want to tell about Ahadith, please start a different topic.

Thanks.

P.S. CRC is not only a networking "tool" but a concept used everywhere. 
BTW, its not a "tool", but a concept.

I don't claim to be ahadith scholar. On the more, don't you think the concepts can be used as tools? Think about it.



Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 07 October 2005 at 1:09pm

Originally posted by beloved

Indeed humans are falliable, yet my brother howard believe that the Bible (NT) is inspired gospels of God, though, to anonymous people.

So much for the "anonymity" tag.  But what about the people of Holy Quran?

What do you mean by "people of the Holy Quran"? Are you joking? Yet I would refrain putting icons in my replies. 



Posted By: beloved
Date Posted: 08 October 2005 at 5:59am
Now this is amazing. Kindly scan back to the thread and you shall find your answer; aren't you being circular in your questions?
Closing one's eyes from the fact, won't help either.

Nowhere in the entire forum the entire list of names has been given.  Only a few scribes have been pointed out.  For your information, I will list them out.  Please read it completely.

By Yusuf. - "The Holy Qur'an is literally the Word of Allah, subhananhu was ta'ala. These words were placed in the heart of Saiduna Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wassalam who then recited them.
The extratextual evidence for the Holy Qur'an's authenticity, however, would not withstand modern academic methods of research. If you are sincere in your search for such evidence, you will be disappointed.

Because the Qur'an was revealed at a time prior to the establishment of methods of record preservation that are acceptable to modern research. The Ahaadith, for example, were collected and written generations after the departure of Saidnuna Rasulallah Salallahu alaihi wassalam. Even the Holy Qur'an was not placed into its final form until the Caliphate of Uthman, radiallahu anhu, and the rationale for the final composition was not recorded. Further, other redactions of the Qur'an that were determined to be inaccurate were destroyed. These are pieces of data that a contemporary researcher requires."

By Sarkeranwar - "Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.

-Some of the companions wrote the Qur'an for their own use.

-Several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart.

Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an.

Uthman ordered Zayed Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Al Zubayr, Saeed Ibn Al-Aas, and Abdur-Rahman Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham to make perfect copies of the authenticated copy kept with Hafsa."


So as you can see, we are more interested in the written Holy Quran before the Ahadith has come into existence.  And I am more interested in Zayed's compilation.  From whom did he compile the Holy Quran?  From where did Zayed compile the Holy Quran with the help of his compilations.

And as you yourself agree that no science is perfect, "Which science, you think, is perfect? Science is ever increasing phenomena with time and hence never consdiered to be "perfect".",  let us not consider the Ahadith.

Thank you.


Posted By: firewall
Date Posted: 08 October 2005 at 4:36pm
bismillahi rahmani raheem,

i read that when 'Umar bin Affan hit her sister for reverting to Islam, when he  became ashamed to see his sister bleeding, he saw the Quran manuscripts & read it. which then he reverted to Islam. this mean, there are written Quranic manuscripts at Rasulullah (PBUH) time. wallahu a'lam.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 09 October 2005 at 11:38am

....Nowhere in the entire forum the entire list of names has been given.  Only a few scribes have been pointed out.  For your information, I will list them out. .......

O my dear brother beloved, haven't I answered this earlier? I reasoned it out that even if the names of all the scribes may not be known at this time, the fact remains that the whole process of Quran being written down was completed in the life time of Prophet Mohammad. Hence, there is little reason left to search for all those scribes who wrote Quran over the period of 23 years. This is more so when we know that Quran didn't remain a private commodity, but became the daily 'bread and butter' of its listeners. They memorized it from the very inception of the revealation of verses, word to word and used to reherse it in their daily prayers.

let us not consider the Ahadith
Oh, I wonder what other kind of proofs are you looking for, if not the testimonies of the people who compiled the Quran?



Posted By: rudy
Date Posted: 24 October 2005 at 7:43am

I can't believe you guys wasting your time with this clown beloved. He can suck thin air as far as I'm concerned. Whatever evidence or feedback you might provide this looser with he won't acknowledge. Get a grip you all!!!!!!!!!! Yo beloved, go to an Islamic center near you and ask an imam for a one way debate since that is what you are looking for.  Some imams have nothing to do all day long just like your case.

Peace-rudy



-------------
If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.
Mother Teresa


Posted By: freebird
Date Posted: 25 October 2005 at 7:46am

Originally posted by beloved

.
And we have gone way beyond our present topic.  Please, can we continue with the Zayed's compilation(which is much before any Hadith was written)?  From where Zayed has compiled Holy Quran if not from anonymous sources?  To be more precise, I would ask you to tell me about the "text" when you said "textual higher criticism".

Thank you.

Sorry I did not follow this thread from the start. Do you mean that Zayed compilation was by itself was not writen by Zayed--but by the Prophet Muhammad himself?



Posted By: DeExupery
Date Posted: 28 November 2005 at 2:03am

Interesting..please continue. It will deepen my knowledge.

Fox

 

P.S. Only one comment.

I believe the science of collecting ahadits will not increase, unless everyone is sure that ahadist are still in the progress and not finished yet.



-------------
Io Sogno L'anime, Che Sono Sempre Libere (Il Divo)


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 29 November 2005 at 12:41am
Originally posted by DeExupery

I believe the science of collecting ahadits will not increase, unless everyone is sure that ahadist are still in the progress and not finished yet.

What makes you say that?

Hadiths are the examples of Prophet Muhammad, He has passed so there is no more collection in the hadiths.



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: DeExupery
Date Posted: 29 November 2005 at 2:16am

Dear Angel,

That's what I think as well.

Fox



-------------
Io Sogno L'anime, Che Sono Sempre Libere (Il Divo)


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 29 November 2005 at 6:40am

Dear folks,

I am sorry that I can't put much time on this forum due to my commitments elsewhere. However, small little posts to clarify a point or two, can be made readily. So, here is my reply to angel's comments when she says "Hadiths are the examples of Prophet Muhammad, He has passed so there is no more collection in the hadiths. "

I think, there is a difference b/w education in collection of ahadiths and in science and education of authenticity of ahadiths. Though, the former may be static, but the later one was never static and is not static now. Its an ongoing process, as more and more scientific tools are discovered to authenticate the literature, so is this science developing to filter out more and more authentic ahadith from the voluminous collections. Hopefully, this shall clarify the concept. God's Willing.



Posted By: DeExupery
Date Posted: 29 November 2005 at 9:16pm

Dear Ahmad,

I think, there is a difference b/w education in collection of ahadiths and in science and education of authenticity of ahadiths. Though, the former may be static, but the later one was never static and is not static now. Its an ongoing process, as more and more scientific tools are discovered to authenticate the literature, so is this science developing to filter out more and more authentic ahadith from the voluminous collections. Hopefully, this shall clarify the concept. God's Willing.

So you mean that the authenticity of ahadiths may change from time to time? Interesting. What is the criteria? I always thought that ahadiths have historical content, thus unless we can find some new finding (archeologically), the ahadiths will not change. And how to measure the authenticity of ahadiths?

Fox

 



-------------
Io Sogno L'anime, Che Sono Sempre Libere (Il Divo)


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 30 November 2005 at 4:42am
Originally posted by AhmadJoyia

Dear folks,

I am sorry that I can't put much time on this forum due to my commitments elsewhere. However, small little posts to clarify a point or two, can be made readily. So, here is my reply to angel's comments when she says "Hadiths are the examples of Prophet Muhammad, He has passed so there is no more collection in the hadiths. "

I think, there is a difference b/w education in collection of ahadiths and in science and education of authenticity of ahadiths. Though, the former may be static, but the later one was never static and is not static now. Its an ongoing process, as more and more scientific tools are discovered to authenticate the literature, so is this science developing to filter out more and more authentic ahadith from the voluminous collections. Hopefully, this shall clarify the concept. God's Willing.

In a way, I think I am correct

But yes you do have something there  



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 30 November 2005 at 7:14am

Dear bro Fox, thanks for your interest in this science of Ahadith. To give you an example as how this science is a dynamic on going process, it may be recalled that most of the ahadith collection done by their collectors was based on the authentic chain of narrations till the narration is actually attributed to its source narrator (Mostly to Prophet Mohammad) only. They emphasised more on this aspect of authenticity than any other aspect, such as the content of the narration or historical accuracy of the contents etc. Since then, the later day scholars are in constant endeavor to verify and certify these collections through these other contexts as well. Now in modern day time, with the help of fast and quick information technology of computers, these tasks have become relatively more easier than ever before. Hence, this science of authenticity of Ahadith was never static and is fully dynamic, purely based on scientific reasoning and logic and not faith based.



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 01 December 2005 at 12:18am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

They emphasised more on this aspect of authenticity than any other aspect, such as the content of the narration or historical accuracy of the contents etc

this is inaccurate, one of the criteria they used was content and most certainly they would rejected entire ahadith based upon this, they looked at all areas you have mentioned.

Computers have helped catagorise the ahadith alphabeticly or by topics it has done nothing to the process of authentication of the hadith, All hadith have already been graded including those which are false.

This is a good source to learn about this science. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/ - Science Of Hadith

This post list some of those criteria they used, http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3115&PN=1 - - Hadith Science and it’s Development


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 01 December 2005 at 8:38am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

Ahmad i have to ask where are you getting ur information from.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 02 December 2005 at 8:23am

Dear Bro rami, here is my response when you objected me "They emphasised more on this aspect of authenticity than any other aspect, such as the content of the narration or historical accuracy of the contents etc

this is inaccurate, one of the criteria they used was content and most certainly they would rejected entire ahadith based upon this, they looked at all areas you have mentioned.
"

In my above statement, light and dimmed text, the pronoun used for "they" refers to the actual collectors of ahadith. Famous example is of Ibn-Majah whose collection contain all sorts of ahadith varying in all categories. Here is a brief account of this book

"The  author,  in his Criticism of  Hadith  among Muslims  with  reference to Sunan Ibn Majah,  has given  more examples of fabricated ahadith under the  following  eight categories  of  causes  of fabrication:83

(i) political differences;
(ii) factions based on issues of creed;
(iii)  fabrications by zanadiqah (enemies-within
spreading heretical beliefs);
(iv) fabrications by story-tellers;
(v) fabrications by ignorant ascetics;
(vi)  prejudice  in favour of town,  race  or  a
particular imam;
(vii) inventions for personal motives;
(viii) proverbs turned into ahadith
. " [1]

 Though, I don't know whom do you refer to with your use of pronoun "they" in your text (highlighted and green in color); the actual collectors of Ahadith or the later day scholars of Ahadith through which ilum ul ahadith and ilm ul rijal got developed over the period of centuries.

 Here is a reference from your own referred postings. "This science was continuously implemented by its highly skilled imams up until the time of the 12th century at which  time every piece of knowledge or information that had been transmitted was recorded and classified according to these uniquely devised methods.  Such methods of transmission to protect the sources of any religion had never occurred in the history of mankind." [2]

 To say this development is complete (every piece collected etc.) and therefore no progress,  is a fallacy of its own kind. It is illogical, beyond comprehension and even contrary to evidence of factual history. Presence of large number of Islamic scholars in these fields of ahadiths, not only till 12th century, but many scholars like Sheikh Nawawi and al-Suyuti from 14th to 16th CE till present day scholars of ahadith like Sheikh Al-Albani, are few of them who are continuing this science.

 Here is an extract on this from the brief history of Ahadith [1] "An abridgement of Muqaddimah, Al-Irshad by al-  Nawawi (d. 676), which he later summarised  in his  Taqrib;   al-Suyuti (d. 911)  compiled  a valuable  commentary  on the  latter  entitled Tadrib al-Rawi. Ikhtisar  'Ulum  al-Hadith of Ibn  Kathir  (d.
  774),  Al-Khulasah of al-Tibi  (d.  743),  Al-Minhal of Badr al-Din b. Jama'ah (d. 733), Al- Muqni' of Ibn al-Mulaqqin (d. 802) and Mahasin
  al-Istilah  of  al-Balqini (d.  805),  all  of which  are abridgements of Muqaddimah Ibn  al- Salah."

In the end I may summarise that though most of the tools of this science have been developed in its early history, but the use of these tools is still going on. I hope this shall clarify my point. 

[1] http://www.islamworld.net/hadith.html - http://www.islamworld.net/hadith.html

[2] http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3115&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3115& ; ;PN=1

 

 



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 02 December 2005 at 7:36pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

You made the claim that the scholars of hadith only checked the chain of the naration but not its text which is a baseless claim. I said they rejected many ahadith which where finr in every other aspect but failed the statdards they established for checiking the text of the hadith.

That was my main point.

if you imply something else in your writing you should state it clearly rather than hint at it.

To say this development is complete (every piece collected etc.) and therefore no progress,  is a fallacy of its own kind. It is illogical, beyond comprehension and even contrary to evidence of factual history. Presence of large number of Islamic scholars in these fields of ahadiths, not only till 12th century, but many scholars like Sheikh Nawawi and al-Suyuti from 14th to 16th CE till present day scholars of ahadith like Sheikh Al-Albani, are few of them who are continuing this science.

our scholars colected all the ahadith on earth and graded each and every single one in various works using the science of hadith this is a simple fact.

Imam Suyuti collected 72 books, which are all the books on earth containing Hadith, into one book called “Al-Jami Al-Kabeer”.

By the time of Baihaki (died 456 A.H.), every Hadith in a verbal form was written down in a well known book, so after him, no one could come up with a Hadith.

i find your asertions to be misinformed and grandur and fail to see how you fail to comprahend that the work has been done. A simple fact of hadith science is that the muhadith must himself collect the hadith from the person who has the chain going back to the prophet becouse of this our scholars traveled far and wide to collect these hadith and grade them. Every hadith has recieved a grading from one scholar or another they where not simply recorded in books for future grading.

regarding shaykh Albani who you Quote as person who continues the so called development. He is a self taught scholar and has no Qualafications (Ijazah) in the science of hadith so no scholar holds him to be an authority in this science. He learnt all he knows from reading books by himself and not sitting with proper scholars to teach him how to understand those works and therefor gain ijazah in this science.

here is what i left out of the article i posted, which are the words of a proper muhadith Qualafied to speak on this science.

The Hafiz Suyuti Grand Plan

Imam Suyuti collected 72 books, which are all the books on earth containing Hadith, into one book called “Al-Jami Al-Kabeer”.  It contains 42,000 Hadith in alphabetical order, which was later arranged by subject by Al Mutaqi Al-Hindi in a book called “Kanz”.  Al-Hindi then removed the repetition and compiled another book which was called “Muntakhab Kanz” containing about 32,000 Hadith. 

Imam Suyuti selected 1,008 and 4,500 from the 42,000 and called them “Al-Jami Al-Saghir” and “Ziyada” respectfully, which were later compiled by Nabahani into one book called “Al-Fat-h Al-Kabeer” in alphabetical order.

The Wahabi Muhaddith Albani in tackling the first collection he produced it into small booklets, which later was printed together. He committed less than 150 errors in Arabic and more so in indexing. However having only less than 36 errors in Hadith rating, which later were corrected in the next mention work by his puperior non-wahabi Muhadith Al Ghumari. 

The Grand Muhaddith Abdullah ben Siddique Al-Ghumari lead his student Ahmad Darwish to produce the best collection and called it “Rad el-Itibar” which is available on our websites in the corner for young Muhadiths.

At the moment all the Ahadith on earth are classified into 3 collections:  

Collection 1: see layout picture, Arabic introduction and concordances

Managed by Suyuti, Nabahani, Ghumari, Albani, and sealed and finalized by Darwish. Transmitted by (all of you who are interested to be young Muhaddiths), members of Muhammad.com 

14,587 Ahadith broken down as follow:

8,266 authentic (this is over 70% of all authentic Hadith)

4,629 weak (but not false, so it is practiced)

27 of which are Mawkouf (standby)

1,806 false (so it is not practiced)

The above collection is extracted from 30-72 books (including Bukhari and Muslim) and with world consensus of all scholars of Ahadith, even Albani of the Wahabi sect.  Albani differs in 26 Hadith, where he was overruled.  Due to the fact that he either judged some based on his Wahabi inclinations or because he learned the science from books and not transmitters his errors totaled 107. 

At Muhammad.com, you can download the 8,266 in Arabic in one click.   It includes a general ijazah, or traditional authentic permission from Muhaddith Ahmad Darwish, the servant of Hadith.

Also, it is worth noting that this collection is about equal in number to “Jama Al Masool” and “Mishkat al Musabeeh” combined, being short only 289 Ahadith. 

This collection is in a very accurate mechanical, alphabetic order which corrected Albani’s inconsistent numerical ordering.  Also, there is a section that corrects Albani in the 107 places of error.  We kept to the etiquette of the scholars of Hadith and handled his Hadith issues only, keeping away from his Wahabi tendencies.

Also, this collection is in progress of being translated into contemporary English and all are given away free, as is the habit of all scholars of Hadith throughout time.  We hope that the youth will revive the science of Hadith transmission by adhering to this collection. 

Collection 2:

Managed by Suyuti, Mutaqi al-Hindi, Nabahani, Ghumari, and in progress of being sealed and finalized by Darwish and Ninowy.

Approximately 32,000 Hadith of Kanz without repetition, which includes the 14,587 above, leaving approximately 18,000 remaining to be finally researched.  Pray that Sheikh Ahmad receives the success from Allah to be honored to serve it.   

Collection 3:

Managed by Suyuti, Mutaqi al-Hindi superceded by both Collections 1 and 2 and kept for Hadith historical consideration.

46,624 Ahadith, prepared in alphabetical order by Suyuti.  He extracted them from all Hadith books on earth, a total of 72 books, which with repetition comes to some 350,000 Ahadith.  Mutakil Hindi later removed the repetition occurring in the 46,624 and arranged them in subjects, thereby reducing Collection 2, and thus superceding both Collections 1 and 2, rendering them for academic research only.  Also worth noting is that production of Collections 1 and 2 were Suyuti’s intention before his passing.  Therefore the scholars who finalized Collections 1 and 2 are true to the service of the Science of Prophetic Quotation according to Suyuti’s profound plan.  Truly he was called the Sheikh of Sunnah, even by the Prophet in several visions. 

The above 350,000 with repetitions spreading in all different directions of the world for the same exact Hadith text, reaching about 1 million.

This means that there are about 35,000 Ahadith trafficking among a million Hadith transmitters, where all are documented, guarded, and well known.  The details are at such a level that if the Prophet said things in two ways, or if someone inserted a word, the very location and setting of the statement and who he said it to is known.  And if it is falsified, they know who the liar who started it is and who reported it via him.

here is article if you would like to read it in its entirety.

http://www.cosmohosting.com/ad101/Muhammad/download/WhatIsHadithTerminology.doc - WhatIsHadithTerminology.doc

some of his many mistakes include declaring ahadith in Bukhari to be Daif (weak) a work which is unanimously agreed upon by all scholars.

what has been going on today is not further grading of the hadith which is what you refered to when you stated that the text of the hadith was ignored and they mainly looked at the chain of naration.

Every hadith has been graded, nothing you Quote or say proves otherwise. our scholars have further written on the subject of hadith but the work has been done in regards to clasafication and grading.



-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 03 December 2005 at 8:20pm

Dear bro rami, thanks for your valuable information on the recent work of ahadith scholars. It is exactly this process when it is stated “Approximately 32,000 Hadith of Kanz without repetition, which includes the 14,587 above, leaving approximately 18,000 remaining to be finally researched.  Pray that Sheikh Ahmad receives the success from Allah to be honored to serve it. ” to which, I have already alluded to in my previous posts that it is a dynamic process and not a static one. Although, the words like “finally” are used in this statement to indicate completion of a job but, personally speaking, it is yet relatively a temporal term which, may refer to “time being” only. Though his work may serve the future generations as well, but only God knows for how long and when another similar effort is required in future?

The example of sheikh Albani is only for reference purposes where he objected to authenticity of some ahadith, through his own knowledge and rationale. However, his own work, without biasness to his wahaby inclination, got critically analyzed, only through the use of tools of this science logically and not emotionally. Thus serves another example of dynamics of this on-going process.

Now coming to my comments, I think, I have already provided the explanation in my previous post, though I may like to further elaborate to make it even clearer. In my original post to bro DeExpuary, I have used the pronoun “they” to refer only to those scholars of ahadith, who initially transformed the verbal traditions into written form. Here, I gave the example of collection of Ibn Majah and critical analysis on his work by later scholars. Thus, the classification of Ahadith was done by the scholars of later generations. I hope this serves as sufficient explanation. 




Print Page | Close Window