Print Page | Close Window

Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran"

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21622
Printed Date: 14 September 2014 at 7:12pm


Topic: Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran"
Posted By: islamispeace
Subject: Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran"
Date Posted: 24 August 2011 at 3:43pm
OK, Larry.  Here we go.  Now we are on a new thread and can discuss your topic.  You asked:

Originally posted by Larry

"Were there more than one version of the Qur'an?"


The answer is yes.  However, by "versions" it is meant that the Quran was originally revealed in seven dialects (ahruf).  Sahih Bukhari states:

"Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah's Apostle had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me." The Prophet ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah s Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way." He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, "It was revealed in this way. The Qur'an has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easier for you." (3:41:601)

This was done to facilitate comprehension and memorization of the Quran by the early Muslims, who spoke various Arabic dialects.  Therefore, the Quran was originally revealed in seven versions/dialects.    




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




Replies:
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 29 August 2011 at 11:36am
Come, come Larry.  Grow a spine and let us start the discussion.  You wanted to discuss this topic, so here it is.

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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 16 September 2011 at 1:28am
islamispeace,

   I found two references to the history and purity of Qur'anic texts.

http://harvardhouse.com/qur'an_purity.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an

Comments?

Larry


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 16 September 2011 at 11:51am

If that is the case, why don’t any Islamic scholars accept all 7-10 versions? And, why do the different Qur'ans also have a different understanding of the Basmalah, some accepting it as part of the Qur'an while others not, if it’s just dialect, which in essence means, the Qur'an that is recited around the world today is different. They are different in their basic letters, diacritical dots and vowels, and this changes the meaning of words, sentences and therefore understanding. Like any ‘version/dialect’ if the dots and vowels are placed in different places they WILL make different words, having a different meaning.

That is why no one accepts all of these versions as authentic, some are accepted and others are rejected, why is that? In fact, they are judged in the same way that the Hadith are judged for their authenticity. The gradings are: sahih (authentic), shadh (irregular), da'eef (weak) and baatil (false).[3] In this way the Qur'an is the same as the Hadith.

Example:

That God and his apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans (9:3)

That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle.

This mistake occurred through wrongly reading rasulihi in place of rasuluhu, which could not be distinguished from the written text, because there were no signs or accents indicating the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorized the correct version he could out of ignorance easily commit such a mistake. (Von Denffer, `Ulum Al-Qur'an - An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an, pp. 57-58)

So, while there are some dialectal differences between these versions of the Qur'an the majority of the differences are the result of the ambiguity of the early Arabic text. It is this ambiguity of the text that has led to so many different versions.



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


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 17 September 2011 at 2:33pm
Ummmm,  by chance,  when Allah's Prophet revealed something from Allah, are you saying that he revealed it in 7 different dialects?
 
Just wondering...
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 September 2011 at 11:22am
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   I found two references to the history and purity of Qur'anic texts.

http://harvardhouse.com/qur'an_purity.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an

Comments?

Larry


Larry, the first link does not work.  The second link is a hodge-podge of material written by anonymous people, which is why I don't use Wikipedia (and my college professors warned their students against using for research purposes).  In any case, which part(s) of the article are you concerned about? 


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 September 2011 at 11:36am
Originally posted by Kish

If that is the case, why don’t any Islamic scholars accept all 7-10 versions? And, why do the different Qur'ans also have a different understanding of the Basmalah, some accepting it as part of the Qur'an while others not, if it’s just dialect, which in essence means, the Qur'an that is recited around the world today is different. They are different in their basic letters, diacritical dots and vowels, and this changes the meaning of words, sentences and therefore understanding. Like any ‘version/dialect’ if the dots and vowels are placed in different places they WILL make different words, having a different meaning.

That is why no one accepts all of these versions as authentic, some are accepted and others are rejected, why is that? In fact, they are judged in the same way that the Hadith are judged for their authenticity. The gradings are: sahih (authentic), shadh (irregular), da'eef (weak) and baatil (false).[3] In this way the Qur'an is the same as the Hadith.

Example:

That God and his apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans (9:3)

That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle.

This mistake occurred through wrongly reading rasulihi in place of rasuluhu, which could not be distinguished from the written text, because there were no signs or accents indicating the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorized the correct version he could out of ignorance easily commit such a mistake. (Von Denffer, `Ulum Al-Qur'an - An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an, pp. 57-58)

So, while there are some dialectal differences between these versions of the Qur'an the majority of the differences are the result of the ambiguity of the early Arabic text. It is this ambiguity of the text that has led to so many different versions.


Kish, if you are going to regurgitate plagiarized material from Answering-Islam (another trait you share with a fellow Jehovah's Witness on this forum), then I am afraid no one will take you as a serious researcher.  Case in point:

You copied Answering-Islam concerning the "example" of Surah 9, verse 3, and provided a phony reference to make it appear as if you actually read Von Denffer's work.  Unfortunately for you, this work is available on the internet, and more specifically, on Islamic websites!  Here is the complete passage, in context, as Von Denffer wrote:

"Tashkil is the name for the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic scripts. They were apparently unknown in pre-lslamic times. These signs help to determine the correct pronunciation of the word and to avoid mistakes.

Example:

Byt Baitun

When more and more Muslims of non-Arab origin and also many ignorant Arabs' [Yaqut reports in his book irshad that al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf himself once read ahabba in 9: 24 wrongly as ahabbu, see GdQ. 111, 124, note 6.] studied the Qur'an, faulty pronunciation and wrong readings began to increase. It is related that at the time of Du'all (d. 69H/638) someone in Basra read the following aya [9:3] from the Qur'an in a faulty way, which changed the meaning completely: :

That God and His apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans' (9: 3).

'That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle.'

The mistake occurred through wrongly reading rasulihi in place of rasuluhu, which could not be distinguished from the written text, because there were no signs or accents indicating the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorised the correct version he could out of ignorance easily commit such a mistake. [See also fihrist, 1, pp. 87-8.] The signs or accents to prevent such problems were introduced not long before the i'jam and then got the shape they have to this day: [Hughes,T.P.: A Dictionary of Islam London,1895 p.687.]" http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0010.aspx - (Chapter 3, The Quran in Manuscript and Print)

So as you can see, one specific person read the verse the wrong way due to his ignorance of the Arabic language.  The Arabs knew the correct reading and hence did not need vowel marks.  Those were introduced later to aid non-Arab speaking Muslims and certain ignorant Arabs (remember that in those days, many people could not read or write).  Notice also that Von Denffer even points out that those who memorized the Quran would not have made that mistake!  I have mentioned this fact before to argue that since the Quran was memorized by many people, the chances of mistakes entering the text (whether deliberately or by mistake) and being retained was impossible. 

For people like you to take this example out of context and use it to argue that the Quran is not the same as it was when it was revealed is a non-sequitur fallacy based on poor research.   



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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 September 2011 at 11:39am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Ummmm,  by chance,  when Allah's Prophet revealed something from Allah, are you saying that he revealed it in 7 different dialects?
 
Just wondering...
 
Jack Catholic


When the Quran was revealed bit by bit to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), it was revealed to him in seven dialects.  His followers could then choose to recite the Quran in the dialect they were most comfortable with.  This was done to facilitate the memorization and understanding of the Quran by the early Muslims, the vast majority of whom were Arabs.   


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 19 September 2011 at 12:40am
islamispeace,

   As to the first link, I am not sure how to list the link so that it can be clicked on to go to the article. Maybe you can help me with that.

   As to the wikipedia link I find it amusing that you simply dismiss it as a "hodge-podge of material written by anonymous people, which is why I don't use Wikipedia (and my college professors warned their students against using for research purposes). In any case, which part(s) of the article are you concerned about?"

   I'm not "concerned" by any part of the article, I think it speaks for itself. I assume that you can read, I would be interested in having you point out the errors you find in the Wikipedia article? I found the article to be very informative and backed up by extensive research that is provided in the sources, footnotes and bibliographies listed at the end.

   Your "sources" such as your "Coptic Christian" person who told you that Coptic Christians "believe Jesus to be a man, not God or Son of God", are not exactly university-grade "research" material themseleves but merely anecdotal stories about what you hear from others.

   It seems that you apply restrictions on what other people post but ignore them when they suit your purposes.

   The question stands, what parts of the Wikipedia article do you disagree with and why?

Larry


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 19 September 2011 at 3:53pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Kish, if you are going to regurgitate plagiarized material from Answering-Islam (another trait you share with a fellow Jehovah's Witness on this forum), then I am afraid no one will take you as a serious researcher.

As if your research is to die for and I’m here to impress someone. And number 1, whether it is research that you staunchly disagree with, so be it your opinion, nevertheless it is still research, the Quran is very, very old news so no need to reinvent the wheel. Number 2, you also take a shallow position in assuming who I am (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and where this information comes from, (answering Islam) a very defensive and cowardly move to gain a strategic advantage and to cause conflict and division amongst Christ’s followers, typical though from what I’m seeing of your posts.

Originally posted by islamispeace

….provided a phony reference to make it appear as if you actually read Von Denffer's work.  Unfortunately for you, this work is available on the internet,

Interestingly enough, you only quoted what I already quoted, which was already found on the internet and there we have it a reinvention of the wheel, stay with me this time.

The fact still remains as you try to distract from the question at hand, why do the different Qur'ans also have a different understanding of the Basmalah, some accepting it as part of the Qur'an while others do not? Also, no one accepts all of these versions as authentic, why are some accepted and others rejected? In fact, they are judged in the same way that the Hadith are judged for their authenticity.

Originally posted by islamispeace

I have mentioned this fact before to argue that since the Quran was memorized by many people, the chances of mistakes entering the text (whether deliberately or by mistake) and being retained was impossible.

Friend, just because someone memorized a book doesn’t make it truth although it could be accurately false! If I have seven copies of a book and I only agree with one out of the seven copies to be the truth and then have you memorized that one copy “I” think to be truth, how do you know if that is the copy polluted with errors?

Case and point:

The original scripts of the Quran were written on small stones, pieces of leather and wood, etc which were burnt! Also, the Quran’s verses were gathered together during the time when Abu Bakr was the Caliph. They too were burnt! Plus, the original one consisted of “yazmas” (manuscripts) copied during the time when Othman was the Caliph. They do not exist anywhere in the world! You want people to believe that today’s Quran is the same as when Muhammad recited it although they were burnt?

“All that was written in the original Quran was conveyed into the “Mushafs” (later copies of copies of the Quran) by Othman, so there was no need for the original one. If it had not been burnt, some suspicions would have arisen and the doubts around the “Mushafs” would not have ceased. I was afraid of that, so I had the original scripts burnt.” (Ref.: ıb Ebi Davud, Leiden 1937, pub., p.243-Suphi e's-Salih Mebahis Fi ulum-il Kuran)
Also, the Sura “The Opening”, which is a basic one, does not take place in Ibn Mesud’s Mushaf. Neither do the Suras “The Dawn” and “The Confederate Tribes”. The order of the Suras in Ali’s Mushaf is not the same as in today’s Quran. Suyuti points out in his book that the Suras “The Cow” and “The Clans” are the same length. (See Suyuti, el ıtkan, 2/32) Yet, in today’s official Quran, “The Cow” has 286 verses whereas “The Confederate Tribes” has only 73.
No wonder Islam researcher Dr. Suphi e’s-Salih asks in his book, “Well, where is the official copy that was made in the time of Othman now?”
Suspicion, that’s the least of your worries!


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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 September 2011 at 6:55pm
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   As to the first link, I am not sure how to list the link so that it can be clicked on to go to the article. Maybe you can help me with that.

   As to the wikipedia link I find it amusing that you simply dismiss it as a "hodge-podge of material written by anonymous people, which is why I don't use Wikipedia (and my college professors warned their students against using for research purposes). In any case, which part(s) of the article are you concerned about?"

   I'm not "concerned" by any part of the article, I think it speaks for itself. I assume that you can read, I would be interested in having you point out the errors you find in the Wikipedia article? I found the article to be very informative and backed up by extensive research that is provided in the sources, footnotes and bibliographies listed at the end.

   Your "sources" such as your "Coptic Christian" person who told you that Coptic Christians "believe Jesus to be a man, not God or Son of God", are not exactly university-grade "research" material themseleves but merely anecdotal stories about what you hear from others.

   It seems that you apply restrictions on what other people post but ignore them when they suit your purposes.

   The question stands, what parts of the Wikipedia article do you disagree with and why?

Larry


Larry, this topic was your idea.  I would think that you would be prepared to discuss it.  Giving me a couple of links and then asking for my "comments" does not make it appear as if you are well-prepared.  Furthermore, the fact that you referred to an article from Wikipedia of all places shows that you have not researched this topic that well.  By research, I mean looking at actual academic sources.  I am sorry to break it to you but Wikipedia is not a reliable source.     

You will have noticed that whenever I provide references, they are usually from books written by well-known scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Geza Vermes.  I have in the past advised you to read a scholarly book on this topic.  It is called "Variant Readings of the Quran" by Ahmad Ali Al-Imam.  That would be a good place for you to start if you are really interested in the subject.  Therefore, my sources are not written by anonymous individuals who may or may not have any academic credentials on the subject.     

As far as the "Coptic Christian person" is concerned, you are confusing me with brother Hasan.  That individual was not my acquaintance.  In any case, how is a personal acquaintance the same as an article you found on a less than reputable website written by God knows who?  I am sorry, but they are not the same. 

As far as the actual article is concerned, one of the things which stood out to me is the reference to scholars like Patricia Crone.  I don't know if you are aware of her works, but she is well known for having posited the theory that the early history of Islam is nothing like what has been revealed by Islamic sources.  She essentially argued that none of the Islamic sources are reliable.  Her theory, known as "Hagarism", has since been rejected by most scholars.  One would think that if this article on Wikipedia is so reliable and factual, the reference to Crone would not have been made.  This is just one example of why I don't use Wikipedia.   

So, now that we have moved past Wikipedia (hopefully), do you have any actual arguments to raise against the authenticity of the Quran?  Again, don't give me a bunch of links to read.  I don't have that much time on my hands.  I work full time and I also go to graduate school.  So, if you want to discuss this subject, I suggest you read up on it and then bring any questions you may have.  Your original question of whether there were "versions" of the Quran was a good start.  I answered that question using evidence from the Hadiths.  Do you have a follow-up question? 


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 19 September 2011 at 10:26pm
Dear Larry,
 
I did read the non-wikipedia article and have used it over the past year as a source of data in my posts.  It is very clear that the modern Holy Qur'an isn't the orriginal.  Very clear and concise.
 
Excelent, and ALLh Bless,
 
Jack Catholic
 
 
 


Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 20 September 2011 at 3:54pm
islamispeace,

   I appreciate the fact that you are willing to comment on the articles I submitted. I look forward to your replies and having polite and respectful discourse with you and others on this topic.

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 September 2011 at 4:13pm
Larry, I was finally able to retrieve the first link (the so-called "Harvard House" link).  Even though I still feel that giving me links to read is not the best way to discuss these issues, I have decided to write a response to the claims made in the article, so as to clear up the misconceptions and assumptions.  God willing, it should be ready in a few days.  

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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 20 September 2011 at 5:46pm
Jack,

   Thanks for the comment!

Larry


Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 20 September 2011 at 5:56pm
islamispeace,

   Patricic Crone is only one of many sources listed in the Wikipedia bibliography for this topic. I think that any respectable publication will have a mix of opinions on any given subject so that the reader may have access to opinions and academic work for all sides of an issue. In this case there are divergent views represented by traditionalist and secular scholars.

Larry


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 20 September 2011 at 9:55pm

As Salaam mu alikum

 

     Islamispeace, I know you are doing great work on this site; I don’t want to praise you in any way so that you may loose your blessing. I hope and pray that Allah (S) bless and reward you tremendiously. 

 

    I did brush true the article on wiki and what amase me is how people who read it doesn’t recognize that the quran that we have today is the original. As much as the Devil tried to distort the truth it still remains there. Allah (S) told us so and so it is.

 

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). 15:9 (Y. Ali)

 

It mentioned: But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith until they make you judge in all dispute between them and find in themselves no ristance againse your dicisition and accept (them) with full submission. (Q.4:65)

 

 

   I will deal with it from a different angle  let see if they can prove me wrong.

 

   If an author is going to write a book … having all the information which he wants to preserve and publish he must first have the material that he will put that information on.

 

    In the pass humans used stone to inscribe their message, then scroles from animal skins and so on and then paper; now they have move to compact disc and memory chip. It doesn’t matter if they store it on paper pages book, compact disc or memory chip, if is a book we are writhing it still remain a book. The difference is the one on the paper is record solid and one on the cd and memory chip is record in the form of energy (eletronically). Think about it, if we want a book all we do is purches it on line and it will be delivered to our computers eletronically; how amaising! Mankind has knowledge to built machine to store books for decade to come and transmitted it from one place to another. Don’t you think the God Of this entire universe has that capability to do so? Yes!

 

  He God Almight has built the most sofisticated machine ever. The machine human built has to work with humans help but the one that God Almighty built work atomatically and reproduce it self; that machine is the humankind.

 

   The original author of the Quran told us where he stores the Quran and he is the gurdian of it.

    He Allah (S) said: “Verily this is a revelation from the Lord of the world: With it came down the spirit of faith and truth (Rooh-ul-Amin).To thy heart.” ( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/026.qmt.html#026.193 - )

   It was deliverad and store is the Heart of the most sufisticated machine ever built (Human)! In this case that human was the messenger of Allah (S); his Jobe was to delivered it and the author Allah (S) job was to guard it, protect it form lost and corruption so he had told us.

 

24:54 (Y. Ali) Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

 

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). 15:9 (Y. Ali)

 

 

     How did Allah (S) guard it? He put it on the most sufisticated memory chip ever built and transmitted it from chip to chip (heart to heart) until the last day. What was on the palm leaf and so on is just a human idea of transmit it. If you read the article at wiki you see that the Devil conforms that the book was memorize and is from that they used to verryfied if those that was written if it was correct before the finally put it on one book. So if the book was never put in writhings by anyone until this day and now they decided to put it on paper it will still remain the original because it was record in the most sifisticated chip ever built.

 

  The challenge Muslims put forward now is a prof of that! if they destroy all the Quran that exsisted on the earth we Muslim can bring it back into existance because it still remain on the most sufisticated chip ever built. It was first written on Muhammed (S) heart and now transmitted to thousands if not millions of hearts.

 

   Higher than light peake tecknology! You see the light peake teck is information record and transmitted as light and not currant as we are used today. In the heart it also record as light.

 

TNC



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 September 2011 at 11:49am
Walaikum as-salaam brother Zainool.  My sincere thanks to you for your prayers.  You are absolutely right that I should not be praised for my efforts.  I don't deserve such praise because all praise is due to Allah (swt) alone! 

Also, you have presented a well-reasoned defense of the Quran's preservation.  Even if every single copy of the Quran was to be destroyed, we would not lose it since it is present in the minds of millions of people!  The same was true in the Prophet's time and after his death.  Hundreds if not thousands of people had memorized the Quran, so there is no way it could have been corrupted or lost.  The non-Muslims who conjecture that the "original" Quran has been lost cannot present any actual evidence but they also have no response to the obvious fact that the Quran has been memorized in every generation since the the Prophet first taught his followers.  How then can they continue to insist that it has been "lost" or "corrupted".  I suspect that the only reason they make such a claim is to find something to counter the Islamic claims of the corruption of the Bible, which incidentally is backed up by secular evidence.  May Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts!


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 21 September 2011 at 12:33pm
Dear truthnowcome,
 
I read your defense, and I am sorry to say that it does not convince me at all.  The reason I am not convinced is due to the content of the article that Larry referred to (not the Wikipedia article).  This article explains that there were four individuals that Muhammad had given the task especially of memorizing the Holy Qur'an and writing it down.  These four collections did not entirely agree with each other.  One became the major source for the Holy Qur'an under the authority of an unauthorized politician who then ordered it and the other three destroyed.  This all creates a sense of intense suspicion.  Your explanation does not address the issue of the 4 authorized individuals preserving versions of the Holy Qur'an which did not agree using the methode of memorization and recitation which you have spoken so highly of.  As the contents of these 4 orriginal Holy Qur'ans were destroyed soon after the death of Muhammad, we have no way of verifying whether the current Holy Qur'an truly contains all these 4 orriginal Holy Qur'ans, or only parts of them, or even contains elements which were not even present in the 4 orriginals.  Once there is this kind of doubt, we cannot truly accept the Holy Qur'an as accurate anymore without checking it out in other ways.  Some of these methodes include what Hasan has suggested as a valid form of verrification:  internal cohesion must be existant between the verses of the Holy Qur'an showing that there is not internal contradiction.  There also must not be contradiction on issues where the New Testament and the Torrah are in agreement.  Can you proove that this kind of internal cohesion and external side-by-side linear cohesion exists?
 
If you cannot, we must assume that the Holy Qur'an is an innaccurate version of the first 4 and accurate copies.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 September 2011 at 9:30pm
Response to "Is the Qu'ran Pure?  Book Burning in Early Islam":

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

When Muhammad died in 632 CE, the Qur’an had not been recorded and collected into a book.

True, it was not yet in "book" form.  It was memorized but also written down on leaves, parchment, stones, bones etc.   

Instead, Muslims memorized large portions of the Qur'an. This was especially true of people who knew Muhammad in person. The Qur’an means to recite.

Just a small correction here.  "The Quran" or "Al-Quran" does not mean "to recite".  It means "The Recitation".   

It is possible that some of the verses had been recorded on bones, rocks, or hides before Muhammad died.

This is not a question of "possibility".  The fact is that there is physical evidence that the verses were written down on bones, rocks etc.  For example, here is a photograph of Surah al-Fatihah written on the shoulder bone of a camel:


The original Qur’an was completed by 634 CE.


This statement is deceiving.  The "original Qur'an" was completed before the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  Its first compilation into a "book" was done during the reign of Abu Bakr (ra). 

It is important to understand that a political process is what produced the Qur’an. In 633 CE, a military battle caused 700 Muslims to be killed.


One has to wonder why a "military battle" in which many of the Qurra (the reciters of the Quran) were killed is here labeled a "political process".  It seems to me that the project to preserve the Qur'an after the deaths of the Qurra was simply the most practical thing to do.  The Muslims did not want the legacy and memory of the Qur'an to be lost, as it happened to the past scriptures. 

Early Muslims wanted to maintain the purity of the Qur’an as Muhammad had spoken it.

Exactly.

So the original Qur’an of 634 CE was created during the political reign of Abu Bakr. This original Qur’an came to be known as the Hafsah codex (about 10 years later when Hafsah began to maintain it). However, this most important original manuscript of the Qur’an was destroyed by Muslim leaders in 667 CE.

While the "Hafsah Codex", as the author refers to it, was destroyed during the reign of Marwan b. Hakam, what still needs to be kept in mind is that the Uthmanic Writ was based on the copy that Hafsah kept.  Just because it was later destroyed does not mean there was some conspiracy against the original Qur'an.  As Von Denffer relates:

"'Uthman had many copies prepared from this copy and sent them to various places in the Muslim world, while the original suhuf were returned to Hafsa and remained with her until her death. Later, Marwan b. Hakam (d. 65/684), according to a report in Ibn Abi Dawud, collected it from her heirs and had it destroyed, presumably fearing it might become the cause for new disputes. 'Uthman also kept one of the copies for himself. This version of the text, also known as 'Mushaf 'Uthman in fact constitutes the ijma'(consensus) of the sahaba, all of whom agreed that it contained what Muhammad had brought as revelation from Allah." http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0009.aspx - (Ulum al Qur'an, The Mushaf of 'Uthman)

Two points need to be made here:

1.  There is no evidence that Marwan b. Hakam's decree to destroy Hafsah's copy was met with opposition by the Islamic world, although Hafsah did refuse his repeated requests to have the copy destroyed.  However, his reasoning was simple.  He said:

"'I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios.'" http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html - [GF Haddad, Hafsa's Qur'an Folios]

If it was indeed an attempt to alter the Qur'an, there would have been a revolt, which there was not.  Marwan was fearful of future disagreements.  This implies that there were no disagreements during his time.       

2.  There was scholarly consensus that the Uthmanic Writ was agreed upon by the Sahaba.  This is further elaborated on below.

(Hafsah was one of Muhammad's wives. She maintained the original Qur'an until her death in 667 CE. Muslim leaders wanted to destroy the original Qur'an before Hafsah died. But she refused to hand over the codex for burning. She was successful until her death [Refer to Al-Masahif 24] It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?").

The author ignores the fact that once Uthman (ra) had completed the copies, he returned the original copy to Hafsah (ra).  Had "Muslim leaders wanted to destroy [it]", they had the chance when Hafsah originally gave the copy to Uthman.  Therefore, the author's melodramatic question "why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt" seems to be more of an attempt to create an atmosphere of suspense akin to a Hollywood movie than to actual scholarship.  Perhaps the answer is much simpler than the author thinks.  Perhaps Hafsah simply did not want to part with the copy which had been in her possession for so many years and carried with it much sentimental value.         

To begin, an excellent procedure was in place during the collection of the original Qur’an. Abu Bakr ordered that the Qur’an could only include words that were vouched for by the testimony of two men. The earliest version of the Qur'an would have been most fresh in the minds of Muhammad's followers in 634 CE. Is it any wonder why Hafsah refused to release the original manuscript?

There still has not been any direct evidence given of any alterations.  The author simply continues to ask suspenseful questions so as to suggest the possibility of a conspiracy to alter the Qur'an.   

The history of how the Qur’an came to be recorded comes from reliable Muslim source materials. These are called the Hadith. Problems for the Qur’an began to occur during the reign of the 3rd political leader of Islam, whose name is Uthman (644 TO 656 CE). It appears that as the Islamic faith spread with military conquest across a large area, the soldiers were reading different versions of the Qur’an. These men wondered, "Is the Qur’an truly as pure as those close to Muhammad believed and taught?"

This is a complete fabrication by the author.  There is no evidence that these soldiers were wondering whether the Qur'an was "pure" or not.  The fact is that there were disagreements between the newer Muslims (who had never met the Prophet or were taught by him).  These Muslims had been taught to recite the Qur'an in various ways in which it was revealed, depending on their teachers.  These recitations were all valid.  These ignorant people began to quarrel amongst each other because they thought that their recitation was the correct one, even though all of them were correct.  This is confirmed by Dr. Ahmad Ali Al-Imam, who writes:

"[a]t this time, the qurra' (reciters of the Qur'an) began to argue over how the Qur'an should be recited, for some of the Companions and the Successors...were reciting it in different ways.  In addition, the Companions were reciting the Qur'an in the seven acceptable styles." ("Variant Readings of the Qur'an: A Critical Study of Their Historical and Linguistic Origins", p. 16)  

Having obtained this new version, Uthman ordered all other Qur’ans to be destroyed by fire. We find written:

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

This means that drastic changes occurred. After all, "Why were the other copies and fragments ordered to be burnt?" The answer is found in the original statement: "Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an"

Obviously, the author is not aware that the Qur'an was recited in different ways.  These recitations were all valid.  Like the ignorant Muslims in Iraq who were quarreling for no reason about the different recitations, the ignorant author assumes that different recitations meant different Qur'ans.  This only shows his/her ignorance on the subject. 

Hudhaifa did not want different versions of the Qur'an. To Hudhaifa, unity of the Qur'an meant unity of all Muslims. If Muslims troops were not united, Islam would crumble.

Wrong.  Hudhaifa (ra) wanted to resolve the needless disputes and to prevent future ones.  The most practical solution was to produce a single master copy which would become the standard for the entire Islamic world.   

Since all other copies of the Qur’an were ordered to be burned, what was wrong with them?

Nothing was wrong with them.  They were burnt so that there would not be any needless disputes in the future by ignorant people (both Muslims and non-Muslims like our anonymous author!) who did not know that different recitations was a normal thing. 

Is the Qur’an pure as believed by modern day Muslims? Since the decision to burn all other Qur’ans was politically motivated, the Qur’an of today reflects the political whims of early Muslim political leaders, not the prophet Muhammad.

The author has yet to prove any "political motivation" behind the destruction of the personal codices.  There has been a lot of speculation but very little evidence.  

Questions like this will never be answered. But it is certain that the Qur’an of today is not the original Qur’an recorded only 2 years after Muhammad died. It is certain that the Hafsah codex would have been the most accurate and original Qur’an of all time. But Muslim political leaders made sure that it was destroyed. So what actually happened in the early years of Islam?

Again, thus far, the author has only made several speculative claims but has not provided any actual evidence.

Muslim source materials report that at least four different versions of the Qur’an existed before the political order was given to have them burned. (Refer to "Al-Tamhid 2, 247).

These "four different versions" were not different Qur'ans.  They were different ways of reciting the Qur'an and were all valid since the meanings were the same and were taught by the companions of the Prophet (such as Ibn Mas'ud).  Furthermore, the author neglects to mention that these "four versions" were only used in the newly conquered territories of the Muslim world.  These territories were Kufah, Basra, Damascus and the rest of Syria.  These versions were not being used in the Hijaz region of Arabia, which includes Mecca and Madina.  According to Kazim Mudir Shanehchi:

"In al-Tamhid, Abu Musa al-'Ash'ari and Miqdad ibn al-'Aswad are mentioned among the compilers of the Qur'an. It adds that before the standardization of the codices by the order of 'Uthman, the people of Kufah recited according to the compilation of Ibn Masud, the people of Basrah according to the codex of Abu Musa, the people of Damascus according to the codex of Miqdad, while the rest of [the] Syrians recited according to the codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b." http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/manuscripts.htm - ("Some Old Manuscripts of the Holy Qur'an", Trans. by Mujahid Husayn)    

The fact that these recitations were only being used by Muslims in the newly conquered territories and that the disagreements only arose in Iraq shows very clearly that these were not "different versions" but rather different styles of recitation. 

Furthermore, other companions also had compiled their own manuscripts, and these included both Uthman and Zayd ibn Thabit.  According to Dr. Al-Imam:

"[t]he Prophet allowed several Companions to have their own manuscripts (collections of fragments) in addition to memorizing the Qur'an.  The most famous of these people, who are said to have taught many others, were Uthman, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Abu al-Darda, Zayd ibn Thabit, Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, Abu Musa al-Ashari, Salim...and Mu'adh ibn Jabal." (Ibid., p. 14) 

Von Denffer mentions even more such people:

"A list of Companions of whom it is related that they had their own written collections included the following: Ibn Mas'ud, Ubay bin Ka'b, 'Ali, Ibn 'Abbas, Abu Musa, Hafsa, Anas bin Malik, 'Umar, Zaid bin Thabit, Ibn Al-Zubair, 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, 'A'isha, Salim, Umm Salama, [and] 'Ubaid bin 'Umar." http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0008.aspx - (Ibid., The Masahif of the Companions)

Notice that this list includes three of the Prophet's wives (Hafsah, A'isha and Umm Salama).  So, there is no evidence to suggest that only four people had compiled their own copies, nor is there any evidence that these copies were different "versions" of the Qur'an.

The four versions were written by people who knew Muhammad in person. Each person created their unique version of the Qur’an. Based on Muslims sources, the differences were serious enough to cause Muslims to be divided. The Islamic source "K. al Masahif" reports differences so serious as to cause one Muslim group to call another group heretics:

During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif]

So a political decision was made to have only one Qur’an. This did not go over well with the original people who created their unique version of the Qur’an. Who were these chosen people?

As previously mentioned, these disagreements were among the newer Muslims in the newly conquered territories and were actually completely unnecessary.

Muslim source materials reveal some of these select people who are known to have created their unique version of the Qur'an. ( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html - Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 150 ). [Search on the referenced site to find the number "150" if you want to verify the written literature].

I heard the Prophet saying, "Learn the recitation of Qur'an from four persons: (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim (who was killed in the 633 CE battle), the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal."

So a few select people close to Muhammad thought they knew the Qur’an and collected their personal version.

This is another assumption made by the author.  There is no reason to assume that the Prophet (pbuh) allowed his followers to learn the Qur'an only from these four companions.  In fact, since many other companions had also compiled their own copies (as mentioned above), the claim that only four were authorized to teach the Qur'an is ludicrous.  In addition, Ibn Mas'ud had personally learned only 70 of the 114 total surahs from the Prophet.  So how can the author insist that Muslims who wanted to learn the entire Qur'an were limited to Ibn Mas'ud and three others?    

These versions of the Qur’an became widely distributed and used. This is why Muslim soldiers were arguing and calling one another heretics.

As previously mentioned above, these recitations were widely used in certain localities.  Also, the four recitations mentioned were those of Ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Miqdad and Abu Musa and not of Ibn Mas'ud, Salim, Ubayy and Muadh ibn Jabal (the four mentioned in the hadith from Bukhari).  This further shatters the argument that Muslims were allowed to learn the Qur'an from these four only.  

After the "official" Qur’an was released and the order was given to burn all other versions, some very bad feelings came out.

Actually, according to Dr. Al-Imam:

"[t]he Companions, learned men, and leading figures, including Ali, all approved of this action [Uthman's decree to burn other copies].  Ali confronted those who rebelled and told them that Uthman burned only the copies that varied from the final revelation, kept that which was agreed upon, proceeded only after consulting the Companions and obtaining their unanimous consent, and that he would have done the same thing if he had been in Uthman's position.

...The Muslims admired Uthman's actions...(with the exception of Ibn Mas'ud), because Uthman united the material into its official book form, cleansed it from any abrogated material, isolated reports, and any interpretation that had added to the text (and could have been mistaken for part of the Revelation)." (Ibid., pp. 16-17)

In light of this, one has to wonder at the veracity of the author's claim of "bad feelings", but let us see what evidence he presents in his defense.

The following information from Muslim sources is probably the most important information you can learn about people who actually knew Muhammad in person.

We shall see.  However, it needs to be pointed out that many people at the time knew the Prophet in person, including Uthman himself.  Ibn Mas'ud was not the only one. 

Let’s begin with Mas’ud, who was asked to burn his personal version of the Qur’an.

"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).

Would Mas’ud accept the Qur’an of today as being pure since he refused to destroy his unique version? Since Mas’ud did not want to have his unique version of the Qur’an destroyed, it is doubtful that Mas’ud would honestly answer that the Qur’an is pure. It is important to ask, "Why did Mas’ud refuse to give in and destroy his version of the Qur’an?"

The author neglects to mention that Ibn Mas'ud eventually agreed to hand over his personal copy.  Therefore, he eventually agreed with the consensus.  As to the reason why he initially refused, the answer it again perhaps simpler than the author thinks.  Ibn Mas'ud probably did not want to part with his personal copy which had been in his possession since the early years of the Prophet's mission.  Certainly, it is understandable that he was hesitant to part with his copy.  Furthermore, there is also the possibility that Ibn Mas'ud simply felt insulted for not being included in the committee formed by Uthman.

Mas'ud was a close companion and personal servant of Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad taught the Qur'an to Mas’ud in person. Due to his close relationship with Muhammad, Mas'ud would have had confidence that he was qualified to create his unique version of the Qur'an.

But he was not the only one.  Muhammad (pbuh) referred to Abu Bakr (ra) as his friend and dearest Companion.  Does that mean that all the other Companions were not as important?  Of course not.    

Mas'ud, moved to Kufa, Iraq where he completed his unique version of the Qur’an (commonly called the Kufan Codex). The unique Qur’an created by Mas’ud was completed years after the most important original manuscript (634 CE) that Hafsah kept until she died in 667 CE. In addition, the Qur'an version created by Mas'ud did not have chapters 1, 113, and 114 that are in the "official" Qur'an of today. Is the Qur’an truly pure as believed by Muslims today?

While it is true that Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf did not have three of the surahs, the following points are also true:

1.  By Ibn Mas'ud's own admission, he only learned 70 surahs directly from the Prophet (see the reference to the Kitab Al-Masahif provided by the author above).  Yet, his mushaf contained more than 70 surahs!  From whom did he learn these surahs from and why did he include them in his mushaf?  Obviously, he was not around the Prophet all the time and hence was not present when many other surahs were revealed.  Therefore, he would have learned the other surahs from other Companions (Al-Imam, p. 51)

2.  Ibn al-Nadim, a Shia scholar from the 10th century CE, wrote in his Kitab al-Fihrist that he had seen a copy of Ibn Mas'ud's codex which did not contain Surah al-Fatiha only, which means that in some copies of Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf, surahs 113 and 114 were included http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0008.aspx - (Von Denffer, The Masahif of the Companions).

3.  In addition to point #1, just because these surahs were not included in the original codex does not mean they were not part of the Quran, as surahs like Al-Fatiha were so well-known that Ibn Mas'ud may simply have decided to not write them in (See Al-Imam, pp. 50-51).

4.  The surahs which were omitted in Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf are mentioned in the hadith literature (Al-Imam, p. 52), such as Sahih Bukhari, which as the author mentioned above, is one of the most trusted sources in the Islamic world.  I will provide one example for each surah:

Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever does not recite Al-Fatiha in his prayer, his prayer is invalid."  ( http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=12&translator=1&start=0&number=723#723 - Book http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=12&translator=1&start=0&number=723#723 - #12 http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=12&translator=1&start=0&number=723#723 - , Hadith http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=12&translator=1&start=0&number=723#723 - #723 )  

Narrated 'Aisha: Whenever Allah's Apostle became sick, he would recite Mu'awwidhat (Surat Al-Falaq and Surat An-Nas) and then blow his breath over his body. When he became seriously ill, I used to recite (these two Suras) and rub his hands over his body hoping for its blessings. ( http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=61&translator=1&start=0&number=535#535 - Book http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=61&translator=1&start=0&number=535#535 - #61 http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=61&translator=1&start=0&number=535#535 - , Hadith http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=61&translator=1&start=0&number=535#535 - #535 )

Notice that Hazrat Aisha (ra) mentioned that Surah al-Falaq (#113) and Surah an-Nas (#114) were often recited together by the Prophet himself and she used to emulate this as well.  Furthermore, no one can say that Aisha was not close to the Prophet.  Her testimony proves conclusively that the two surahs are part of the Qur'an.  Therefore, the authenticity of these surahs and their presence in the Qur'an are all supported by the evidence.  Their absence from Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf does not prove that they were not part of the Qur'an.  

5.  The picture provided above of Al-Fatiha written on the shoulder bone of a camel is physical evidence of its importance and use by the early Muslims.  As Islamic tradition states, the followers of Muhammad (pbuh) used to write the verses of the Qur'an on anything they could find, including bones. 

Another unique Qur’an was created by Ubayy B. Ka'ab. He was a close companion of Muhammad and served as a secretary to Muhammad. Ubayy could recite much of the Qur’an, which he had learned from the prophet Muhammad. Scholars have found that Ubayy's version differed from the "official" Qur'an with two additional chapters (entitled: Surat Al-Khal and Surat Al-Afd). Since Ubayy was taught the Qur'an by the prophet Muhammad, why doesn't the "official" Qur'an contain the two additional chapters?

It doesn't contain them because they are not "additional chapters".  The author fails to realize that these two additional "surahs" were actually a dua (supplication) and a saying of the Prophet, respectively. The first so-called "surah" is actually a supplication which the Prophet used to recite but which was not part of the Qur'an.  Specifically, it is identified by scholars as the dua al-qunut, which is still recited in the Witr prayer, although it is not obligatory (Al-Imam, p. 51).  The second so-called "surah" is translated as:

"If the son of Adam was given a valley full of riches, he would wish a second one, and if he was given two valleys full of riches, he would surely ask for a third one. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam except dust, and Allah is forgiving to him who is repentant."

When we look at Sahih Bukhari, we find an almost exact match to this saying as well as some additional information:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "If the son of Adam had money equal to a valley, then he will wish for another similar to it, for nothing can satisfy the eye of Adam's son except dust. And Allah forgives him who repents to Him." Ibn 'Abbas said: I do not know whether this saying was quoted from the Qur'an or not. 'Ata' said, "I heard Ibn AzZubair saying this narration while he was on the pulpit." ( http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=76&translator=1&start=0&number=445#445 - Book http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=76&translator=1&start=0&number=445#445 - #76, Hadith #445 )

But it gets even more interesting:

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd: I heard Ibn Az-Zubair who was on the pulpit at Mecca, delivering a sermon, saying, "O men! The Prophet used to say, "If the son of Adam were given a valley full of gold, he would love to have a second one; and if he were given the second one, he would love to have a third, for nothing fills the belly of Adam's son except dust. And Allah forgives he who repents to Him." Ubai [Ibn Ka'b] said, "We considered this as a saying from the Qur'an till the Sura (beginning with) 'The mutual rivalry for piling up of worldly things diverts you..' (102.1) was revealed." ( http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=76&translator=1&start=0&number=446#446 - Book #76, Hadith 446 )

Amazingly, we find here testimony from Ubayy himself that this saying was at first considered to be part of the Qur'an by some of the Companions, but they later understood that it was not part of the Qur'an.  Therefore, the evidence conclusively proves that the additional parts of Ubayy's mushaf were not part of the Qur'an, and the Companions knew that at the time of Uthman's reign.  Ubayy may have simply put them in his personal copy for his own use.        

Ubayy died during the reign of Umar, which was before the "official" Qur'an was created by Uthman. Therefore, Ubayy did not have to witness that his version of the Qur'an was burned by Uthman's order. Since Ubayy created a unique version of the Qur'an and had learned from the mouth of the prophet Muhammad, would he have agreed with Mas’ud by refusing to give in and destroy his version of the Qur’an?"

Whether he would have or not is irrelevant at this point.  The author has not provided conclusive evidence of any deliberate alterations to the Qur'anic text.

Due to Uthman’s decision to create an "official" version of the Qur'an, Ubayy's version of the Qur’an was destroyed. It is important to ask, "Is the Qur'an pure?"

The answer is a resounding 'yes!'

Now consider the original Qur’an called the Hafsah Codex. It was destroyed by Muslims leaders immediately after Hafsah died. It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?"

Probably because it had great sentimental value to her.  The answers are usually simpler than thought. 

The "official" Qur’an version of today comes from Zaid ibn Thabit, who was the youngest writing member. Zaid, being very young, outlived the older people who had spent more time with Muhammad. However, in the end it was Zaid's version of the Qur'an that was selected by Uthman for the "official" Qur'an version.

Zayd (ra) was also one of the Prophet’s closest companions and his personal scribe!  He was also selected to be among the compilers of the first copy under Abu Bakr (ra).  Therefore, there is no reason to question his credibility.  Furthermore, as mentioned above, Uthman's "version" (if we can call it that) was supported unanimously by the Companions, including Ibn Mas'ud, who eventually agreed with the decision.      

Muslims who had been close to Muhammad became righteously angry when Uthman insisted that only one version of the Qur’an be used.

This is a fabrication, as the evidence presented above has shown.  The author claim "Muslims...became righteously angry" (that's Muslims with an 's'), yet he only gave the example of Ibn Mas'ud, who initially resisted giving up his personal copy but eventually agreed to do so.  The Companions were all in agreement.  This fact shatters the ludicrous claim that Uthman's decree was met with "righteous anger".     

Islamic sources show that the purity of the Qur’an from the days of Muhammad appears to have been compromised. If no variants existed, then no burning party would have been held.

It only appears so to certain people who only gloss over certain accounts but ignore others.  Had more thorough research been done by the author, he/she would not have come to this incorrect conclusion.

Muslims believe that seven versions of the Qur'an exist but that only Uthman’s Qur’an is correct. So Muslims disregard the "official" book burning party cited in Muslim source materials. However, it takes "blind faith" to believe and accept this viewpoint.

This is another fabrication.  Dr. Al-Imam explains:

"...the copies ordered by Uthman include more than one style of recitation and whatever the orthography could accommodate of the seven accepted styles of recitation.  [...] The written text has been recorded according to one style of recitation, and permission to use the other styles is given only for purposes of recitation...The printed copies of the Qur'an that we have today represent the four dominant styles of recitation: those of Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, and al-Duri" (p. 49).

Conclusion:

In this response, we have dealt with every single claim made by the anonymous author and have found that these claims are without merit.  They are based primarily on speculation and can be compared more to a conspiracy theory (such as that American astronauts never went to the moon) than to scholarly investigation.  With regard to the issue of the Quran's purity and preservation, I think Von Denffer says it best (quoting the scholar John Burton):

"...even non-Muslim orientalists concede that 'no major differences of doctrines can be constructed on the basis of the parallel readings based on the 'Uthmanic consonantal outline, yet ascribed to mushafs other than his. All the rival readings unquestionably represent one and the same text. They are substantially agreed in what they transmit ..." ( http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0022.aspx - Ibid., Variety of Modes )

And Allah (swt) knows best.



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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 26 September 2011 at 1:08pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
I wish to respond to some of your posting.  Your words writing is in black, and mine is in red:
 

Dr. Ahmad Ali Al-Imam, who writes:

 

These "four different versions" were not different Qur'ans.  They were different ways of reciting the Qur'an and were all valid since the meanings were the same and were taught by the companions of the Prophet (such as Ibn Mas'ud).  Furthermore, the author neglects to mention that these "four versions" were only used in the newly conquered territories of the Muslim world.  These territories were Kufah, Basra, Damascus and the rest of Syria.  These versions were not being used in the Hijaz region of Arabia, which includes Mecca and Madina.  According to Kazim Mudir Shanehchi:

Who is Dr. Ahmad Ali Al-Imam and why should I consider him an authority on 4 books that were destroyed 1400 years before his birth?  Did he study those coppies?  Did he read them?  Where did he get his information? 

 

And if one of the persons Muhammad authorized to recite the Qur’an and who collected Surra’s moved to a conquerred territory, how does that suddenly lessen the validity of the person’s work?

 

Notice that this list includes three of the Prophet's wives (Hafsah, A'isha and Umm Salama).  So, there is no evidence to suggest that only four people had compiled their own copies, nor is there any evidence that these copies were different "versions" of the Qur'an.

There was no evidence, you say?  If they were not different versions, why would it be necessary to destroy them? 

 

Another thing, there was a worldwide ruckus over a small time preacher in the United States burning a Qur’an last year.  How could Uthman get away with destroying 4 copies of the Holy Qur’an if thier content, though differing in recitation, was valid content?  Isn’t there something against altering or destroying a Qur’an in Islam?  So how could he have gotten away with destroying them accept that maybe they truly were different “versions” and it just so happens that the powers that be (political) were on his side...  Explain this one, IslamisPeace.

 

IslamisPeace, the article you are rebutting is quoted as saying, "The four versions were written by people who knew Muhammad in person. Each person created their unique version of the Qur’an. Based on Muslims sources, the differences were serious enough to cause Muslims to be divided. The Islamic source "K. al Masahif" reports differences so serious as to cause one Muslim group to call another group heretics:

During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif] "

So a political decision was made to have only one Qur’an. This did not go over well with the original people who created their unique version of the Qur’an. Who were these chosen people?

Your rebuttle:  As previously mentioned, these disagreements were among the newer Muslims in the newly conquered territories and were actually completely unnecessary.

IslamisPeace, you have shown no poof, only assertion and the words of a “Doctor” who speaks about the four “versions” he has never seen or examined, and who does not sight the evidence for his assertions.

 

Actually, according to Dr. Al-Imam:

"[t]he Companions, learned men, and leading figures, including Ali, all approved of this action [Uthman's decree to burn other copies].  Ali confronted those who rebelled and told them that Uthman burned only the copies that varied from the final revelation, kept that which was agreed upon, proceeded only after consulting the Companions and obtaining their unanimous consent, and that he would have done the same thing if he had been in Uthman's position.

      Yes, IslamisPeace, this is nice.  Is this just Dr. Al-Imam talking again.  I have listened to “Doctors,” extremely well educated men, at universities debate issues in their field of expertise that they couldn’t agree on.  I’ve even heard “Doctors” say things that contradict centuries-old wisdom, and in the 20 years following my college career heard the same Doctors retract what they had formerly said.  Point is, just because the man is a Doctor doesn’t mean he is speaking the truth. 

                So Ali changed his mind and supported Uthman.  What was done to change his mind?  I am well aware or the techniques used by some to change the minds of individuals who are then made to speak to the public about their new enlightened understanding.  Some of the techniques are considered by Jews and Christians to be immoral.  What can you say to increase my trust and faith that the changing of the minds of those close to Muhammad who were formerly against burning the 4 orriginal versions was an authentic change of heart and not a forced one?

...The Muslims admired Uthman's actions...(with the exception of Ibn Mas'ud), because Uthman united the material into its official book form, cleansed it from any abrogated material, isolated reports, and any interpretation that had added to the text (and could have been mistaken for part of the Revelation)." (Ibid., pp. 16-17)

Really!  And Dr. Al-Imam has sworn statements from “The Muslims?”  What proof can he offer us that this is truly the case, and not just his own conjecture? 

 

Here is the deal, IslamisPeace.  Dr. Imam presents a simple, well reasoned explanation to justify history, but he does not offer proof, unless you accidentally left it out.  Without proof, the Dr. is just another talking intellectual spouting off his own personal opinion and we are supposed to believe him because he has Dr. in front of his name.  I don’t think so!  Evidence is the name of the game.  Show me the evidence!

 
May Allah bless you, IslamisPeace,

Jack Catholic



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 26 September 2011 at 2:33pm
Any comments/questions/concerns from anyone?  I have a new topic idea so if everyone is content that this topic has been concluded, then let us move on. 


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



Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 26 September 2011 at 8:19pm
As Salaam mu alikum


   Islamispeace, I think your reply is well recieved, you were very explisit, Alhamdullah! May Allah (S) increse your knowledge and bless you with more wisdom, and may He grant you your reward for your outstanding work in terms of dawah on this site.

Just to repeat those two verses of truth:

But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith until they make you judge in all dispute between them and find in themselves no ristance againse your dicisition and accept (them) with full submission. (Q.4:65)

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). 15:9 (Y. Ali)

Wa Salaam!

Br. Zainool



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 27 September 2011 at 1:51pm

Larry,

 
I don't see that IslamisPeace has really provided any hard evidence to refute the assertion that there were more than one Qur'an.  In fact, I find it interesting that one man can gather by force all of the versions of the Qur'an and combine them, then everyone say that the newer cobined version is authentic.  This would be like saying that St. Paul gathered up all the Gospel versions written by the Apostles, rewrote them into one book, and then destroyed the other Gospels leaving his as the only one.  Then truly the non-Christians who claim that our Holy Bible has been rewritten and tampered with would have something to lay claim to.  In effect, this is what has happened to the Holy Qur'an, don't you think?
 
You are doing awesome on this string, Larry.  I'm sure that Allah is blessing you through your questions and statements that demand the truth in love.
 
Keep up the great work.  I won't heap too much praise upon you in case it might cause you to loose some of Allah's blessing.  But hey, I know in advance that Allah will bless your efforts and you as well.  Keep up the great work!
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 27 September 2011 at 4:47pm
Originally posted by Jack

Who is Dr. Ahmad Ali Al-Imam


That's a fair question.  I will let the back cover of his book answer this question:

"Professor Ahmad Ali Al-Imam is hafiz of the Qur'an and one of a few distinguished scholars of the Qur'an worldwide.  He holds a PhD from Edinburgh University on the topic of variant readings of the Qur'an..."

Now let me ask you a few questions.  Who is the author of the "Harvard House" article and why should anyone consider him an authority on the Qur'an's history?  And why do you not question his credentials the way you question the credentials of Dr. Al-Imam?  

Originally posted by Jack

and why should I consider him an authority on 4 books that were destroyed 1400 years before his birth?  Did he study those coppies?  Did he read them?  Where did he get his information?


What "4 books" are you talking about?  There were not "4 versions" of the Qur'an in circulation.  As I said, the Qur'an was recited in different ways.  Uthman ordered the destruction of all copies (not just four) which differed in recitation from the standard copy he ordered to be prepared.

As far as where Dr. Al-Imam got this information, the answer is that he has studied the writings of Islamic scholars where these reports come from.  His book is full of references to these works.  He also refers to the writings of modern scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim.  Many of the characteristics of the variant copies have been preserved in the writings of the scholars.  Dr. Al-Imam refers to these works and even provides examples.       
 


Originally posted by Jack

And if one of the persons Muhammad authorized to recite the Qur’an and who collected Surra’s moved to a conquerred territory, how does that suddenly lessen the validity of the person’s work?


You missed the point, Jack.  When did I say that Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf was "less valid"?  If you will reread my response to "Harvard House", you will see that I made it clear that the different readings (not "versions" as he put it) were all valid.  The points I was making were:

1.  Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf was only popular in Kufah. Other readings were popular in other areas.  What this shows is that different readings were a normal phenomenon and were accepted by the Sahabah.

2.  The Sahabah had never considered a unifying text until the first disagreements arose.  These disagreements were, as I explained, among newer Muslims (who were not Arabs) and were completely unnecessary.  When I said that different readings were used in different areas, I was pointing out the fact that disagreements arose only in certain localities and not in the center of the Islamic world (Mecca and Medina).  Some of the newer Muslims, who were not knowledgeable in these matters, were the ones who started these disagreements.  These disagreements were not between the Sahabah. 

Originally posted by Jack

There was no evidence, you say?  If they were not different versions, why would it be necessary to destroy them?
  

Did you actually read my response?  I explained this already.  It became necessary to destroy these copies so that future disagreements would not arise.  Consider what Hudaifah said to the Caliph:

"O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before."

Hudaifah was concerned that these disagreements would divide the Muslim world if they were left unchecked.  To insinuate that their destruction means that there was some conspiracy is a non-sequitur and devoid of any evidence.  That is all you have here.  Insinuations and assumptions with no evidence. 

Originally posted by Jack

Another thing, there was a worldwide ruckus over a small time preacher in the United States burning a Qur’an last year.  How could Uthman get away with destroying 4 copies of the Holy Qur’an if thier content, though differing in recitation, was valid content? Isn’t there something against altering or destroying a Qur’an in Islam?


Again, who said "4 copies" were destroyed?  Your obsession with the mythic concept of "4 versions" is what is causing your confusion.  The reports make it clear that Uthman ordered all copies which differed from the master copy to be destroyed.  These included all personal codices, such as those of Ibn Mas'ud.  Every Sahabah who had a personal copy agreed immediately, except Ibn Mas'ud (and this was only intially).  I showed in my original response that many of the other Sahabah had their own copies, including Ali (ra), the 4th Caliph and the son-in-law of the Prophet.  He was extremely supportive of Uthman's project and even said that he would have done the same if he had been the Caliph.  And again, let me stress this so there is no further confusion, that the reason this was done was to prevent any needless and unnecessary arguments in the future from ignorant people which would divide the Islamic world.
  Also, there is something against deliberately destroying or desecrating a copy for no practical reasons.  So, when Yosemite Sam (aka Terry Jones) decided to burn a copy, that was an act of desecration.  Furthermore, TJ is a non-Muslim.  So, there is no sense in comparing the two scenarios.  The Sahabah were perfectly justified in what they did because there was a practical reason.  Also, it is generally taught that when a copy of the Qur'an becomes damaged beyond use, the best thing to do is to burn it anyway.  That is better than throwing it away, which would desecrate it.  It is also allowed to bury the copies, sort of like burying a body.  In any case, who are you to tell Muslims how they should handle their own scripture?  We have our own rules and we follow them as closely as possible.

Originally posted by Jack

So how could he have gotten away with destroying them accept that maybe they truly were different “versions” and it just so happens that the powers that be (political) were on his side...  Explain this one, IslamisPeace
 

LOL You say "explain this one..." as if you have me cornered or something. 

The fact is that he did not "get away" and he didn't have to "get away" because he had the full support of the other Sahabah.  This is called ijma (consensus).  The people who claim that there was a political conspiracy have no response to the facts.  Think about it.  Why would there have been a consensus if Uthman was doing something wrong?  You have no explanation other than to assume that there must have been a "political motivation" behind it.  What "political motivation" would he have had?  Why would he willingly put his own rule in danger by doing something as unspeakable as altering the Qur'an?  If he had tried, he would have been removed almost instantly.  Yet, history confirms that he ruled until 656, at least 6 years after the compilation of the master copy. 

Originally posted by Jack

IslamisPeace, you have shown no poof, only assertion and the words of a “Doctor” who speaks about the four “versions” he has never seen or examined, and who does not sight the evidence for his assertions.


Now this is typical of you Jack.  You blindly accept the word of an anonymous author on the internet but question the authority of an actual scholar.  Whose words do you think carry more weight?  Wink 

The fact is that your anonymous author has never studied the history as much as a scholar like Dr. Al-Imam has.  You have presented no evidence that justifies your questioning of his credentials.  You just don't want to accept his authority because he happens to disagree with your a priori beliefs.  The other fact is that he provides scholarly evidence in his book.  He provides references, which is something your source did not seem to think was important.  So, for you to second-guess a scholar is hypocritical and exposes your double standards once again.  If you want more information, I suggest your read the book yourself.

Originally posted by Jack

Yes, IslamisPeace, this is nice.  Is this just Dr. Al-Imam talking again.  I have listened to “Doctors,” extremely well educated men, at universities debate issues in their field of expertise that they couldn’t agree on.  I’ve even heard “Doctors” say things that contradict centuries-old wisdom, and in the 20 years following my college career heard the same Doctors retract what they had formerly said.  Point is, just because the man is a Doctor doesn’t mean he is speaking the truth.
      

Until you present actual evidence that contradicts a real scholar like Al-Imam, you are just grasping at straws.  But to answer your question, when he said that the Sahabah supported Uthman, Al-Imam was citing the work of Ibn Kathir called "Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah" (The Beginning and The End) which was written in the 14th century.  So when you talk about "centuries-old wisdom", it supports the claims of Al-Imam.

Originally posted by Jack

So Ali changed his mind and supported Uthman.  What was done to change his mind?  I am well aware or the techniques used by some to change the minds of individuals who are then made to speak to the public about their new enlightened understanding.  Some of the techniques are considered by Jews and Christians to be immoral.  What can you say to increase my trust and faith that the changing of the minds of those close to Muhammad who were formerly against burning the 4 orriginal versions was an authentic change of heart and not a forced one?
    

It was not Ali, it was Ibn Mas'ud.  Are you paying attention?  This slip shows that you have no credibility to question scholars like Al-Imam.  You can't even distinguish between the major figures!  And again, you present no evidence about what was done to make Ibn Mas'ud change his mind, just more insinuations.  The burden of proof is on you to prove that Ibn Mas'ud was the victim of a violent cover-up.  Until then, the official story remains predominant. 

But here is the kicker.  Al-Imam cites the same books your anonymous author cited, namely Al-Masahif by Ibn Abu Dawud and Al-Tamhid by Ibn Abu Bakr!  Furthermore, in the endnote, Al-Imam states regarding Al-Tamhid:

"[t]he author, Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Abu Bakr, adds 'but the followers of Ibn Mas'ud did not agree with him.  Then Ibn Mas'ud asked Uthman for permission to return to Madinah, as he did not wish to stay in Kufah.  He was given permission and came to Madinah some months before he passed away.'" (Ibid., p. 121)


Since even Ibn Mas'ud's students were urging him to reconsider, he relented and agreed to support Uthman.  He even decided to come back to Madinah!  If he was forced to accept Uthman's decree, why would he move back to the seat of power in the Islamic world where he would have been a sitting duck?  As you can see Jack, the evidence is overwhelmingly against the "Harvard House" conspiracy theory.  Ibn Mas'ud was a great man and he eventually agreed willingly to the Caliph's decree.  There was no conspiracy or force involved.    

Originally posted by Jack

Really!  And Dr. Al-Imam has sworn statements from “The Muslims?”  What proof can he offer us that this is truly the case, and not just his own conjecture?


LOL Who are you to speak of "conjecture"?  Present some actual evidence for your claims first, then you can mouth off about someone else's credibility.  The burden of proof is on people like you, who question the official story, to provide the evidence.  The existing evidence and the scholarly opinion is completely in favor of the official story. 

Originally posted by Jack

Here is the deal, IslamisPeace.  Dr. Imam presents a simple, well reasoned explanation to justify history, but he does not offer proof, unless you accidentally left it out.  Without proof, the Dr. is just another talking intellectual spouting off his own personal opinion and we are supposed to believe him because he has Dr. in front of his name.  I don’t think so!  Evidence is the name of the game.  Show me the evidence!


Yes, evidence is the name of the game.  I have provided the evidence.  You have provided nothing but assumptions and neither has your source.     


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 27 September 2011 at 4:49pm
Originally posted by truthnowcome

As Salaam mu alikum


   Islamispeace, I think your reply is well recieved, you were very explisit, Alhamdullah! May Allah (S) increse your knowledge and bless you with more wisdom, and may He grant you your reward for your outstanding work in terms of dawah on this site.

Just to repeat those two verses of truth:

But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith until they make you judge in all dispute between them and find in themselves no ristance againse your dicisition and accept (them) with full submission. (Q.4:65)

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). 15:9 (Y. Ali)

Wa Salaam!

Br. Zainool



Walaikum as-salaam brother Zainool!  How true Surah 15:9 is!  The Lord of all Creation has indeed fulfilled His promise.  Alhamdulillah!


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 27 September 2011 at 10:50pm
islamispeace,

   Your statement that you feel that this topic has been "concluded" is premature and highly self-centered. I have not been able to address this topic because I have been gone for a few days. I thought your answers to each point were unconvincing and contained many suppositions and opinions that had little to do with any "proof" of your claims. here are a couple of points.

   "Perhaps Hafsah simply did not want to part with the copy which had been in her possession for so many years and carried with it much sentimental value."

   Hafsah was a wife of Muhammad and her "copy" was the original Qur'an which she did not want to be destroyed. Why was the decision made to burn this earliest version of the Qur'an? What did it contain that would require it to be destroyed by anyone? To simply say it was a matter of "sentimerntal value" is ridiculous and is simply an opinion.

   "Ibn Masud was a close companion and personal servant of Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad taught the Qur'an to Masud in person." It was Ibn Masud who complained that Uthman was asking him to deny surahs that came from the lips of the prophet himself.

   "Just because the surahs were not included in the original codex does not mean they were not part of the Qur'an, as surahs like Al-Fatiha were so well known that Ibn Masud MAY have simply DECIDED no to WRITE THEM IN."

   That is what you call proof? The very idea that Ibn Masud would treat the Qur'an so superficially that he would simply decide not to write them in is ludicrous and simply another ill-founded opinion parading as fact.

   Your silly and pretentious opinion that this subject is "concluded" based on your responses is simply beyond the pale. If this is your idea of scholarly research then you need a refresher course in the rules of evidence and the unreliability of personal opinion masquerading as fact.

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 September 2011 at 12:49pm
Originally posted by Larry

Your statement that you feel that this topic has been "concluded" is premature and highly self-centered. I have not been able to address this topic because I have been gone for a few days. I thought your answers to each point were unconvincing and contained many suppositions and opinions that had little to do with any "proof" of your claims. here are a couple of points.


Um Larry, I said "if everyone is content that this topic has been concluded..."  I didn't say the topic has actually been concluded.  You need to stop putting words in people's mouths.  It's really annoying. 

Hafsah was a wife of Muhammad and her "copy" was the original Qur'an which she did not want to be destroyed. Why was the decision made to burn this earliest version of the Qur'an? What did it contain that would require it to be destroyed by anyone?
 

Her copy was not the "original" Qur'an.  You may think you are pretty clever for using such terminology, but you aren't.  The fact is that her copy was the first actual compilation into book form.  The "original" Qur'an was already there, both on parchment, stones and bones as well in the minds of the Companions.   

You ask why it was decided to destroy that copy.  I already answered this question.  Marwan ibn Hakim did so because he felt that some people in the future would use it to try to create division by using its association with Hafsah (the wife of the Prophet).  He may have acted precipitously but there was no malice involved.  You also ignored the fact that when Marwan did this, he was not met with resistance from the Muslim world.  How do you explain this?   

To simply say it was a matter of "sentimerntal value" is ridiculous and is simply an opinion.


No, what is ridiculous is to assume (without evidence) that there must have been a conspiracy.  That is simply an opinion, which you seem to believe is the truth, ironicallty.  Which seems more likely, Larry?  That Hafsah simply did not want to part with the copy of the Qur'an that had been in her possession for many years or that Marwan was somehow part of a decades long conspiracy to alter the Qur'an?  Moreover, if there was something different between Hafsah's copy and the Uthmanic mushaf, why did Uthman return the copy to her?  If there were differences, don't you think that someone would have noticed?   

Originally posted by Larry

"Ibn Masud was a close companion and personal servant of Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad taught the Qur'an to Masud in person." It was Ibn Masud who complained that Uthman was asking him to deny surahs that came from the lips of the prophet himself.
  

Wrong again.  Get your facts straight before you make these outrageous claims.  Ibn Mas'ud did not accuse Uthman of making him "deny surahs".  He was against the idea of unifying the text by using only one way of reciting, which was different from his own which he had learned from the Prophet.  This is what Ibn Mas'ud said:

"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?"

Ibn Mas'ud felt that since his way of reciting was perfectly acceptable, which it was, he shouldn't have to give it up in favor of Zaid's way, which was also valid.  The point of Uthman's project was to make one way the standard, so that ignorant people would not argue needlessly about which way was correct.  The consensus of the Companions was overwhelmingly in favor of Zayd's reading.  That is why Ibn Mas'ud was initially hesitant. 

Even if all of your erroneous claims were true, you still have failed to consider the facts that Ibn Mas'ud:

1.  Was the only one to initially resist Uthman's decree, and

2.  That he eventually agreed, since even his students felt that Uthman's decree was the most practical thing to do. 

Originally posted by Larry

That is what you call proof? The very idea that Ibn Masud would treat the Qur'an so superficially that he would simply decide not to write them in is ludicrous and simply another ill-founded opinion parading as fact.


Its amazing how you have been ranting about how opinions don't mean anything and yet here, you make you own opinion and consider it as valid.  This is your opinion, which the last time I checked means nothing, especially since you are not an expert on Islamic or Qur'anic history.  Who are you to question how the early Muslims went about "treating" the Qur'an?  They knew what they were doing and Ibn Mas'ud was well within his right to compile his personal copy any way he wanted.  It was for his personal use.  Furthermore, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Surah al-Fatiha was well-known to the Muslims and was considered to be so important that it was taught that not reciting it during the 5 daily prayers would invalidate them.  This explains quite convincingly why Ibn Mas'ud may have decided to leave it out.  You have no response to these facts.  All you can do is make baseless assumptions.  Tell me, Larry.  What makes you think that the opinions of Harvard House (and they are opinions no matter how you look at it) are better or more aligned with the "facts" than the 1400 years of Islamic scholarship which has studied this issue in great detail and always came to the same conclusion, which is that the Qur'an has been preserved?

I also pointed out that Ibn Mas'ud's own testimony showed that he only learned around 70 surahs directly from the Prophet, whereas the Qur'an contains 114 surahs.  Moreover, Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf contained 111 surahs (while others contained 113 as Ibn Nadim stated), which means that he had to learn around 40 surahs from the other Companions!   

Originally posted by Larry

Your silly and pretentious opinion that this subject is "concluded" based on your responses is simply beyond the pale. If this is your idea of scholarly research then you need a refresher course in the rules of evidence and the unreliability of personal opinion masquerading as fact.


LOL Perhaps you should learn how to read before making silly claims.  Moreover, you may want to look up the definition of hypocrisy since you try very hard to discredit what you see as my "opinions" but blindly accept the ramblings of an anonymous person on the internet who, as it was shown, wrote a very poorly researched article and failed to back up any of the arguments with solid fact or evidence from the Islamic sources he claimed to be quoting.  The burden of proof is on him/her to prove his/her conspiracy theory. 


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 28 September 2011 at 3:41pm
islamispeace,

   "...if everyone is content that this topic is concluded."

   Typical of your style, I'll leave it at that.

   "Her (Hafsah) was not the "original" Qur'an. You may think you are very clever for using such terminology, but you aren't. The fact is that her copy was the FIRST COMPILATION INTO BOOK FORM. THE ORIGINAL QUR'AN WAS ALREADY THERE, BOTH ON PARCHMENT, STONES AND BONES AS WELL IN THE MINDS OF THE COMPANIONS."

   You even admit that Hafsah's Qur'an was the FIRST COMPILATION of the Qur'an. I assumed that Hafsah did not possess all the bones, stones, parchments, etc., or the collective memories of other people, but I foolishly assumed that you knew what I meant without having to explain it to you.

   Hafsah's physical, original COMPILATION was the Qur'an I spoke of. And since this was the ORIGINAL COMPILATION OF THE QUR'AN, it is difficult to understand why later Muslim rulers would insist on it's physical destruction. Your "reason" for this action are ludicrous and your assumption that it was done "without malice" is simply your OPINION.

   The fact that Uthman authorized a single version of the Qur'an and suppressed all others by burning simply shows that there were differences in the other versions that needed to be suppressed. It seems that it was Uthman who decided which "form" of the Qur'an came directly from God and which ONES did not.

   I didn't say that there was a "conspiracy," I simply stated that there was a deliberate policy to destroy any Qur'ans that differed in content from Uthman's "standard" version.

   Your statement that Ibn Masud "was the only one to initially resist Uthman's decree," suggests that all other possessors of the various written Qur'ans, or people who had memorized the Qur'an through the teachings by the prophet himself, were in agreement in regard to Uthman's actions.

   "This is your opinion, which last time I checked means nothing, especially since you are not an expert on Islamic or Qur'anic history."

   Again, this "reply" is typical of your style.

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 29 September 2011 at 3:20pm
Originally posted by Larry

"...if everyone is content that this topic is concluded."

   Typical of your style, I'll leave it at that.


Whining and the inability to admit one's error.  Typical of your style...Clap

Originally posted by Larry

You even admit that Hafsah's Qur'an was the FIRST COMPILATION of the Qur'an. I assumed that Hafsah did not possess all the bones, stones, parchments, etc., or the collective memories of other people, but I foolishly assumed that you knew what I meant without having to explain it to you.


First of all, Hafsah had also memorized the Qur'an.  Second of all, by claiming it was the "original" Qur'an, you are purposefully manipulating the facts.  As I said, the "original" Qur'an was already completed.  You were suggesting that because it was the "original", that is why Hafsah did not want it destroyed.  But the "original" was never in danger of being lost!  All you can do is make assumptions.  Quite typical.

Originally posted by Larry

Hafsah's physical, original COMPILATION was the Qur'an I spoke of. And since this was the ORIGINAL COMPILATION OF THE QUR'AN, it is difficult to understand why later Muslim rulers would insist on it's physical destruction. Your "reason" for this action are ludicrous and your assumption that it was done "without malice" is simply your OPINION.
 

It is only difficult to understand for people who do not want to understand.  Your "difficulty" is only due to your own a priori opinions.  I provided the reasons for why it is obvious that there was no malice involved.  As usual, you ignore the evidence which refutes your baseless opinion.  Here is the evidence again:

1.  Upon completion of the master copies, Uthman returned Hafsah's copy to her.  Why did he not have it destroyed?

2.  When Marwan issued his order to destroy Hafsah's copy, it was delivered to him by her heirs without any resistance.  And when he did destroy it, he was not castigated or met any resistance from the scholars of Islam or the Islamic world in general.

Your conspiracy theory opinion or whatever you want to call it remains unproven.  The burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by Larry

The fact that Uthman authorized a single version of the Qur'an and suppressed all others by burning simply shows that there were differences in the other versions that needed to be suppressed. It seems that it was Uthman who decided which "form" of the Qur'an came directly from God and which ONES did not.


Again, you use words like "original" or "version" to deliberately manipulate the facts.  As I have proven already, there were no different "versions".  There were different ways of "reciting".  These recitations were all valid.  The only reason Uthman did what he did was to avoid any disagreements among the ignorant.  So, he decided to standardize the Qur'an and make it available in one way of reading.  Furthermore, Uthman's decree had the support of the Sahabah, what is known as ijma (consensus).  You seek to questions 14 centuries of scholarship.  What makes you think you have any credibility?

Originally posted by Larry

I didn't say that there was a "conspiracy," I simply stated that there was a deliberate policy to destroy any Qur'ans that differed in content from Uthman's "standard" version.
      

By suggesting that there was a "political" motivation behind the project (a motivation which you have yet to identify) and that Uthman somehow was trying to "alter" the Qur'an, you are implying a conspiracy.  And as with most conspiracies, yours fails to offer sufficient proof and is only based on assumptions. 

Originally posted by Larry

Your statement that Ibn Masud "was the only one to initially resist Uthman's decree," suggests that all other possessors of the various written Qur'ans, or people who had memorized the Qur'an through the teachings by the prophet himself, were in agreement in regard to Uthman's actions.


Yes!  This proves that Uthman was not doing anything malicious and that the community oversaw the preservation.     

Originally posted by Larry

Again, this "reply" is typical of your style.
 

And your "non-reply" is typical of yours.  I said the truth when I said that your opinions are meaningless, especially since you are not an expert on this issue.  And the fact that you criticize me for my "opinions", but feel that your "opinions" are valid shows your hypocrisy on the matter. 

Let's look at the big picture:

On one side, we have 1400 years of Islamic scholarship and even non-Muslims scholars like William Muir and John Burton who agree that Uthman's Qur'an is in perfect agreement with how the Prophet taught it and that the so-called "variants" represented the same text, just in different styles of recitation.  On the other side, we have the illustrious trio of the "Harvard House" guy, Jack and Larry.  Hmmm.  Which side carries more weight I wonder?        


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 30 September 2011 at 1:04am
islamispeace,

   "When Marwan issued his order to destroy Hafsah's copy (the FIRST compilation of the Qur'an), it was delivered to him by her heirs without any resistance. And when HE DID DESTROY IT, he was not castigated or met any resistance from the scholars of Islam or the Islamic world in general."

   Oh, I see, since no one objected it was perfectly acceptable to the entire Muslim world for the very first compilation of the Qur'an to be destroyed by burning. My, my, who could have possibly objected to such an innocent and harmless action? Oh, everyone except for Hafsah herself, but she was dead so who cared what SHE wanted anyway, right?

   "Upon the completion of the MASTER COPIES, Uthman returned Hafsah's copy to her. Why did he not have it destroyed?"

   My question, exactly.

   "The only reason Uthman did what he did was to avoid any disagreements among the ignorant. So, HE DECIDED to standardize the Qur'an and make it available in one way of reading (no matter how Gabriel revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad).

   "Yes! This proves that Uthman was not doing anything malicious and that the COMMUNITY oversaw the PRESERVATION."

   So, I guess in your world "preservation" of the Qur'an could only be accomplished by DESTROYING any Qur'an that differed from Uthman's STANDARDIZATION of the Qur'an.

   Your answers are laughable and your attempts to explain the mass Qur'an burnings as simply a way to avoid causing problems for the "ignorant" is even more laughable.

   If the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad in seven different dialects then the Qur'an should have been written in exactly the same way. But Uthman had a different idea, so much for the "purity" of the Qur'an.

   Your entire presentation is simply a continuous rationalization and justification for why all copies of the Qur'an except for Uthman's "STANDARDIZATION" were destroyed by burning. Then you can say that there is only ONE Qur'an and it is EXACTLY as it was revealed by God, through Gabriel, to Muhammad. But since ALL OTHER COPIES WERE DESTROYED, I guess we will never really know, will we?

   "O, chief of the Believers! Save this nation BEFORE they differ about the Qur'an as Jews and Christians did before." (And make sure to BURN any evidence that it was written otherwise!)

   Save your naive views for someone who falls for your nonsense.

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 September 2011 at 4:48pm
Oh, I see, since no one objected it was perfectly acceptable to the entire Muslim world for the very first compilation of the Qur'an to be destroyed by burning. My, my, who could have possibly objected to such an innocent and harmless action? Oh, everyone except for Hafsah herself, but she was dead so who cared what SHE wanted anyway, right?


You can theorize all you want, but without any evidence, you are simply making a fool of yourself.  Do you really think Muslims care about your "suspicions"?  Do you really think that your opinions trump the work of actual scholars?  Don't make me laugh.  All you can do is theorize and feign an interest in what Hazrat Hafsah (ra) would have wanted.  Hazrat Hafsah does not need your fake emotional support.  She would have rejected your crocodile tears.     

Originally posted by Larry

My question, exactly.
       

Because the Uthmanic mushaf was the exact copy of Hafsah's copy.  Uthman saw no reason to destroy it.  And the Uthmanic mushaf is the template for all subsequent Qur'anic manuscripts (including those written in Marwan's time).  Every extant manuscript of the Qur'an is based on Uthman's mushaf and so is every modern copy.  As I said, Marwan may have acted precipitously.  I would much rather that the codex have survived just because of its legacy, but it does not really matter (since the Qur'an has been preserved both on paper and by heart).  For you to continue to assert that there must have been something wrong is based on your inability to accept the facts (because that would require you to admit you were wrong, which obviously you would never do).  Let me put it in schematic form:

Hafsah's Copy ---> Uthman's Copy
       ||                \               ||
       ||                 \              ||
       ||                  \             ||
       ||                   V           \/
       ||                     All Subsequent Qur'anic MSS
       ||                      
       \/                       
Destroyed by Marwan
         
Does that make it easier to understand?  It's rudimentary, I know but that's the best I can in such short time. LOL  Hafsah's copy was important, but its destruction (unnecessary though it was) by Marwan was not a catastrophe for the Islamic world, no matter how much you may want it to be. 

Originally posted by Larry

"Yes! This proves that Uthman was not doing anything malicious and that the COMMUNITY oversaw the PRESERVATION."


Well, it proves that one particular individual (Larry) thinks he is the ultimate authority on this matter and feels that he needs to set everyone straight!  This, of course, is laughably absurd.  LOL

The community did indeed support and oversee the preservation.  If you disagree, you would need to present actual evidence instead of assumptions and theories.  Until then, you are just a nobody trying desperately to re-open an issue that centuries of detailed scholarship has already closed. 

Originally posted by Larry

So, I guess in your world "preservation" of the Qur'an could only be accomplished by DESTROYING any Qur'an that differed from Uthman's STANDARDIZATION of the Qur'an.


LOL There you go again, trying to tell Muslims what preservation entails. 

Didn't I already mention that the "different" copies were only different ways of reciting?  The Muslim community decided it was best to make only one way the standard.  They were well within their right to do so.  Who are you, an unbeliever who does not even believe in the Qur'an, to tell them otherwise? 

Originally posted by Larry

Your answers are laughable and your attempts to explain the mass Qur'an burnings as simply a way to avoid causing problems for the "ignorant" is even more laughable.
 

Riight.  And Big-Daddy Larry here will set us straight!  Clap

Originally posted by Larry

If the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad in seven different dialects then the Qur'an should have been written in exactly the same way. But Uthman had a different idea, so much for the "purity" of the Qur'an.


It was written that way!  We have been through this already several times!  This is like trying to teach a monkey! LOL

Uthman's mushaf was in the Quraishi dialect, one of the seven dialects.  As it turns out, the Quraishi dialect was also the dialect of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself!  So, Uthman only made the Quraishi dialect the standard.  Very simple.  Any other brilliant observations, genius?  Do tell.

Originally posted by Larry

Your entire presentation is simply a continuous rationalization and justification for why all copies of the Qur'an except for Uthman's "STANDARDIZATION" were destroyed by burning. Then you can say that there is only ONE Qur'an and it is EXACTLY as it was revealed by God, through Gabriel, to Muhammad. But since ALL OTHER COPIES WERE DESTROYED, I guess we will never really know, will we?
 

We already know, dearest!  The scholars of Islam have preserved what was in the other copies.  For example, we know that in Ibn Mas'ud's copy, he wrote "Al-Baqira" instead of "Al-Baqara", the latter of which is the standard way.  As Von Denffer notes:

"In Sura al-baqara, which I take as an example, there are a total of 101 variants. Most of them concern spelling, some also choice of words (synonyms), use of particles, etc."
  

So, we know exactly what the differences were and they did not change the meaning.  They were only different ways of reciting, based on spelling and grammar.   

Originally posted by Larry

"O, chief of the Believers! Save this nation BEFORE they differ about the Qur'an as Jews and Christians did before." (And make sure to BURN any evidence that it was written otherwise!)

   Save your naive views for someone who falls for your nonsense
 

Oh, are you cutting off contact again like an angry little child?  That would be the fifth time right?  (Scratches head).  So be it.  Believe what you will.  Just know that you choose to be in the company of the ignorant and blind. 

Let me just repeat the big picture again for effect:

On one side, we have 1400 years of Islamic scholarship and even non-Muslims scholars like William Muir and John Burton who agree that Uthman's Qur'an is in perfect agreement with how the Prophet taught it and that the so-called "variants" represented the same text, just in different styles of recitation.  On the other side, we have the illustrious trio of the "Harvard House" guy, Jack and Larry.  Hmmm.  Which side carries more weight I wonder?

Hint: It's a rhetorical question.  Wink


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 30 September 2011 at 8:56pm
islamispeace,

   Oh, I see. Hafsah's original compilation of the Qur'an was EXACTLY the same as Uthman, so Uthman saw no reason to destroy it. That means that the "Uthmanic mushaf" is the exact same template for all subsequent Qur'anic manuscripts. "Every extant manuscript of the Qur'an is based on Uthman's mushaf and so is every modern copy."

   But for some reason Marwan decided to destroy Hafsah's original compilation, which is strange since it was EXACTLY like all other copies of the Qur'an and had the distinction of being the oldest compilation of the Qur'an.

   Your explanation for this aberrant act is that "Marwan MAY HAVE ACTED PRECIPITOUSLY. I would much rather that the codex have survived just because of it's LEGACY, but it does NOT REALLY MATTER (since the Qur'an has been preserved both on paper and by heart)."

   It doesn't matter if Marwan "acted precipitously" or not, the question remains, "WHAT REASON DID MARWAN HAVE FOR DESTROYING HAFSAH'S ORIGINAL COMPILATION, DID HE JUST HAVE A BAD DAY THAT DAY?

   Your answer is ridiculous. Marwan HAD to have had some reason for destroying Hafsah's codex, but since he destroyed it we will never know the reason, but I suspect it was because it was indeed NOT in accordance with Uthman's "Standardized" Qur'an.

   Your statement that the original Qur'an WAS revealed to Muhammad in seven dialects is similarly ridiculous.

   "Uthman's mushaf was in the Quraishi dialect, one of the seven dialects. As it turns out, the Quraishi dialect was also the dialect of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself! So, Uthman only made the Quraishi dialect the standard. Very simple. Any other brilliant observations genius? Do tell."

   I guess Uthman felt he was qualified to change the form of the word of God by only using one of the seven dialects THAT WERE REVEALED DIRECTLY TO MUHAMMAD BY THE ANGEL GABRIEL, SPEAKING FOR GOD HIMSELF. If God had wanted to give the Qur'an to Muhammad in the Quraishi dialect then He probably would have, but He didn't, did He?

   No, I am not cutting off contact, I simply see no reason to continue this discussion because it is going nowhere. The mass burnings of Qur'ans had a reason for taking place, blaming the destruction on possible misreadings by "ignorant" readers is beyond absurd. They did not all match up word for word, surah for surah, because in that case what possible reason could Uthman and Marwan have for destroying them, ESPECIALLY THE ORIGINAL COMPILATION THAT MUHAMMAD'S WIFE HAFSAH KEPT ALL HER LIFE TO KEEP IT FROM BEING DESTROYED(and, evidently, she had good reason to fear that possibility).

   "O, chief of the Believers! Save this nation BEFORE they differ about the Qur'an as Jews and Christians did before."

   Well, it worked! With no original compilation or any one of four different texts, it is impossible to know the truth. But that was the point.

Larry



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 October 2011 at 7:14pm
Larry, you are getting boring.  Your pathetic and meaningless rants are yours alone.  Believe whatever you want to believe.  The scholarship is on the side of the official story.   

Does anyone else have any actual evidence to suggest that the Qur'an has not been preserved?  So far, all we have seen from the other side are assumptions and theories but no evidence.  The "Illustrious Trio" think they will set everyone straight.  A more comical idea, I have never heard. LOL     


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 01 October 2011 at 7:43pm
islamispeace,

   You still haven't answered the question. You state that the "Uthmanic Mushaf was the exact copy of Hafsah's (original compilation) copy. And you say that Uthman returned Hafsah's copy to her without destroying it. In that case, what reason could Marwan possibly have to destroy Hafsah's copy of the Qur'an? You say that "it was not a catastrophe for the Islamic world." You would think that Muslims would want to treasure Hafsah's copy since it was the original compilation and would react strongly when Marwan simply decided to destroy it FOR NO APPARENT REASON. It simply makes no sense. Marwan had a reason for doing it, what that reason was we will never know since he destroyed the evidence. It's a little too slick for my taste. He was hiding something, if you want to say that it was just a whim of his that's fine, just don't expect anyone (from THIS side anyway) to believe such rubbish.
   The bizarre thing is that you say, "Believe whatever you want to believe. The scholaraship is on the OFFICIAL STORY." And then you add, "So far, all we have seen from the other side are ASSUMPTIONS and THEORIES BUT NO EVIDENCE."
   If these are your ideas of FACTS then your threshold for gullibility is almost non-existent.

Larry


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 02 October 2011 at 6:47am
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Larry's presentation and questioning is simple logical common-sense reasoning.  "Scholars" have spent long years studying the compilation that Uthman decided on and the purification that he forced on eye-witnesses by burning their works.  They have spent these long years in an effort to explain away all the doubts raised by the process of Uthman.  Again, just because someone is a scholar does not make them right.  It only means thay have put more effort into their presentation.  But if their presentation of the situation defys common sense, than it is rubbish no matter how many years they have invested in it or how clever it is.
 
Larry's questioning is right on and deserves to be dealt with, not brushed of or ridiculed.  Brushing of or ridiculing in truth does not convince Muslims who secretly doubt Islam, or Christians and Jews who just can't bring themselves to buy into the explanations.  You have to do better than that.
 
Brushing off and ridiculing is sloppy work, IslamisPeace.  Perhaps you might put a little more care into your efforts than this.
 
May Yahweh bless your efforts, IslamisPeace,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 October 2011 at 11:23am
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   You still haven't answered the question. You state that the "Uthmanic Mushaf was the exact copy of Hafsah's (original compilation) copy. And you say that Uthman returned Hafsah's copy to her without destroying it. In that case, what reason could Marwan possibly have to destroy Hafsah's copy of the Qur'an? You say that "it was not a catastrophe for the Islamic world." You would think that Muslims would want to treasure Hafsah's copy since it was the original compilation and would react strongly when Marwan simply decided to destroy it FOR NO APPARENT REASON. It simply makes no sense. Marwan had a reason for doing it, what that reason was we will never know since he destroyed the evidence. It's a little too slick for my taste. He was hiding something, if you want to say that it was just a whim of his that's fine, just don't expect anyone (from THIS side anyway) to believe such rubbish.
   The bizarre thing is that you say, "Believe whatever you want to believe. The scholaraship is on the OFFICIAL STORY." And then you add, "So far, all we have seen from the other side are ASSUMPTIONS and THEORIES BUT NO EVIDENCE."
   If these are your ideas of FACTS then your threshold for gullibility is almost non-existent.

Larry


I have already answered the question several times now.  You just cannot accept the fact that there is no evidence for your conspiracy theory.  And don't say that it is not a conspiracy theory, because it is.  Your own words show that.  By saying "he was hiding something..." you are insinuating, without evidence as is usual with conspiracy theories, that Marwan was part of a sinister coverup.  The historical facts do not support this view for the simple reason that there was no backlash to Marwan's actions.  You have no response to this except to repeat your baseless theory. 

Consider also the following:

Shia Muslims generally regard the Sunni Caliphs, including Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and yes Marwan ibn Hakam to be illegitimate rulers.  They believe that Ali was the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  Yet, even for all their vitriolic hatred for these men, the Shia do not accuse them of having altered the Qur'an.  Had there been any attempt at changing the Qur'an by any of these men, you can bet that the Shia would have pointed them out.  Yet, it is unanimous agreement among Shia scholars that the Qur'an has been preserved.  Even Marwan ibn Al-Hakam, who is generally cursed by the Shia, is not accused of any wrongdoing.   

In light of these facts, do you really think I care if someone like you does not believe me?  Don't make me laugh dude! LOL  You can believe whatever you want to believe.  You can even try to rewrite history.  But, you will never be taken seriously and will only make a fool of yourself.

Thus I ask again.  Does anyone have any actual evidence to suggest that the Qur'an has been altered?  We don't need assumptions and theories. 




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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 02 October 2011 at 5:05pm
islamispeace,

   My question is, does anyone have any PROOF that the Qur'an has NOT been altered? And why did Marwan destroy Hafsah's original compilation? You say that Marwan did nothing suspicious when he decided to incinerate Hafsah's copy, which she guarded zealously until her death. But you have no answer as to WHY he did it. If there was nothing sinister in his action then wnhy did he not say at the time why he ordered the destruction of such an important manuscript?

   To quote you; "You can believe what you want to believe." It makes no difference to me because I do not believe that the Qur'an was given to Muhammad by God in the first place. It seems incredible to me that the Qur'an, which was supposedly directly given to Muhammad by God through the angel Gabriel (Hebrew: Gavri'el, "God is my strength," an angel first named in the Old Testament Book of Daniel and the angel that foretold the birth of both John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ in the New Testament), should have so much content that was directly taken from these Biblical texts, both of which were written centuries (or millenia in the case of the Old Testament) before Muhammad even existed.

   The doctrine that the Qur'an somehow "predated" itself is bizarre to say the least, and a convenient "explanation" for having the above content in the first place.

Larry


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 03 October 2011 at 3:10pm
Simple,
let us take my previous challenge, on these three basic subjects: God, Jesus, and Salvation Quran does not contradict, unlike any other book that claims to be from God.
If it was altered, one would have found discrepancies in it like those we find in the other world religions.
It is amazing that such an accuracy in such a large book is maintained with only one man behind it. Just man alone could not have done it, let alone an illiterate one. And for fourteen hundred years, no one has added, substracted, rewrittten to improve it since it was first compiled. It did not need such human touches. That sure has kept it pure, as the one who sent it meant. Is there any other, that can claim such, surely none, or we would have seen it by now.
And what a beautiful message it has, come to worship your Creator, the only one to be worshiped, and reject the worship to the created things.

Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 03 October 2011 at 8:16pm
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   My question is, does anyone have any PROOF that the Qur'an has NOT been altered? And why did Marwan destroy Hafsah's original compilation? You say that Marwan did nothing suspicious when he decided to incinerate Hafsah's copy, which she guarded zealously until her death. But you have no answer as to WHY he did it. If there was nothing sinister in his action then wnhy did he not say at the time why he ordered the destruction of such an important manuscript?

   To quote you; "You can believe what you want to believe." It makes no difference to me because I do not believe that the Qur'an was given to Muhammad by God in the first place. It seems incredible to me that the Qur'an, which was supposedly directly given to Muhammad by God through the angel Gabriel (Hebrew: Gavri'el, "God is my strength," an angel first named in the Old Testament Book of Daniel and the angel that foretold the birth of both John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ in the New Testament), should have so much content that was directly taken from these Biblical texts, both of which were written centuries (or millenia in the case of the Old Testament) before Muhammad even existed.

   The doctrine that the Qur'an somehow "predated" itself is bizarre to say the least, and a convenient "explanation" for having the above content in the first place.

Larry


Larry, the burden of proof is on those who insist that the Qur'an has been altered. But don't worry.  I will still show the evidence that the Qur'an has been preserved below.  

But first, let me say that you are the one insinuating that Marwan did something "suspicious".  Therefore, you would have to prove it.  Usually, when someone does something "suspicious" right in front of everyone, he is caught and punished.  This did not happen with Marwan.  You have no explanation for that.  So you continue to repeat the same conspiracy theory.  Mindless repetition is not evidence.     

The very fact that you keep asking the same question over and over again, despite the fact that I already answered it in my original response to "Harvard House", shows that you did not read it very carefully.  Marwan said the following about his actions:

"'I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios.'" http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html - [GF Haddad, Hafsa's Qur'an Folios]    

As I have said several times already, I believe Marwan acted precipitously.  What he did was unnecessary.  But there is no evidence that he was hiding something.  The codex was well-known in the Islamic world, so if there were any differences, they would have been well-known as well.  Marwan would have been very late by the time he did have the codex destroyed, if he was indeed trying to hide something.  Yet, we find not one iota of evidence to suggest any differences between the Hafsah codex and the Uthmanic writ.   
 
Now at the beginning I said that the burden of proof is on those who believe the Qur'an has been altered.  I still believe that.  However, I can still provide the archaeological and historical evidence to show that the Qur'an has not been altered, just to put your mind at ease.  Here are the proofs which show that the Qur'an has not been altered:

1.  Every manuscript in existence today is the same as any other.  There are no differences.  Furthermore, there are numerous 1st century AH (after Hijra) manuscripts and they are all the same:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/ - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

One such manuscript is Codex Sana'a DAM 01-27.1, which is one of the most complete ancient copies of the Qur'an.  The parts which have survived are 100% the same as they are today:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html

The remarkable thing about this manuscript is that scholars believe it is quite possible that it was written no less than 15 years after the Prophet's death, which would put it even before Uthman's decree!  Here is what the article states:

"On this basis, therefore, they suggest that it is highly probable that this manuscript was produced no more than 15 years after the death of Muhammad (d. June, 632 CE).[22] They conclude that the scriptio inferior text belonged to the codex of a companion of Prophet Muhammad, whilst the scriptio superior text belongs to the ʿUthmānic tradition, and using stemmatics, it is shown as the prototype to be identified with the Prophet."

This also shows that Uthman's standard text was already in use which is why it was unanimously accepted by the Companions. 

2.  Surviving inscriptions on rocks and other texts preserve the same surahs that are in the Qur'an today:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyquran.html -
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyquran.html
       
One such inscription is dated to 29 AH (650 CE) and was found in Cyprus, right around the time Uthman ordered the production of the standard text.  It contains Surah 112 in its complete form:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/urwa.html -
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/urwa.html

3.  The Qur'an has been memorized by millions of people throughout Islamic history.  No other book has been memorized from its very inception, word for word. 

4.  There is no disagreement among the two main sects in Islam, Sunni and Shia.  This is despite the fact that Uthman and the the other Sunni Caliphs are reviled by the Shia for being usurpers to what they believe was Ali's throne.  Yet even the Shia accept that the Qur'an has been handled well by the Sunni Caliphs.

These proofs show without a doubt that the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly.  The only "evidence" the other side can bring is melodramatic theories and assumptions.  As I asked before about who carries more weight, the scholars or the newbies (such as the "Illustrious Trio"), I ask the same here.  Which carries more weight?  The archaeological and historical evidence or the baseless and unprovable conspiracy theories?  As with the first question, the second question is also rhetorical as the answer is obvious.    


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 03 October 2011 at 9:42pm
islamispeace,

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

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

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

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

   This is your proof?

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

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 04 October 2011 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

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

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

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

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

   This is your proof?

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

Larry


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 October 2011 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

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


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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

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

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



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



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


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


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


Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 05 October 2011 at 2:55pm
islamispeace,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Believe whatever you want to believe.

Larry



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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 October 2011 at 4:12pm
Originally posted by Jack

You talk big talk for just being you.


What?  Is that English?  Can we get an interpreter here, please? Jack sounds more like Jackie Chan from the movie Rush Hour.  LOL

Jack, you have yet to answer my question to you.  Why did you question the credibility of an actual scholar but not of the "Harvard House" guy?  The longer you ignore this question, the more you expose yourself as a subjective, blind fool. 

Originally posted by Jack

I challange you to put your words into action.


Oooh, a challenge from Jack!  Let's see your "challenge". 

Originally posted by Jack

Provide a Surah from each of the four Qur'ans that Uthman burned,


Oh for crying out load!!!  How dumb are you? LOL 

You still have not realized your own st**idity and ignorance!  Do you know how to read, Jack?  Or maybe its not your reading but your comprehension skills that is the problem.  What "four Qur'ans" are you talking about?  The very fact that you are still clinging to the now refuted arguments raised by the pseudo-scholar at "Harvard House" shows that you have shut down your reason in preference for your blind faith. 

Originally posted by Jack

And stop your low-life disrespect toward others.  Cough up the evidence, buddy.  Let's have it out... on the table!Big%20smile
    

Oooh, Jack is getting upset!  Who is the "low-life" here?  The guy who has presented scholarly evidence or the fool who has brought nothing but his own false claims and yet demands "evidence"? 

Originally posted by Jack

God bless you now and always, my friend, in all you say and do and may the love of God fill your life and soul, Amen.
            

You can take your "well-wishes" and smoke them, papa bear.  I don't need someone like you to offer these pseudo-prayers for me.         


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 October 2011 at 4:46pm
Originally posted by Larry

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


You still don't understand the difference between "reading" (qira'at) and "dialect" (harf; plural: ahruf).  Uthman still used the seven dialects but he allowed only one reading style in the master copy.  And as I already explained, the reason for standardizing the Qur'an was to avoid any disagreements among ignorant Muslims.  Had there been no such disagreements, Uthman would have had no reason to order a single reading.

Furthermore, I gave you archaeological evidence to support my claim that the Qur'an has been preserved.  Let me just re-paste it here:

1.  Every manuscript in existence today is the same as any other.  There are no differences.  Furthermore, there are numerous 1st century AH (after Hijra) manuscripts and they are all the same:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/ - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

One such manuscript is Codex Sana'a DAM 01-27.1, which is one of the most complete ancient copies of the Qur'an.  The parts which have survived are 100% the same as they are today:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html

The remarkable thing about this manuscript is that scholars believe it is quite possible that it was written no less than 15 years after the Prophet's death, which would put it even before Uthman's decree!  Here is what the article states:

"On this basis, therefore, they suggest that it is highly probable that this manuscript was produced no more than 15 years after the death of Muhammad (d. June, 632 CE).[22] They conclude that the scriptio inferior text belonged to the codex of a companion of Prophet Muhammad, whilst the scriptio superior text belongs to the ʿUthmānic tradition, and using stemmatics, it is shown as the prototype to be identified with the Prophet."

This also shows that Uthman's standard text was already in use which is why it was unanimously accepted by the Companions. 

2.  Surviving inscriptions on rocks and other texts preserve the same surahs that are in the Qur'an today:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyquran.html -
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyquran.html
       
One such inscription is dated to 29 AH (650 CE) and was found in Cyprus, right around the time Uthman ordered the production of the standard text.  It contains Surah 112 in its complete form:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/urwa.html -
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/urwa.html

3.  The Qur'an has been memorized by millions of people throughout Islamic history.  No other book has been memorized from its very inception, word for word. 

4.  There is no disagreement among the two main sects in Islam, Sunni and Shia.  This is despite the fact that Uthman and the the other Sunni Caliphs are reviled by the Shia for being usurpers to what they believe was Ali's throne.  Yet even the Shia accept that the Qur'an has been handled well by the Sunni Caliphs.

These proofs show without a doubt that the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly.  The only "evidence" the other side can bring is melodramatic theories and assumptions.  As I asked before about who carries more weight, the scholars or the newbies (such as the "Illustrious Trio"), I ask the same here.  Which carries more weight?  The archaeological and historical evidence or the baseless and unprovable conspiracy theories?  As with the first question, the second question is also rhetorical as the answer is obvious.

Originally posted by Larry

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

The dialect of the Quraysh was one of the seven dialects and it was also the dialect of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), so it made sense to choose that dialect if there were any disagreements and no consensus could be reached.  Otherwise, the other dialects were also incorporated into the text.   

Originally posted by Larry

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


What "rewritings" or "pose-revelation changes"?  You think you are clever for using such terminology but you have no evidence for any of it.  They are just empty words.   

And who are you to say what is "pure".  The scholars of Islam are united in their acceptance of the Qur'an and even non-Muslim scholars feel the same way.  Who are you?  This again brings me to the ultimate question:

Which side carries more weight?  The side of academia and scholarship or the side of the "Illustrious Trio"?  Can someone answer this question?  I don't want to answer it myself because it would be embarrassing. LOL

Originally posted by Larry

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

Ugh.  This has already been explained like 10 times.  The reason was to avoid any future disagreements, unnecessary though they were.  It was a practical solution to a real-world problem.   

Originally posted by Larry

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


What you say is irrelevant because not only are you not a scholar, you also don't even understand (or don't want to understand) the basics.  Of course the whole thing seems "slick" to you.  You have a priori beliefs which you are not willing to question because to do so would be to admit you were wrong.

Once you learn the difference between "reading" and "dialect", you will have taken the first step towards comprehension.  Also, bring some actual evidence from scholarly sources to support your claims rather than your own "feelings".

Originally posted by Larry

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

This is off-topic but it also drives home my previous point which is that you,  a non-believer, has no authority to question how Muslims chose (through consensus) to write the Qur'an.  It's not your business to do so.  The Muslims knew what they were doing and they also knew that it was the most practical thing to do.  No one changed anything.  All that was done was to make one official copy the standard for the entire Muslim world.   

Originally posted by Larry

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


Again, off-topic.  We can discuss it if you want, but it would require a separate thread. 

Originally posted by Larry

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

I disagree but again, off-topic.  Actually, I believe that the Tanakh has more in common with the Qur'an than with the NT.  The very fact that both the Tanakh and the Qur'an contain nothing even remotely resembling the concept of the trinity is proof of this.  We can discuss this, but not here.  The topic here is the Qur'an's alleged alteration, which so far, neither you, Jack or your "source" (the "Harvard House" guy) have been able to prove.  
Originally posted by Larry

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


Of course!  This is your trademark way of closing a discussion.  LOL

And of course, as I have made it clear before, I don't care if people like you don't change their minds.  I do this for the people who use their reason and who actually want to learn. 

Originally posted by Larry

Believe whatever you want to believe.


As I have told you already...

And so I ask again to all members of this forum:

Does anyone have any actual evidence that the Qur'an has been altered?  People with unproven assumptions and theories need not apply. 



  


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 06 October 2011 at 5:50pm
islamispeace,

   "The scholars of Islam are UNITED in their acceptance of the Qur'an and even non-Muslim scholars feel the same way."

   LOL!

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 October 2011 at 11:22am
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   "The scholars of Islam are UNITED in their acceptance of the Qur'an and even non-Muslim scholars feel the same way."

   LOL!

Larry


Ah, one word responses...the tell-tale signs of a person with nothing intelligent left to say.  LOL

Since after repeated requests, there has been no evidence presented to support the idea that the Qur'an has been altered, I think we can move on to another topic.  I have an idea so I will open a new thread.


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



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 07 October 2011 at 1:39pm
Dear Islamispeace,
 
I challanged you to, "Provide a Surah from each of the four Qur'ans that Uthman burned," the same Surah that you claim to be simply a different reading in each, to prove that they said the same things.
 
Your response, "Oh for crying out load!!!  How dumb are you?" which is your intelligent way of admitting that you cannot prove your assertion that the different Qur'ans said basically the same thing, just in different dialects.  Neither you, nor your so-called Scholars who have studied up on the issue, can prove it because Uthman destroyed the evidence.
 
And your disrespect is clearly a way of trying to scare Larry and I into running away rather than pressing on with what common sence tells us is the truth.  Sorry, IslamisPeace, but you are loosing this little argument very badly.  You have no actual evidence.  All you have is what others have said who also have no evidence.  All you and the scholars you quote have is assumption, which we all know is a fancy word for guesswork.  You are not convincing anyone, IslamisPeace, and your rudeness is proof that you know you that you are failing to convince anyone.
 
Your ranting and raving about "pseudo-scholars" at Harvard House ignores the fact that what is in the article is also included in many other sources, such as a book I have at home, and in many other articles on the internet, as well as many encyclopedias.  You speak about my "st**idity and ignorance," then you turn around and ask what 4 Qur'ans Larry and I are talking about.  All you have to do is read the posts we wrote that inspired you to begin this string of posts, and there we name the 4 Qur'ans by their authors, and you even discuss them.  Now here your question, "What "four Qur'ans" are you talking about?" truly shows your (what words did you use) "st**idity and ignorance."
 
Say what you will about my post closings, but I will use them no matter what you say, as I use them for everyone.  They contain no sarcasm, as I dispize sarcasm, no double meaning, as I always say very plainly what I mean.  So like it or lump it,
 
May Allah bless you always, IslamiPeace,
 
Jack Catholic
 


 


Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 07 October 2011 at 10:44pm
islamispeace,

   I was just pointing out how ludicrous your statement was.

   "Since after repeated requests, there has been no evidence presented to support the idea that the Qur'an has been altered, I think we can move on to another topic."

   Typical of you, stating your "victory" in this topic and thinking that everyone agrees with your less than stellar, self-serving announcement. Then you add that "we" should move on to "another topic" of your choosing.

   Pardon me if I pass on your invitation.

Larry


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 08 October 2011 at 1:20pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hassan,
 

You said, "We, the Muslims can point to the two copies of the Quran present with us today in Museums, written fourteen hundred years ago be the same as what every Muslim have today in their homes. Too bad Christians cannot make such a claim about their book."

 

I am hereby going on record to make such a claim.  We, the Christians, can point to the Holy Bible and know that it is the same as that written by the hand of its authors 2000+ years ago.  Modern scholars have verified at least 99% of all words in it as authentic, and are working on the remaining 1% as we speak.  Our four Gospels have not been compiled and the orriginals burned.  We have most exactly the orriginal words of the authors who were eye witnesses and companions of Jesus, as well as those who gathered up the stories of other eye witnesses.  Can Islam make such a claim?

 

May Allah bless you,

 

Jack Catholic


Jack,
can you point to a single copy of the Bible, let us say same fourteen hundred years old anywhere is the world that is word for word same as you and I have in our hands today? I am waiting for your response!
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 08 October 2011 at 2:10pm
   The Jews have a copy of the Book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls that was written about 200 B.C. (although the original writing of Isaiah was done centuries earlier). That scroll of Isaiah is identical to the one in the Torah used by Jews to this day. That was 2,200 years ago, eight hundred years before the Qur'an even existed. Does that mean that the "book" of Judaism is superior to the Qur'an?
   Christianity comes directly out of the Jewish Old Testament and their "book" becomes the New Testament, which is also older than Islam and the Qur'an. But we Christians don't have the need for an "unchanged" book to have faith in Jesus Christ. The New Testament was written in Aramaic and Ancient Greek, which few Christians, or even scholars, can read so we have translations. The New Testament continues and fulfills the prophecies made in the Old Testament.
   The Qur'an makes no specific prophecies unlike the many made in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament, as in the case of Isaiah 53, etc. The Old Testament says that the proof of a prophet and his prophecy is whether it actually comes to fulfillment or not. There are many examples of ancient prophecies being fulfilled exactly in both the Old and New Testaments. This is not true of the Qur'an or Muhammad.
   As I said before, I find it somewhat amusing that Muhammad and Islam basically hijacked a considerable portion of both the Old and New Testament, such as the Patriarchs, prophets, persons, stories, etc., then turns around and accuses the Jews and Christians of "corrupting" their own religions! The Qur'an contains errors such as when it confuses one person for another, as in the case where it says that Zachariah's wife (the mother of John the Baptist) was named Mary, when in actuality her name was Elizabeth.
   The Qur'an is written in Arabic, which a large number of Muslims worldwide cannot read or write. So they use translations just as the Jews and Christians do. Does this make them unsatisfactory or "ignorant" Muslims since they can't read the Qur'an in it's original, unchanging Arabic?
   As a Christian it does not bother me if the Holy Bible is not word-for-word exactly as written because I don't read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. No book written by the hands of men, even under divine inspiration, is without flaw, including the Qur'an.
   In fact, there is a discernable difference in the style of writing between the early surahs of the Qur'an written in Mecca and the ones that were written later when he was residing in Medina. These later surahs are verbose and repetitive unlike his earlier ones.
   I don't put my faith in a book, I put my faith in the message contained in the Old Testament and the New Testament. That message is that salvation comes by way of faith in God and the teachings and ministry of Jesus Christ our Lord (Emmanuel: "God with Us").

Larry
   
    
      


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 October 2011 at 3:49pm
Originally posted by Jack

I challanged you to, "Provide a Surah from each of the four Qur'ans that Uthman burned," the same Surah that you claim to be simply a different reading in each, to prove that they said the same things.


Yes, and I threw back your "challange" (sic) because of its ridiculous foundation.  I still have no idea which "four Qur'ans" you are talking about, since there is only one Qur'an and always has been, even in the different mushafs of the Companions.  If you are referring to the different mushafs, then you need to say so.  By saying "four Qur'ans" you are exposing the bias and ignorance in your reasoning as there are no such "four Qur'ans".  So, if you are indeed asking about the different mushafs (of which there were many, not just four as you so ignorantly claimed Wink), then I can say that your pathetic "challange" (sic) has already been answered several times!  I have even provided an example of the differences.  I mentioned to Larry that Von Denffer said that the mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud contained, for example, 101 differences, which were all due to spelling or grammar changes.  As an example, Ibn Mas'ud spelled "Al-Baqara" (which is the standard) as "Al-Baqira".  This would be like spelling "donut" as "doughnut" in English (both of which are acceptable) or in your case, spelling "challenge" as "challange" (the latter of which is incorrect LOL).

As an added example, take the manuscript DAM 01.27.1, which as I pointed out in the other thread, contained as the "scriptio inferior" the mushaf of a Companion of the Prophet and as the "scriptio superior" as the Uthmanic standard.  According to Sadeghi and Bergmann:

"...textual criticism suggests that the standard version [of Uthman ] is the most faithful representation, among the known codices, of the Qurʾān as recited by the Prophet. [...] The remarkably few and minor skeletal-morphemic differences among the codices ʿUtm̠ ān sent to the cities is another indication of the care that was put into the process of standardization" ("The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Quran of the Prophet", Arabica, p. 414).  

They also provide examples of the differences between the scriptio inferior and the scriptio superior (all of which are due either to spelling or grammar), such as:

2:217 -

Scriptio superior - qitālin fīhi

“They ask you about the holy month—fighting in it.”


Scriptio inferior - (wa)-ʿan qitālin fīhi

“They ask you about the holy month and about fighting in it.”
(Ibid., p. 361).

As you can, the difference is negligible. 

Originally posted by Jack

Neither you, nor your so-called Scholars who have studied up on the issue, can prove it because Uthman destroyed the evidence.


LOL More nonsense as I have already pointed out numerous times that the contents of those personal codices have been preserved in the writings of the scholars of Islam.  The above examples serve as direct proof of the absurdity of your claim.  What else can one expect from the blind? 

Your pathetic conspiracy theory is what is unprovable and neither you nor your pseudoscholars have been able to provide any support for your hearsay claims.  Therefore, your "critique" (ha ha, hee hee) of myself and the scholars that I have quoted is laughable.  Pardon me while I laugh...LOL...there, that was nice.

And once again I ask: why did you not question the credentials of the "Harvard House" guy but you did for Dr. Al-Imam?  Why the double standards?  What "credentials" (if any) does HH have that made you blindly accept everything he claimed?  And most importantly, which side do you think carries more weight?  This is not a trick question! Big%20smile

Originally posted by Jack

And your disrespect is clearly a way of trying to scare Larry and I into running away rather than pressing on with what common sence tells us is the truth.  Sorry, IslamisPeace, but you are loosing this little argument very badly.  You have no actual evidence.  All you have is what others have said who also have no evidence.  All you and the scholars you quote have is assumption, which we all know is a fancy word for guesswork.  You are not convincing anyone, IslamisPeace, and your rudeness is proof that you know you that you are failing to convince anyone.


LOL If you say so, papa bear.  Actually, the only ones I am not "convincing" are people like you and Larry, the biased boneheads who feign objectivity but who lack it completely.  But this was expected.  I did not expect the two of you to accept the strong evidence from the beginning because I know you two all too well.  As it happens, I sent my article to two friends of mine, one a Catholic convert to Islam and the other an Evangelical Christian.  I asked both for their opinions.  Both felt that I supported my arguments well using authentic sources.  So, you see, I am indeed convincing some people!  Praise be to Allah!

Of course, as I have said many times already, I could care less if I can't convince your kind.  That is not my goal in life nor does my "failure" to convince you keep me up at night, so don't flatter yourself!  Wink

Originally posted by Jack

Your ranting and raving about "pseudo-scholars" at Harvard House ignores the fact that what is in the article is also included in many other sources, such as a book I have at home, and in many other articles on the internet, as well as many encyclopedias.  You speak about my "st**idity and ignorance," then you turn around and ask what 4 Qur'ans Larry and I are talking about.  All you have to do is read the posts we wrote that inspired you to begin this string of posts, and there we name the 4 Qur'ans by their authors, and you even discuss them.  Now here your question, "What "four Qur'ans" are you talking about?" truly shows your (what words did you use) "st**idity and ignorance."


What is in the article from HH was refuted using the same sources he selectively used.  And he did not provide any scholarly references, only his own claims and conspiracy theories.  Your argument that "what is in the article is also included in many other sources, such as a book I have at home, and in many other articles on the internet, as well as many encyclopedias" is a childish one.  First of all, you once again resort to vague references.  Which book are you talking about?  What encyclopedias?  Care to give any references?  Second, are these "sources" written by scholars in their fields or self-professed scholars such as our anonymous friend HH? 

Just because HH makes the same claims as other as of yet unnamed sources does not clear him/her of academic fraud.  I even gave examples of how he selectively used Al-Masahif and Al-Tamhid to try to prove his conspiracy theory.  This is what nutcases like him/her with no credentials do.  They cherry-pick from their sources, which is why their "articles" are not peer-reviews (because if they were, they would be rejected as inaccurate).









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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 October 2011 at 3:58pm
Originally posted by Larry

I was just pointing out how ludicrous your statement was.


Actually, by doing so, you only "pointed out" your own "ludicrousness" as you did not explain on what grounds you found my statement "ludicrous".  In a court of law, when a lawyer says "objection!", he/she has to explain the  grounds for the objection.  In the same way, when you said "LOL", you did not provide any evidence to back up your one word response.  As such, I rightfully ridiculed your post as indicative of your desperation.  Now, if you feel my ridicule was in haste, here is your chance to explain why using supporting evidence.  I said that the scholars of Islam and even non-Muslim scholars (like Burton and Sadeghi) are in agreement that the Qur'an has been preserved.  If you object counselor, the provide the grounds for your objection!  LOL

Originally posted by Larry

Pardon me if I pass on your invitation.


Of course, sir!  This is typical of you!  LOL

Do you honestly think that I am going to hold you after all we have been through?  I feel hurt, Larry! 

But seriously, do you really think that I care if you accept my "invitation" or not?  For God's sake man, it took forever just to get you to offer your "brilliant" (cough) insights on this topic (and that was only after a little gentle reminder from the moderator to stop interjecting different topics in the Gospel evolution thread)!  So, whether you accept the invitation or not, so be it.  I will just have to go on without the pleasure of your company.    Be strong, islamispeace, be strong...for Larry has left us!      Boo hoo...Cry


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 09 October 2011 at 4:03am
islamispeace,

   Why did I say your post was ludicrous? Because you say, "The scholars of Islam are UNITED in their acceptance of the Qur'an and EVEN non-Muslim scholars feel the same way."

   How ELSE would a "scholar of Islam" view the Qur'an? And you neglected to say that SOME non-Muslim scholars feel the same way.

   There are many non-Muslim scholars who find a lot of faults and discrepancies in the Qur'an. Especially in the case of how the "People of the Book" are to be viewed and treated. The Qur'an is all over the map on that subject.

   You are a little too fast and easy with your so-called "facts."

   And your last statement shows just how thin your skin really is. If it didn't bother you I doubt you would go to such lengths to say why it doesn't.

   Do you think that you can give it a rest now?

Larry


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 09 October 2011 at 2:07pm
Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Larry and I both offered solid challanges and all you responded with was a little bit of rhetoric and a whole lot of bad manners and laughter.  Perhaps your inclindation to intertainment at the expence of others is the only reason why you are on the forum.  So go get your jollies elsewhere.  I do hope Larry walks off your lousy string and leaves you to post to your two most loyal audience members, you and yourself.
 
Amazing how you behave when someone asks you simple questions and you feel backed up against the wall with no way to provide a straightforward answer that is believable and contains common sense.
 
Allah bless you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 3:13pm
Jazakallah,
let us see if Jack and Larry come up with something real or just the same old....
Hasan 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 6:52pm
Originally posted by Larry

Why did I say your post was ludicrous? Because you say, "The scholars of Islam are UNITED in their acceptance of the Qur'an and EVEN non-Muslim scholars feel the same way."

   How ELSE would a "scholar of Islam" view the Qur'an? And you neglected to say that SOME non-Muslim scholars feel the same way.


But Larry, you used "Harvard House's" article because of its references to Islamic sources like Al-Masahif, Al-Tamhid and Sahih Bukhari, correct?  Yet, the scholars of Islam, who have poured over the thousands of volumes of works like and including the three mentioned, came to a unanimous decision which differs from the ramblings of pseudoscholars like the "HH" guy. 

You say that some non-Muslims scholars agree with the Islamic scholars.  Well if this is true, wouldn't the very fact that even "some" non-Muslim scholars agree with the official Islamic position lend credence to that position?  Also, since you say that some non-Muslim scholars do not agree with the scholars of Islam, the logical question is can you name any such scholars and refer to their works?  What do they say?  

Originally posted by Larry

And your last statement shows just how thin your skin really is. If it didn't bother you I doubt you would go to such lengths to say why it doesn't.

   Do you think that you can give it a rest now?


Give it a rest?  Not on your life!  I am having way too much fun exposing the flaws in your arguments.  LOL


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 6:55pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IslamisPeace,
 
Larry and I both offered solid challanges and all you responded with was a little bit of rhetoric and a whole lot of bad manners and laughter.  Perhaps your inclindation to intertainment at the expence of others is the only reason why you are on the forum.  So go get your jollies elsewhere.  I do hope Larry walks off your lousy string and leaves you to post to your two most loyal audience members, you and yourself.
 
Amazing how you behave when someone asks you simple questions and you feel backed up against the wall with no way to provide a straightforward answer that is believable and contains common sense.
 
Allah bless you,
 
Jack Catholic


LOL More papa bear lecturing and no rebuttal to the solid facts given in response to your so-called "solid challanges (sic)".  Didn't I provide two examples of the differences between the personal codices and the Uthamic standard?  Whose back is against the wall?  And common sense?  I didn't think you two had it?         


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 October 2011 at 6:59pm
Originally posted by honeto

Jazakallah,
let us see if Jack and Larry come up with something real or just the same old....
Hasan 


Salam brother.  I guess the recent posts by "Ren and Stimpy" didn't disappoint!  What do you think?  LOL 


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



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 13 October 2011 at 2:38pm
Salam brother,
I am actually holding my thoughts about them pending their response to my post about ten posts or so up!
I am patient, may be they re really searching for answers, hopefully.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 14 October 2011 at 3:55am
Hasan,

   Maybe when you and your pals start answering questions then others will start to answer yours.

Larry


Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 14 October 2011 at 4:03am
Jack,

   You are right on target with your observation that "islamispeace" and his pals,

   "Amazing how you behave when someone asks you simple questions and you feel backed up against the wall with no way to provide a straightforward answer that is believable and contains common sense."

   They simply resort to name calling and personal opinions with little or no basis in fact. But they are good at telling each other how clever they are! LOL!

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2011 at 11:48am
Originally posted by honeto

Salam brother,
I am actually holding my thoughts about them pending their response to my post about ten posts or so up!
I am patient, may be they re really searching for answers, hopefully.
Hasan


Oh okay.  But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.  I too have had hope in the past that these two are really searching for answers, but I have been disappointed.  So, I wouldn't expect any positive developments!   


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2011 at 2:45pm
And so besides whining and crackpot theories, we get nothing more from Jack and Larry.  Let's leave the individual reader to decide.  I will simply ask the same question again and leave it at that:

Which side carries more weight: the side of scholarship or the side of the "Illustrious Trio" which includes the "Harvard House" guy and his two biggest fans, Jack and Larry?  Geek


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



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 17 October 2011 at 2:52pm
You re right brother, and I am just being patient. It is true that Larry does not seem to have answer to my question, nor anyone else, otherwise instead of whining they will post it.
It shows only their poistion, clearer.
May Allah guide!
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 17 October 2011 at 7:45pm
   You can be "patient" until the cows come home but it will still not prove that the Qur'an is exactly the same as it has ever been. Uthman's little "burning party" shows that something had to be suppressed, and it wasn't because "ignorant" Muslims might not be smart enough to read it correctly. The Qur'an is so unspecific on so many matters that it requires the hadith to explain many inconsistencies and unclear meanings.
   The Old and New Testaments need no such "help" to understand their writings.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 20 October 2011 at 12:16pm

Dear IslamisPeace,

 
Was Jesus a scholar?  Was Abraham a scholar?  Was Muhammad a scholar?  Allah does not think so much of scholarship as you seem to insist is imporatant.   I really don't think you do either, or you wouldn't give much weight to Muhammad who couldn't even read.  This means you, IslamisPeace, are a hyppocrite.  You don't practice what you preach. 
 
Analysis, evidence, slam dunk.  You loose again.LOLClapBig%20smileLOL
 
Allah's blessings,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 20 October 2011 at 12:19pm
Dear Hasan,
 
Would you be so kind as to repeat your question?  I guess in the fray with he bafoon IslamisPeace, I must have missed it.  But ask away and I'll do my best to answer it.
 
May Allah bless you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 October 2011 at 7:42pm
Originally posted by Larry

   You can be "patient" until the cows come home but it will still not prove that the Qur'an is exactly the same as it has ever been. Uthman's little "burning party" shows that something had to be suppressed, and it wasn't because "ignorant" Muslims might not be smart enough to read it correctly. The Qur'an is so unspecific on so many matters that it requires the hadith to explain many inconsistencies and unclear meanings.
   The Old and New Testaments need no such "help" to understand their writings.


Still clinging to your conspiracy theory huh?  And then you go off on unrelated issues concerning hadiths.  Wow! 

As I have proven many times already, even by giving specific examples, the reason the other copies were burnt was because of the need to standardize the text into one reading style.  This was done to unify the Muslim world and avoid any future disagreements.  Even so, the differences were only in terms of spelling variations and grammar.  The meaning was never changed! 

Neither you nor Jack has been able to offer any substantive response except to repeat the same tired old argument..."but he burnt the copies, so he must have been hiding something!"  Well, what was he hiding?  And why didn't anyone notice?  Those copies were in the public's possession.  Surely, someone would have pointed out that the whole thing was a conspiracy (with everyone apparently in on it LOL)!

You have no answers to these questions nor do you have any proof.  Oh and by the way, contrary to what you may have assumed, the different reading styles did not disappear immediately after Uthman's decree.  They were still in use for a few more centuries.  That is how we know what was in the copies.  They have been preserved in the writings of the scholars of Islam.  All of the variations were due to minor spelling and grammar.   


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 20 October 2011 at 11:54pm
islamispeace,

   I notice that you did not address the issue of the hadiths. Whenever you get a difficult question to answer for you simply say it is unrelated and leave it there. I repeat, in Christianity we don't need things like hadiths to explain problems that come up in our sacred texts. You say I have no proofs about the Qur'an being in different forms, but you have no proof that the Qur'an wasn't in more than one version prior to the destruction by fire of any copy not identical to Uthman's "standardized" version.

   This is especially hard to believe in the case of the Hafsah Codex. It was the ORIGINAL compilation of the Qur'an that was assembled just two years after the death of Muhammad and kept by one of his wives. She even sent it to Uthman, who supposedly consulted it in his "standardization" of the Qur'anic text, and he returned it to her, undamaged.

   It is, frankly, absurd that the original compilation of the Qur'an was destroyed deliberately because of, to quote you, "the differences were only in terms of spelling variations and grammar. The meanings were never changed."

   So why destroy the most important sacred text in Islam for minor spelling and grammar differences? It was a historical record of great importance to the new faith and yet it was treated like trash and incinerated. This would be like destroying the earliest known complete text of the Old Testament Book of Isaiah, dated at 200 B.C. and found in the Dead Sea Scrolls Caves. And that copy is IDENTICAL to the Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament today.

   I think the Western scholarly view makes more sense. In the early, formative years of Islam, as the new religion spread geographically, more and more problems with the text began to emerge, especially when significant variations in content and context with The Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament caused problems for the Qur'an and neccessitated revisions and textual changes.

   You say, concerning Hafsah's Codex and others, that "those copies were in the public's possession. Surely, someone would have pointed out that the whole thing was a conspiracy (with everyone apparently in on it!)

   So you believe that Hafsah's copy was in the public possession and could be read by anyone in the Islamic world? Or anyone even in the town in which she lived? Was it located at the local public library? Or was it in Hafsah's personal possession? Where is your proof that many people had access to Hafsah's copy? This is how absurd your answers are concerning this subject. Because Hafsah did NOT want her copy destroyed, but soon after her death it was, WHY, because of minor spelling and grammar?

   Try using an argument like that in a courtroom with such flimsy "support" for your position and see how far it would go. Especially with your last comments that "DIFFERENT READING STYLES DID NOT DISAPPEAR IMMEDIATELY AFTER UTHMAN'S DECREE. THEY WERE STILL IN USE FOR A FEW MORE CENTURIES. THAT IS WHY WE KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE COPIES."

   All EXCEPT for the original and oldest compilation of the Qur'an which was Hafsah's Codex. That HAD to be destroyed when OTHER, LESSER WELL KNOWN COPIES, WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN CIRCULATION FOR "CENTURIES."

   That is how absurd and completely ridiculous and laughable your "proof" really is.

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 October 2011 at 1:13pm
Originally posted by Larry

I notice that you did not address the issue of the hadiths. Whenever you get a difficult question to answer for you simply say it is unrelated and leave it there. I repeat, in Christianity we don't need things like hadiths to explain problems that come up in our sacred texts. You say I have no proofs about the Qur'an being in different forms,


I did not address the issue because it is not related to this topic.  I know that red herrings are a common tactic of you Christians.  When you can't keep up on a discussion, you try to change topics and discuss something else. 

Originally posted by Larry

but you have no proof that the Qur'an wasn't in more than one version prior to the destruction by fire of any copy not identical to Uthman's "standardized" version.


What?  When did I deny that the Qur'an existed in more than one "version"?  I have said that all along!  These "versions" were in different reading styles.  Why can't you get that through your head?  And by the way, I did provide evidence.  I pointed to the example of Codex Sana'a DAM 01.27.1, which contains as the scriptio inferior the codex of a companion of the Prophet (pbuh) and as the scriptio superior the Uthmanic standard.  Did you read that part or did you ignore it? 

Originally posted by Larry

This is especially hard to believe in the case of the Hafsah Codex. It was the ORIGINAL compilation of the Qur'an that was assembled just two years after the death of Muhammad and kept by one of his wives. She even sent it to Uthman, who supposedly consulted it in his "standardization" of the Qur'anic text, and he returned it to her, undamaged.


Again with the same tired old argument.  The codex was simply a compilation of all the written material of the Qur'an.  It was not in any particular order and also contained the various reading styles.  Uthman's mushaf used that codex as a template during the process of making the master copies of the standard text. 

Originally posted by Larry

It is, frankly, absurd that the original compilation of the Qur'an was destroyed deliberately because of, to quote you, "the differences were only in terms of spelling variations and grammar. The meanings were never changed."
 

Well, frankly, your opinion is worthless.  The Muslim world was always satidfied with Uthman's efforts.  What you think does not matter at all.  We could care less. 

You have provided no intelligent response to all the evidence I have given.  All you can do is repeat the same worthless opinion over and over.  I proved that the differences were only in spelling and grammar.  Examples include:

1.  Al-Baqira in Ibn Mas'ud's codex instead of Al-Baqara, the standard.

2.  Codex Sana'a DAM 01.27.1 -

Scriptio superior - qitālin fīhi

“They ask you about the holy month—fighting in it.”


Scriptio inferior - (wa)-ʿan qitālin fīhi

“They ask you about the holy month and about fighting in it.


These are nothing more than minor variations in spelling and grammar.  You have no response or examples of variations which were something else entirely and which changed the meaning.  Codex Sana'a DAM 01.27.1 has been studied by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars.  No one has found any serious differences between the scriptio inferior and the scriptio superior.  Why? 

Originally posted by Jack

So why destroy the most important sacred text in Islam for minor spelling and grammar differences? It was a historical record of great importance to the new faith and yet it was treated like trash and incinerated. This would be like destroying the earliest known complete text of the Old Testament Book of Isaiah, dated at 200 B.C. and found in the Dead Sea Scrolls Caves. And that copy is IDENTICAL to the Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament today.


I have already answered this question several times!  The reason was to avoid any unnecessary disagreements in the future.  The Muslims were looking to the future, the time after the Companions who were the heirs to the knowledge Muhammad (pbuh) had brought.  If they had died without standardizing the text, the future generations would have become divided on the matter of the Qur'an and rivalries would have developed.  The danger was not in different "Qur'ans".  That was never the concern.

The analogy of the Dead Sea Scrolls copy of Isaiah is out of place since this copy is still at least 500 years younger than the time frame in which the original was written.  The analogy would be apt if the Muslims had simply destroyed all copies but forgot to make a master copy.  But that's not what they did, was it?  They only destroyed all personal copies after the master copies were finished.  In the case of the Isaiah scroll, however, it is still not the original copy at all.  Furthermore, it represents only a small portion of the entire Tanakh.  Among the other scrolls that were found, there were non-canonical books as well, including a psalm which is not found in the modern Bible.  So, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain evidence of corruption as well. 

But it is interesting that you bring up the Isaiah scroll and claim that it was "identical" to the Masoretic text.  Is this true?  The answer is both yes and no.  The fact is that there are differences between the two.  Ironically, it is the same as with the Qur'anic text.  The differences are mostly in terms of spelling and grammar http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_masorite.html - [1] ! 

Originally posted by Larry

I think the Western scholarly view makes more sense. In the early, formative years of Islam, as the new religion spread geographically, more and more problems with the text began to emerge, especially when significant variations in content and context with The Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament caused problems for the Qur'an and neccessitated revisions and textual changes.


And which "western scholarly view" is that? 

Originally posted by Larry

So you believe that Hafsah's copy was in the public possession and could be read by anyone in the Islamic world? Or anyone even in the town in which she lived? Was it located at the local public library? Or was it in Hafsah's personal possession? Where is your proof that many people had access to Hafsah's copy? This is how absurd your answers are concerning this subject. Because Hafsah did NOT want her copy destroyed, but soon after her death it was, WHY, because of minor spelling and grammar?


No, I said the other codices were in the public's possession.  Hafsah's codex, however, would have been used as the template to more copies as well.  Therefore, it was also indirectly in the public's possession. 

What is absurd is your unproven claims of a dark conspiracy.  Your personal opinions and assumptions do not matter.  Hafsah (ra) was perfectly justified in wanting to keep the copy but it was better that it be destroyed so that future ignoramuses, both Muslim and non-Muslims, would not try to divide the Muslim world needlessly.  It was not necessary to keep all the variant copies since a master copy was not available.  Even so, the variant copies were not different versions and contained nothing that was unique.  Their destruction was purely as a safeguard to avoid needless disagreements.

Originally posted by Larry

Try using an argument like that in a courtroom with such flimsy "support" for your position and see how far it would go. Especially with your last comments that "DIFFERENT READING STYLES DID NOT DISAPPEAR IMMEDIATELY AFTER UTHMAN'S DECREE. THEY WERE STILL IN USE FOR A FEW MORE CENTURIES. THAT IS WHY WE KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE COPIES."
     

Actually, I wouldn't need to because the burden of proof would be on people like you to demonstrate that there were serious differences between the copies.  Since you are the ones trying to question the established history, you would have to provide evidence that there were differences.  In any case, I could provide the example of Codex Sana'a DAM 01.27.1 as proof of my claim that the differences were only in spelling and grammar.  In a court of law, that would serve as direct evidence for my claim.

Originally posted by Larry

All EXCEPT for the original and oldest compilation of the Qur'an which was Hafsah's Codex. That HAD to be destroyed when OTHER, LESSER WELL KNOWN COPIES, WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN CIRCULATION FOR "CENTURIES."


More nonsense.  You deliberately try to manipulate the facts.  Who said the others were "lesser known"?  What proof do you have?  Who said the actual copies were in circulation?  I certainly didn't.  I said the different reading styles were still used.  That means that the Qur'an was still recited orally in different ways even after Uthman's official copies were finished.  The written codex of Uthman quickly became dominant, but the other reading styles were still in oral use.  Don't try to manipulate the facts and my words.  You will always be refuted, inshaAllah.

Originally posted by Larry

That is how absurd and completely ridiculous and laughable your "proof" really is.
   

As if anyone cares that the all-important Larry thinks the evidence which is accepted by scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, is "absurd".  Sorry to burst your bubble, but your opinion is worthless.  The evidence is completely in favor of the Qur'an's immaculate preservation.  The only ones who disagree are Christian apologists who are probably upset at the enormous evidence of the Bible's corruption.   



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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 21 October 2011 at 11:56pm
islamispeace,

   Just to show your complete and utter hypocrisy.

   You say: "I did not address the issue (hadiths) because it is not related to this topic."

   Then you write; "The only ones that disagree are Christian apologists who are probably upset at the enormous evidence of the Bible's corruption."

   I guess you MEANT to say "I do not address issues NOT related to the topic.....unless it is something that I SAY about off-topic responses when I want to do so."

   Typical of you, spare me any more of your nonsense.

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 October 2011 at 8:58pm
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   Just to show your complete and utter hypocrisy.

   You say: "I did not address the issue (hadiths) because it is not related to this topic."

   Then you write; "The only ones that disagree are Christian apologists who are probably upset at the enormous evidence of the Bible's corruption."

   I guess you MEANT to say "I do not address issues NOT related to the topic.....unless it is something that I SAY about off-topic responses when I want to do so."

   Typical of you, spare me any more of your nonsense.

Larry


Larry, as is your style, you chose not to respond to the relevant points but instead resorted to more whining.  I guess nothing more can be expected from you!  Contrary to your claim, there is nothing hypocritical about my statement.  I was merely making an observation and I was not asking you to discuss whether the Bible has been corrupted or not.  That topic has already been discussed on other threads already.  Furthermore, you were the one who brought the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls into this discussion in an attempted comparison with the early Muslims' handling of the Qur'an (to which I responded).  So actually, my minor reference to the corruption of the Bible was quite apt. 

Also, why do you keep saying "spare me..." but then make more posts in response to me?  Why can't you make up your mind?  If you want me to "spare" you, then don't make any more posts!  It's really simple.  You truly are confused aren't you?  I can't tell if you are coming or going!  LOL   


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 23 October 2011 at 1:20am
islamispeace,

   I don't take orders from you and I am free to post my own opinions. Mind your own business if you don't like what I write. I'm sure that hadiths have been discussed on another thread too, so, by your standards, the topic was appropriate, right? I repeat, you're a hypocrite who feels like you can do what you want or say while holding others to standards that you don't meet. That is the definition of a hypocrite. And it fits you like a glove. You might take a minute and realize that this is not YOUR forum, it can be used by any registered member who is free to express their own opinions. Even yours.

Larry


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 23 October 2011 at 7:49am

Dear IslamisPeace,

 

Your whole complete most resent post was a total waste of time and effort on your part to write, and for all of the rest of us to read because it contained no intelligent information to clarify any discrepancies, just more childish IslamisPeace wording again.Dead  Maybe you find that entertaining.  I’ve tried immitating you, but it’s not worth the time even to write, let alone read.Confused

 

Let’s go back two of your posts and see if there isn’t at least a little substance there... no, no, not here... no, not here...  wait!  Waite, I think there might be something.  Let’s see.  Ahhh, yes...  Both Larry and I seem to have asked you to provide quotes from the destroyed personal texts to compare to Uthman’s texts to prove that the differences were grammer and spelling, but all you have done is provided us with Codex Sana’a DAM instead.  You have failed to do meet the challange.LOL  Again you can’t make the comparison to prove your case... because the evidence has been destroyed, kind of like when the FBI is entering an office building and the boss and his secretary are quickly shredding documents so they will not get caught for the wrongdoings they have committed, huh? Wink 

You keep claiming the personal copies were destroyed to keep from dividing the Muslim world.  Thus, you have admitted that the copies had enough differences to divide the Muslim world, meaning they didn’t agree.Confused  You have admitted the point that Larry was trying to make.  You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict Larry accept non-evidence, nastiness, and empty verbage.LOL  You have failed to show any scholarly success in your defense prep.Big%20smile  You are showing yourself to be... a looser.LOL

So I advise that if you can’t find any real evidence, just admit it and go on. Smile No one will fault you for what Uthman did or for having been taught that what he did was O.K.  I mean, how are you supposed to be responsible for the abuses of politicians 1400 years ago?Tongue

Oh, one thing you did say which I would wholly agree with, in reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls, you said, “the Dead Sea Scrolls contain evidence of corruption as well.”  Then you contradict yourself and say, “The differences are mostly in terms of spelling and grammar http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_masorite.html - [1] !”  I agree with you that the differences are in terms of grammar and spelling.  You say repeatedly that the differences between the personal copies destroyed and the Uthman copy are only grammar and spelling and that this does not constitute corruption in the Holy Qur’an, but then you turn around and say that such differences are examples of corruption in the Holy Bible.  So much for your presenting yourself as a weighty individual in a debate, IslamisPeace.LOL LOLLOL 

Either way, you really have been wasting the time of Larry, Kish, and I, and indirectly of yourself, by failing to post much substance for the amount of wording you put up on the board.  Think about that...

Allah bless you,

 

Jack Catholic



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 October 2011 at 3:01pm
Jack, perhaps you should read more carefully!  Don't tell me now that you have difficulty reading too!  I mean you already have demonstrated a lack of spelling competency.  Are you sure you are school teacher?  Just asking.  Wink

You claimed that in "reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls" I "contradicted" myself.  Really?  Look closer and you will see that when I said the "Dead Sea scrolls contain evidence of corruption as well" I was referring to the fact that among those scrolls, scholars also found non-canonical books which modern Jews and Christians do not regard as scripture.  That would be evidence of corruption now wouldn't it?  Now, when I said "the differences are in terms of spelling and grammar", you will see that I was specifically referring to the Isaiah scrolls, NOT to the Dead Sea Scrolls collection!  What I wrote was very simple, but apparently, you still allowed yourself to get confused!  Don't you get tired of making a fool of yourself over and over and over again?  Big%20smile 

It's also funny how you keep harping about "evidence" to support my claims about the Qur'an when I have provided the evidence several times already!  I gave you archaeological evidence (Codex DAM 01.27.1) and I gave you the statements of both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars.  On the other hand, what have you given for your pathetic and childish conspiracy theories?  Let me see...you gave the personal opinions of an anonymous dude from the internet and your own opinions!  Yep, that's "evidence" alright!  Clap  You see, my delirious friend, the burden of proof is on you to prove your conspiracy theories. 

Oh and as far as me "wasting my time", it is only a waste with ignoramuses such as yourself, Larry and Kish, but as I have pointed out, I have managed to educate some people about this subject, including a new Muslim and an evangelical Christian, both of whom are friends of mine.  Furthermore, it is my hope that other people reading this thread, both Muslim and non-Muslim, will see the evidence and come to the only logical conclusion which is that the Qur'an has been preserved.  What you and your partners in ignorance and subjectivity think is not my concern.  I could care less what you three think?  You are the Three Stooges of the forum as far as I am concerned!  Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.  LOL


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 October 2011 at 3:07pm
Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   I don't take orders from you and I am free to post my own opinions. Mind your own business if you don't like what I write. I'm sure that hadiths have been discussed on another thread too, so, by your standards, the topic was appropriate, right? I repeat, you're a hypocrite who feels like you can do what you want or say while holding others to standards that you don't meet. That is the definition of a hypocrite. And it fits you like a glove. You might take a minute and realize that this is not YOUR forum, it can be used by any registered member who is free to express their own opinions. Even yours.

Larry


Calm down Larry!  You need a hug, dude!  HugAnd your continuous whining is getting boring.   

All I said was I find your repeated "spare me, spare me" melodrama to be out of place when it is you who keeps interjecting yourself in this thread when you have nothing to do or say except to whine and tell me to "spare" you?  Well how can I "spare" you if you keep joining in the discussion?  Confused  If you join in this discussion, you can bet I will be on you like flies on a horse's behind (no offense Wink).  So unfortunately, you won't be "spared". 

Anyway, besides more whining and hurling accusations of hypocrisy, do you have any actual response for once?  You asked for evidence, and I gave it to you.  Have you looked at the link I provided about Codex DAM 01.27.1?  If you haven't, is it because you are perhaps afraid of the truth? Just asking...don't bite my head off Mr. Whiner!  Ouch


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 24 October 2011 at 8:46pm
islamispeace,

   No offense taken, I merely consider the source.
   You can believe whatever you want to believe. As I have said before, it is of little concern to me as I do not accept the validity of the Qur'an and do not consider it in any way as coming from God. Whether or not the Qur'an is just like every other Qur'an is not surprising since Uthman's standardization made sure that they all said the same thing while any variant copies or readings were simply incinerated.
   In Christianity we put more emphasis on the meanings and prophecies made and fulfilled, presented than whether each single word or words are in slightly different order or spelling. Since each Bible that is not in the original Greek or Aramaic is a translation and NO translations are every exactly the same.
   I will put up the Holy Bible against the Qur'an anytime. There is no prophecies made and fulfilled in the Qur'an, so why do you refer to Muhammad as a "prophet?" There are a great number of prophecies made and fulfilled in the Bible, can you name five specific "prophecies" made by Muhammad and where they are fulfilled in the Qur'an?
   The beauty of the words of the Bible in such books as the Psalms, Song of Solomon, etc., the histories and specific geneaologies in books such as Chronicles, Kings, Samuel, etc. are extensively documented and the prophecies made by the prophets such as Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, etc. in the Old Testament are specifically fulfilled in both the Old and New Testaments.
   And the Jewish Old Testament and Christian New Testament were written milennia (in the case of the Old Testament) or centuries (in the case of the New Testament), before the coming of Muhammad and his new religion of Islam. That the Qur'an contains so much of the material, people, stories, etc. of the Bible is clear proof that it was consulted extensively when reciting or writing the Qur'an.
   The charge by Muslims that Jews and Christians "corrupted" their own Biblical writings is absurd and ridiculous on it's face. To argue that the Quir'an somehow "pre-existed" the Bible is the height of unprovable beliefs.
   The Qur'an is not even written in the same style all the way through. There are major differences in style and form between the surahs written (or read)in Mecca and the those surahs done in Medina. Why would there be ANY differences of style or anything else in a book that is supposedly perfect in all ways. Jesus is one good example of selective readings in the Qur'an. Much of what Jesus said and did is recorded in the Qur'an but ANY reference made by Jesus Christ as being the Son of God or Messiah of the Jews, or of His self-sacrifice in order for believers to achieve Salvation, is conveniently avoided and not used.
   There are also references in the Qur'an to Muhammad's own tribe, the Quryash, and also references to his own hated personal relationships in the surah "Palm Fibre, The Flame." It seems odd that God would interfere in Muhammad's personal relationships with others.
   You believe what yiou want to believe and I will do the same. This constant back and forth bickering is getting everyone nowhwere fast and so it's simply pointless to go on and on. But I would neveer tell you that you needed to reply or not reply, you have the same rights of use of this website as I do.
   By the way, I hope you see that I didn't use the words "spare me" at all. And I repeat, no offense taken.

Larry
   


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 26 October 2011 at 12:57pm
Larry, I agree with you that ultimately it comes down to what we choose to believe, but I also believe that belief must be based on reason.  In this thread, I believe that I have refuted all of the claims made by the "Harvard House" guy, using references to scholarly works.  You can choose to disagree, but without proof, you are only disagreeing based on your own opinions. 

I just want to ask you again.  Did you look at the link I provided about Codex DAM 01.27.1?  It serves as convincing proof that the differences among the personal mushafs and the Uthmani mushaf were all orthographical (having to do with spelling conventions) or grammatical in nature. 


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 26 October 2011 at 11:16pm
islamispeace,

   Yes, I looked at your link and read it, but my feelings on the subject have not changed. But I think that the important thing is that you get support and comfort from your belief in Islam just as I do from Christianity. There are more similarities between the two religions then there are differences. I respect your faith and defense of Islam just as I hope that you respect mine. We can at least be civil with each other and respect the differences that we do have. I hope that you will have a good life and wish you the best of luck in the future. This doesn't mean that I am not going to interact on these discussions, but for my part I want to be more respectful of others even when we disagree entirely on one issue or another. It's too much fun to give up, don't you agree?

Larry


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 27 October 2011 at 2:20pm

Dear IslamisnotPeace,

 

You have again used up all of one very long page in an effort to make only two tiny psudo-points.  The rest was all “IslamisnotPeace” insane ramblings.LOL  You do this regularly, bud.  You really are working way too hard to make a fool of yourself.ClapLOL

 

Let’s look at the only two pathetic points you could make:

1.  The Dead Sea scrolls contain evidence of corruption.

2.  You claim to have provided evidence to support your claims about the Qur’an in the Codex DAM 01.27.1 and in statements by both Muslim and Non-Muslim scholars.  Those claims are that the Holy Qur’an is not a re-write of the Holy Qur’an but rather a compilation and standardization of the text.

 

Your first point is asserted by the following quote from you, IslamisnotPeace:"Dead Sea scrolls contain evidence of corruption as well" I was referring to the fact that among those scrolls, scholars also found non-canonical books which modern Jews and Christians do not regard as scripture.  That would be evidence of corruption now wouldn't it? 

My response:  What a joke.  The non-canonical books were thrown out because they were either not authentic, or did not fit the purpose of the Holy Bible, which was simply to record the life and ministry of Jesus and the guidance given to the first century church by St. Paul and the Apostles.  Those non-canonical books might have been corrupted, bet those accepted for the Holy Bible were not.  The non-canonical books have no bearing on corruption in the Holy Bible, and you know it.  To say they did is further evidence of your madness, my loony friend. WinkLOL

Your second point was defended by the following quote from your post:  "evidence" to support my claims about the Qur'an... I have provided... several times already!  I gave you archaeological evidence (Codex DAM 01.27.1) and I gave you the statements of both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. 

 

What a joke, Bozo.LOL  We “ignoramuses” have been challenging your to show evidence by comparing the text of the 4 destroyed Holy Qur’ans, not some other codex (Codex DAM 01.27.1).LOL  We have also challenged you to prove that your so-called psudo-scholars have even read those 4 Holy Qur’ans that were burned, and you have not done so.Confused  I vaguely recollect that you didn’t seem to know which 4 Qur’ans Larry and I were referring to in this discussion.  Let me refresh your memory, though if you truly knew your faith and its origins, you would know about these:   (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal. If the scholars you are relying on as experts haven’t seen those 4 books, then they are unqualified to teach accurately on them.  Their words are simply hearsay.  Sorry, but your “evidence” does not qualify as anything more than your desperate attempts to hold your case together.Embarrassed  You’re looking mighty clumsy, Goofy! Uuu-huk!EmbarrassedLOLLOL

 

Here is a little ditty from a book entitled, “

The Origins of the Koran:
Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book

Edited by Ibn Warraq; Prometheus Books, 1998
Summarised by Sharon Morad, Leeds

 

Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added (pp. 13-18)

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices, variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.

 

I just thought I’d throw this passage into the discussion.  I’m expecting you, IslamisnotPeace, to disassemble this little piece.  Enjoy!!!

Allah’s blessings,

Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 October 2011 at 7:51pm
Originally posted by Larry

Yes, I looked at your link and read it, but my feelings on the subject have not changed.


May I ask why?

Originally posted by Larry

But I think that the important thing is that you get support and comfort from your belief in Islam just as I do from Christianity. There are more similarities between the two religions then there are differences. I respect your faith and defense of Islam just as I hope that you respect mine. We can at least be civil with each other and respect the differences that we do have. I hope that you will have a good life and wish you the best of luck in the future. This doesn't mean that I am not going to interact on these discussions, but for my part I want to be more respectful of others even when we disagree entirely on one issue or another. It's too much fun to give up, don't you agree?


Yes, I entirely agree.   


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 October 2011 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by Jack

The non-canonical books were thrown out because they were either not authentic, or did not fit the purpose of the Holy Bible, which was simply to record the life and ministry of Jesus and the guidance given to the first century church by St. Paul and the Apostles.  Those non-canonical books might have been corrupted, bet those accepted for the Holy Bible were not.  The non-canonical books have no bearing on corruption in the Holy Bible, and you know it.  To say they did is further evidence of your madness, my loony friend. WinkLOL


LOL As usual, Jack completely misses the point!  The point is, Jack, that the presence of these books within the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that they were considered to be canonical.  Your special pleading will never change that!  The question then is why did the Essenes have a different canon than other Jews?  Also, you still do not realize that while the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Bible, they are still several hundred years after the originals were written!  Therefore, they do not count as evidence of the integrity of the Biblical text.  It would be like me providing Qur'anic manuscripts from the 5th century AH as "evidence" that the Qur'an is the same as it was in its original state. 

Originally posted by Jack

What a joke, Bozo.LOL  We “ignoramuses” have been challenging your to show evidence by comparing the text of the 4 destroyed Holy Qur’ans, not some other codex (Codex DAM 01.27.1).LOL  We have also challenged you to prove that your so-called psudo-scholars have even read those 4 Holy Qur’ans that were burned, and you have not done so.Confused  I vaguely recollect that you didn’t seem to know which 4 Qur’ans Larry and I were referring to in this discussion.  Let me refresh your memory, though if you truly knew your faith and its origins, you would know about these:   (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal. If the scholars you are relying on as experts haven’t seen those 4 books, then they are unqualified to teach accurately on them.  Their words are simply hearsay.  Sorry, but your “evidence” does not qualify as anything more than your desperate attempts to hold your case together.Embarrassed  You’re looking mighty clumsy, Goofy! Uuu-huk!EmbarrassedLOLLOL
 

LOL Ironically, with this latest rant, you demonstrated again why it is appropriate to refer to you as an "ignoramus".  You are still insisting on "4 destroyed Qur'ans", when it has been amply clear that there were not "4 different Qur'ans" in circulation.  The Qur'an, my *****ic friend, was recited in different ways.  Among those recitations were those of Ibn Mas'ud and others.  What I showed you in the example of Codex San'aa DAM 01.27.1 was an example of how a personal codex of a Companion of the Prophet matched the Uthmanic mushaf in every way, except for spelling and grammar differences, as Islamic scholarship has maintained for 1400 years.  As usual, ignoramuses like you have no answer and instead resort to factual inaccuracies and "evidence" to "prove" your misunderstandings. 

Originally posted by Jack

Here is a little ditty from a book entitled, “

The Origins of the Koran:
Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book

Edited by Ibn Warraq; Prometheus Books, 1998
Summarised by Sharon Morad, Leeds
  

LOLLOLLOL Ooooh, Ibn Warraq!  Oh I am soooo impressed!  Sorry to disappoint you Jack, but Ibn Warraq has about as much authority as you do!  As usual, your double standards are exposed.  You question the authority of actual PhD-caliber scholars like Dr. Al-Imam (or even scholars of NT criticism like Bart Ehrman) but don't bother to question the authority (or lack thereof) of pseudo-scholars (mind the spelling Jack! Wink) like the "Harvard-House" guy or this "Ibn Warraq" character.  Having said that, let's see the "proof" that you feel supports your viewpoint:

Originally posted by Jack

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.


It's amazing!  So, actually you have no evidence, just the vague ramblings of a guy who doesn't even have the credentials to be considered a scholar.  Where, pray tell, did Uthman, Aisha and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and others say that "much of the Koran had been lost"?  To even include Uthman in this list is ridiculously absurd since he was the one who oversaw the committee to standardize the text.  No one accused him of "losing" much of the Qur'an.

Originally posted by Jack

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices, variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.


This is exactly why I say that Ibn Warraq is about as authoritative as you Jack!  Both of you can't even get the basic facts straight. 

First, I have already pointed out that variant "readings" (which means they were oral and not written) continued to flourish for several centuries.  That's all they were: different ways to recite the Qur'an.  The meaning never changed!  Ibn Warraq tries to insist that they were "actual written variations", but where is the evidence?  Oh right, none presented. 

Originally posted by Jack

Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.
     

Again, no evidence.  Just the vague ramblings of a fake scholar. 

Originally posted by Jack

I just thought I’d throw this passage into the discussion.  I’m expecting you, IslamisnotPeace, to disassemble this little piece.  Enjoy!!!
 

I think the following suffices as a critique of your attempt to add to this discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKR61D0_0xI&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKR61D0_0xI&feature=related

I award you no points, Jack, and may God have mercy on your soul!  LOL

LOL

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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 30 October 2011 at 11:34pm
islamispeace,

   Yes, you can ask me why my feelings remain the same concerning the Qur'an. The main reasons are listed above in my post of 24 October above. But the main reason is that the true evidence and proof that the Qur'ans that were destroyed, including the original compilation of the Qur'an held by Muhammad's wife, Hafsah, were identical to the Qur'an today is the fact that they do not exist.
   I believe that he absence of proof is not proof of absence, the destroyed Qur'ans could very well have been identical to the present Qur'an, but we will never know, because, as I said before, THEY DO NOT EXIST.
   And the reason given for their destruction by Marwan is simply not credible in my opinion, especially since Uthman returned the codex to Hafsah in the same condition that it was in when Hafsah sent it to him in the first place.
   I do not believe that minor spelling, punctuation or the absence of diacritical marks would be sufficient reason, even in Marwan's case, to destroy the Qur'an that was written two years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, attested to by his wife, and the very first compilation of the Qur'an ever written.
   It simply does not make sense in my personal opinion. And in my case it just seems unproductive to continue these same arguments over and over again.
   I look forward to participating in future discussions with you and others on a variety of subjects.

Larry
   


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 31 October 2011 at 12:49pm
Jack,
it all comes down to the facts, you have not been able to bring out any facts that prove your point.
At the end, its one's words against the other. He said this, she said this, I said this and so on.
We know presently there are enemies of Islam who would like to come up with things. These kind of people always existed, from the time of the Prophet (pbuh) to this day, who would wish Islam (worship to God) disappear, but how wrong they are. Only if they knew what will be their end they will bow down to God in Islam and seek His forgiveness.
 
You and I live more than two thousand years after Jesus, and fourteen hudered years after Mohammed (pbut), what happened between now and then is a lot for us to comb through and due to our limited capacity impossible to know. What is possible for us to figure out based on what we have as a messge from each one of them is in the form of a book.
The Quran is a book that is with us today in its original language and there are people who still widely use this language. There is a copy of the Quran that is fourteen hundred years old.
Can you point to any other version of the Quran different than the one I am talking about that existed side by side. If there is such a thing I will be interested to know about it. If there is none, then it is just a talk, he said this and so on.
Again, it will be one's word against the other so here is the best solution if you are sincere to your cause. You know what would be a real test in order to figure out if someone has messsed with any devine revelations? It would not contradict what it teaches. And like I said, we live many many hundred years after these books were written, it will only be through an unbaised, fair and logical study based on truthfulness, observation and comparison that we will know if any claims are true or not and which one is pure devine word and which one is tempered by man otherwise it is nothing but a waste of time and digging yourself deeper in trouble and trying to drag others in with you, not the purpose of either book's teachings.
 
Let us look with real issues if you have any of Quran's teachings that proves your point. That will be your chance to prove if you are right or wrong. I think we all are given a chance to stand up rightly for ourselves and for what is right, what would be the purpose of life otherwise.
Hasan
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 05 November 2011 at 5:00am
Dear Hasan,
 
Thank you for your very nice post.  You are right on how we must approach the issue of this post.  Actually we don't have much evidence to go on.  My complaint and the complaint of others is that perhaps the evidence, if there ever was any, may have destroyed by Uthman.  What we have left is not very incriminating.  Even if Christian posters on this thread are acknowledged in their assertions that 4 Qur'anic texts were destroyed because they may have conflicted with Uthman's version of the Qur'an, yet will never know if they did indeed conflict, or if they offer evidence that Uthman's Qur'an was heavily altered (edited).  He did a good job in covering his tracks.  I'd like to see this fact admitted by Muslim posters on this forum.  Because the Holy Bible did not have its 4 Gospels compiled into one and the 4 burned, yet we are attacked for the fact that we have 4 that are not identical in every way.  If Christians were not attacked for the condition of our scriptures, we probably would not be looking through the story of the making of the Holy Qur'an with such a fine toothed comb.  Criticism begets counter criticism and investigation.  This sounds childish, I know, but it goes both ways, I'm sure.
 
Anyway, this compiling, editing, and destruction of orriginal sources is one of a long list of reasons why I will never accept the Holy Qur'an as my Holy Book of choice.  The other things on this list I have learned from Muslims here on this forum.  I have not heard any accusations against the Holy Bible that have been able to stick.  So it remains my Holy Book of choice.
 
Allah's blessings to you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 05 November 2011 at 7:50am

Dear Isla,

Special news update.  Isla strikes again with ugly negative attitude, name calling, and unattractive verbiage which makes the religion he represents look pretty ugly to us non- Muslims.  This post, he gets a score 4 on the ugly scale.  Great job, Isla!  Way to go.  Makes your readers want to be Muslim!

 

Your special pleading

with this latest rant, you demonstrated again why it is appropriate to refer to you as an "ignoramus". 

The Qur'an, my *****ic friend, was recited

As usual, ignoramuses like you

Dearest Isla, I have again cut out much of the garbage that you have littered your post with.  We’ll just deal with the issues here.

You said, “The point is, Jack, that the presence of these books within the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that they were considered to be canonical.”

This, Isla, is what you don’t seem to get, which I suppose is due to your not being Christian or Jewish.  The Essenes were not Christian. They were a monastic group of Jews who devoted their time to basic survival, prayer, and copying the scriptures and holy books.  Yet they did not have a cannon of their own, nor the authority to declare one for the Jewish believers or the Catholic Church.  So your first assertion that the presence books in the dead sea scrolls are evidence of canonized books being thrown out resulting in corruption is just....well, FALSE.

About the time difference between writing of the the Dead Sea Scrolls and the original works, you said:  “the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Bible, they are still several hundred years after the originals were written!  Therefore, they do not count as evidence of the integrity of the Biblical text.” 

Allow me to reassure your worried mind, Isla.  The modern Holy Bible has been compared to the oldest manuscripts of and quotes from the books and letters of the Holy Bible and found it to be 99% accurate, the differences being only grammatical and such.  If this is the case with the Holy Bible which is nearly 2000 years old, imagine the accuracy of the texts of the books that were discovered at Qumran on the Dead Sea which in some cases are only a few hundred years old.

Larry and I had asked you to compare the text of the 4 destroyed Holy Qur’ans:  (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal, not some other codex (Codex DAM 01.27.1).  But you have failed to do so.

 

We have also challenged you to prove that your “scholars” have even read those 4 Holy Qur’ans that were burned - the ones written by (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal.  If the scholars you are relying on as experts haven’t seen those 4 books, then they are unqualified to teach accurately on their content.  In this case, the “scholar’s” words are simply hearsay. 

 

Your only explanation to these two challenges has been to say that “it has been amply clear that there were not "4 different Qur'ans" in circulation,” which of course is a conclusion that history does not agree with. 

 

I also presented a few relevant summaries from the book, “Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book” Edited by Ibn Warraq; (Prometheus Books, 1998), and Summarised by Sharon Morad, Leeds.

  

Your response was to post this:  “but Ibn Warraq has about as much authority as you do!  As usual, your double standards are exposed.  You question the authority of actual PhD-caliber scholars like Dr. Al-Imam (or even scholars of NT criticism like Bart Ehrman)

You silly goose, Isla.  Didn’t you read carefully.  Ibn Warraq was not the author of the book.  He doesn’t have to be an expert.  His book is nothing more than a collection of Essays written by others that are classics, meaning that they apparently are so highly consideredin the academic world that they are routinely studied by students of Islamic Studies in universities around the world.  He didn’t write them.  He only compiled them.  They were already classic when he got ahold of them.  And what I quoted was not written by Ibn Warraq, but rather was a summary of some of the main points from these essays written by Sharon Morad Leeds.  You really have to read more carefully, young man.

The first summary taken from the collection:  Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.”

Your response, Isla, was a bit sassy (Come to think of it, when I teach 5th and 6th graders, they tend to retort to most questions in the classroom with sassy responses like this one.  How old did you say you were, Isla?):  “Where, pray tell, did Uthman, Aisha and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and others say that "much of the Koran had been lost"?  To even include Uthman in this list is ridiculously absurd since he was the one who oversaw the committee to standardize the text.  No one accused him of "losing" much of the Qur'an.”

What is so goofy about your answer, Isla, is that if you knew the early history of Islam after the death of Muhammad, you would know that at the battle of Yamama, a great number of the Qura (450 members to be exact), that is the group of reciters of the Qur’an, had been killed in battle.  This began the process which was eventually overseen by Uthman to gather up whatever could be found of the Qur’an and write it down in one text.  Uthman, Abu Bakr, and many others felt a great urgency after the battle of Yamama to get this done, because no one knew exactly how much of the Qur’an that was memorized by those 450 fallen warriors was now lost to all humanity for all time. They knew there would be more battles and more members of the Qura would fall in time.  So the race was on to get the Qur’an gathered up.  Now do you see why your response to the summary from the essay collection is so off the wall and goofy?  I would expect something more intelligent and well thought out from you, Isla...

 


Another summary which I quoted:   “Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardized the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices, variant readings survived. Standardization was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.”


Your response reflects your failure to read carefully, Isla:  “The meaning never changed!  Ibn Warraq tries to insist that they were "actual written variations", but where is the evidence?  Oh right, none presented.” 

So are you just going to avoid the issue like this?  The summary simply points out that there are discrepancies beyond your assertion that they are simply grammatical.  While you claim that this is what they are, students of Islamic studies in universities around the world are studying these essays and learning exactly what these discrepancies are.  Don’t you think you should know something about them as well, Isla?  It is your Holy Book, after all.  I don’t need to produce the variations to make the point, Isla.  Just the fact that they exist is enough to make a strong case that Uthman’s little group did indeed compile and possibly alter the material that went into the Qur’an, and then had good reason for wanting to destroy the 4 Qur’anic collections mentioned above.  When are you going to face the truth and stop avoiding the evidence with those goofy responses?

Here is another summary of the essays in the book:  Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.”

 

So, how do you respond to this bit of evidence.  Ms. Morad Leeds gives a clear example that should make it easy for you to research regarding omitted, added, and glossed over Surahs.  What say you on this?  Come on, now, give a real, an intelligent, an evidence backed response.  None of this goofy descriptive garbage that ends up being cut out and thrown in the trash when I respond. 

Your U-Tube short was really funny, though.  Nice one.

Allah’s blessings,

 

Jack Catholic



Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 06 November 2011 at 12:59am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

 

 Here is a little ditty from a book entitled, “

The Origins of the Koran:
Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book

Edited by Ibn Warraq; Prometheus Books, 1998
Summarised by Sharon Morad, Leeds

 

Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added (pp. 13-18)

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices, variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.

 

I just thought I’d throw this passage into the discussion.  I’m expecting you, IslamisnotPeace, to disassemble this little piece.  Enjoy!!!

Allah’s blessings,

Jack Catholic


 First of all i encourage all the readers to visit http://bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/review-of-ibn-warraq-ed-the-origins-of-the-koran-classic-essays-on-islams-holy-book-prometheus-books-ny-1998/ - "Review of Ibn Warraq (ed.), " The Origins of the Koran:Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book"

 The following is taken by http://islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsources.html - www.islamic-awareness.org

 What Do Modern Scholars Say About Tisdall's Work?

What do modern scholars say about Tisdall's The Original Sources Of The Qur'ân or the revised version (forwarded by another missionary William Muir) The Sources Of Islam? Commenting about Ibn Warraq's use of Tisdall's material in his The Origins Of The Koran: Classic Essays On Islam's Holy Book, François de Blois says:

The "classic essays" are of unequal value. The worst is St. Clair Tisdall's decidedly shoddy piece of missionary propaganda. The two by Mingana are not much better. It is surprising that the editor, who in his Why I Am Not A Muslim took a very high posture as a critical rationalist and opponent of all forms of obscurantism, now relies so heavily on writings by Christian polemicists from the nineteenth century.

A similar review by Herbert Berg informs us that:

The essay by St. Clair Tisdall with a forward by Muir seems to have been included for the 'Christian' perspective..... It is not particularly scholarly essay or even a polemical one; it is simply a polemic. It uses the salvation history of Christianity to refute that of Muslims. The author is altogether too fond of using words such as 'foolish', 'fanciful', 'childish' and 'ignorant' when describing quranic (and for that matter talmudic and midrashic) stories that disgree with his Christian reading of the Old Testament.



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 November 2011 at 3:19pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hasan,
 

Thank you for your very nice post.  You are right on how we must approach the issue of this post.  Actually we don't have much evidence to go on.  My complaint and the complaint of others is that perhaps the evidence, if there ever was any, may have destroyed by Uthman.  What we have left is not very incriminating.  Even if Christian posters on this thread are acknowledged in their assertions that 4 Qur'anic texts were destroyed because they may have conflicted with Uthman's version of the Qur'an, yet will never know if they did indeed conflict, or if they offer evidence that Uthman's Qur'an was heavily altered (edited).  He did a good job in covering his tracks.  I'd like to see this fact admitted by Muslim posters on this forum.  Because the Holy Bible did not have its 4 Gospels compiled into one and the 4 burned, yet we are attacked for the fact that we have 4 that are not identical in every way.  If Christians were not attacked for the condition of our scriptures, we probably would not be looking through the story of the making of the Holy Qur'an with such a fine toothed comb.  Criticism begets counter criticism and investigation.  This sounds childish, I know, but it goes both ways, I'm sure.

 

Anyway, this compiling, editing, and destruction of orriginal sources is one of a long list of reasons why I will never accept the Holy Qur'an as my Holy Book of choice.  The other things on this list I have learned from Muslims here on this forum.  I have not heard any accusations against the Holy Bible that have been able to stick.  So it remains my Holy Book of choice.

 

Allah's blessings to you,

 

Jack Catholic


Jack,
we are not here to force you into believing something. We are in a fair discussion. You have your chance others have theirs. Let us make our own decisions. I will not answer to you, nor you will answer to me on the day of judgement, we all will answer to God. I, like many others are convinced that there is only One God, nothing beside Him is to be worshiped, and we must serve Him. This is what Quran teaches and is consistent with that.
If there were more versions of the Quran, we will see them or if the one we have was not the one from Allah, surely we will find some discrepancy within it.
Sorry you don't have a copy of your book that is same as you have it today from its first century, we have a copy of the Quran from its first century that is same as what we have today. You don't have a chance, if we apply same standard for both.
Hasan



-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 November 2011 at 11:45am
Originally posted by Jack

Special news update.  Isla strikes again with ugly negative attitude, name calling, and unattractive verbiage which makes the religion he represents look pretty ugly to us non- Muslims.  This post, he gets a score 4 on the ugly scale.  Great job, Isla!  Way to go.  Makes your readers want to be Muslim!


Newsflash, Jack.  Most of the readers already are Muslims!  Those who aren't can read my article responding to Harvard-House and decide for themselves.  My responses to you are not aimed at them.  Frankly, I don't care what you do or how you react.  The world doesn't revolve around you!  Sorry...

Originally posted by Jack

Dearest Isla, I have again cut out much of the garbage that you have littered your post with.  We’ll just deal with the issues here.
      

Uh-huh.  More melodrama from you, but go on...

Originally posted by Jack

This, Isla, is what you don’t seem to get, which I suppose is due to your not being Christian or Jewish.  The Essenes were not Christian. They were a monastic group of Jews who devoted their time to basic survival, prayer, and copying the scriptures and holy books.  Yet they did not have a cannon of their own, nor the authority to declare one for the Jewish believers or the Catholic Church.  So your first assertion that the presence books in the dead sea scrolls are evidence of canonized books being thrown out resulting in corruption is just....well, FALSE.


Actually, your special pleading fails to refute what I said.  The presence of non-canonical books is evidence of an evolving canon among the Jews.  The Essenes were a Jewish sect, and each sect could have different canons as is the case in Christianity.  Also, consider what Josephus wrote about the Jewish canon in his time in "Against Apion":

"8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;" http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html - [1:8] .

The modern Jewish canon contains 24 books, yet Josephus indicated that the Jews had 22 books only.  This is further evidence of the evolving canon of the Jewish Bible.

Originally posted by Jack

Allow me to reassure your worried mind, Isla.  The modern Holy Bible has been compared to the oldest manuscripts of and quotes from the books and letters of the Holy Bible and found it to be 99% accurate, the differences being only grammatical and such.  If this is the case with the Holy Bible which is nearly 2000 years old, imagine the accuracy of the texts of the books that were discovered at Qumran on the Dead Sea which in some cases are only a few hundred years old.


Exactly!  All you can do is "imagine" because you have no proof.  My point still stands Jack.  The Dead Sea Scrolls are still too young to provided definitive proof that the Jewish Bible is well-preserved.  Also, I looked a little deeper into the Isaiah scroll and found some interesting information.  As you may know, the scrolls have been digitized and are now available to be viewed on the internet.  The Isaiah scroll is one of them.  According to the website "The Digital Dead Sea Scrolls":

"Modern scholarship considers the Book of Isaiah to be an anthology, the two principal compositions of which are the Book of Isaiah proper (chapters 1-39, with some exceptions), containing the words of the prophet Isaiah himself, dating from the time of the First Temple, around 700 BCE, and Second Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah, chapters 40-66), comprising the words of an anonymous prophet, who lived some one hundred and fifty years later, around the time of the Babylonian exile and the restoration of the Temple in the Persian Period. By the time our Isaiah Scroll was copied (the last third of the second century BCE), the book was already regarded as a single composition" [1].   
 
       
So, the book of Isaiah is actually regarded as being written by two different people, the second of which is "an anonymous prophet".  So, from the very start, we find serious problems with the origins of the book of Isaiah!  Who was this other "prophet"?  Let's continue:

"The text of the Great Isaiah Scroll generally conforms to the Masoretic or traditional version codified in medieval codices (all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version, in the same conventional order). At the same time, however, the two thousand year old scroll contains alternative spellings, scribal errors, corrections, and most fundamentally, many variant readings. Strictly speaking, the number of textual variants is well over 2,600, ranging from a single letter, sometimes one or more words, to complete variant verse or verses" [Ibid.].

So actually, the Isaiah scroll is not the perfect copy that you and Larry have tried to pass it off as.  It contains over 2,000 variants!

Originally posted by Jack

Larry and I had asked you to compare the text of the 4 destroyed Holy Qur’ans:  (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal, not some other codex (Codex DAM 01.27.1).  But you have failed to do so.
 

LOL And you still haven't realized the absurdity of such a question.  Uthman did not destroy "4 Holy Qur'ans".  He destroyed all personal copies.  Furthermore, I have provided you with examples which have been preserved in the writings of the scholars of Islam which show that the differences in the personal codices (which were not intended for public use) were merely orthographical or grammatical.  There were no serious differences which could change the meaning.  If you want more details concerning the codices of Ibn Mas'ud and others, see Von Denffer's analysis here:

http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0008.aspx%20 - http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0008.aspx        

As you will see, the differences are nothing more than in spelling, pronunciation or grammar, a far cry from the alleged "different Qurans" that you have been harping about! 

Originally posted by Jack

We have also challenged you to prove that your “scholars” have even read those 4 Holy Qur’ans that were burned - the ones written by (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal.  If the scholars you are relying on as experts haven’t seen those 4 books, then they are unqualified to teach accurately on their content.  In this case, the “scholar’s” words are simply hearsay. 


Ironically, you question these actual scholars but not pseudo-scholars like "HH" or "Ibn Warraq".  That exposes you as the hypocrite you are.  Your ignorance is appalling and your refusal to admit your ignorance is much more so.  Again, there were not "4 Qurans".  This is a laughable assertion on your part and it only shows you unqualified you are for this topic.  As I have said, the scholars of Islam have preserved the different readings in their works.  Sheik Jalal Abualrub writes in his book "Muhammad's Role in Islam":

"It should be noted that the other 'Harfs of the Quran that the Prophet [pbuh] taught to his companions survived until the present time, available in books of Hadeeth and Tafsir to scholars who use them to offer the variations of meanings for Quranic texts.  [...]  Thus, parts of the seven 'harfs are available to all Muslims whenever they read Hadeeth Collections of Bukhari and Muslim.  However, the copy of the Quran that is available to all Muslims wherever they may be is the exact replica of the Uthmani Manuscript. [...]

The intention behind burning the copies that used the other 'Harfs was not to destroy them completely, but to unify the Muslim Nation on one of the 'Harfs the Prophet [pbuh] taught..thus making it available to all Muslims and preventing disputes in the Qur'an.  Those who learned other 'Harfs still used their 'Harfs, but, as stated, their 'Harfs were no longer available to the general public." [pp. 86-87].


As you can see, you are way out of your league Jack.  This issue has been studied in detail for a long time and was laid to rest hundreds of years ago. 

Originally posted by Jack

Your only explanation to these two challenges has been to say that “it has been amply clear that there were not "4 different Qur'ans" in circulation,” which of course is a conclusion that history does not agree with.


LOL Well then, I would advise you to refresh your historical knowledge! 

Originally posted by Jack

You silly goose, Isla.  Didn’t you read carefully.  Ibn Warraq was not the author of the book.  He doesn’t have to be an expert.


Oh wow!  Ibn Warraq "doesn't have to be an expert..."!  Who says, Jack?  When someone serves as editor of a collection of essays on a subject he is not an expert on, then what credibility does he have?  None!  Also, as brother Mansoor Ali showed, the sources that Ibn Warraq used were woefully biased! 

Originally posted by Jack

They were already classic when he got ahold of them.  And what I quoted was not written by Ibn Warraq, but rather was a summary of some of the main points from these essays written by Sharon Morad Leeds.  You really have to read more carefully, young man.


I have emphasized "Sharon Morad Leeds" to show how you don't follow your own advice.  Her name is Sharon Morad, not Sharon Morad Leeds.  She is from Leeds.  You need to read more carefully, old man. 

Furthermore, who is Sharon Morad?  I can't find anything on her to verify her scholarly credentials.  Why do you never question the credentials of these pseudo-scholars but you do for actual scholars?  You have yet to answer this question. 

In any case, all of these "classic essays" have been refuted by Islamic scholars like Dr. Al-Imam and M.M. Al-Azami.  Even non-Muslim scholars like Francois de Blois felt that these "classic essays" carry no credibility.

Originally posted by Jack

What is so goofy about your answer, Isla, is that if you knew the early history of Islam after the death of Muhammad, you would know that at the battle of Yamama, a great number of the Qura (450 members to be exact), that is the group of reciters of the Qur’an, had been killed in battle.  This began the process which was eventually overseen by Uthman to gather up whatever could be found of the Qur’an and write it down in one text.  Uthman, Abu Bakr, and many others felt a great urgency after the battle of Yamama to get this done, because no one knew exactly how much of the Qur’an that was memorized by those 450 fallen warriors was now lost to all humanity for all time. They knew there would be more battles and more members of the Qura would fall in time.  So the race was on to get the Qur’an gathered up.  Now do you see why your response to the summary from the essay collection is so off the wall and goofy?  I would expect something more intelligent and well thought out from you, Isla...
      

LOL Oh boy, what a load of nonsense.  Do you forget Jack, that Abu Bakr, Uthman, Umar etc. had all memorized the Qur'an?  Therefore, the assertion that "no one knew exactly how much of the Qur'an...was lost" is patently absurd.  Your revisionism of established history belies your deception and ignorance on this matter.  Let me show you the facts.  According to Zayd Ibn Thabit's testimony:

"One day, soon after the battle of Yamamah, Abu Bakr sent for me. When I came to meet him, ‘Umar was present there. Abu Bakr said to me, “Umar has just informed me that a large number of huffaz (those who had learnt the Quran by heart) have been martyred in the Battle of Yamamah. If the huffaz continue to meet martyrdom in this manner I am afraid a large portion of the Quran may become extinct. Hence, I propose that you undertake the task of the collection of the Quran from different places. I told ‘Umar, ‘How can I do what the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) himself did not do?’ ‘Umar replied, ‘By Allah! It is for nothing but good,’ and he continued to repeat this statement until the light of its truth dawned upon me as well, and now my opinion is the same as ‘Umar’s”" http://www.ilmgate.org/the-preservation-of-the-quran/ - [2] .   

Since you always fail to check your sources, it is not surprising that you simply repeat their false claims like an automaton.  No where did Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman suggest that much of the Qur'an was lost.  They simply were afraid that if more of the Huffaz (those who memorized the Qur'an) died, then the Qur'an could be lost to future generations.  That is why Abu Bakr (ra) decided to bring the manuscripts together.  This was a back-up to the hundreds of Huffaz (including Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman etc.), some of whom had died at Yamama. 

Originally posted by Jack

So are you just going to avoid the issue like this?  The summary simply points out that there are discrepancies beyond your assertion that they are simply grammatical.
        

And yet, your source fails to provide any such "discrepancies".  Bravo, Jack!

Originally posted by Jack

While you claim that this is what they are, students of Islamic studies in universities around the world are studying these essays and learning exactly what these discrepancies are.


Yeah, sure, sure.  Um, what are these "discrepancies"?

Originally posted by Jack

Don’t you think you should know something about them as well, Isla?  It is your Holy Book, after all.  I don’t need to produce the variations to make the point, Isla.
 

Oh, there you go again, deciding what you need to do or not.  You are the one making the claims, so back them up!  Put your money where your mouth is, as the saying goes!  Big%20smile 

Originally posted by Jack

Just the fact that they exist is enough to make a strong case that Uthman’s little group did indeed compile and possibly alter the material that went into the Qur’an, and then had good reason for wanting to destroy the 4 Qur’anic collections mentioned above.  When are you going to face the truth and stop avoiding the evidence with those goofy responses?


You are only deluding yourself with these weak arguments.  What evidence have you presented?  LOL  It seems you are simply trying to persuade yourself.  All you have done thus far is make assumptions based on weak sources, failing to provide any direct examples of any "corruption".  You also have failed to account for the fact that Uthman (ra) had the unanimous support (including that of Ibn Mas'ud eventually) of the community.  If there was any attempt at changing the Qur'an, no one would have supported him!  When are you going to face the truth and stop avoiding the evidence with your clownish responses?       

Originally posted by Jack

Ms. Morad Leeds gives a clear example that should make it easy for you to research regarding omitted, added, and glossed over Surahs.  What say you on this?


Ms. Morad (from Leeds) did not give any evidence.  She just made a claim and left it at that.  Why are you asking me to research her claims?  Are you such a shabby researcher that you bring random claims from random people, not understanding them yourself, and ask others to respond to them?  Wake up and smell the coffee.  You haven't the slightest knowledge on the issue and your research is abhorrently weak and misguided.  All you have done is present unproven claims by fake scholars and then asked me to comment on them.  Wow. 

Originally posted by Jack

Come on, now, give a real, an intelligent, an evidence backed response.  None of this goofy descriptive garbage that ends up being cut out and thrown in the trash when I respond.


It's amazing!  You ask for "evidence" (which I have provided in my responses), yet provided none for your own claims! 

Originally posted by Jack

Your U-Tube short was really funny, though.  Nice one.
  

Yeah it was.  Thanks!    Here is another, which summarizes the effect of your posts thus far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC75aU47GRk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC75aU47GRk


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 08 November 2011 at 1:34pm
Hasan,

   Even with your lengthy and passionate defense of the theory that the Qur'an has not changed, from the first compilation of the Qur'an that was held by Muhammad's widow, Hafsah, to the present, you still cannot PROVE that this is the true case because any evidence that could support your case was DESTROYED by Muslim authorities.
   The case that any problems in the text of the earliest Qur'ans was merely the result of spelling, punctuation and the absence of diacritical marks, makes no sense. Uthman used Hafsah's codex in his standardization of the Qur'an and returned it to her untouched.
   But, along comes Marwan and his little burning party to destroy earlier Qur'anic texts, including the very first compilation of the Qur'an that was written only two years after the death of Muhammad and kept safely by his widow Hafsah, supposedly because of these minor variations in text. Even though minor variations in the Qur'an were in fact tolerated for centuries after the death of Muhammad.
   So WHY did Marwan feel the need to utterly destroy these earlier Qur'ans, ESPECIALLY Hafsah's original compilation, over supposed spelling and punctuation variations?
   You put through a variety of reasons that justified Marwan's incineration of these "variant" Qur'ans but absolutely no PROOF of your version of events. And there will NEVER be PROOF of the idea that the Qur'an has not changed in 1,400 years because the very documents that would prove your point were UTTERLY DESTROYED BY EARLY MUSLIM AUTHORITIES.
   If you do have incontrovertible direct and written evidence that proves your version of events, I would love to see this evidence. But if your "proof" consists of what others SAY or insinuate about the early Qur'ans and the reason for their destruction, then your statements are simply your own opinion and misinterpretation and offers no SOLID PROOFS at all.

Larry


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 09 November 2011 at 9:59am
Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   Even with your lengthy and passionate defense of the theory that the Qur'an has not changed, from the first compilation of the Qur'an that was held by Muhammad's widow, Hafsah, to the present, you still cannot PROVE that this is the true case because any evidence that could support your case was DESTROYED by Muslim authorities.
   The case that any problems in the text of the earliest Qur'ans was merely the result of spelling, punctuation and the absence of diacritical marks, makes no sense. Uthman used Hafsah's codex in his standardization of the Qur'an and returned it to her untouched.
   But, along comes Marwan and his little burning party to destroy earlier Qur'anic texts, including the very first compilation of the Qur'an that was written only two years after the death of Muhammad and kept safely by his widow Hafsah, supposedly because of these minor variations in text. Even though minor variations in the Qur'an were in fact tolerated for centuries after the death of Muhammad.
   So WHY did Marwan feel the need to utterly destroy these earlier Qur'ans, ESPECIALLY Hafsah's original compilation, over supposed spelling and punctuation variations?
   You put through a variety of reasons that justified Marwan's incineration of these "variant" Qur'ans but absolutely no PROOF of your version of events. And there will NEVER be PROOF of the idea that the Qur'an has not changed in 1,400 years because the very documents that would prove your point were UTTERLY DESTROYED BY EARLY MUSLIM AUTHORITIES.
   If you do have incontrovertible direct and written evidence that proves your version of events, I would love to see this evidence. But if your "proof" consists of what others SAY or insinuate about the early Qur'ans and the reason for their destruction, then your statements are simply your own opinion and misinterpretation and offers no SOLID PROOFS at all.

Larry


Larry, with respect, you keep asking the same questions which have been explained several time already.  The simple fact is that if there was any malicious intent on the part of people like Marwan, the community would have risen up and removed such people.  Furthermore, if there was something he was trying to cover-up, the community would have known since the Qur'an was memorized by thousands of people.  All of this negates the possibility you are suggesting, that there was something he was trying to hide. 


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 09 November 2011 at 3:18pm
Hasan,

   Also with respect, your explanation for the destruction of the early Qur'ans, including Hafsah's original compilation, is simply your opinion in regard to the facts. You say,

   "The simple fact is that if there was any malicious intent on the part of people like Marwan, the community would have risen up and removed such people."

   You are assuming that since the "community" supposedly didn't rise up and remove "people like Marwan" that this is somehow proof of your claim? That is not evidence, it is opinion. Who are the "community" that "WOULD HAVE" (NOT DID) risen up"? And how would this "community" (please specify who you are referring to as this "community") have collectively driven Marwan away?

   You also state, "Furthermore, if there was something he was trying to cover up, the "community" WOULD (NOT DID) HAVE KNOWN since the Qur'an was memorized by thousands of people."

   And again you assume something that you have no proof for. Please list the evidence that "thousands of people" had access to the SPECIFIC copies of the Qur'an that Marwan destroyed?

   I repeat, you have no DIRECT evidence of what was contained in the Qur'ans that Marwan destroyed because this "evidence" was reduced to ashes. You only ASSUME from the supposed "non reactive" actions of the entire "community" of Muslims that this is the case.

   And I still wonder why the earliest compilation of the Qur'an, written just two years after the death of Muhammad, and in the custody of his wife Hafsah, needed to be incinerated?

Uthman had no problem with it and returned it to Hafsah, saying that it was the same as his standardized Qur'an. So why the urgent need to destroy the most important Qur'an of them all?

Larry

   


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 November 2011 at 8:58pm
Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   Also with respect, your explanation for the destruction of the early Qur'ans, including Hafsah's original compilation, is simply your opinion in regard to the facts. You say,

   "The simple fact is that if there was any malicious intent on the part of people like Marwan, the community would have risen up and removed such people."

   You are assuming that since the "community" supposedly didn't rise up and remove "people like Marwan" that this is somehow proof of your claim? That is not evidence, it is opinion. Who are the "community" that "WOULD HAVE" (NOT DID) risen up"? And how would this "community" (please specify who you are referring to as this "community") have collectively driven Marwan away?

   You also state, "Furthermore, if there was something he was trying to cover up, the "community" WOULD (NOT DID) HAVE KNOWN since the Qur'an was memorized by thousands of people."

   And again you assume something that you have no proof for. Please list the evidence that "thousands of people" had access to the SPECIFIC copies of the Qur'an that Marwan destroyed?

   I repeat, you have no DIRECT evidence of what was contained in the Qur'ans that Marwan destroyed because this "evidence" was reduced to ashes. You only ASSUME from the supposed "non reactive" actions of the entire "community" of Muslims that this is the case.

   And I still wonder why the earliest compilation of the Qur'an, written just two years after the death of Muhammad, and in the custody of his wife Hafsah, needed to be incinerated?

Uthman had no problem with it and returned it to Hafsah, saying that it was the same as his standardized Qur'an. So why the urgent need to destroy the most important Qur'an of them all?

Larry


Um, Larry it's me Islamispeace, not brother Hasan.  If you will kindly go back to the past posts, I have answered all of your questions, including the reason the compilation of Abu Bakr (ra) was also burned.  Remember that Uthman's mushaf was standardized into a unified reading style.  Abu Bakr's compilation would have contained the different reading styles.  Also, it was not in any particular order.  It was simply a collection of all the Quranic manuscripts, leaves etc.  Therefore, it would have been the same as any other copy, such as the personal codices.  There was nothing wrong with these copies.  It was just that some ignorant people were arguing over them for no reason.  As a practical measure, which was supported by the community, one unified version was put to paper.  After that, all the other mushafs were no longer needed.  Many times, they were not actually burned.  Instead, they were washed so the previous writing could be erased and the manuscript could be reused.  A good example is Codex DAM 01.27.1.    


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



Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 10 November 2011 at 10:28pm
islamispeace,

   Sorry about the misidentification. I appreciated your response but my position has not changed. The only true evidence of whether the Hafsah codex varied in content, not simply punctuation or diacritical marks, etc. was in the codex, but it was destroyed. There is no direct evidence, simply general assumptions about the Hafsah codex, and others, being destroyed "As a practical measure, which was supported by the community..." The Hafsah codex was a SINGLE COPY, hardly a threat from anyone "arguing" about it "for no reason." No one, other than the holder of this original compilation of the Qur'an, would even know how the codex was written.
   I could agree with your reasoning if the Hafsah codex had been printed in many copies, but it was not. It was a singular copy, unique and irreplaceable, a treasure for Muslim scholars, not the "ignorant" people in a religion that was rapidly expanding. It was written only two years after then death of the Prophet and Hafsah guarded it carefully her whole life. She was Muhammad's WIFE. Who would know better the significance and importance of her codex than herself. There was simply no practical reason to destroy the very first Qur'an.

Larry



Print Page | Close Window