Koran a "cocktail of texts" predating Muhammad

[Narnian]

Until recently there has been only sparse research on the Koran, but since the Yemeni Koran was found in 1972, more is coming to light. When the Koran is shown to be a man made text, this will be a major revolution for Islam, because its whole theology stands and falls on the Koran being a channelled text to Muhammad in the cave. This is from Wikipedia about the Quran dating and sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd-R._Puin

Gerd Rüdiger Puin is a European scholar and the world foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography, the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts. He is a specialist in Arabic calligraphy . He is a professor based at Saarland University, in Saarbrücken Germany.

Gerd Puin was the head of a restoration project commissioned by the Yemeni government who spend a significant amount of time examining the ancient Qur'anic manuscripts discovered in Yemen in 1972. His examination revealed unconventional verse orderings, textual variations, and rare styles of orthography which diverges from the authorised later version, refuting the assertion that the Qu'ran is the pure unadulterated word of the God. The scriptures were written in the early Hijazi Arabic script, matching the pieces of the earliest Korans known to exist. There were also versions very clearly written over even earlier, faded versions. What the Yemeni Qu'rans indicated was an evolving text rather than a text fixed since the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632 CE.

More than 15,000 sheets of the Yemeni Qur'ans have painstakingly been cleaned, treated, sorted, and photographed and 35,000 microfilmed photos have been made of the manuscripts.

Puin's research supports the conclusions of John Wansbrough and his pupils that the Qu'ran as we know it does not date from the time of Mohammad.

In the 1999 Atlantic Monthly article referenced below, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:

"My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.” [1]
In an earlier, more scholarly article (Puin 1996), Puin describes the variations he found , usually in the order of verses, and matching the variations already described by Islamic scholars. Islamic sources mention that several of the early companions of Muhammad had Qur'anic texts that differed from that imposed by the caliph Uthman ibn Affan circa 650-656, and that these companions were reluctant to abandon their versions. [citation needed]

Puin is said to be working on a book on the Sana'a manuscripts, which may clarify the seeming gap between his statements to the Atlantic Monthly and his published academic scholarship.

Copyrighted text is to be limited to two paragraphs at the most.

[¡Antøny Méndez]

I would just like to make a few brief comments...I am all for scholarly critiques of Islam but I do not think Narnias post has brought forth anything that counts as evidence for the hypothesis that the Quran is a cocktail of older materials collated into one large opus. What many English speaking critics of Islam fail to realize is that the Quran was not a book distributed in one codified set of words, Muslims have always acknowledged both the existence of Qiraats(different modes of recitation)and different Ahrufs(tribal dialects). These two linguistic phenomena date back to Muhammad(or at least his companions who were presumably honest in their recording). It is believed by most historians and well attested by the Sahih Hadith literature that Muhammad produced the Quran over twenty three years, in seven different ahrufs(one for each existent tribe of the time, Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqîf, Hawâzin, Kinânah, Tamîm and Yemen)and approved various Qiraats. The Qiraats some contend perpetuate the Ahrufs(that was my theory when I was a Muslim and I still feel it has some merits, ex hypothesi however it does not seem to be very compatible with some crucial features of Islamic doctrine)others feel that the ahrufs are no longer in existence, this although is not all that relevant to the issues Narnia has raised. The point that I am trying to illustrate is that Muslims have always been open about the fact that the Quran is a multifarious text with varietal wording and vocal styles of recitation(riwaya)employed so as to make life easier for each tribe.

There are however very strict conditions that are applied to a Qiraat, before it is considered to be valid; I) the Qiraat needs to have been approved by Muhammad himself. II) the Qiraat may use different dialectal words albeit they have to be identical in propositional filling to that of the master copy(al-mushaf al-imam)which belonged to Hafsah the wife of Muhammad and it has been given the appellation "the master copy" for it was the official "Quran" as revealed in Qurayshi Arabic, all other Qiraats and Ahrufs are thus in a status of subordination to this version. And by propositional filling; I mean the propositional claim that the statement is meant to get across regardless of what words are employed. To borrow an example from Swinburne; "Rex mortuus est"(Latin), "Le roi est mort"(French)and "The king is dead" all have the same propositional filling. Even though each statement has different wording, they all express the same propositional claim(the king is dead). And III) it has to meet rigorous prerequisites of Arabic grammar. If any of the conditions mentioned above are not met, then the Qiraat in question is false(Baatil)and is to thenceforth be rejected.

That is all I suppose(it is most disappointing to see people accept poorly constructed hardly tenable hypotheses on Islams sources with little to no critical thought), but on a final note I would also like to refer readers to a piece written by an old colleague(in the loosest sense of the term :lol: )of mine Dr. Saifullah which was written so as to address some of the issues raised in the Atlantic Monthly article that Narnia quoted(?)which is available online here (http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=155) . He covers the Yemeni manuscripts in a rather terse manner(which is an over rated poptart theory(hard on the outside but nice and soft in the middle)which crumbles when the existence of the Qiraat's and other subjects which pertain to the polemical works on the manuscripts, are brought to light)and quotes Wansbrough's statements on his own work(he concedes that his work is "emphatically tentative"), all in all a decent read.

[Narnian]

Hi Antony, thanks for your input.


It is believed by most historians and well attested by the Sahih Hadith literature that Muhammad produced the Quran over twenty three years

On the contrary, there has been little scholarly research on the Koran, compared to other religious texts. It is a relatively new realm and remains to some extent a "taboo". Most (unbiased) historians do not believe that Muhammad wrote the Koran. It was most likely collected and written down by scribes after Muhammad's death. There are several reasons to suggest this. One is that there are competing ideologies throughout the koran, ie one is Ebionite and another is Catholic. There are well known gnostic teachings, as well as Zoroastrian. While the Apostle Paul is considered false, his quotes exist in the Koran in at least 2 verses. You will find direct quotes from Jesus in the NT, requoted as from Muhammad. You will also find Syriac words and euphemisms mistranslated, suggesting that the Syriac Lectionary (which incidently is Qurayana in Syriac) was used as a later reference superimposed on Ebionite ideology.

There is a book by Joseph Azzi, a Lebanese scholar, called The Priest and The Prophet that has just been printed in English, which explains and demystifies the christian background of Muhammad. I think some of his books are avaiable online (though not this one) http://www.muhammadanism.com/default.htm

As for the link, yes you will always find rebuttals like this, because this sort of thing is very threatening to the muslims, who are extremely sensitive souls. I used to be a muslim myself, so I am aware of how they think. It is not like someone criticising christianity to a christian. Criticising islam to a muslim is the worst thing you can do! BUT it needs to be done .............badly!

[barnasha]

I did not read the arguments presented above, because the subject of this thread is wrong to begin with.

The Qur'an was never a "text", not until its codification well after the death of the prophet Muhammad.

If anyone can refute that, please do so

[moose7237]

I did not read the arguments presented above, because the subject of this thread is wrong to begin with.

The Qur'an was never a "text", not until its codification well after the death of the prophet Muhammad.

If anyone can refute that, please do so

Salam Barnasha,

The Prophet Muhammad did have the Qur'an compiled during his lifetime. It was a book when he was alive. Please take 30 mins to read part or all of this E-book.

http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf

[rmwilliamsjr]

amazon only listens the french:

Le Prêtre et le Prophète : Au source du Coran by Joseph Azzi (Paperback - Feb 28, 2001)

i could not find an english printing anywhere via google
correction:



David Bentley is also the editor of a new English translation of The Priest and the Prophet by Joseph Azzi (Pen Publishers, 2005; PO Box 661336, Los Angeles, CA 90066, USA, ISBN 0965668398, $12), which traces the influence of unorthodox Christian priest Waraqa Ibn Nawfal on Mohammed and the Qur’an.


is the best i could find.

[barnasha]

Salam Barnasha,

The Prophet Muhammad did have the Qur'an compiled during his lifetime. It was a book when he was alive. Please take 30 mins to read part or all of this E-book.

http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf

I have read books which describe it otherwise, while he (the prophet) is known to have encouraged the Quran to be written, he did not commission a complete codification of the Quran, as far as I know.

Unfortunately, I do not have much time to read books, even the one I've been halfway through for a month now... :(

[barnasha]

I have read books which describe it otherwise, while he (the prophet) is known to have encouraged the Quran to be written, he did not commission a complete codification of the Quran, as far as I know.

Unfortunately, I do not have much time to read books, even the one I've been halfway through for a month now... :(

my point is the Quran that was written was only a copy of the true Quran which lived in the minds and hearts of those who learned it. The real Quran was written on the divine tablet, so to speak, by the angel Gabriel, it was the prophet who read (yaQRa'u / QuR'aan) from that tablet (so to speak).

the real Quran was therefore not something which was first written, then recited, but something that is simply recited. Qur'an means recitation. (this is still true today even though we have the whole thing as text also)

[barnasha]

amazon only listens the french:

Le Prêtre et le Prophète : Au source du Coran by Joseph Azzi (Paperback - Feb 28, 2001)

i could not find an english printing anywhere via google
correction:

is the best i could find.

I could probably read the french, but it doesn't matter, I didn't ask for references of books to read, I asked for someone to refute my clarification of the matter.

[James Peter]

I think it is about time that the same methods and level of textual criticism that have been applied to the Bible are also applied to the Koran. Just because it would be controversial doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Plenty of Christians kick and scream atscholarly inquiry into the Bible and sure the Muslim response would be worse (death threats and attempted executions I expect) but the world is always better when false claims are exposed.

Jewish claims about the Torah have been shown to be false (and thus Muslim claims about the Torah shown true).

Christian claims about the NT have been shown to be false (and thus Muslim claims about the NT shown true).

It seems to be that (1) It is only fair that Muslims allow us to do the same to their claims and (2) If Muslim claims are true they have nothing to fear.

The best intellectual attack on fundamentalism is to show that the text it bases itself on is wrong. I admit that will polarise people though and many will become more, rather than less, devout but thats what cognative dissonance does...

[barnasha]

I would just like to make a few brief comments...I am all for scholarly critiques of Islam but I do not think Narnias post has brought forth anything that counts as evidence for the hypothesis that the Quran is a cocktail of older materials collated into one large opus. What many English speaking critics of Islam fail to realize is that the Quran was not a book distributed in one codified set of words, Muslims have always acknowledged both the existence of Qiraats(different modes of recitation)and different Ahrufs(tribal dialects). These two linguistic phenomena date back to Muhammad(or at least his companions who were presumably honest in their recording). It is believed by most historians and well attested by the Sahih Hadith literature that Muhammad produced the Quran over twenty three years, in seven different ahrufs(one for each existent tribe of the time, Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqîf, Hawâzin, Kinânah, Tamîm and Yemen)and approved various Qiraats. The Qiraats some contend perpetuate the Ahrufs(that was my theory when I was a Muslim and I still feel it has some merits, ex hypothesi however it does not seem to be very compatible with some crucial features of Islamic doctrine)others feel that the ahrufs are no longer in existence, this although is not all that relevant to the issues Narnia has raised. The point that I am trying to illustrate is that Muslims have always been open about the fact that the Quran is a multifarious text with varietal wording and vocal styles of recitation(riwaya)employed so as to make life easier for each tribe.


as incredibly interesting as your entire post is, I wonder why you refer to the Qur'an as a text? To the prophet Muhammad, it surely was not a text.

(by the way, I will still reply to the other thread, when I get more time. :) )



There are however very strict conditions that are applied to a Qiraat, before it is considered to be valid; I) the Qiraat needs to have been approved by Muhammad himself. II) the Qiraat may use different dialectal words albeit they have to be identical in propositional filling to that of the master copy(al-mushaf al-imam)which belonged to Hafsah the wife of Muhammad and it has been given the appellation "the master copy" for it was the official "Quran" as revealed in Qurayshi Arabic, all other Qiraats and Ahrufs are thus in a status of subordination to this version. And by propositional filling; I mean the propositional claim that the statement is meant to get across regardless of what words are employed. To borrow an example from Swinburne; "Rex mortuus est"(Latin), "Le roi est mort"(French)and "The king is dead" all have the same propositional filling. Even though each statement has different wording, they all express the same propositional claim(the king is dead). And III) it has to meet rigorous prerequisites of Arabic grammar. If any of the conditions mentioned above are not met, then the Qiraat in question is false(Baatil)and is to thenceforth be rejected.

That is all I suppose(it is most disappointing to see people accept poorly constructed hardly tenable hypotheses on Islams sources with little to no critical thought), but on a final note I would also like to refer readers to a piece written by an old colleague(in the loosest sense of the term :lol: )of mine Dr. Saifullah which was written so as to address some of the issues raised in the Atlantic Monthly article that Narnia quoted(?)which is available online here (http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=155) . He covers the Yemeni manuscripts in a rather terse manner(which is an over rated poptart theory(hard on the outside but nice and soft in the middle)which crumbles when the existence of the Qiraat's and other subjects which pertain to the polemical works on the manuscripts, are brought to light)and quotes Wansbrough's statements on his own work(he concedes that his work is "emphatically tentative"), all in all a decent read.

[barnasha]

I think it is about time that the same methods and level of textual criticism that have been applied to the Bible are also applied to the Koran. Just because it would be controversial doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Plenty of Christians kick and scream atscholarly inquiry into the Bible and sure the Muslim response would be worse (death threats and attempted executions I expect) but the world is always better when false claims are exposed.

Jewish claims about the Torah have been shown to be false (and thus Muslim claims about the Torah shown true).

Christian claims about the NT have been shown to be false (and thus Muslim claims about the NT shown true).

It seems to be that (1) It is only fair that Muslims allow us to do the same to their claims and (2) If Muslim claims are true they have nothing to fear.

The best intellectual attack on fundamentalism is to show that the text it bases itself on is wrong.


A text is just information, so it is not necessarily 'wrong' nor 'right'. An assertion that text makes might be seen as wrong or right.

The best intellectual "attack" on any argument is to address the argument itself, scholarly and scientifically, instead of sliding into strawmen attacks on the source material or trying to push one's own opinion about the source material as somehow relevant or factual.

A jew, muslim, non-muslim, mailman, astronaut, hot dog vendor, or paperboy can argue anything about the New Testament, so what?

Analyze his or her *argument* and address *it*, rather than focusing on the preconceived inaccuracies or personal problems with the source material.



I admit that will polarise people though and many will become more, rather than less, devout but thats what cognative dissonance does...

People tend to polarize themselves pretty well, no matter what. :)

[¡Antøny Méndez]

Thank you for the reply Narnian :smile: I too am a member of the apostates club :wink: and I was quite the ardent Islamic apologist back in the day and hence have had plenty of experience with these Quran source hypotheses. And trust me not all Muslims are ultra sensitives who shy away from intellectual confrontation, there are plenty of brilliant Muslim apologists out there who have floored some of the harshest(most mendacious)critics of Islam on occasion. Dr. Saifullah, Menj, (Dr?)Imran Aijaz ectera. Anyway when I said most historians concur upon the fact that Muhammad "produced" the Quran I did not mean that they all agree upon the hypothesis that he wrote it, and it would not please Muslims anyway even if they did, in Islamic theology it is a point of pride that one illiterate man went into a cave and came down challenging seven tribes to bring one Ayaah as eloquent as his, especially when as Philip K. Hitti(quoting a sage apparently)put it; "Wisdom has alightened on three things: the brain of the Franks, the hands of the Chinese, and the tongue of the Arabs."

Now the surmised source theories are very sketchy; the first point to be noted is that Muslims have a clever answer to the contention that the Quran seems to be similar to parts of the Holy Bible, they believe that God revealed both but only one was preserved in her totality, so any similarities found saith the Muslim is due to a common source i.e God. If the Muslim is willing to take that route as forcefully as possible, then they have(as far as I can see)forced us critics to prove that the Quran is a false document via some other set of argumentation, that is to say I think the "sources theory" is a purportless line of criticism unless one finds a sound paganic source. With those old Syriac euphemism's ectera I have never heard of the argument gaining force, it presupposes that the Quran was not an extant document before the second century, and yet as Dr. Saifullah pointed out the Yemeni manuscripts date back to just after Muhammads time(they are from the 7th Century), vis-a-vis the two hundred + Quran construction theory has been rendered cadaverous, indeed it is high time we bury it and move on. Especially since the Master Copy(al-mushaf al-imam)itself dates back to Muhammads wife, hence as I have said it is quite manifest that the Quran is or stems from a man named Muhammad who lived in the Arabian city of Makkah in the 7th Century.

I suggest a more balanced research mode, do not be afraid to trust Islamic scholars/apologists trust me it hurts to be bringing forth something that is true and have your opinion shot down up front because of what you believe in. I recommend the I.A teams work on the sources theory which can be accessed online here (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/) and Bismika Allahuma (www.bismikaallahuma.org), who have published several pieces on the matters at hand I) (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/is-the-quran-really-the-work-of-multiple-hands/) II) (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/sources-of-the-quran-question-for-the-critics/) III) (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/ibn-warraqs-origins-of-the-koran-a-critical-analysis/). And Barnasha I refer to the Quran as a text because according to the Sahih hadiths and empirical findings, Muhammad ordered the writing of the Quran during his lifetime and the Muslims made use of everything from a camels shoulder blade to palm leaves in order to preserve the Quran in accordance with his request. It is true that most memorized the Ayaats and they were recorded in print later but still it was always meant to be a text(in the Quran, the Quran is called "the book" numerous times)and the early pietistic Muslims ensured that within twenty or so years after Muhammad's death, there was at least one full written copy.

[heisonly1]

[QUOTE=Narnian]Until recently there has been only sparse research on the Koran, but since the Yemeni Koran was found in 1972, more is coming to light. When the Koran is shown to be a man made text, this will be a major revolution for Islam, because its whole theology stands and falls on the Koran being a channelled text to Muhammad in the cave. This is from Wikipedia about the Quran dating and sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd-R._Puin

Gerd Rüdiger Puin is a European scholar and the world foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography, the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts. He is a specialist in Arabic calligraphy . He is a professor based at Saarland University, in Saarbrücken Germany.

Gerd Puin was the head of a restoration project commissioned by the Yemeni government who spend a significant amount of time examining the ancient Qur'anic manuscripts discovered in Yemen in 1972. His examination revealed unconventional verse orderings, textual variations, and rare styles of orthography which diverges from the authorised later version, refuting the assertion that the Qu'ran is the pure unadulterated word of the God. The scriptures were written in the early Hijazi Arabic script, matching the pieces of the earliest Korans known to exist. There were also versions very clearly written over even earlier, faded versions. What the Yemeni Qu'rans indicated was an evolving text rather than a text fixed since the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632 CE.

More than 15,000 sheets of the Yemeni Qur'ans have painstakingly been cleaned, treated, sorted, and photographed and 35,000 microfilmed photos have been made of the manuscripts.

Puin's research supports the conclusions of John Wansbrough and his pupils that the Qu'ran as we know it does not date from the time of Mohammad.

In the 1999 Atlantic Monthly article referenced below, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:

"My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.” [1]

In an earlier, more scholarly article (Puin 1996), Puin describes the variations he found , usually in the order of verses, and matching the variations already described by Islamic scholars. Islamic sources mention that several of the early companions of Muhammad had Qur'anic texts that differed from that imposed by the caliph Uthman ibn Affan circa 650-656, and that these companions were reluctant to abandon their versions. [citation needed]
:haha: HAHAHAHAHAH Narnian and all you other anti- Quranist, you obvious know nothing about the recent devastating Islamic critiques that totally demolished both Puin's trash hypothesis and Western Orientalism.

To cure you of your ignorance people regarding the criticism of Western Orientalist attacks on the Quran you need to seriously invest your time in reading/purchasing the following publications/articles that totally debunk the Biblical Criticism approach towards the Quran:

http://www.soundvision.com/shop/pview.asp?item=4219-021S
http://web.archive.org/web/20030430235500/afi.org.uk/Orient/1+Contents.html
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/TheSanaFindFreshSpeculations.html
http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm
http://www.pmanzoor.info/Method-Truth.htm (http://www.pmanzoor.info/Method-Truth.htm)


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

Please avoid argument by weblink

[Dan Zebiri]

Hi Narnian,

You are absolutely right about the textual and documentary problems of the Quran. Not only does Puin point these out lucidly and definitively, many other objective scholars also consider the Quran textually and manuscripturally unreliable!

Except for fanatical dawagandists (islamic missionaries-dawa means islamic mission) like the damaged heisonly1 who can only rave and rant denials against the above fact.

Heres what more of such dawagandists preach:

"The text of the Qur'an is entirely reliable. It has been as it is, unaltered, unedited, not tampered with in any way, since the time of its revelation. (M. Fethullah Gulen, Questions this Modern Age Puts to Islam. London: Truestar, 1993. p.58)
"It (the Qur'an) was memorised by Mohammed and then dictated to his companions, and written down by scribes, who cross-checked it during his lifetime. Not one word of its 114 chapters (suras) have ever been changed over the centuries. (Understanding Islam and the Muslims, The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc. (pamphlet) Nov. 1991)."

Are claims like these true? Or are they an exaggeration? This is a reasonable question to ask. To answer this question we will consider what Islamic sources say.


Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 514, p. 482; book 61

Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab:

I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listen to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me". I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours". So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!". On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way", and added, "Recite, O Umar", I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you."


Bukhuri: vol. 4, hadith 682, book 56

Narrated Ibn Mas'ud:

I heard a person reciting a (Quranic) Verse in a certain way, and I had heard the Prophet reciting the same Verse in a different way. So I took him to the Prophet and informed him of that but I noticed the sign of disapproval on his face, and then he said, "Both of you are correct, so don't differ, for the nations before you differed, so they were destroyed."

The above hadiths clearly shows that Muhammad allowed some variation regarding the reciting of the Qur'an.


Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 509, p. 477; book 61

Narrated Zaid-bin-Thabit:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yama-ma had been killed (i.e. a number of the prophets companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said to me, "Umar has come to me and said: `Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (ie those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the battle of Yama-ma, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra on other battle fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected'." I said to Umar, "How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?" Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project". Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest (persuaded me) for it and I began to realise the good idea which Umar had realised.

This hadith clearly shows that Muhammad never made a final collection of the Qur'an before his death, for when Abu Bakr was asked to collect the Qur'an into one volume he said: How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do? Muhammad did not make a final collection of the Qur'an because there were many of his companions whom he trusted to teach the Qur'an and these made their own collections:


Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 521, pp. 487-488; book 61

Narrated Masruq:

... I heard the Prophet saying, "Take (learn) the Qur'an from four (men): `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b."

(Please take note of Ubai (Ubayy) and Masud. Their collections of the Qur'an were important to the later events in the history of the Quran.)

These companions of Muhammad made their own collections of the Qur'an and taught the Qur'an to their students. However these Qur'ans were not the same and confusion soon arose amongst the early Muslims as to what was the right way to recite the Qur'an. The next two hadiths give examples of this confusion:


Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 468, p. 441-442; book 60

Narrated Ibrahim:



The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abi Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited: 'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said,

"I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

'And by Him Who created male and female.' But by Allah, I will not follow them."

The above hadith shows that Muslims from different regions disagreed as to the way a particular verse should be read. Those who learnt the Qur'an from 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said surah 92:1-3 as 'By the male and the female.' while other Muslims said, 'And by Him Who created male and female.' Thus the early Muslims had not all memorized the Qur'an the same way.

We see this problem again in the following hadith.


Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 527, p. 489; book 61

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Umar said, `Ubai (Ubayy) was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites'. Ubai says, `I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever'.
But Allah said: `None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar.' (Qur'an 2:106).

This hadith clearly shows that the Companions of Muhammad disagreed over which verses were abrogated/removed. Here we see that Ubai continued to recite the Qur'an with verses that the other Companions considered to have now been abrogated/removed. It seems that Ubai refused to accept that the verses had been abrogated for he says: I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever. The hadith then quotes surah 2:106 to explain that this was an example of abrogation. The result, however, was that the Companions recited the Qur'an differently, for Ubai continued to recite the abrogated verses.

The above two hadiths record how Masud and Ubai recited the Qur'an differently to other Muslims. We have already seen that these two men were recommended by Muhammad as men worthy to learn the Qur'an from. However since their collections of the Qur'ans were not the same this caused problems for the Muslims who learned the Qur'an from them. The Muslim scholar Labib as-Said records that:


"The Syrians," we are told, "contended with the `Iraqis, the former following the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka`b, the latter that of `Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, each accusing the other of unbelief" (Labib as-Said, The Recited Koran: A History of the First Recorded Version, tr. B. Weis, et al., Princeton, New Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1975, p. 23) Some Muslims scholars like Labib as-Said [1] and Ahmad Von Denffer [2] have claimed that the different collections of the Qur'an made by Ibn Masud and Ubai (and other Companions) were only intended for "private use". However, the hadiths quoted above show that the companion Ibn Masud taught his version of the Qur'an to his students as did Ubai, and that in time these students were in conflict with each other. Muslim history and recent archaeological discoveries also support the conclusion that these collections were not for "private use" but public use [3].

We see how this problem was resolved in the next hadith.


Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 510, pp. 478-479; book 61 Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) ..." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. '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. ..."

Here we see how the problem of having different versions of the Qur'an was fixed. It was fixed by Uthman standardizing one version of the Qur'an and ordering that all others be burnt. Thus even the "seven" variations that Muhammad allowed were removed and so were the other collections made by the other Companions. Thus from now on all oral and written tradition would have to conform to Uthman's version of the Qur'an.

It should be noted that the Bible has never had a wholesale burning to standardize its text in the way that the Qur'an has.

The next question that we need to ask is, "Did Uthman and his team do any editing or selecting when they made their version of the Qu'ran?" The next three hadiths show us that there was editing and selecting involved.


Bukhari: vol. 8, hadith 817, p. 539-540; book 82

Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male and female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse), and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, `By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed.

It is obvious that `Umar was convinced that stoning an adulterer was part of the Qur'an and should not be removed. The modern Qur'an however does not contain these verses. So where have they gone? These verses must have been removed by those who were in charge of the text of the Qur'an. What is clear is that `Umar remembered these verses and did not think that they should be edited out while others obviously did, and so today they are not in the modern Qur'an.

We see Uthman's control over the text again in the following hadith.


Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 60, p. 46; book 60

Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:

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

Here we see that Ibn Az-Zubair and Uthman disagreed over whether or not a particular verse should be included in the Qur'an. Ibn Az-Zubair believed that the verse had been abrogated and therefore should be removed from the Qur'an, while Uthman was insistent that the verse should remain. Uthman had his way and so this verse is in the Qur'an today.

Again in the next hadith we see how Uthman had control over the final state of the text of the Qur'an.


Mishkat Al-Masabih: book 8, ch. 3, last hadith [4]

Ibn Abbas said he asked Uthman[1] what had induced them to deal with al-Anfal[2] which is one of the mathani[3] and with Bara`a[4] which is one with a hundred verses, joining them without writing the line containing "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,"[5] and putting it among the seven long ones. When he asked again what had induced them to do that, Uthman replied, "Over a period suras with numerous verses would come down to God's messenger, and when something came down to him he would call one of those who wrote and tell him to put these verses in the sura in which such and such is mentioned, and when a verse came down he would tell them to put it in the sura in which such and such is mentioned. Now al-Anfal was one of the first to come down in Medina and Bara`a was among the last of the Qur'an to come down, and the subject-matter of the one resembled that of the other, so because God's messenger was taken without having explained to us whether it belonged to it, for that reason I joined them without writing the line containing `In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,' and put it among the long suras."

Footnotes for the above hadith


Uthman, the third successor to Muhammad.
al-Anfal is Sura (chapter) 8 in the Qur'an.
mathani: suras with less than 100 verses.
Bara`a, also called Tawba, is Sura 9.
Every sura in the Qur'an is introduced by "In the name of God..." except Sura 9.
Here we see that Uthman was questioned by other Muslims as to why he did not include the phrase, "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful", at the beginning of sura 9. His answer was that Muhammad had died without explaining where sura 9 belonged and so he (Uthman) joined it to sura 8 because they "resembled" each other. What is obvious is that some Muslims felt the phrase should have been there while Uthman did not. Uthman's decision prevailed and so the phrase is not included in the modern Qur'an.

These three examples from the hadith clearly show that there was some editing involved by those who compiled the Qur'an. It is also clear that the editors' decision was not universally agreed upon; it did not have universal consensus.

The next hadith shows the reaction of one of the Companions to Uthman's Qur'an.


Muslim: vol. 4, hadith 6022, p. 1312; book 29

`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that he (said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Qur'an) and further said: He who conceals anything he shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgement, and then said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more than seventy chapters of the Qur'an and the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) know it that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the Companions on Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it.

Four basic observations can be seen from this hadith.


Ibn Mas'ud is telling people to conceal their Qur'ans for some reason.
He seems to have been commanded by someone to use a different mode of recitation. This can only be referring to the time when Uthman standardized his version of the Qur'an and had all others burnt.
Ibn Mas'ud's objection to changing the way he recited the Qur'an was that: I (Mas'ud) have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do).
Shaqiq said that the Companions of Muhammad agreed with Mas'ud.
The Islamic scholar Ahmad `Ali al Imam also records that not all Muslims accepted Uthman's Qur'an:


After the compilation of `Uthman, all the Qurra' (readers of the Qur'an) were asked to read only according to the `Uthmanic masahif. For this reason the personal codices were collected and destroyed. Eventually, the `Uthmanic masahif dominated all the cities (amsar), but with some slight resistance, for instance, as in the case of Ibn Mas`ud and Ibn Shunbudh. (Ahmad `Ali al Imam, Variant Readings of the Qur'an, Virginia: IIIT, 1998, p. 120) It seems that Ibn Mas'ud never accepted Uthman's Qur'an and Uthman may have even had Ibn Mas'ud publicly whipped for this.


Ibn Mas'ud refused to deliver his copy to the committee whose president, although one of the readers of the word of God, had earned much less trust and authority than he. This refusal incited such a level of indignation from the Khalif that he publicly whipped the "old saint". One notes that the old companion of the prophet had two ribs broken from the violence of the strikes and that he died after three days. This cruelty, that drew upon Othman the hatred of his contemporaries, is today regarded by the "schutes" as an atrocious crime. (T. J. Newbold, Journal Asiatique, December 1843, p. 385) In Summary


Muhammad never finalized how the Qur'an was to be recited and allowed variation.
There were real variations in the way the Qur'an was being memorized and recited after Muhammad's death. This caused problems.
Uthman and a team of others did a certain amount of editing to produce a standard text of the Qur'an.
Then Uthman ordered that all other Qur'ans be burnt and his version be made the only standard version for the Muslim world. Oral and written tradition now had to conform to Uthman's standard version.
Some of the Companions, like Ibn Mas'ud, were not happy with Uthman's actions and suffered for it.
Conclusion

At the beginning of this article we considered the following claims:


The text of the Qur'an is entirely reliable. It has been as it is, unaltered, unedited, not tampered with in any way, since the time of its revelation. (M. Fethullah Gulen, Questions this Modern Age Puts to Islam. London: Truestar, 1993. p.58)

It (the Qur'an) was memorised by Mohammed and then dictated to his companions, and written down by scribes, who cross-checked it during his lifetime. Not one word of its 114 chapters (suras) have ever been changed over the centuries. (Understanding Islam and the Muslims, The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc. (pamphlet) Nov. 1991).

Having now read many of the hadiths and other sources it is obvious that these Muslim claims are an exaggeration and have no support at all from the authoritative hadiths. In fact the hadiths record the opposite. They say that Muhammad never standardized the Qur'an and allowed variation and that the early Muslims memorized the Qur'an slightly differently. Then Uthman and a team of others edited and standardized one version of the Qur'an and had all others burnt. I have no doubt that the collection of the Qur'an that Uthman made is one good record of what Muhammad recited. However it was not the only good collection that was made, and it was not a collection made by Muhammad.

Endnotes

[1] Labib as-Said, The Recited Koran: A History of the First Recorded Version, tr. B. Weis, M. Rauf and M. Berger, Princeton, New Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1975, p. 22

[2] Ahmad Von Denffer, `Ulum Al-Qur'an, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1994 (Revised edition), p. 52



[3] Here are just a few references that show that the collections of the Masud and Ubai were used publicly.
Bukhari and Muslim record many hadiths about the arguments among early Muslims regarding the differences between Masud's recition of the Qur'an and the Uthman Qur'an. This shows that Masud's Qur'an was not for "private use" only.

Bukhari:
Vol. 5, hadith 85-86, pp. 62-64, hadith 105, p. 71-72; book 57.
Vol. 6, hadith 467-468, pp. 441-442; book 60.

Muslim:
Vol. 2, hadith 1797-1802, pp. 393-394, book 4.


Al-Nadim lists some of the differences between the collections of Masud and Ubai and the Uthman collection (pp. 53-62). In another section of his book entitled: The Books Composed about Discrepancies of the [Qur'anic] Manuscripts (p. 79), Al-Nadim lists seven early Qur'anic scholars who studied the differences between these different collections. (Bayard Dodge (tr.), The Fihrist of al-Nadim (2 vols) (New York, London: Columbia University Press, 1970. pp. 53-62)
In the 1980's many ancient Qur'ans were discovered in San`a'. Some of these have the surah order that was credited to Masud and others. Thus we have actual copies of these other collection and so can be sure that they did exist and were in public use. (Gerd-R Puin, Observations on the Early Qur'an Manuscripts in San`a'. In "The Qur'an as Text" ed. Stefan Wild, Leiden: Brill, 1996. pp. 110-111)
[4] Mishkat Al-Masabih: Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud transmitted it. (tr. by James Robson, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, p. 470

Copyrighted text is to be limited to two paragraphs at the most.

Here is an excellent Website that gives extensive discussion on the 'reliability of the Quran' and its actual dubiousness..:

http://www.aperfectquran.org.uk/

Read and be much enlightened! Dan.

[barnasha]

Hi Narnian,

You are absolutely right about the textual and documentary problems of the Quran. Not only does Puin point these out lucidly and definitively, many other objective scholars also consider the Quran textually and manuscripturally unreliable!

......



can we keep this forum to a discussion, instead of talking about what other people think, or pasting huge articles lifted from various web sites?

[Dan Zebiri]

'Cos these ARE the real issues relating to the subject matter, and will be discussed, one way or the other and sooner or later.

Dan.


can we keep this forum to a discussion, instead of talking about what other people think, or pasting huge articles lifted from various web sites?

[heisonly1]

:bonk: WAKE UP DAN YOU DELUDED AND IGNORANT PERVERT I ALREADY PROVIDED YOU WITH REFERENCES AND ARTICLES THAT COMPLETELY TRASHED THE VOMMIT YOU REPLICATE FROM THOSE PERVERTS THAT ENTICED YOU INTO BECOMING A POLYTHEIST YOU IDIOT!!! :rock:


:stop: PAY ATTENTION MONKEY !!!!!

http://www.soundvision.com/shop/pvi...?item=4219-021S (http://www.soundvision.com/shop/pview.asp?item=4219-021S)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030430...1+Contents.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20030430235500/afi.org.uk/Orient/1+Contents.html)
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/T...eculations.html (http://www.theinimitablequran.com/TheSanaFindFreshSpeculations.html)
http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm (http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm)
http://www.pmanzoor.info/Method-Truth.htm (http://www.pmanzoor.info/Method-Truth.htm)


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

Please avoid argument by weblink. Also, avoid typing in all caps. It is considered shouting.

[casaba]

:bonk: WAKE UP DAN YOU DELUDED AND IGNORANT PERVERT I ALREADY PROVIDED YOU WITH REFERENCES AND ARTICLES THAT COMPLETELY TRASHED THE VOMMIT YOU REPLICATE FROM THOSE PERVERTS THAT ENTICED YOU INTO BECOMING A POLYTHEIST YOU IDIOT!!! :rock:


:stop: PAY ATTENTION MONKEY !!!!!

I must add that Dan's submission was the clearest, least biased post I have read in the this thread. The claim that any text is the 'unchanged word of god' is what pushes me away from the 'One Book' religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. {The ignorance of such ideas is summed up by the quote "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ [and the Bible], it's good enough for me"; though it is likely a made up quote, I have met many people who believe the idea.} The idea that the Torah or the Bible or the Koran is an entirely new work seems most improbable. All three are made up of many short fables and histories, including both verse and prose.

I get the idea from several of the previous posts that Mohamed was against the idea that there is only one possible wording for the Koran; instead the Koran is a set of ideas that, while unchanging, can be worded as is appropriate for the audience. From a historical perspective, this seems to me to be a logical progression:

1 The Torah was unchanging so was not very adaptable to new languages and peoples (as well as the fact that only Moses people were included).
2 During Jesus' lifetime, he apparently tried opening the doors of his faith to non-Jews, though, after his passing, many people tried to claim the have know the truth of Jesus' teachings. The Christian churches that formed were based on specific translations of the texts as 'the word of God'.
3 Finally Mohamed empasized that it was the ideas that were important, not the specific words. Friends have tried explaining to me that the Koran is not literally the word of God, but still the Truth; the posts here have made the meaning a bit clearer.

I do not mean to pick on one group but since you are the largest audience/submitters here, I address this to those Christians who take the Bible as 'the word of God': Look as history and see what damage such a belief can do. Truely, if your God is all knowing, s/he would know the intricacies of languages and NEVER claim that any particular words are 'the one and only truth'.

[barnasha]

I must add that Dan's submission was the clearest, least biased post I have read in the this thread. The claim that any text is the 'unchanged word of god' is what pushes me away from the 'One Book' religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

the idea that God speaks in human tongues is contrary to those texts anyway; it seems as if you have fashioned your views after literalist "fundamentalist" readers of the texts, which damages your ability to critically analyze them without bias



{The ignorance of such ideas is summed up by the quote "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ [and the Bible], it's good enough for me"; though it is likely a made up quote, I have met many people who believe the idea.}

There are lots of ignorant people out there but the sad thing is that many use their ignorance as an excuse for their own


The idea that the Torah or the Bible or the Koran is an entirely new work seems most improbable.

Actually none of them are individual works! The torah is not only a written document, there is the oral torah too - and the torah of Moses may have differed from the written one you have now, to some degree.

The "bible" is usually what the (Roman) Christian Bible is referred to as, it is definitely not one work but an amalgamation of many, including the Hebrew bible, which includes the written Torah

The Qur'an is not one work either, but a set of Surahs (like chapters) which were revelead to the prophet over a period of over 2 decades - it was not a written document, but a set of recitations.


All three are made up of many short fables and histories, including both verse and prose.

Having studied all 3 texts, I can say for sure that these scriptures are not just sets of stories, they also have a very rich message, revealing many things to to reader using mythology and symbolism. They are not just normal books with "a bunch of stories"... I think that would not do our understanding of these texts very much justice.



I get the idea from several of the previous posts that Mohamed was against the idea that there is only one possible wording for the Koran; instead the Koran is a set of ideas that, while unchanging, can be worded as is appropriate for the audience.

The Qur'an was revealed from a divine source, so it was as if Muhammad was not at all the author, he took his calls from God.

The Qur'an is memorized word-for-word and thus frmo the Islamic community's eyes does not change at all, though we do know that during the period of revelations, things would change slightly as more and more was revealed to the prophet.

So, for us, the wording can not be changed.



From a historical perspective, this seems to me to be a logical progression:

1 The Torah was unchanging so was not very adaptable to new languages and peoples (as well as the fact that only Moses people were included).



What do you mean, "the torah was unchanging"? Did you know 'torah' means teaching and it does not necessarily refer to a certain scripture?



2 During Jesus' lifetime, he apparently tried opening the doors of his faith to non-Jews, though, after his passing, many people tried to claim the have know the truth of Jesus' teachings. The Christian churches that formed were based on specific translations of the texts as 'the word of God'.


Jesus never asked non-jews to convert to judaism. he asked them to worship God.

The Christian churches that were formed were not based on texts, they were based on institutionalizing the Christian movement.



3 Finally Mohamed empasized that it was the ideas that were important, not the specific words. Friends have tried explaining to me that the Koran is not literally the word of God, but still the Truth; the posts here have made the meaning a bit clearer.

It would perhaps be more correct to say that the Quran is words from God as told to the prophet by the Archangel Gabriel.

"word of God" is a preconceived notion that God forms human language and reveals it to us, I think these words are too loaded, I would rather say the Quran contains a message from God, not "the 'word of God'".



I do not mean to pick on one group but since you are the largest audience/submitters here, I address this to those Christians who take the Bible as 'the word of God': Look as history and see what damage such a belief can do.

don't blame christianity for the mistakes of some christians


Truely, if your God is all knowing, s/he would know the intricacies of languages and NEVER claim that any particular words are 'the one and only truth'.

thats just it, words are human devices, God does not need language, nor does God need to act in space and time, those are human concepts :)

[casaba]

Thank you very much Barnasha for your reply: succinct, thought through and informative. At the moment I do not have time to further the discussion much but I would like to comment on one topic relating to the nature of texts:




{T}he torah of Moses may have differed from the written one you have now, to some degree...

The "bible"... is an amalgamation of many {works}.

The Qur'an is not one work either, but a set of Surahs (like chapters) which were revelead to the prophet over a period of over 2 decades - it was not a written document, but a set of recitations. {emphasis added}

I hope my previous post showed that I have similar understandings. You continue with:


The Qur'an is memorized word-for-word and thus from the Islamic community's eyes does not change at all though we do know that during the period of revelations, things would change slightly as more and more was revealed to the prophet.

So, for us, the wording can not be changed.

To be straight forward, this makes me think a bit of the "literalist 'fundamentalist'" that you warned me about in your opening. Whose "wording" is this that cannot be changed? You indicate that God does not speak in human tongues yet the Koran is in Arabic. You agree that the wording changed during Mohamed's lifetime; who chose which version became one unchanging version that we have today?

I hope my comments do not come across as too confrontational or biased. I am used to a barbarous and argumentative style of discussion and just as you are convinced in the devine truth of Islam, I believe in the human origins of religion. Please understand that anything I write should include the caveat 'I believe...'.

[Narnian]

The idea that the Torah or the Bible or the Koran is an entirely new work seems most improbable. All three are made up of many short fables and histories, including both verse and prose.

The thing is, Casaba, that we Christians already know that the bible is a "cocktail of texts". Never has there been any "mystery" surrounding who wrote the bible, and nowhere does it claim to be God's channelled word, as the Koran does. BOTH the koran and the bible were written by humans, and many of them, not just one. Only the bible admits this.

[Sevivon1913]

The thing is, Casaba, that we Christians already know that the bible is a "cocktail of texts". Never has there been any "mystery" surrounding who wrote the bible, and nowhere does it claim to be God's channelled word, as the Koran does. BOTH the koran and the bible were written by humans, and many of them, not just one. Only the bible admits this.
The Qur'an's telling of the early life of Abraham, based on the fact that God didn't reveal it, is evidence that the Qur'an merely stole the story from the only source that ever mentioned it -- the Mishnah. There's no way Muhammad could have independently and originally invented the story in the exact same way. Too much coincidence. For Muhammad to borrow from the Talmud isn't something Muslims can process in their brains, because Jews are seen in such horrible terms.

Narnian - where does the Bible admit to the Books of Moses as being written by humans?

[mastralvarado]

The Qur'an's telling of the early life of Abraham, based on the fact that God didn't reveal it, is evidence that the Qur'an merely stole the story from the only source that ever mentioned it -- the Mishnah. There's no way Muhammad could have independently and originally invented the story in the exact same way. Too much coincidence. For Muhammad to borrow from the Talmud isn't something Muslims can process in their brains, because Jews are seen in such horrible terms.

Narnian - where does the Bible admit to the Books of Moses as being written by humans?


I have read the Mishnah, but I fail to see what is wrong with repetition in a trascendental sense by G-d in repeating Himself in what the Qu'ran says excluding all time and context. Do you have a better explanation of this rather than getting into the conclusion that Muhammad was a thief?

If saying this is "too much coincidence" is a reason Jews don't accept islam, if so, then why don't teach us about how some mystic arab concepts such as the zephyra became part of Kabbala.

[Sevivon1913]

I have read the Mishnah, but I fail to see what is wrong with repetition in a trascendental sense by G-d in repeating Himself in what the Qu'ran says excluding all time and context. Do you have a better explanation of this rather than getting into the conclusion that Muhammad was a thief?

If saying this is "too much coincidence" is a reason Jews don't accept islam, if so, then why don't teach us about how some mystic arab concepts such as the zephyra became part of Kabbala.

Talk about twisting what people say....!!!

I never said there was anything wrong with repetition. The problem is that Muhammad was quoting from a religious school of thought (the Jewish Rabbis) which he himself declared to be a bunch of liars who twisted the word of God. It's called hypocracy, or pick-and-choose theology. It would be fine if it was God himself who wrote the Qur'an, but that isn't the case.

The idea that the Qur'an was divinely inspired is NOT a better explanation than Muhammad being a thief. Hmm - steal an idea, or have the God of the universe come down in a flash of lightening - and induce you into a schizophrenic fit - and reveal the idea to you in a vision. I know which is the most likely.

P.S. I seriously doubt you've read the Mishnah. That would involve reading multiple volumes of the Talmud, which requires specialist training in several ancient languages unknown to all but a tiny minority of the Jewish population. Why on earth would somebody - outside of Rabbinical and specialist academic circles - wake up one day and decide to read the entire Mishnah? Absurd.

[mastralvarado]

Talk about twisting what people say....!!!

I never said there was anything wrong with repetition. The problem is that Muhammad was quoting from a religious school of thought (the Jewish Rabbis) which he himself declared to be a bunch of liars who twisted the word of God. It's called hypocracy, or pick-and-choose theology. It would be fine if it was God himself who wrote the Qur'an, but that isn't the case.

The idea that the Qur'an was divinely inspired is NOT a better explanation than Muhammad being a thief. Hmm - steal an idea, or have the God of the universe come down in a flash of lightening - and induce you into a schizophrenic fit - and reveal the idea to you in a vision. I know which is the most likely.





P.S. I seriously doubt you've read the Mishnah. That would involve reading multiple volumes of the Talmud, which requires specialist training in several ancient languages unknown to all but a tiny minority of the Jewish population. Why on earth would somebody - outside of Rabbinical and specialist academic circles - wake up one day and decide to read the entire Mishnah? Absurd.

Ok, I've just browsed-through the English Mishnah from the sacred-texts site to be honest. But what you call absurdity, is hardly as absurd as Sevivon1913 coming to the islam section and insulting it just because you were nominated candidate of screwball of the month.




It seems quite alot of Rabbis in the UK practice it. I got offered to be "spiritually distant-healed" of migraines over the phone by one, lol (an offer I didn't take up, unfortunately).

But I don't see anything wrong with Madonna's kabbalah. She's a very intelligent, spiritual lady.

"I wouldn't say studying Kabbalah for eight years goes under the category or falls under the category of being a fad or a trend. Now there might be people who are interested in it because they think it's trendy, but I can assure you that studying Kabbalah is actually a very challenging thing to do. It requires a lot of work, a lot of reading, a lot of time, a lot of commitment and a lot of discipline." - Madonna

Why should rabbis have a monopoly on Kabbalah? This is all about their attempts to preserve power for themselves, like the Christian clergy do. To claim that only one elite can study a subject, is a repugnant concept to me. Madonna has a higher intellect than most rabbis, and more spirituality, so I don't see why she shouldn't study it. Except she's not Jewish, but again -- it's an absurd and intolerent JOKE to assume only an elite group can study spirituality. Because that is what Kabbalah is -- mystic spirituality.

Sevi


Sevi, reiterating, why does the concept Kabb'Allah borrow from arab mysticism? Is that too hard too explain?

[Sevivon1913]

Ok, I've just browsed-through the English Mishnah from the sacred-texts site to be honest. But what you call absurdity, is hardly as absurd as Sevivon1913 coming to the islam section and insulting it just because you were nominated candidate of screwball of the month.




Sevi, reiterating, why does the concept Kabb'Allah borrow from arab mysticism? Is that too hard too explain?
Why shouldn't Kabbalah have elements of Arab mysticism in it? It was popularized by Sephardic and Arabian Jews. Arabs and Jews have inherited certain traditions which date back to the time of Abraham or before --- such as monotheism, for example. However, I don't see any evidence that it was exclusively a question of Jews borrowing from Arab mysticism, as opposed to Arabs borrowing from Jewish mysticism. Infact, the shared link to Abraham may infact be a third explanation for how Muhammad's story of Abraham's smashing of the idols is so identical to the Talmudic story.

I was simply stating that Muslims have a problem with the "accusation" of Muhammad having borrowed from the Talmud. I have no problem with it. However, the difference with this and with Jews borrowing from Arab literature, is that Jews don't have a view of Arabs (or atleast, they didn't used to) as evil people, as Muslims do of Jews. That said, Muslims might be more offended by the assertion that Muhammad copied any humans, rather than Jews particularly. In that case, it wouldn't be quite so hypocritical.

[barnasha]

Talk about twisting what people say....!!!

I never said there was anything wrong with repetition. The problem is that Muhammad was quoting from a religious school of thought (the Jewish Rabbis) which he himself declared to be a bunch of liars who twisted the word of God.


Quoting what exactly from Jewish people?

Reference?



It's called hypocracy, or pick-and-choose theology. It would be fine if it was God himself who wrote the Qur'an, but that isn't the case.


How would YOU know? Not being God... (assuming you are using the word 'write' to help understand the function of the divine in human terms)



The idea that the Qur'an was divinely inspired is NOT a better explanation than Muhammad being a thief.

Your opinion is not relevant, make some arguments using cold hard facts



Hmm - steal an idea, or have the God of the universe come down in a flash of lightening - and induce you into a schizophrenic fit - and reveal the idea to you in a vision. I know which is the most likely.


But if God did reveal something to Muhammad, then it is you who are wrong. God is always right!


P.S. I seriously doubt you've read the Mishnah. That would involve reading multiple volumes of the Talmud, which requires specialist training in several ancient languages unknown to all but a tiny minority of the Jewish population. Why on earth would somebody - outside of Rabbinical and specialist academic circles - wake up one day and decide to read the entire Mishnah? Absurd.

[barnasha]

The thing is, Casaba, that we Christians already know that the bible is a "cocktail of texts". Never has there been any "mystery" surrounding who wrote the bible, and nowhere does it claim to be God's channelled word, as the Koran does. BOTH the koran and the bible were written by humans, and many of them, not just one. Only the bible admits this.

Except the Quran was never 'written'.

[barnasha]

To be straight forward, this makes me think a bit of the "literalist 'fundamentalist'" that you warned me about in your opening. Whose "wording" is this that cannot be changed? You indicate that God does not speak in human tongues yet the Koran is in Arabic.

To be succinct, God did not "speak" the Quran, Gabriel "revealed" it to the prophet.

Thus they are "words of God" but not "God's word", if the latter implies that God speaks in "words".

The Qur'an is called the Kalam Allah, which can be translated as word of God but actually means "Expression of God"

Interestingly when I debate people about Islam or discuss their views of teh Qur'an, I find they often ask questions which are already EXPLICITLY addressed by the Qur'an, which I find quite fascinating!

Your question is perhaps best addressed by Allah Himself in the Quran, in Surah 41 (named fussilat, which means "expounded" or explained), verses 44-45: (the inline explanations/justifications are from the translator, Muhammad Asad)


(44) Now if We had willed this [divine writ] to be a discourse in a non-Arabic tongue, they [who now reject it] would surely have said, “Why is it that its messages have not been spelled out clearly? [Sc., “in a tongue which we can understand”. Since the Prophet was an Arab and lived in an Arabian environment, his message had to be expressed in the Arabic language, which the people to whom it was addressed in the first instance could understand: see in this connection note on the first sentence of 13: 37, as well as the first half of 14: 4 - “never have We sent forth any apostle otherwise than [with a message] in his own people’s tongue, so that he might make [the truth] clear unto them”. Had the message of the Quran been formulated in a language other than Arabic, the opponents of the Prophet would have been justified in saying, “between us and thee is a barrier” (verse 5 of this surah). Why - [a message in] a non-Arabic tongue, and [its bearer] an Arab?” Say: “Unto all who have attained to faith, this [divine writ] is a guidance and a source of health; but as for those who will not believe - in their ears is deafness, and so it remains obscure to them: they are [like people who are] being called from too far away. [Lit., “from a far-off place”: i.e., they only hear the sound of the words, but cannot understand their meaning.] (45) Thus, too, have We vouchsafed revelation unto Moses aforetime, and thereupon disputes arose about it. [As was and is the case with the Quran, some people accepted the divine message revealed to Moses, and some rejected it (Zamakhshari, Razi), while others disagreed about the import and application of its tenets (Tabari).] And [then, as now,] had it not been for a decree that had already gone forth from thy Sustainer, all would indeed have been decided between them [from the outset]. [For an explanation of this passage, as well as of the above parallel between men’s attitudes towards the earlier scriptures and the Quran, see the second sentence of 10: 19 and the corresponding note.] As it is, behold, they [who will not believe in this divine writ] are in grave doubt, amounting to suspicion, about what it portends. [Lit., “about it”, i.e., doubts as to whether the Quranic approach to problems of man’s spirit and body - and, in particular, its stress on the essential unity of these twin aspects of human life (cf. note on the first sentence of 2: 143) - is justified or not. In a wider sense, these doubts of the deniers of the truth relate to the question of whether religion as such is “beneficial” or “injurious” to human society - a question which is posed and answered by them with a strong bias against all religious faith.] (46) WHOEVER does what is just and right, does so for his own good; and whoever does evil, does so to his own hurt: and never does God do the least wrong to His creatures.

note that the command, "Say: " (qul), is telling the prophet (Muhammad) what to say to people who question him.

The (written) torah which was inspired from God (not directly revealed to Moses as is the case with the Quran), is written in hebrew, but what it says is more important than what language it is in.



You agree that the wording changed during Mohamed's lifetime; who chose which version became one unchanging version that we have today?


Well, there were some arguments between people who had memorized slightly different 'versions', thats one of the reasons the codex which we have today was commissioned under the rule of 'Uthman.

But those differences, as far as I know, were very minor, often at the syllable level, or having only a few words difference, according to the records we have.

That's my understanding, at least.

But out of hundreds of thousands of words, there were only a few discrepancies amongst the muslims. So they all memorized almost the exact same thing.

What different "versions" do you think there are, and just how different are they? i suppose that is the question I should ask you.



I hope my comments do not come across as too confrontational or biased. I am used to a barbarous and argumentative style of discussion and just as you are convinced in the devine truth of Islam, I believe in the human origins of religion.

Do not worry, you're asking great questions... not making anything personal, adding something of benefit to the discussion. Bravo.

Anyway, you do not need to believe in that, the origins of all human traditions and religion are human!

But not the origins of life and reality.

Most people have subtle, subconscious problems differentiating between the two.


Please understand that anything I write should include the caveat 'I believe...'.

Belief is irrelevant. When we believe something we set up an idol in our mind, that "this must be because I believe it". Think about it this way, we can believe in the sun, but it will shine no matter if you believe or not.

We should be critical and stick only to the facts and never be influenced by our own point of view; never to give validity to our own preconceptions.

That is the ontology of Abraham, that we do not 'believe' in any 'thing', so as to stagnate in our own thoughts, so as to depend on our own fallible mental frameworks.

We should only 'believe in', in the sense of the the word 'believe' which means "have faith in" or "worship", God, which is unknowable (not understandable, ineffable), allowing for us limitless potential for growth and understanding, not to mention thankfulness for life and wisdom.

[mastralvarado]

To be succinct, God did not "speak" the Quran, Gabriel "revealed" it to the prophet.

Thus they are "words of God" but not "God's word", if the latter implies that God speaks in "words".

The Qur'an is called the Kalam Allah, which can be translated as word of God but actually means "Expression of God"

Interestingly when I debate people about Islam or discuss their views of teh Qur'an, I find they often ask questions which are already EXPLICITLY addressed by the Qur'an, which I find quite fascinating!

Your question is perhaps best addressed by Allah Himself in the Quran, in Surah 41 (named fussilat, which means "expounded" or explained), verses 44-45: (the inline explanations/justifications are from the translator, Muhammad Asad)


(44) Now if We had willed this [divine writ] to be a discourse in a non-Arabic tongue, they [who now reject it] would surely have said, “Why is it that its messages have not been spelled out clearly? [Sc., “in a tongue which we can understand”. Since the Prophet was an Arab and lived in an Arabian environment, his message had to be expressed in the Arabic language, which the people to whom it was addressed in the first instance could understand: see in this connection note on the first sentence of 13: 37, as well as the first half of 14: 4 - “never have We sent forth any apostle otherwise than [with a message] in his own people’s tongue, so that he might make [the truth] clear unto them”. Had the message of the Quran been formulated in a language other than Arabic, the opponents of the Prophet would have been justified in saying, “between us and thee is a barrier” (verse 5 of this surah). Why - [a message in] a non-Arabic tongue, and [its bearer] an Arab?” Say: “Unto all who have attained to faith, this [divine writ] is a guidance and a source of health; but as for those who will not believe - in their ears is deafness, and so it remains obscure to them: they are [like people who are] being called from too far away. [Lit., “from a far-off place”: i.e., they only hear the sound of the words, but cannot understand their meaning.] (45) Thus, too, have We vouchsafed revelation unto Moses aforetime, and thereupon disputes arose about it. [As was and is the case with the Quran, some people accepted the divine message revealed to Moses, and some rejected it (Zamakhshari, Razi), while others disagreed about the import and application of its tenets (Tabari).] And [then, as now,] had it not been for a decree that had already gone forth from thy Sustainer, all would indeed have been decided between them [from the outset]. [For an explanation of this passage, as well as of the above parallel between men’s attitudes towards the earlier scriptures and the Quran, see the second sentence of 10: 19 and the corresponding note.] As it is, behold, they [who will not believe in this divine writ] are in grave doubt, amounting to suspicion, about what it portends. [Lit., “about it”, i.e., doubts as to whether the Quranic approach to problems of man’s spirit and body - and, in particular, its stress on the essential unity of these twin aspects of human life (cf. note on the first sentence of 2: 143) - is justified or not. In a wider sense, these doubts of the deniers of the truth relate to the question of whether religion as such is “beneficial” or “injurious” to human society - a question which is posed and answered by them with a strong bias against all religious faith.] (46) WHOEVER does what is just and right, does so for his own good; and whoever does evil, does so to his own hurt: and never does God do the least wrong to His creatures.

note that the command, "Say: " (qul), is telling the prophet (Muhammad) what to say to people who question him.

The (written) torah which was inspired from God (not directly revealed to Moses as is the case with the Quran), is written in hebrew, but what it says is more important than what language it is in.



Well, there were some arguments between people who had memorized slightly different 'versions', thats one of the reasons the codex which we have today was commissioned under the rule of 'Uthman.

But those differences, as far as I know, were very minor, often at the syllable level, or having only a few words difference, according to the records we have.

That's my understanding, at least.

But out of hundreds of thousands of words, there were only a few discrepancies amongst the muslims. So they all memorized almost the exact same thing.

What different "versions" do you think there are, and just how different are they? i suppose that is the question I should ask you.



Do not worry, you're asking great questions... not making anything personal, adding something of benefit to the discussion. Bravo.

Anyway, you do not need to believe in that, the origins of all human traditions and religion are human!

But not the origins of life and reality.

Most people have subtle, subconscious problems differentiating between the two.



Belief is irrelevant. When we believe something we set up an idol in our mind, that "this must be because I believe it". Think about it this way, we can believe in the sun, but it will shine no matter if you believe or not.

We should be critical and stick only to the facts and never be influenced by our own point of view; never to give validity to our own preconceptions.

That is the ontology of Abraham, that we do not 'believe' in any 'thing', so as to stagnate in our own thoughts, so as to depend on our own fallible mental frameworks.

We should only 'believe in', in the sense of the the word 'believe' which means "have faith in" or "worship", God, which is unknowable (not understandable, ineffable), allowing for us limitless potential for growth and understanding, not to mention thankfulness for life and wisdom.

Yes, I agree fully with what you just wrote.

[barnasha]

Where have the moderators been this entire thread, which has basically been comprised of people pasting 2,3 pages from anti-Islamic websites and adding a glib little one-liner at the end?


Please avoid argument by weblink. Also, avoid typing in all caps. It is considered shouting.

[shunyadragon]

Until recently there has been only sparse research on the Koran, but since the Yemeni Koran was found in 1972, more is coming to light. When the Koran is shown to be a man made text, this will be a major revolution for Islam, because its whole theology stands and falls on the Koran being a channelled text to Muhammad in the cave. This is from Wikipedia about the Quran dating and sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd-R._Puin

Gerd Rüdiger Puin is a European scholar and the world foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography, the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts. He is a specialist in Arabic calligraphy . He is a professor based at Saarland University, in Saarbrücken Germany.

Gerd Puin was the head of a restoration project commissioned by the Yemeni government who spend a significant amount of time examining the ancient Qur'anic manuscripts discovered in Yemen in 1972. His examination revealed unconventional verse orderings, textual variations, and rare styles of orthography which diverges from the authorised later version, refuting the assertion that the Qu'ran is the pure unadulterated word of the God. The scriptures were written in the early Hijazi Arabic script, matching the pieces of the earliest Korans known to exist. There were also versions very clearly written over even earlier, faded versions. What the Yemeni Qu'rans indicated was an evolving text rather than a text fixed since the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632 CE.


This claim of a 'cocktail of texts' is more problematic for the history of the New Testiment than for the Koran, which apparently evolved from a patch work of texts over a period of 300 or more years.

[Dan Zebiri]

Really, can you try and give just some form of good and concrete evidence for your assertion?? Not just parroting other polemicists anti-Christian propoganda?

On the other hand, have you ever read, studied or even perused sources for the evidences for the validity and strength for the NT documents? Rather thatn just drinking at the well of anti-supernaturalist scholars - who a priori reject the divinity of Jesus Christ, see if you can debunk these scholars facts:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

or ever read a book that critically examines such claims:

http://astore.amazon.com/reclaimingthe-20/detail/082542982X

or tried studying the works of a reputable and qualified scholar who has:

http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/

or even looked at his web-site:

http://www.csntm.org/

Please do that before jumping to lots of baseless conclusions...:))

Chai chien, Dan.

[shunyadragon]

Really, can you try and give just some form of good and concrete evidence for your assertion?? Not just parroting other polemicists anti-Christian propoganda?

On the other hand, have you ever read, studied or even perused sources for the evidences for the validity and strength for the NT documents? Rather thatn just drinking at the well of anti-supernaturalist scholars - who a priori reject the divinity of Jesus Christ, see if you can debunk these scholars facts:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

or ever read a book that critically examines such claims:

http://astore.amazon.com/reclaimingthe-20/detail/082542982X

or tried studying the works of a reputable and qualified scholar who has:

http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/

or even looked at his web-site:

http://www.csntm.org/

Please do that before jumping to lots of baseless conclusions...:))

Chai chien, Dan.


I have read most and much more of what you cite, but nontheless, archeological and textual evidence of both the OT and NT show a lack of original texts at the time they were supposedly written. There is more consistent ancient copies showing the origins and evolution of the Gilgamesh epic than the OT books. There is virtually a total lack of texts of the OT that predate the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that amounts to thousands of years no texts available in clay, stone or payrus.

The NT is similarly cripled, you have to rely on second hand and later hand texts and references to deal with the lack of writen authored texts from the time they were supposed to writen. All the protests you or JP would offer does not make up for the lack of original authored documents.

[Dan Zebiri]

All the Biblical scholars, especially reputable New Testament scholars, accept the general completion of all the 27 New Testament books by AD100 at the latest. This presents the NT with excellent first-hand corroborative evidential support, over say, your Gilgamish epic!

The 'time-gap' between the events mentioned in the NT and when the NT Books actually recorded them is between 1-2 generations apart, particulaly the canonical Gospels, so the eye witness value of the NT is superior to most ancient documents, including the Quran, which had its 'original autographs' deliberately destroyed by the third caliph, to produce the revised standrd version of the Quran we have today.

Your assertion that the NT documents are 300 years old is also misleading because we have manuscript copies that actually are closer to the 1st Century AD. The fact that we have such a Research Institute as Dr.Daniel Wallace's Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts ie:

http://www.csntm.org/

Is evidence that Christians have nothing to fear about the integrity, age and reliability of our Scriptural manuscripts in the light of related scientific research, the above center initiated by Dr.Wallace is only ONE OF OTHERS that critically research into such manuscript matters.

We can't say the same for many other ancient documents and their manuscripts.

Dan.

[shunyadragon]

All the Biblical scholars, especially reputable New Testament scholars, accept the general completion of all the 27 New Testament books by AD100 at the latest. This presents the NT with excellent first-hand corroborative evidential support, over say, your Gilgamish epic!

The Gilgamesh epic is a better comparison to the lack of OT texts, which beyond the Dead Sea scrolls they aren't any. There are only a few scraps at most of the NT gospels in the second century, and we can hypothetically date gospels to the first and second century, but we do not know what the original text in its original form was. Even the earliest dating does not even come close to first hand testimony.


The time-gap' between the events mentioned in the NT and when the NT Books actually recorded them is between 1-2 generations apart, particulaly the canonical Gospels, so the eye witness value of the NT is superior to most ancient documents, including the Quran, which had its 'original autographs' deliberately destroyed by the third caliph, to produce the revised standrd version of the Quran we have today.

The Quran has similar problems, but the complete NT as we know it was not in it's present form until more than 5-6 generations after the life of Christ.


Your assertion that the NT documents are 300 years old is also misleading because we have manuscript copies that actually are closer to the 1st Century AD. The fact that we have such a Research Institute as Dr.Daniel Wallace's Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts ie:

Aproximately three hundred years dates the NT as we know it, no know complete manuscript copies date to even close to the first century. It is hypothetical what a complete gospel was based on scrapes.

[barnasha]

The Quran has similar problems, but the complete NT as we know it was not in it's present form until more than 5-6 generations after the life of Christ.


the quran may have 'problems' in that it was never a written document, and it did change, but the Quran has one major difference than these other works - it was memorized word for word by many people, rendering a major loss of accuracy as to its contents nearly impossible

[shunyadragon]

the quran may have 'problems' in that it was never a written document, and it did change, but the Quran has one major difference than these other works - it was memorized word for word by many people, rendering a major loss of accuracy as to its contents nearly impossible

The main problem I have with the quran is that it is a revelation for another time and place. It has teachings and laws that are not relavent or apply poorly today in terms of offereing a universal and consistent guidance for modern humanity. Islam has sense become irreperably divided and Moslem fighting and feuding makes it virtually impossible for ALL humanity.

You said in a previously in a previous post that Moslems do not always reflect Islam. The obvious weakness of human falliability does not detract from the fact that the faith reflected in the believers should reflect the faith despite weaknesses. The greater the claim a religion makes the more sigificant the necessity to offer a unified positive example for the hope for peace for humanity. This is a distinct for Judism, Christianity and Islam.

[barnasha]

The main problem I have with the quran is that it is a revelation for another time and place.

how is that a problem for you? what makes you think the revelation of the quran is for a specific time only? from my experience of studying its contents, the crux of the message that Muhammad was tasked with was for people of all times and all places.

are you asserting that the message of the prophet was the Quran itself?

or that Islam is intrinsically related to the quran, rather than the other way around?



It has teachings and laws that are not relavent or apply poorly today in terms of offereing a universal and consistent guidance for modern humanity.

such as what? some of the teachings were for the people of that time, yet the message which was given in the context of that time and place are still perhaps universal.

are you prepared to argue for the contrary?




Islam has sense become irreperably divided and Moslem fighting and feuding makes it virtually impossible for ALL humanity.

by what token to you consider Islam to be equivalent the body of its professed adherents?



You said in a previously in a previous post that Moslems do not always reflect Islam.

a muslim is someone who tries to follow (i.e. be in a state of) islam. can believers in obeying God sin? yes. is that sin obeying God? by definition, no



The obvious weakness of human falliability does not detract from the fact that the faith reflected in the believers should reflect the faith despite weaknesses.

and how do the weaknesses of those people change the ideal which they stray from? seems to me you would be looking at it backwards to see things this way...


The greater the claim a religion makes the more sigificant the necessity to offer a unified positive example for the hope for peace for humanity. This is a distinct for Judism, Christianity and Islam.

You are perhaps ignoring the fact that Islam is not the religion which claims anything.

Muhammad told his people that his message was the same of those before him.

What is Islam except the idea of obeying God which was taught by the prophet Moses?

What is Judaism is except a loose term used by academics to describe the theology of the Jews?

What is Christianity except another fairly ambiguous term?

clearly, the manifestations of such ideas within the sociopolitical and academic constructs of our own histories are separate from the idea(l)s from which the terms were derived.

[Dan Zebiri]

Shuny,

Unfortunately my friend, your 'swweping statements' about the NT manuscripts betray only your ignorance and/or deliberate denial of the actual real facts that we have on the ground.

The actual actions, deeds, words and teachings of Jesus Christ were already recorded within 1 generation of His crucifixion and resurrection -far from your "5-6 generations" wild theory. On the earliest form of medium available then – papyrus, which is also the most fragile of the four media on which the records of Jesus Christ came to be written on.


Generally speaking, the papyri are the earliest of the four groups of early manuscripts, and also the rarest-being the most fragile writing material then available, the rest being uncials, followed by the miniscules then the lectionaries.


The statistics of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, as of January 2006 are as follows :


Papyri Uncials Miniscules Lectionaries Total :
118 317 2,877 2,433 5,745


Most of these manuscripts date from the second century A.D. And the earliest papyri manuscripts are from the first half of the first century ie. AD 100-150 Papyrus 52 or P52. Recently, a further cache of ancient papyri were discovered at Oxford University, bringing the total to about ten to fifteen that are as early as the second century A.D. Two of these papyri are significantly substantial.


Of course, beginning from the third century A.D. onwards, there is a steady stream of Manuscripts witnesses to the authenticity and veracity of the text of the New Testament.


Actually and specifically, these NT manuscripts and their respective dates have been determined scholastically as follows:


P52 : 100-150 A.D.,
P90 & P104 : 200 A.D.,
P66 : c.175-224 A.D.,
P46, P64 & P67 : c.200 A.D.,
P77, 0189 : c.200-300 A.D.
P98: c.200 A.D.

These NINE manuscripts are the extent that the Institut fur neutestemantliche Textfurschung has identified as originating at least from the first to second century A.D.


In addition to these, there are also other excellent candidates, for instance, researched by scholars Philip Comfort and David Barret in The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, Il, 2001).


If we have sound manuscript evidence dating way back to around 100-150 A.D., then the NT originals are not ‘at least 300 years old’ as shuny tries to speculate & postulate . Indeed, the NT original autographs would then be within the same generation as Jesus Christ and/or His own Apostles and Disciples lifetimes and their contemporaries.


These ancient papyri manuscript evidence are further supported by other corroborative manuscripts from the corresponding periods ie.vellum, the numerous and early lectionaries, Uncials and Miniscules. Taken together, all these combined present an excellent and very sound basis for the exceptional reliability for the authenticity of the New Testament itself.


Regards, Dan.



[

[barnasha]

What good is authenticity if you don't even know who the author is ?

Who was Luke?

Who wrote the Johannine gospels? The synoptic gospels?

[Scruffy]

the crux of the message that Muhammad was tasked with was for people of all times and all places.

Yes, from what little I've seen that is the crux. I'm wondering about your belief system. Where do you stand regarding this? Have you surrendered to God?

[Dan Zebiri]

Ah, but we do know who they are. Thats why the Gospels are named by their respective writers. And we do have on good church history and oither reliable corroborative records that these were none other than the Apostles and original followers of Jesus Christ who penned the original autographs.

Its just your skepticism that wishes to deny the Biblical records their authenticity that pushes such polemics, barn...Go and study early Church History properly before parroting the wild speculations of the Da Vinci Code.

Dan.

[barnasha]

Ah, but we do know who they are. Thats why the Gospels are named by their respective writers. And we do have on good church history and oither reliable corroborative records that these were none other than the Apostles and original followers of Jesus Christ who penned the original autographs.


Just because a work was attributed to someone does not mean they wrote it. (It does not mean they did not write it, either.)



Its just your skepticism that wishes to deny the Biblical records their authenticity that pushes such polemics, barn...Go and study early Church History properly before parroting the wild speculations of the Da Vinci Code.

Dan.

the "church" you are an adherent of is most likely one that formed well after the writing of said documents, thus its history is in that case irrelevant.

[barnasha]

Yes, from what little I've seen that is the crux. I'm wondering about your belief system. Where do you stand regarding this?

Me? I am not relevant.

A belief system is nothing more than an idol which requires maintenance.


Have you surrendered to God?

Only God would know that... I am only a man. I can say this, we should do our best to....

[heisonly1]

Shuny,

Unfortunately my friend, your 'swweping statements' about the NT manuscripts betray only your ignorance and/or deliberate denial of the actual real facts that we have on the ground.

The actual actions, deeds, words and teachings of Jesus Christ were already recorded within 1 generation of His crucifixion and resurrection -far from your "5-6 generations" wild theory. On the earliest form of medium available then – papyrus, which is also the most fragile of the four media on which the records of Jesus Christ came to be written on.


Generally speaking, the papyri are the earliest of the four groups of early manuscripts, and also the rarest-being the most fragile writing material then available, the rest being uncials, followed by the miniscules then the lectionaries.


The statistics of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, as of January 2006 are as follows :


Papyri Uncials Miniscules Lectionaries Total :
118 317 2,877 2,433 5,745


Most of these manuscripts date from the second century A.D. And the earliest papyri manuscripts are from the first half of the first century ie. AD 100-150 Papyrus 52 or P52. Recently, a further cache of ancient papyri were discovered at Oxford University, bringing the total to about ten to fifteen that are as early as the second century A.D. Two of these papyri are significantly substantial.


Of course, beginning from the third century A.D. onwards, there is a steady stream of Manuscripts witnesses to the authenticity and veracity of the text of the New Testament.




Actually and specifically, these NT manuscripts and their respective dates have been determined scholastically as follows:

P52 : 100-150 A.D.,
P90 & P104 : 200 A.D.,
P66 : c.175-224 A.D.,
P46, P64 & P67 : c.200 A.D.,
P77, 0189 : c.200-300 A.D.
P98: c.200 A.D.

These NINE manuscripts are the extent that the Institut fur neutestemantliche Textfurschung has identified as originating at least from the first to second century A.D.


In addition to these, there are also other excellent candidates, for instance, researched by scholars Philip Comfort and David Barret in The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, Il, 2001).


If we have sound manuscript evidence dating way back to around 100-150 A.D., then the NT originals are not ‘at least 300 years old’ as shuny tries to speculate & postulate . Indeed, the NT original autographs would then be within the same generation as Jesus Christ and/or His own Apostles and Disciples lifetimes and their contemporaries.


These ancient papyri manuscript evidence are further supported by other corroborative manuscripts from the corresponding periods ie.vellum, the numerous and early lectionaries, Uncials and Miniscules. Taken together, all these combined present an excellent and very sound basis for the exceptional reliability for the authenticity of the New Testament itself.


Regards, Dan.



[

Ahh Danny boy is this the sort of misinformation you were feed that led to you accept the bible as a reliable ‘Word of God’???

The NT is derived from the product of work done by a Biblical committee that evaluate the available 5000 + Greek manuscripts to construct or form what is conjectured to be the best reflection of the "original" text.


Dr. Parker emphasizes the fact that the text in the Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (27th edition, Stuttgart, 1993) was agreed upon by the committee as the "best" reading (hence a working text!) and it has nothing to do with the "original" text.

This text was agreed by a committee. When they disagreed on the best reading to print, they voted. Evidently, they agreed either by a majority or unanimously that their text was the best available. But it does not follow that they believed their text to be 'original'. On the whole, the textual critics have always been reluctant to claim so much. Other users of the Greek New Testament accord them too much honour in treating the text as definitive.


The primary reason why the NT needs to be constructed is because the ‘original’ autographs or NT books written by the authors have long since disappeared.

In other words, the original copies of the NT books no longer exist.


To manufacture the current NT, the textual critics sifted through manuscript fragments, citations within the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), lectionaries, and all sorts of translations to obtain a better picture of a text that hypothetically may resemble the "original" documents that were penned by their supposed authors in the earliest centuries.We have a challenge for Dan at the end of this presentation that will expose his fallacious and deceptive claims as we progress with this discussion.


The primary reason why the NT needs to be constructed is because the ‘original’ autographs or NT books written by the authors (whoever they were?) have long since disappeared, since they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material.


In summary, Contrary to Dan speculation, the textual source of the New Testament is not based/translated from on an "original" 1st century (complete) manuscript of what was originally written by the authors of the NT, Rather it is a "committee" text, as a committee of textual critics has constructed what they speculate is the ‘original’ NT based on the available ‘ancient’ manuscripts.


Hence, there is no guarantee that the current NT constructions accurately reflect or verifies the ‘original’.


Just to make it more easy on Dan, referring to the NT manuscript, for argument sake, even if we were able to textually construct the original NT based on existing manuscripts, this would not substantiate the historical reliability of the christological interpretation of Jesus within the NT.


In other words, Accurate textual reliability does not = Historical reliability.
Textual reliability makes transparent the degree of the accuracy of copying the NT, not of the historical veracity/authenticity/actuality of what is written.


There are thousands of copies of the Women Weekly distributed to supermarkets across the country every week. Each copy is made from original writing, which was produced very close in time to the final copy.


The manuscripts transmission certainly provides the degree of reliability of the copyists that copied many NT documents for circulation

However, this is no indication whatsoever of the truth of anything in the NT Manuscripts or the Women Weekly if we solely rely on the NT manuscript texts or magazine (Text) itself for a witness

What Dan has forgotten to mention due to his ignorance is many of the ‘Ancient’ manuscripts he boosts about are just small or tiny fragments that are NOT COMPLETE MANUSCRIPTS. Reading Dan’s dubious claims, one might be mislead to believe that the NT is derived from the 1st/2nd century completed manuscript, which is fallaciously false.

Let look at a few examples:

One of the earliest manuscript support we have of the synoptic Gospels (Mathhew, Mark and Luke) are Papyrus 64, Papyrus 67, Papyrus 4

The date of these earliest manuscripts related to around the second century AD.

Contents of the fragmented manuscripts

P4 : Luke 1:58-59 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Luke+1%3A58-59); 1:62-2:1, 6-7; 3:8-4:2, 29-32, 34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16.
P64 : Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+26%3A7-8).
P67 : Matthew 3:9, 15 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+3%3A9); 5:20-22, 25-28.



Size

P4 : 13.5 cm. x 17 cm. There are two columns and 36 lines per page.
P64 : Three fragments of sizes (a) 4.1 cm x 1.2 cm., (b) 1.6 cm. x 1.6 cm., and (c) 4.1 cm. x 1.3 cm. There are two columns and 35-36 lines per page.
P67 : 10 [+3] cm. x 15 cm. There are two columns and 36-38 lines per page.

As any observers can see for themselves, the content of the most ‘ancient’ or earliest NT manuscripts as a source of information about the historical Jesus is considerably fragmented and tiny.


These earliest NT fragments Dan refers to as ‘early manuscripts’ do not provide a sufficient detail for us to examine the information what was written about Jesus or to compare against the current constructions of the NT.

What we have is a mass of manuscripts, of which only about three hundred date from before A.D. 800. A mere thirty-four of these are earlier than A.D. 400, of which only four were at any time complete.


Refer to the link - http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html (http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html) and refer to “A Table Of Greek Manuscripts” to view the small and fragmented contents of the earliest available manuscript for the books of the New Testament.


As mentioned, most of the extant manuscripts are fragmentary. Let us give some further examples of the papyri manuscripts.

P1, a third century manuscript, consists of only 17 verses from the gospel of Matthew (1:1-9, 12, 14-20). P2, a sixth century manuscript, consists of three verses from John (12:12-15) and six verses from Luke (7:22-26, 50). Even the famous P52, from the John Rylands library, the earliest fragment of the New Testament, consists only of five verses from the gospel of John (18:31-33, 37-38).

Out of the 96 earliest catalogued Fragmented papyri manuscripts, 68 contain 20 verses or less. Only thirteen of the papyri manuscripts contain more than 40 verses. The situation with the uncial manuscripts is not much different. Of the 299 extant uncial manuscripts, 195 have only two folios or less.


Again, these earliest ‘ancient’ NT manuscripts are fragments and do not provide sufficient details for us to compare against the current constructions of the NT to determine the accuracy or integrity of the textual transmission of the NT Text neither do they provide proof that the content about Jesus is historically true and reliable.


It should be pointed out that it is not to say that the fragments are completely useless. From a Textual transmission perspective, the fragments provide some significant insight into the degree of the accuracy of copying or recording the NT, however the fragments do not offer any reliability in regards to the historical veracity/authenticity/truth of what is written in the Text.

Source: J. K. Elliott, A Survey Of The Manuscripts Used In Editions Of The Greek New Testament, 1987

The most ‘Ancient’ manuscripts are not only fragmentary, but also are centuries removed from the ‘originals’. For argument sake, again just to make Dan happy, even if scholars have by and large succeeded in reconstructing the New Testament, lest assume this is true, this, in itself, has no bearing on the truthfulness of the identity of Jesus Christ. It simply means that we can be reasonably certain of what the New Testament authors actually said, just as we can be reasonably certain what Plato and Euripides and Josephus all said. This does not necessary imply that what they spoke about was the truth,

In other words, It does not make much difference how many manuscripts were written since the end of second century that have been preserved, since not a single manuscript provides us with a direct insight into the history of the text during the first fifty to one hundred years after the writing of the apparent autograph. Furthermore, the NT manuscripts do not provide sufficient detail to substantiate exactly who were the actual authors of the Gospel autographs that claim to present the true identity of the historical Jesus!!!

In brief summary:

Whether or not any of these authors said anything that was true is another question, we cannot answer simply by appealing to the numerical supremacy and ‘ancientness’ of the surviving NT manuscripts that preserve their writings.

We need to examine the reliability and accuracy of the patristic traditions and citations that claim to substantiate the historical veracity/reliability and accuracy of the content and authorship of the New Testament Text especially the Gospels, since the Gospels are the primary source of the historical Jesus according to Christendom.

HERE IS ANOTHER CHALLENGE FOR YOU DANNY BOY!!!!!!!!

To determine whether the content in the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke , John present historical truth about real identity of Jesus, we need to examine the reliability of the patristic traditions that make transparent the preservation between what Jesus uttered from his lips and how his teachings were orally transmitted and eventually gathered/collected in the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke John we have today.

We would also need to look into the continuous ancient manuscript tradition and determine whether these traditions and interpretations are reliable in representing the historical identity and teachings of the historical Jesus as purported to be in our Gospels today.

To keep it simple lets use the ‘Gospel of Matthew’ as an example:

Some of the most ‘ancient’ fragments (manuscripts) we have of the Greek ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ are:

Papyri 64 – Content - Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33
Papyri 67 – Content - Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28.
Papyri 104 – Content - Matthew 21:34-37


In regards to authorship, you claim the apostle Matthew wrote the current version of the “Gospel according to Matthew” in our bibles today, where you have stated “thats why the Gospels are named by their respective writers. And we do have on good church history and other reliable corroborative records that these were none other than the Apostles and original followers of Jesus Christ who penned the original autographs.”


what reliable “continuous ancient manuscript tradition” and/or Patristic traditions can be presented to support the your claim that the current content in the Greek ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ (of which the most ancient Greek fragmented manuscripts above date to about the mid 200AD) we find in our bibles today, was actually written by the apostle Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, that was an eyewitness to his ministry??????



This one challenge will suffice to expose how dubious and bogus Dan’s claims about the Gospels truly are.

[Dan Zebiri]

So, you claim:

In other words, the original copies of the NT books no longer exist.

And the very same thing is true about the QURAN, badger!

Caliph Othman and his committee of 'experts' was so afraid of the o the discrepencies in the quranic manuscripts read by the Syrian muslims, which differed from the Iraqi quranic texts, and further contradicted by the Azerbaijani qurani texts.

That he was forced to confiscate ALL these differing Qurans, and had to order their wholesale DESTRUCTION!

Thats why we don't have too many copies of the quranic manuscripts today...!

They have all , wholesale been deliberately destroyed by the third islamic caliph who ordered such destruction forcibly.

The early custodians of the differing quranic texts themselves refused to surrender their texts, just see the evidence adduced below, then go to the full link displayed.

Most Muslims claim that the text of the Qur'an is identical to that received by Muhammad. This is a convenient thing to believe, but is it the truth? There is overwhelming evidence that it is not:

1. Evidence of Change Before 'Uthman

Why did 'Uthman feel the need to destroy other copies of the Qur'an, unless they contained variants? Why did Ibn Ma'sud refuse to hand over his copy for destruction? How do we know that 'Uthman's copy was better than any of the others?

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 1 - The Initial Collection of the Qur'an Text
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 2 - The Uthmanic Recension of the Qur'an
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 3 - The Codices of ibn Mas`ud and Ubayy ibn Ka`b
from the Hadiths part 2 - the first collection of the Qur'an
from the Hadiths part 3 - Differences before the 'Uthmanic collection
from the Hadiths part 4 - the 'Uthmanic collection

Relation of Shi'a Theology to the Qur'an

A variant from Ubayy's Codex (as documented by Yusuf Ali)

Distortion in the Qur'an

A Contribution of Uthman to the Qur'an

Uthman's standardising of the Qur'an
'Uthman and the Recension of the Koran

2. Evidence of Change After 'Uthman

There is evidence that changes to the Qur'an continued after the time of 'Uthman:

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 5 - The Seven Different Readings
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 6 - The Compilation of the Qur'an in Perspective
Al-Hajjaj changed Uthman's Qur'an text and a response(?): Part 1, Part 2

3. Hadiths which say the Qur'an is incomplete

Both the Qur'an and the Sunna give evidence that some of the Qur'an was lost, forgotten, or abrogated:

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 4 - The Missing Passages of the Qur'an
Variant Readings of the Quran
Islam and Stoning: A Case Study Into the Textual Corruption Of the Quran
from the Hadiths part 6 - The status of the mushaf
Sura 2:238 is not complete according to Aisha
Some Muslims are of the conviction spurious verses have been added:

The controversy about Sura 9:128-129 - Hence these verses are removed in this Qur'an

4. Hadiths which refer to lost suras
There are Hadiths which refer to suras which are not in the modern Qur'an. Surely this indicates that the Qur'an has changed since the time of these Hadiths.

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 4 - The Missing Passages of the Qur'an

More facts and evidence of this wanton destruction and elimination of variant Qurans here:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Text/index.html

Your pathetic 'defence' of the samaritan error in the Quran, has already been totally obliterated and destroyed badger - go here:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Responses/Saifullah/samaritan.htm

Dan.

[barnasha]

So, you claim:

In other words, the original copies of the NT books no longer exist.

And the very same thing is true about the QURAN, badger!

Caliph Othman and his committee of 'experts' was so afraid of the o the discrepencies in the quranic manuscripts read by the Syrian muslims, which differed from the Iraqi quranic texts, and further contradicted by the Azerbaijani qurani texts.

That he was forced to confiscate ALL these differing Qurans, and had to order their wholesale DESTRUCTION!

Thats why we don't have too many copies of the quranic manuscripts today...!

They have all , wholesale been deliberately destroyed by the third islamic caliph who ordered such destruction forcibly.

The early custodians of the differing quranic texts themselves refused to surrender their texts, just see the evidence adduced below, then go to the full link displayed.

Most Muslims claim that the text of the Qur'an is identical to that received by Muhammad. This is a convenient thing to believe, but is it the truth? There is overwhelming evidence that it is not:

1. Evidence of Change Before 'Uthman

Why did 'Uthman feel the need to destroy other copies of the Qur'an, unless they contained variants? Why did Ibn Ma'sud refuse to hand over his copy for destruction? How do we know that 'Uthman's copy was better than any of the others?

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 1 - The Initial Collection of the Qur'an Text
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 2 - The Uthmanic Recension of the Qur'an
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 3 - The Codices of ibn Mas`ud and Ubayy ibn Ka`b
from the Hadiths part 2 - the first collection of the Qur'an
from the Hadiths part 3 - Differences before the 'Uthmanic collection
from the Hadiths part 4 - the 'Uthmanic collection

Relation of Shi'a Theology to the Qur'an

A variant from Ubayy's Codex (as documented by Yusuf Ali)

Distortion in the Qur'an

A Contribution of Uthman to the Qur'an

Uthman's standardising of the Qur'an
'Uthman and the Recension of the Koran

2. Evidence of Change After 'Uthman

There is evidence that changes to the Qur'an continued after the time of 'Uthman:

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 5 - The Seven Different Readings
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 6 - The Compilation of the Qur'an in Perspective
Al-Hajjaj changed Uthman's Qur'an text and a response(?): Part 1, Part 2

3. Hadiths which say the Qur'an is incomplete

Both the Qur'an and the Sunna give evidence that some of the Qur'an was lost, forgotten, or abrogated:

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 4 - The Missing Passages of the Qur'an
Variant Readings of the Quran
Islam and Stoning: A Case Study Into the Textual Corruption Of the Quran
from the Hadiths part 6 - The status of the mushaf
Sura 2:238 is not complete according to Aisha
Some Muslims are of the conviction spurious verses have been added:

The controversy about Sura 9:128-129 - Hence these verses are removed in this Qur'an

4. Hadiths which refer to lost suras
There are Hadiths which refer to suras which are not in the modern Qur'an. Surely this indicates that the Qur'an has changed since the time of these Hadiths.

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 4 - The Missing Passages of the Qur'an

More facts and evidence of this wanton destruction and elimination of variant Qurans here:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Text/index.html

Your pathetic 'defence' of the samaritan error in the Quran, has already been totally obliterated and destroyed badger - go here:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Responses/Saifullah/samaritan.htm

Dan.

the quran was never a written document to begin with

[heisonly1]

:stop: Dan, Dan, Dan diverting away from the topic :offtopic: as your usual self are we heheheh

As a suggestion, lets keep it simple and stick to the discussing the credibility of the bible first and then the Quran later!



Dan Zebiri - So, you claim:

In other words, the original copies of the NT books no longer exist.


and my claim is fact !!!! :serenade:


And the very same thing is true about the QURAN, badger!

No it cannot Dan (see why below) :joy:



Caliph Othman and his committee of 'experts' was so afraid of the o the discrepencies in the quranic manuscripts read by the Syrian muslims, which differed from the Iraqi quranic texts, and further contradicted by the Azerbaijani qurani texts.

That he was forced to confiscate ALL these differing Qurans, and had to order their wholesale DESTRUCTION!


That's right Danny boy, they destroyed the Quranic manuscripts that contained discrepencies that did not conform to the authentic Quranic text, but that does not mean that ALL QURANIC MANUSCRIPTS WERE DESTROYED danny. (source A below) . We still have early authentic Quranic manuscripts and fragments that originate from the 1st and 2nd century hijra my uninformed ignorant 'friend' (source B below)

Also, Danny boy, an important and critical point you must comprehend regarding the preservation of the Quran is that the Quran, unlike the Bible, did not primarily rely upon the manuscript Texts and Patristic Texts for it's preservation.

The Quran was preserved both through the Manuscript texts AND memorization. If we were to destroy all the Bibles, Biblical manuscripts and Patristic Texts, there is not one single person in whole earth that could piece together the whole bible from Genesis to Revelations perfectly from memory. However if you were to destroy all the Qurans in the world, it will only take one 8 year old, who attends my class every week that has memorized the whole Quran by heart to perfectly replicate the Quran, hence the superiority of the Quran over the Bible in regards to relative preservation.

So, in addition to writing, the whole Qur'an was also memorized by hundreds of Muslims and even those who had met the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself. Just as the whole Qur'an was preserved by writing, the whole Qur'an, unlike the Bible, was also preserved by memorization too. Source A - refer here - http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html



Thats why we don't have too many copies of the quranic manuscripts today...!
[/QUOTE]

Who told you that bogus lie Dan? :haha: 'answering' Islam !!! hahahahahahha

"There has been a polemic going on that the Qur'an does not have manuscripts from the first century of hijra. However, this is not true. Many fragments of early Qur'anic manuscripts were shown by Orientalists notably Nabia Abbott in her work The Rise of the North Arabic script and its Kur'anic development, with a full description of the Kur'an manuscripts in the Oriental Institute (1939, University of Chicago Press).

There she discusses some of the Quranic manuscripts, dated from second half of the first century hijra onwards, at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. The aim of this page is to highlight some of the early Qur'anic manuscripts to refute the claim that the Qur'an lacks manuscripts from the first century of hijra." Refer here fto source B - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/


They have all , wholesale been deliberately destroyed by the third islamic caliph who ordered such destruction forcibly.

:whack: Get it right Danny boy, Not all, just the yucky ones !!!



The early custodians of the differing quranic texts themselves refused to surrender their texts, just see the evidence adduced below, then go to the full link displayed.

Most Muslims claim that the text of the Qur'an is identical to that received by Muhammad. This is a convenient thing to believe, but is it the truth? There is overwhelming evidence that it is not:

1. Evidence of Change Before 'Uthman

Why did 'Uthman feel the need to destroy other copies of the Qur'an, unless they contained variants? Why did Ibn Ma'sud refuse to hand over his copy for destruction? How do we know that 'Uthman's copy was better than any of the others?

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 1 - The Initial Collection of the Qur'an Text
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 2 - The Uthmanic Recension of the Qur'an
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 3 - The Codices of ibn Mas`ud and Ubayy ibn Ka`b
from the Hadiths part 2 - the first collection of the Qur'an
from the Hadiths part 3 - Differences before the 'Uthmanic collection
from the Hadiths part 4 - the 'Uthmanic collection

Relation of Shi'a Theology to the Qur'an

A variant from Ubayy's Codex (as documented by Yusuf Ali)

Distortion in the Qur'an

A Contribution of Uthman to the Qur'an

Uthman's standardising of the Qur'an
'Uthman and the Recension of the Koran

2. Evidence of Change After 'Uthman

There is evidence that changes to the Qur'an continued after the time of 'Uthman:

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 5 - The Seven Different Readings
Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 6 - The Compilation of the Qur'an in Perspective
Al-Hajjaj changed Uthman's Qur'an text and a response(?): Part 1, Part 2

3. Hadiths which say the Qur'an is incomplete

Both the Qur'an and the Sunna give evidence that some of the Qur'an was lost, forgotten, or abrogated:

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 4 - The Missing Passages of the Qur'an
Variant Readings of the Quran
Islam and Stoning: A Case Study Into the Textual Corruption Of the Quran
from the Hadiths part 6 - The status of the mushaf
Sura 2:238 is not complete according to Aisha
Some Muslims are of the conviction spurious verses have been added:

The controversy about Sura 9:128-129 - Hence these verses are removed in this Qur'an

4. Hadiths which refer to lost suras
There are Hadiths which refer to suras which are not in the modern Qur'an. Surely this indicates that the Qur'an has changed since the time of these Hadiths.

Jam' Al-Qur'an Chapter 4 - The Missing Passages of the Qur'an

More facts and evidence of this wanton destruction and elimination of variant Qurans here:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Text/index.html


In refuation - :bonk: of your above dubious allegations and sources Danny boy please refer to the following critiques that expose and destroy your erroneous myths.

What About Changes In The Qur'an After `Uthmanic Recension?

Jamc al-Qur'an: An Exposition Of John Gilchrist's Deceptive Methodology
The Qur'an, Jeffery & Missionaries: What Does Jeffery Actually Say?
Al-Hajjaj, Kitab al-Masahif & Gilchrist


Was There A Change In The Qur'an After `Uthmanic Recension?

Did al-Hajjaj Change The Qur'an?
The Report In Kitab al-Masahif Of Ibn Abi Dawud
Hadith Criticism Of The Report: The Study of Isnad
Hadith Criticism Of The Report: The Study of Matn
The Christian Polemical Sources: Letter Of Leo III & `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi
Conclusions

Rectitation Of The Qur'an In Various Qiraa'aat

Discussion and recitation of the Qur'an in various Qiraa'aat is here.

Versions Of The Qur'an?

Revelation Of The Qur'an In Seven Ahruf
Difference Between Ahruf & Qiraa'aat
Conditions For The Validity Of Different Qiraa'aat
The Chain of Narration Of Different Qiraa'aat
Hafs & Warsh Qiraa'aat: Are They Different Versions Of The Qur'an?
Recitation Of The Qur'an In Hafs, Warsh & Other Qiraa'aa
Printed Edition Of The Qur'an In Various Qiraa'aat
Books On Mutawatir Qiraa'aat
The Qiraa'aat Identified In Qur'anic Manuscripts

Reply To Mr. Samuel Green's "The Seven Readings Of The Qur'an"
Introduction
Qiraa'aat Or 'Variant' Readings?
Are Qiraa'aat Due To The Lack Of Vowel & Diacritical Points In The Early Qur'ans?
Masahif Surprises?
The Abuse of Brockett's Material On Qiraa'aat
No Books On Mutawatir Readings Available?
Conclusions

Nevo & Negev Inscriptions: The Use & Abuse Of The Evidence
Introduction
Background
The Use & Abuse Of The Evidence
Early Islamic Architecture
Conclusions

Burton, Wansbrough & 'Logic' Of Christian Missionaries

More facts, refutations and evidence of this wanton destruction and elimination of the false allegations against the Quran,

please refer here - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/ for further detail.



Your pathetic 'defence' of the samaritan error in the Quran, has already been totally obliterated and destroyed badger - go here:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Responses/Saifullah/samaritan.htm

Dan


Do you actually read references dan before you post your supposed 'refutations' ?? Obviously not. Your pathetic feeble counter 'defense' of the samaritan error in the Quran is seriously outdated has already been totally obliterated and destroyed here with the updated version that demolishes your fallacious postulations here - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/samaritan.html

ooouch !!!!!! that's gotta hurt Danny boy :whip: hahahahahahahahha !!!!!!! :lmbo:

oh yeah still waiting for you to respond to my challenge about the Gospels !! ???? :fight:

:bravo:

[barnasha]

you should be nicer to dan.. it is the islamic way... just because he launches consistent and deliberate attacks on your way of life, doesn't mean you have to take it too seriously

[Dan Zebiri]

Salam Heisonly1,

Your theory about an 800 year gap in the NT documents is another novel theory that has arisen in recent years and popularized by muslim propagandists. However, this is another of your bogus red-herring speculation that originates from your Islamic anti-Christian polemics and dawaganda. Let me show you why your polemics is demolished and is already totally debunked.

The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament were naturally on Papyrii, which were also the most fragile, and date back to the early second century AD. That’s an excellent witness to the contents of what Jesus Christ actually said, taught and did as found in the New Testament.

Eventually these came to be recorded on the Uncial manuscripts as well-by 300-plus A.D., for by then the recording technology had discovered a better and more longer-lasting way to produce the recording medium. Thus we have what is now the earliest complete New Testament codies : Codex Sinaiticus – dated to 340 A.D. and Codex Vaticanus – dated 330 A.D. These 2 and other codices like them pre-date any Quran manuscripts by much more than 300-plus years!

These 2 codices have between them, the WHOLE New Testament, as we have them TODAY in 2007, UNCHANGED. So, the contents and truths found in the New Testament as we have them TODAY, in 2007, are the same, unchanged and consistent with their preceding manuscripts since more than 300-plus years before even the Quran came to be conceived and then written down!

Codex Sinaiticus – designated in manuscript shorthand as Hebrew Aleph, and Vaticanus – designated as B, both belong to what is known as the Alexandrian text-type. These two Manuscripts are closely related to each other and also have slight differences. Nevertheless, scholars have dated them both reliably to 300-plus A.D. and accept their differences because their common ancestor had been copied from several generations earlier. This is similar, in some degree to relatives present at a family reunion. Some members may be tall, thin, blue-eyed and blond, while others are short, fat, brown-eyed and have black hair. Others are somewhere in-between. Those that look substantially like each other could be more closely related. Following this analogy, Aleph and B are like cousins from AFTER their common ancestor manuscript; which ITSELF goes back several generations.

Actually, when the reading of these codices Aleph and B are in agreement, their common reading is consistently shown to be from the early second century A.D. Ie. 100-150 A.D. or within 1 – 2 generations of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Consider again Codex Vaticanus, whose text is very much like papyrus P75. Yet, P75’s papyrus material (physically/materially) is found to be at least a century older than Vaticanus. When P75 was discovered in the 1950s, some entertained the idea that Vaticanus could have been a copy of P75, but this view is no longer true since the wording of Vaticanus is ascertained to be certainly more primitive than that of P75 in numerous places.
This shows that they both go back to a STILL EARLIER common ancestor, probably one that is from the early Second Century A.D. In combination with Aleph, ie.Codex Sinaiticus, this is a powerful witness to the earliest form of the New Testament text.

This is just one example. Many other examples could be given of other early New Testament manuscripts that are from the same text-type, and what their agreement means for the date of the reading.

Is it true, like some here try to speculate and presumptuously assert, that no New Testament manuscripts pre-date the fourth Century A.D. thus allowing for the possibility that emperor Constantine and/or the church Bishops invented the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ? Hardly!

The reality is that there are at least forty-eight Greek New Testament manuscripts that pre-date the fourth Century A.D. Many of them include very large portions of the NT like almost the entirety of two Gospels, most of Paul’s letters, etc. Altogether, they cover half the New Testament.

The dates and other relevant data of all these and known manuscripts are cataloged in Kurt Aland, Kurzgefasste Liste der Griechischen Handschriften des Neun Tesaments, 2nd Ed., Exp. (Berlin W.d.Gruyter. 1994). Keep in mind that Aland’s list only catalogs Greek N.T. manuscripts, and does not include the early versions or the pre-fourth Century A.D. Patristic writers.

Lets focus on a single key point that is so significant to the early church from the first Century A.D. – the divinity of Jesus Christ. Was this from the Earliest Traditions, or was it a ‘Late Superstition’? And what do these manuscripts hold for Jesus’ divinity.

Let us just look at some of the verses in the pre-fourth century A.D. manuscripts that speak explicitly about Christ’s deity. I am restricting this discussion to those N.T. verses in which Jesus is called directly as ‘God’. Beyond these verses, there are dozens of other passages that affirm His deity implicitly.

It can be overwhelmingly shown that it is quite impossible for Constantine, the church Fathers, the Bishops or anyone else, to have invented the ‘doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ’ when that phenomenon is already found in manuscripts that predate Constantine by more than a Century.

Explicit References to Christ’s Deity in the New Testament Manuscripts before 300 A.D.

John 1:1 – ‘In the beginning was the Word (‘Logos’), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’, &

John 20: 28 – ‘Thomas answered Jesus : “My Lord and my GOD”.’

Both these passages are preserved in Papyrii P66, which is dated to 175-225 A.D.

John 1:1 is also found preserved in P75, dated to the early 3rd Century A.D.(200 – 250 A.D.)

Romans 9:5 – ‘..Christ, Who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen!’, &

Hebrews 1:8 – ‘But to His Son, God says: “You throne, O God, endures for ever..”

Both these passages are preserved in Papyrii P46, which is dated to 200 A.D.


These 3 papyri are among the most important manuscripts of the New Testament. P46 contains eight of Paul’s Epistles, and the letter to the Hebrews. P66 covers most of John’s Gospel, P75 contains most of Luke’s Gospel and part of John’s Gospel.

And the manuscripts from the fourth Century AD, - those that the detractors allege that Constantine ‘corrupted’ are all very much in agreement with these manuscripts above.

The manuscript that modern translations rely on as much as any other is Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century AD. codex that contains three-fourths of the whole New testament. The agreement between Vaticanus and P75 is as great as any two ancient manuscripts. Not just this, there are no significant variants from any manuscripts of any age.

This is one the key conclusions that can be drawn from the above. That any uncertainty over the wordings of the original NT does not have an impact on the major teachings of the New Testament. The deity of Jesus Christ is certainly NOT AFFECTED by this.

Secondly, it eliminates decisively that the ‘doctrine of the deity of Jesus’ was invented at Nicea in 325 AD, either by Constantine, the Bishops or anyone else.

Thirdly, that there is simply no room for doubt or uncertainty about what the New Testament originally taught. Whether one chooses to believe in it, is a different matter entirely. The fact is that the fundamental teachings of the New Testament are undisturbed by viable textual variants.

Wasalaam, Dan.

[Dan Zebiri]

As this thread is about the cocktail of quranic texts, and not the Biblical texts, let me refer you to more actual proof of such a cocktail.

1.Muslims THEMSELVES claim that the Quran can be read in ‘seven readings’ but what really are these ‘seven readings’ actually ?

Look up here for the REAL NATURE of these ‘seven readings’ or ‘qiraat’ of the Quran:

www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

2.The actual reasons and causes why caliph Uthman was forced to standardize the Quran for the Muslims for all time :

www.answering-islam.org/Green/Green/uthman.htm

3.Is the Quran of Islam today REALLY a ‘perfect Quran’ ?

www.answering-islam.org/Green//PQ/index.htm

4.Proven and documented sources for the Quran:

www.answering-islam.org/Green/Sources/index.html

Rgds, Dan.

We do not allow argument by web link.

[Dan Zebiri]

Oops, sorry, I meant for points 3 & 4 :

3.Is the Quran of Islam today REALLY a ‘perfect Quran’ ?

www.answering-islam.org/PQ/index.htm

4.Proven and documented sources for the Quran:

www.answering-islam.org/Sources/index.html

Rgds, Dan.

[heisonly1]

Dan Zebiri - Salam Heisonly1,

Your theory about an 800 year gap in the NT documents is another novel theory that has arisen in recent years and popularized by muslim propagandists. However, this is another of your bogus red-herring speculation that originates from your Islamic anti-Christian polemics and dawaganda. Let me show you why your polemics is demolished and is already totally debunked.

The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament were naturally on Papyrii, which were also the most fragile, and date back to the early second century AD. That’s an excellent witness to the contents of what Jesus Christ actually said, taught and did as found in the New Testament.


As I expressed before your manuscripts are merely pathetic little fragments that date to the second century danny boy these fragmented manuscripts are significantly incomplete:

What Dan has forgotten to mention due to his ignorance is many of the ‘Ancient’ manuscripts he boosts about are just small or tiny fragments that are NOT COMPLETE MANUSCRIPTS. Reading Dan’s dubious claims, one might be mislead to believe that the NT is derived from the 1st/2nd century completed manuscript, which is fallaciously false.

Let look at a few examples:

One of the earliest manuscript support we have of the synoptic Gospels (Mathhew, Mark and Luke) are Papyrus 64, Papyrus 67, Papyrus 4

The date of these earliest manuscripts related to around the second century AD.

Contents of the fragmented manuscripts

P4 : Luke 1:58-59 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Luke+1%3A58-59); 1:62-2:1, 6-7; 3:8-4:2, 29-32, 34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16.
P64 : Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+26%3A7-8).
P67 : Matthew 3:9, 15 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+3%3A9); 5:20-22, 25-28.



Size

P4 : 13.5 cm. x 17 cm. There are two columns and 36 lines per page.
P64 : Three fragments of sizes (a) 4.1 cm x 1.2 cm., (b) 1.6 cm. x 1.6 cm., and (c) 4.1 cm. x 1.3 cm. There are two columns and 35-36 lines per page.
P67 : 10 [+3] cm. x 15 cm. There are two columns and 36-38 lines per page.

As any observers can see for themselves, the content of the most incomplete ‘ancient’ or earliest NT manuscripts as a source of information about the historical Jesus is considerably fragmented and tiny.


These earliest NT fragments Dan refers to as ‘early manuscripts’ do not provide a sufficient detail for us to examine the earliest information what was written about Jesus or to compare against the current constructions of the NT.

What we have is a mass of manuscripts, of which only about three hundred date from before A.D. 800. A mere thirty-four of these are earlier than A.D. 400, of which only four were at any time complete. ………


Out of the 96 earliest catalogued Fragmented papyri manuscripts, 68 contain 20 verses or less. Only thirteen of the papyri manuscripts contain more than 40 verses. The situation with the uncial manuscripts is not much different. Of the 299 extant uncial manuscripts, 195 have only two folios or less.


Again, these earliest ‘ancient’ NT manuscripts are fragments and do not provide sufficient details for us to compare against the current constructions of the NT to determine the accuracy or integrity of the textual transmission of the NT Text neither do they provide proof that the content about Jesus is historically true and reliable.


It should be pointed out that it is not to say that the fragments are completely useless. From a Textual transmission perspective, the fragments provide some significant insight into the degree of the accuracy of copying or recording the NT, however the fragments do not offer any reliability in regards to the historical veracity/authenticity/truth of what is written in the Text.






Eventually these came to be recorded on the Uncial manuscripts as well-by 300-plus A.D., for by then the recording technology had discovered a better and more longer-lasting way to produce the recording medium. Thus we have what is now the earliest complete New Testament codies : Codex Sinaiticus – dated to 340 A.D. and Codex Vaticanus – dated 330 A.D. These 2 and other codices like them pre-date any Quran manuscripts by much more than 300-plus years!

These 2 codices have between them, the WHOLE New Testament, as we have them TODAY in 2007, UNCHANGED. So, the contents and truths found in the New Testament as we have them TODAY, in 2007, are the same, unchanged and consistent with their preceding manuscripts since more than 300-plus years before even the Quran came to be conceived and then written down!

Codex Sinaiticus – designated in manuscript shorthand as Hebrew Aleph, and Vaticanus – designated as B, both belong to what is known as the Alexandrian text-type. These two Manuscripts are closely related to each other and also have slight differences. Nevertheless, scholars have dated them both reliably to 300-plus A.D. and accept their differences because their common ancestor had been copied from several generations earlier. This is similar, in some degree to relatives present at a family reunion. Some members may be tall, thin, blue-eyed and blond, while others are short, fat, brown-eyed and have black hair. Others are somewhere in-between. Those that look substantially like each other could be more closely related. Following this analogy, Aleph and B are like cousins from AFTER their common ancestor manuscript; which ITSELF goes back several generations.

Actually, when the reading of these codices Aleph and B are in agreement, their common reading is consistently shown to be from the early second century A.D. Ie. 100-150 A.D. or within 1 – 2 generations of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Consider again Codex Vaticanus, whose text is very much like papyrus P75. Yet, P75’s papyrus material (physically/materially) is found to be at least a century older than Vaticanus. When P75 was discovered in the 1950s, some entertained the idea that Vaticanus could have been a copy of P75, but this view is no longer true since the wording of Vaticanus is ascertained to be certainly more primitive than that of P75 in numerous places.

This shows that they both go back to a STILL EARLIER common ancestor, probably one that is from the early Second Century A.D. In combination with Aleph, ie.Codex Sinaiticus, this is a powerful witness to the earliest form of the New Testament text.

This is just one example. Many other examples could be given of other early New Testament manuscripts that are from the same text-type, and what their agreement means for the date of the reading.



Your missing the critical point Danny!!!!



For argument sake, again just to make Dan happy, even if scholars have by and large succeeded in reconstructing the New Testament, lest assume this is true, this, in itself, has no bearing on the truthfulness of the identity of Jesus Christ. It simply means that we can be reasonably certain of what the New Testament authors actually said, just as we can be reasonably certain what Plato and Euripides and Josephus all said. This does not necessary imply that what they spoke or recorded was the historical truth,

In other words, It does not make much difference how many manuscripts were written since the end of second century that have been preserved, since not a single manuscript provides us with a direct insight into the history of the text during the first fifty to one hundred years after the writing of the apparent autograph.
Furthermore, the NT manuscripts do not provide sufficient detail to substantiate exactly who were the actual authors of the Gospel autographs that claim to present the true identity of the historical Jesus!!!


THE CRITICAL POINT THAT UNDERMINES YOUR CLAIMS FOR HISTORICAL TRUTH - Whether or not any of these authors said anything that was historical true about the true identity of Jesus is another question, we cannot answer simply by appealing to the numerical supremacy and ‘ancientness’ of the surviving NT manuscripts that preserve their writings.


Merely because an early document records something doesn’t mean that what is recorded was historical true or reliable danny boy. Get the point !!??? probably not !!!!

[heisonly1]

Is it true, like some here try to speculate and presumptuously assert, that no New Testament manuscripts pre-date the fourth Century A.D. thus allowing for the possibility that emperor Constantine and/or the church Bishops invented the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ? Hardly!

The reality is that there are at least forty-eight Greek New Testament manuscripts that pre-date the fourth Century A.D. Many of them include very large portions of the NT like almost the entirety of two Gospels, most of Paul’s letters, etc. Altogether, they cover half the New Testament.

The dates and other relevant data of all these and known manuscripts are cataloged in Kurt Aland, Kurzgefasste Liste der Griechischen Handschriften des Neun Tesaments, 2nd Ed., Exp. (Berlin W.d.Gruyter. 1994). Keep in mind that Aland’s list only catalogs Greek N.T. manuscripts, and does not include the early versions or the pre-fourth Century A.D. Patristic writers.





Again, For argument sake, again just to make Dan happy, even if scholars have by and large succeeded in reconstructing the New Testament, lest assume this is true, this, in itself, has no bearing on the truthfulness of the identity of Jesus Christ. It simply means that we can be reasonably certain of what the New Testament authors actually said, just as we can be reasonably certain what Plato and Euripides and Josephus all said. This does not necessary imply that what they spoke or recorded was the historical truth,

In other words, It does not make much difference how many manuscripts were written since the end of second century that have been preserved, since not a single manuscript provides us with a direct insight into the history of the text during the first fifty to one hundred years after the writing of the apparent autograph.
Furthermore, the NT manuscripts do not provide sufficient detail to substantiate exactly who were the actual authors of the Gospel autographs that claim to present the true identity of the historical Jesus!!!



THE CRITICAL POINT THAT UNDERMINES YOUR CLAIMS FOR HISTORICAL TRUTH - Whether or not any of these authors said anything that was historical true about the true identity of Jesus is another question, we cannot answer simply by appealing to the numerical supremacy and ‘ancientness’ of the surviving NT manuscripts that preserve their writings.




Lets focus on a single key point that is so significant to the early church from the first Century A.D. – the divinity of Jesus Christ. Was this from the Earliest Traditions, or was it a ‘Late Superstition’? And what do these manuscripts hold for Jesus’ divinity.

Let us just look at some of the verses in the pre-fourth century A.D. manuscripts that speak explicitly about Christ’s deity. I am restricting this discussion to those N.T. verses in which Jesus is called directly as ‘God’. Beyond these verses, there are dozens of other passages that affirm His deity implicitly.

It can be overwhelmingly shown that it is quite impossible for Constantine, the church Fathers, the Bishops or anyone else, to have invented the ‘doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ’ when that phenomenon is already found in manuscripts that predate Constantine by more than a Century.

Explicit References to Christ’s Deity in the New Testament Manuscripts before 300 A.D.

John 1:1 – ‘In the beginning was the Word (‘Logos’), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’, &

John 20: 28 – ‘Thomas answered Jesus : “My Lord and my GOD”.’

Both these passages are preserved in Papyrii P66, which is dated to 175-225 A.D.

John 1:1 is also found preserved in P75, dated to the early 3rd Century A.D.(200 – 250 A.D.)

Romans 9:5 – ‘..Christ, Who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen!’, &

Hebrews 1:8 – ‘But to His Son, God says: “You throne, O God, endures for ever..”

Both these passages are preserved in Papyrii P46, which is dated to 200 A.D.


These 3 papyri are among the most important manuscripts of the New Testament. P46 contains eight of Paul’s Epistles, and the letter to the Hebrews. P66 covers most of John’s Gospel, P75 contains most of Luke’s Gospel and part of John’s Gospel.

And the manuscripts from the fourth Century AD, - those that the detractors allege that Constantine ‘corrupted’ are all very much in agreement with these manuscripts above.

The manuscript that modern translations rely on as much as any other is Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century AD. codex that contains three-fourths of the whole New testament. The agreement between Vaticanus and P75 is as great as any two ancient manuscripts. Not just this, there are no significant variants from any manuscripts of any age.

This is one the key conclusions that can be drawn from the above. That any uncertainty over the wordings of the original NT does not have an impact on the major teachings of the New Testament. The deity of Jesus Christ is certainly NOT AFFECTED by this.

Secondly, it eliminates decisively that the ‘doctrine of the deity of Jesus’ was invented at Nicea in 325 AD, either by Constantine, the Bishops or anyone else.

Thirdly, that there is simply no room for doubt or uncertainty about what the New Testament originally taught. Whether one chooses to believe in it, is a different matter entirely. The fact is that the fundamental teachings of the New Testament are undisturbed by viable textual variants.

Wasalaam, Dan.



Can you please point out where I said or implied ‘doctrine of the deity of Jesus’ was invented at Nicea in 325 AD, either by Constantine, the Bishops or anyone else.?????

I have acknowledged before in our debate here - Post: #149 Re: How many persons in Allah? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1807443&postcount=149)that Jesus was erroneously made deity prior to Nicea period as clearly evident in the earliest writings of the pagan Church Fathers that applied the erroneous personified Jewish wisdom and Greek logos philosophies to interpret or conceptualize the identity of Jesus and his relationship to the God he worshipped. Remove these philosophical conjectures and speculations that were erroneously applied by the authors of the NT and the earliest Church fathers to interpret Jesus, which consequently, perverted and exaggerated his true identity, and you will recognize the true historical Jesus as proclaimed in the Quran:


"O People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! do not exaggerate in your religion: Nor say of God except the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word (#2 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1638354&postcount=2) ), which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Three" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one : Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs."

"Christ does not distain to serve and worship God, nor do the angels, those nearest (to God): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself."

"But to those who believe (have faith) AND do deeds of righteousness, He will give their rewards,- and more, out of His bounty: BUT THOSE WHO ARE DISDAINFUL AND ARROGANT, HE WILL PUNISH WITH A GRIEVIOUS PENALTY; NOR WILL THEY FIND, BESIDES GOD ANY TO PROTECT OR HELP THEM."

"O mankind! verily there hath come to you a manifest proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest. "

"Then those who believe in God, and hold fast to Him,- soon will He admit them to mercy and grace from Himself, and guide them to Himself by a straight way." (Quran - Sura 4:171-5)




This is one the key conclusions that can be drawn from the above. That any uncertainty over the wordings of the original NT does not have an impact on the major teachings of the New Testament. The deity of Jesus Christ is certainly NOT AFFECTED by this.

How does this conclusion substantiate that what the New testament Text claims is historically true (see above for that refutes your logic and assumption)

Secondly, it eliminates decisively that the ‘doctrine of the deity of Jesus’ was invented at Nicea in 325 AD, either by Constantine, the Bishops or anyone else.

Thirdly, that there is simply no room for doubt or uncertainty about what the New Testament originally taught. Whether one chooses to believe in it, is a different matter entirely. The fact is that the fundamental teachings of the New Testament are undisturbed by viable textual variants.



THE CRITICAL POINT THAT UNDERMINES YOUR CLAIMS FOR HISTORICAL TRUTH - Whether or not any of these authors said anything that was historical true about the true identity of Jesus is another question, we cannot answer simply by appealing to the numerical supremacy and ‘ancientness’ of the surviving NT manuscripts that preserve their writings.

We need to examine the reliability and accuracy of the patristic traditions and citations that claim to substantiate the historical veracity/reliability and accuracy of the content and authorship of the New Testament Text especially the Gospels, since the Gospels are the primary source of the historical Jesus according to Christendom.


Allow me to expose your logic and assumptions by you responding to the following challenge!!!



HERE IS ANOTHER CHALLENGE FOR YOU DANNY BOY!!!!!!!!

To determine whether the content in the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke , John present historical truth about real identity of Jesus, we need to examine the reliability of the patristic traditions that make transparent the preservation between what Jesus uttered from his lips and how his teachings were orally transmitted and eventually gathered/collected in the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke John we have today.

We would also need to look into the continuous ancient manuscript tradition and determine whether these traditions and interpretations are reliable in representing the historical identity and teachings of the historical Jesus as purported to be in our Gospels today.

To keep it simple lets use the ‘Gospel of Matthew’ as an example:

Some of the most ‘ancient’ fragments (manuscripts) we have of the Greek ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ are:

Papyri 64 – Content - Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+26%3A7-8)
Papyri 67 – Content - Matthew 3:9, 15 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+3%3A9); 5:20-22, 25-28.
Papyri 104 – Content - Matthew 21:34-37 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+21%3A34-37)


In regards to authorship, you claim the apostle Matthew wrote the current version of the “Gospel according to Matthew” in our bibles today, where you have stated “thats why the Gospels are named by their respective writers. And we do have on good church history and other reliable corroborative records that these were none other than the Apostles and original followers of Jesus Christ who penned the original autographs.”


what reliable “continuous ancient manuscript tradition” and/or Patristic traditions can be presented to support the your claim that the current content in the Greek ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ (of which the most ancient Greek fragmented manuscripts above date to about the mid 200AD) we find in our bibles today, was actually written by the apostle Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, that was an eyewitness to his ministry??????



This one challenge will suffice to expose how dubious and bogus your claims about the Gospels truly are.

[Patroclus]

If you can't play nice, if you can't follow the rules, and if you cannot abstain from abusing TWeb's features, I am going to close this thread.

Quick overview:
1. No arguments by web-link

2. This is not the proper place to accuse somebody of lying.

3. Don't be trolls. Treat each other with respect.

[heisonly1]

Patroclus - If you can't play nice, if you can't follow the rules, and if you cannot abstain from abusing TWeb's features, I am going to close this thread.

Don't be trolls. Treat each other with respect.


:metro: I'll be the first to acknowledge that I can be the worst of trolls at times. :rant:

God Almighty is a witness that I'm trying to be more respectful to others here,

heisonly1

[Dan Zebiri]

Christians do have a quite good continuous link to the very source - Jesus Christ Himself.

In chuch History its known as Apostolic Sucession, and traces the Apostles own disciples

Matthew and John were themselves directly apostles of Jesus Christ.

Mark was a companion to the Apostle Peter as Luke was to Paul - who himself had met with the apostles Peter, James and John.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Eusebius_Gospels.htm

We have early witnesses by some key Church Fathers - Clement, Ireneus, Eusebius, Polycarp just to name some, who were disciples, friends and companions of the earliest discpoles of Jesus Christ, disciples like apostle Peter, James, John etc.

But I doubt that the Hadith collections can similarly claim to have such reliable chain of custody to what Muhammad actually said and did, for the 'science of 'sanad' or 'isnad' is also found to be questionable even by scholars and thinkers like Dr.Rashad Khalifa and others!

Wasalaam, Dan.

[shunyadragon]

So, you claim:

In other words, the original copies of the NT books no longer exist.

And the very same thing is true about the QURAN, . . .

Basically true in both cases.

[Dan Zebiri]

Heisonly1 and all,

Indeed, the wealth of manuscript evidence we have supporting the New Testament far outstrips and outranks any other ancient document in history, certainly in the category for Greek texts.

Just consider : more than 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts, as many as twenty thousand translations and more than ONE Million quotations by Patristic writers - and that is growing too!. In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful.

This wealth of NT manuscript evidence we have gives rise to greater confidence and certainty in the findings, research and critical analysis on the part of Biblical scholars and NT critics. Especially in relation to the integrity and originality of the NT text as we have them today.

To these scholars, there are ways to tell from such a wealth of external evidence – the manuscripts, translations and biblical quotations by the Church Fathers, how early a particular reading is. Secondly, they then examine the internal evidence , ie.habits and writing styles of the authors, as well as the habits and even mistakes of the copyists and scribes.

When the external and the internal evidence point in the same direction, then the New Testament textual critics conclude with great certainty and confidence that they have the wording of the original. That’s why the very huge size of manuscript evidence we have for the NT is actually a solid and strong plus factor for it.

What about extra-biblical sources for Jesus then? They are welcome indeed – as they further secure Jesus Christ’s place in history. We have the writings of the Apostles and the Apostles’ successors originating from Christianity’s own apostolic succession (kilafah rasuliyatt) – and the unbroken line of transmission of the teachings, acts and deeds of Jesus Christ from His own century kept in eye-witness custody from the lifetime of Jesus and His disciples.

For example, the greatest theologian of the second Century A.D. was Irenaeus who lived from 130-200 A.D. He wrote a Volume that dealt with the early heretics and heresies that tried challenging the Early Church and deviating from the actual teachings of Jesus Christ; a volume known as Against Heresies.

Irenaeus is a Church Father most qualified to do the job, because he was a disciple of Polycarp – martyred in 155 A.D., who himself was a disciple and close friend of the Apostle John who was of course the Disciple and Apostle that Jesus loved.

So we have :

Irenaeus <--- Polycarp <--- Apostle John <--- Jesus Christ the Messiah

In an unbroken chain of succession and custody of reliable eye-witness confirmation and information about Jesus Christ and what He actually taught, said and did.

Irenaeus unequivocally affirms the divinity and deity of Jesus Christ when he writes:

“the Father is God and the Son is God; for He who is born of God is God..”

From Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, Chapter 47.

And he also affirms the true humanity of Christ with vigour (unlike the Gnostics):

“But in every respect, too, Christ Jesus our Lord is a man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man.”
Ireneaus, Against Heresies 3, ANF, 1.443

We also have the well-documented History of the Early church, well documented by Eusebius, another church Father, who compiled his Ecclesiastical History (Tarikul Kanisah, Aramaic) in around 300 A.D.

Another church Father is Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who wrote among others his Letters to the Seven Churches of Magnesia in Asia Minor (107-110 A.D.). In which he declared of Jesus, as “before the ages was with the Father (GOD), and Who can properly be called our God”.

Ignatius was a good friend and a fellow Bishop with Polycarp, who was Bishop of Smyrna and also his contemporary. Polycarp met with Ignatius and he had stayed with Polycarp in Smyrna for a season from 110 A.D. Polycarp records Ignatius’ martyrdom in 135 A.D. in Rome and he had earlier collected Ignatius’ letters to the churches in Philippi.

Thus, this is also another unbroken chain of continuity :

Ignatius [/U ]<--- Polycarp <--- Apostle John <---Jesus Christ the Messiah

Father Clement of Rome was yet another. Writing at the end of the First Century A.D., Clement declared that the resurrected Jesus is afforded divine honor in the presence of God the Father. He also affirmed the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Word of God.

In F.Clement’s case, he was a disciple of the Apostle Peter (also known as the leading Apostle), and is on record as having followed Peter around in his missionary journeys round the region. So, we have again the apostolic succession and continuous chain:

[U]Clement <--- Apostle Peter <--- Jesus Christ the Messiah

Thus, we have Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement who were all very early transmitters of the eye-witness testimony to the real and actual Jesus Christ! Together with other Fathers like Tertullian (c.160 – 215 A.D.) and Eusebius and others like them who possess and/or produced significant documentation, we can indeed trace with certainty and confidence the continuity of an unbroken line to Jesus Christ Himself.

Regards, Dan.

[barnasha]

Basically true in both cases.

Except there is no such thing as an original "copy" of the Quran, which was a set of recitations which evolved over a period of more than two decades, and was memorized by heart, then later perserved in the written word.

The canonical gospels are not handed down as memorized by thousands of humans, we have the gospel of Mark (or the Q gospel?), and then the subsequent embellishments or additions by Luke and Matthew, and then the Johannine gospels, etc

[barnasha]

Dan, how do you blatantly assume that Eusebius and others were right? Hearsay does not count for much. You are mentioning the "traditional view", which is not supported by much history.

[Dan Zebiri]

Greetings Barn,

Why do you just single out Eusebius the historian? Is it becos' he wrote around 300 A.D.?

What about the other successors of the Apostles? Like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp etc who all had a direct unbroken line of continuity to Jesus Christ?

There is a substantial amount of certainty in their witness and their writings. For instance, Ignatius wrote the Letters to the Seven Churches of Magnesia in 107-110 A.D., in which he outlines doctrines that are in complete agreement and consistent with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Why would he deliberately falsify the substance and contents of such teachings that he had received from mentors who had direct access to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself??

Especially owing to the fact that his contemporaries, peers, friends and enemies would be there to expose him and his 'deceptions' (assumed) immediately when Ignatius writings became public? No such confrontation took place.

Ireneaus, who wrote Against Heresies, and was directly linked to the Apostle John through Polycarp outline all the data and information about Jesus Christ taught him by Polycarp and Apostle John.

His work is important because it exposes what were false teaching and separates them from the real and actual teachings of Jesus Christ and the facts of His life and ministry in the early church.

It would be really good for you to read and study the works of such Patristic Fathers mentioned above -have you ever done so?

If not, it would be really unfair and unjust for you to just dismiss their contents and material before carefully studying them first!

Regards, Dan.:wink:







Dan, how do you blatantly assume that Eusebius and others were right? Hearsay does not count for much. You are mentioning the "traditional view", which is not supported by much history.

[Dan Zebiri]

Heisonly1, moose, Barn and thers,

The fact that it was a 'cocktail of texts' initially, ultimately lead to the numerous inconsistencies and grammatical errors in the Quran. Lets consider what Ali Dashti and Ibn Khaldun have admitted.

And they seem to be quite numerous AND widespread as well, as Muslim scholars and theologians, well at least the more honest ones-admit to-like Ali Dashti and the classical scholar ibn Khaldun.

In the words of the late Iranian Muslim Scholar Ali Dashti:

"The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects.

"These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qor'an’s eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings."

Ali Dashti, Twenty-Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, Allen and Unwin, London, 1985, pp. 48-49

"To sum up, more than one hundred Qor’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted. Needless to say, the commentators strove to find explanations and justifications of these irregularities. Among them was the great commentator and philologist Mahmud oz-Zamakhshari (467/1075-538/1144), of whom a Moorish author wrote: ‘This grammar-obsessed pedant has committed a shocking error. Our task is not to make the readings conform to Arabic grammar, but to take the whole of the Qor’an as it is and make Arabic grammar conform to the Qor’an.’" (Ibid., p. 50)

Not just Ali Dashti is correct in his assessment of the quran, even BEFORE his time, we have the admissions of Muslim scholars like Ibn Khaldun on the Quran's many clear inconsistencies. So, Dashti is not the only scholar alone in his honest and objective conclusions on the Quran's inconsistencies!

One classical Muslim scholar, Ibn Khaldun confirms that the Quran had indeed been corrupted due to mistakes made by scribes :

"Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not (even) of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts. One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur'an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in their own script which was not of a firmly established, good quality.

MOST OF THE LETTERS WERE IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ORTHOGRAPHY REQUIRED BY PERSONS VERSED IN THE CRAFT OF WRITING ... Consequently, the Qur'anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where (this is noticeable).

Ibn Khaldun cautions against taking the defensive statements of the fundamentalist detractors seriously when he says:

No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la 'adhbahannahU ' I shall indeed slaughter him' as indication that the slaughtering did not take place ( lA 'adhbahannahU ). The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin 'with hands (power),' they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect.

There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing."

The Muqaddima, Ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p. 382.

The preceding citations clearly demonstrate that the scholars themselves are aware that the Quran contains hundreds, if not thousands, of erroneous and variant readings.

Muslim propogandists and fundamentalists like heisonly1 will do really well to first go and study, and examine studiously the works of these muslim scholars above, before impassionedly trying to make more embarassing statements, that ultimately does not reflect positively on Islam on TWeb.

Rgds, Dan Zebiri.

[mastralvarado]

Heisonly1, moose, Barn and thers,

The fact that it was a 'cocktail of texts' initially, ultimately lead to the numerous inconsistencies and grammatical errors in the Quran. Lets consider what Ali Dashti and Ibn Khaldun have admitted.

And they seem to be quite numerous AND widespread as well, as Muslim scholars and theologians, well at least the more honest ones-admit to-like Ali Dashti and the classical scholar ibn Khaldun.

In the words of the late Iranian Muslim Scholar Ali Dashti:

"The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects.

"These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qor'an’s eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings."

Ali Dashti, Twenty-Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, Allen and Unwin, London, 1985, pp. 48-49

"To sum up, more than one hundred Qor’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted. Needless to say, the commentators strove to find explanations and justifications of these irregularities. Among them was the great commentator and philologist Mahmud oz-Zamakhshari (467/1075-538/1144), of whom a Moorish author wrote: ‘This grammar-obsessed pedant has committed a shocking error. Our task is not to make the readings conform to Arabic grammar, but to take the whole of the Qor’an as it is and make Arabic grammar conform to the Qor’an.’" (Ibid., p. 50)

Not just Ali Dashti is correct in his assessment of the quran, even BEFORE his time, we have the admissions of Muslim scholars like Ibn Khaldun on the Quran's many clear inconsistencies. So, Dashti is not the only scholar alone in his honest and objective conclusions on the Quran's inconsistencies!

One classical Muslim scholar, Ibn Khaldun confirms that the Quran had indeed been corrupted due to mistakes made by scribes :

"Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not (even) of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts. One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur'an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in their own script which was not of a firmly established, good quality.

MOST OF THE LETTERS WERE IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ORTHOGRAPHY REQUIRED BY PERSONS VERSED IN THE CRAFT OF WRITING ... Consequently, the Qur'anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where (this is noticeable).

Ibn Khaldun cautions against taking the defensive statements of the fundamentalist detractors seriously when he says:

No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la 'adhbahannahU ' I shall indeed slaughter him' as indication that the slaughtering did not take place ( lA 'adhbahannahU ). The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin 'with hands (power),' they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect.

There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing."

The Muqaddima, Ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p. 382.

The preceding citations clearly demonstrate that the scholars themselves are aware that the Quran contains hundreds, if not thousands, of erroneous and variant readings.

Muslim propogandists and fundamentalists like heisonly1 will do really well to first go and study, and examine studiously the works of these muslim scholars above, before impassionedly trying to make more embarassing statements, that ultimately does not reflect positively on Islam on TWeb.

Rgds, Dan Zebiri.

Are you saying that the Arabic language was adapted to hide the grammatical errors in the Qur'an?
What qualitative (verbal referential) errors (if any) have you found? I am interested in knowing this.

[barnasha]

The arguments above all seem to be moot because they overlook the incredibly simple and irrefutable fact that the quran was never a scripture, except in a "post hoc" sense.

There cannot be discrepancies in a text which never existed.

The codification of the Quran came after it already was existed. How it may have differed (in very small ways) in the minds of the thousands who memorized it word-for-word, is a different story.

The above arguments must be rephrased either to

a) acknowledge this undeniable fact, or
b) to show that this is not an undeniable fact

I would challenge those who made said arguments to address this point, if they want their arguments to be considered as serious.

It would help to form arguments after doing scholarly analysis without looking for arguments which supported a desired, preconceived, conclusion.

Otherwise, these are not arguments, they are either incoherent ramblings or propaganda (or both)

[Dan Zebiri]

Both Ali Dashti and Ibn Khaldun - and others like them made intelligent and honest analyses of the Quran independently. That they could have arrived at their repective conclusions like the above is proof of their honesty and objectivity to admit the shortcomings of the Quranic text-as 'insiders' ie.Muslims, themselves.

Even if there were sufficient 'memorizers' of the Quran, that did not prevent the different versions and diverse readings of the Qurans in caliph Uthman's day - Qurans read by the Iraqi Muslims that contradicted the Azeri muslims' Qurans, for example!

Ibn Masud and Ubai bin Ka'b refused to surrender their copies of their Qurans when demanded by caliph Uthman who ordered their summary destruction!

When Uthman ordered that all other Qur'ans be burned, Masud refused to hand over his copy. By this time, Masud's Qur'an had become established in Kufa as the standard text, (and Ubai's Qur'an was the standard text in Syria) while Zaid's first Qur'an had become relatively obscure.

This is well-documented in Abi Dawud's "Kitab al Masahif" p. 13.

So, we can quite safely say that the 'standardization' of today's Quran (and Uthman's) was done by some degree of coercion and force, particularly over the original stakeholders of the initial extant texts!

Regards, Dan.

[barnasha]

Both Ali Dashti and Ibn Khaldun - and others like them made intelligent and honest analyses of the Quran independently. That they could have arrived at their repective conclusions like the above is proof of their honesty and objectivity to admit the shortcomings of the Quranic text-as 'insiders' ie.Muslims, themselves.

How is this opinion relevant?



Even if there were sufficient 'memorizers' of the Quran, that did not prevent the different versions and diverse readings of the Qurans in caliph Uthman's day - Qurans read by the Iraqi Muslims that contradicted the Azeri muslims' Qurans, for example!


yes, how much did they differ?

your arguments seem to be incredibly uninformed because any historian of the Quran would know that the main means by which it was preserved was memorization, even today we call someone who memorizes the quran a "hafith" or a preserver.



Ibn Masud and Ubai bin Ka'b refused to surrender their copies of their Qurans when demanded by caliph Uthman who ordered their summary destruction!

When Uthman ordered that all other Qur'ans be burned, Masud refused to hand over his copy. By this time, Masud's Qur'an had become established in Kufa as the standard text, (and Ubai's Qur'an was the standard text in Syria) while Zaid's first Qur'an had become relatively obscure.

This is well-documented in Abi Dawud's "Kitab al Masahif" p. 13.

So, we can quite safely say that the 'standardization' of today's Quran (and Uthman's) was done by some degree of coercion and force, particularly over the original stakeholders of the initial extant texts!

Regards, Dan.

how different were these? there were some minor discrepancies. hardly anything to support the original argument.

correct?

[Dan Zebiri]

Hi Barny,

Salam, if they were truly 'minor dicrepencies' as you hope, why should Uthman forcibly order their seizure from some of the oldest and close companions of Muhammad?

And then, further order the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of ALL these seized documents..??

Obviously, there had to be serious and severe discrepencies and inconsistences in Ubai's, Inbn Masud's and other Qurans of the day, that called for this drastic and final decision of Uthman's.

Dan.

[barnasha]

Hi Barny,

Salam, if they were truly 'minor dicrepencies' as you hope, why should Uthman forcibly order their seizure from some of the oldest and close companions of Muhammad?

And then, further order the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of ALL these seized documents..??

Obviously, there had to be serious and severe discrepencies and inconsistences in Ubai's, Inbn Masud's and other Qurans of the day, that called for this drastic and final decision of Uthman's.

Dan.

That assertion, my friend, lies the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders

[heisonly1]

Hi Barny,

Salam, if they were truly 'minor dicrepencies' as you hope, why should Uthman forcibly order their seizure from some of the oldest and close companions of Muhammad?

And then, further order the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of ALL these seized documents..??

Obviously, there had to be serious and severe discrepencies and inconsistences in Ubai's, Inbn Masud's and other Qurans of the day, that called for this drastic and final decision of Uthman's.

Dan.

Danny danny danny boy, it's obvious you completely ignored the references i stipulated, in this thread, that explain the reasons why they were destroyed that totally debunked your listed citations and claims regarding your exaggerated seriousness of the nature of these Quranic discrepencies.

Do you know what the nature of these discrepencies were danny boy and why they were destroyed?

Have a read first danny and be more specific in what your trying to imply so we can get right to the root of your doubts and suspicions and dismantle them for you!

[barnasha]

Danny danny danny boy, it's obvious you completely ignored the references i stipulated, in this thread, that explain the reasons why they were destroyed that totally debunked your listed citations and claims regarding your exaggerated seriousness of the nature of these Quranic discrepencies.

Do you know what the nature of these discrepencies were danny boy and why they were destroyed?

Have a read first danny and be more specific in what your trying to imply so we can get right to the root of your doubts and suspicions and dismantle them for you!

heisonly1 - why do you laugh when you're right? it marginalizes your argument... if you didnt laugh, you would make such a compelling point... it's not funny that some people stay deluded to the truth.. never let your emotions come into play... do everything for Allah's sake

[barnasha]

Hi Barny,

Salam, if they were truly 'minor dicrepencies' as you hope, why should Uthman forcibly order their seizure from some of the oldest and close companions of Muhammad?

And then, further order the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of ALL these seized documents..??

Obviously, there had to be serious and severe discrepencies and inconsistences in Ubai's, Inbn Masud's and other Qurans of the day, that called for this drastic and final decision of Uthman's.

Dan.


if the other versions (whether or not represented by documents) differed and were destroyed, it does not necessarily follow that the differences between the 'versions' were significantly great, especially not to such an extent so as to back up the argument in question.

based on the historical record of such events, there is no evidence showing otherwise, please correct me if i am wrong

[Dan Zebiri]

Barn,

Oh yes, these differences were great AND significant enough for EVEN the fellow-Muslims to go to war about against each other, according to Islam's historcial sources themselves..!

Then it was also serious enough for caliph uthman to order the wholesale destruction and re-standardization of the Quranis manuscript itself.

Yes. it would take the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, to produce an official codex while destroying (burning) other competing codices which were compiled by ear and eyewitnesses of Muhammad:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa WAS AFRAID OF THEIR (the peoples of Sham and Iraq) DIFFERENCES in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. '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. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/061.sbt.html#006.061.510))
Carefully note that the reason why Uthman undertook the task of codifying the Quran is because the Qurans compiled by others were not uniform. These different Qurans contained verses not found in the others, or omitted verses contained in the rest, leading Muslims to accuse one another of corrupting and tampering with the Quran! Hence, this narration clearly refutes the typical Muslim myth that there were Muslims who had memorized the Quran, being the primary means of perfectly preserving the text.

Don’t forget that these conflicting and contradictory codices were produced from the memories of certain reciters and scribes, showing that none of the compilers memorized the Quran exactly the same way!

Wasalaam, Dan.



if the other versions (whether or not represented by documents) differed and were destroyed, it does not necessarily follow that the differences between the 'versions' were significantly great, especially not to such an extent so as to back up the argument in question.

based on the historical record of such events, there is no evidence showing otherwise, please correct me if i am wrong

[barnasha]

Barn,

Oh yes, these differences were great AND significant enough for EVEN the fellow-Muslims to go to war about against each other, according to Islam's historcial sources themselves..!


a difference of even one vowel (vowels do not exist in arabic script) would be hotly debated, as this is the revelation of God Almighty.

so your assertion that the changes were very different are still wholly unfounded



Then it was also serious enough for caliph uthman to order the wholesale destruction and re-standardization of the Quranis manuscript itself.

Yes. it would take the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, to produce an official codex while destroying (burning) other competing codices which were compiled by ear and eyewitnesses of Muhammad:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa WAS AFRAID OF THEIR (the peoples of Sham and Iraq) DIFFERENCES in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. '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. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/061.sbt.html#006.061.510))
Carefully note that the reason why Uthman undertook the task of codifying the Quran is because the Qurans compiled by others were not uniform. These different Qurans contained verses not found in the others, or omitted verses contained in the rest, leading Muslims to accuse one another of corrupting and tampering with the Quran! Hence, this narration clearly refutes the typical Muslim myth that there were Muslims who had memorized the Quran, being the primary means of perfectly preserving the text.

Don’t forget that these conflicting and contradictory codices were produced from the memories of certain reciters and scribes, showing that none of the compilers memorized the Quran exactly the same way!

Wasalaam, Dan.

What you do not understand is that the Quran was never a work set in stone. It was a creation that was constantly added and changed slightly, over 20 years of revelation.

One person who was not around the prophet for the last three years of his ministry might have had a slightly different version memorized, than the one later corrected by the prophet (via the angel Gabriel)

So, this is a much deeper subject that requires more consideration, it is not a simple "this is a document, and there are discrepancies, therefore that document was not preserved faithfully" is an argument which overlooks the very history itself.

no, the quran was never a document (until the standardization of its codification)...

deciding on the exact context of a codex was a big deal - of course there are differences, as the quran differed during its approximately 20-year period of revelation and maintenance.

In conclusion, I will point out that the fact that different versions existed, where some verses existed in one, but not others, is not an argument that the Quran was constructed from other texts.

You are now arguing another point, that the Quran was not preserved properly, and your arguments for this are baseless, just as your arguments that it was created from other pre-existing texts were weak.

[Dan Zebiri]

Not quite, Barny. They are all quite pertinent and relevant to the reality or otherwise that what we have today is a genuinely authentic text of your Quran..!

And we have shown that there were indeed many different texts, readings and collections of the Book, differently significantly and substantially with each other - that led to severe consequesnces even among Muslims of their time.

The resolution of these consequesnces itself was equally drastic and severe - the wholesale destruction and re-construction of the Quran by an editorial Commitee, headed by Zaid bin Thabit - a former young scribe. Then dont forget, theres also the critical matter of these Quran's having no diacritical (or vowel) points - which were inserted (again) much later during the time of al Hajjaj.

These factors are all inter-related, Barny!

Regards, Dan.

[heisonly1]

Not quite, Barny. They are all quite pertinent and relevant to the reality or otherwise that what we have today is a genuinely authentic text of your Quran..!

And we have shown that there were indeed many different texts, readings and collections of the Book, differently significantly and substantially with each other - that led to severe consequesnces even among Muslims of their time.

The resolution of these consequesnces itself was equally drastic and severe - the wholesale destruction and re-construction of the Quran by an editorial Commitee, headed by Zaid bin Thabit - a former young scribe. Then dont forget, theres also the critical matter of these Quran's having no diacritical (or vowel) points - which were inserted (again) much later during the time of al Hajjaj.

These factors are all inter-related, Barny!

Regards, Dan.

Danny you'd save yourself a lot of ignorant rambling if you took the the time to actually read my references that dismantle your exaggerated suspicions and claims posted on this thread here -
Post: #50 Re: Koran a "cocktail of texts" predating Muhammad (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1870713&postcount=50)

Have a read, if the references still do not cure you from your confusion, then present your opinion and reasons why and express them here for clarification.

May Allah guide you !

[barnasha]

Not quite, Barny. They are all quite pertinent and relevant to the reality or otherwise that what we have today is a genuinely authentic text of your Quran..!


this is your chance to show how, if you are telling the truth.



And we have shown that there were indeed many different texts, readings and collections of the Book, differently significantly and substantially with each other - that led to severe consequesnces even among Muslims of their time.


but your argument was that the quran was made up of other texts, not that people had different versions memorized.

then you seemed to accept that that assumption was false, and moved onto arguing that since people disagreed as to what was the correct quran, that it was obviously not preserved accurately.

but I then pointed out that the differences were to be expected, and contention between those who had different versions was to be expected, since there were dozens of thousands of people who had memorized it. but the fact that the differences were so small is a testament to the accuracy of the preservation of the Qur'an.

the fact that they DID dispute such small differences so hotly works in favor of the argument that the quran was faithfully preserved, since the differences were so small. We are not arguing about chapters or passages, we are talking about a missing sentence or a missing word (which may have existed when some people learned it and not existed when other people learned it, or vice versa)

These arguments all would have to hinge on the idea that the Quran was transmitted atomically, as one codex. That it was an unchanging document and memorized different by people. But this is not the case -- rather, the codex had to be formed " after the fact"

The few places where people had slightly different versions memorized (as the versions did differ during the ministry of the prophet Muhammad and the continuous revelation of the Qur'an) had to be resolved, and they were under the control of `Uthman.

That the quran was faithfully preserved solely by the human heart and mind is perhaps without precedent in human history. Its codification was only a way to help people standardize on it, so it would not deviate.

A famous example is the verse in which stoning is prescribed for adulterers, but was later apparently annexed. Some people may have still remembered the old version, so who was really right? The people who had the most up to date version from the Prophet would obviously need to be given precedence. I am not sure as to the details of each individual dispute there was over the contents of the Quran in the muslim nation at that time.


The resolution of these consequesnces itself was equally drastic and severe - the wholesale destruction and re-construction of the Quran by an editorial Commitee, headed by Zaid bin Thabit - a former young scribe. Then dont forget, theres also the critical matter of these Quran's having no diacritical (or vowel) points - which were inserted (again) much later during the time of al Hajjaj.


This is really negligible since any arabic speaker had no need for the diacritics. Remember a large amount of these people were illiterate anyway.