Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is not the Quran a 100% preserved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    If muslims dislike the non-muslims scholars studies and research findings on the Koran, hadith, sunna and even the Sirah (or history of Muhd.) Then let a Muslim's research and diligent investigations reveal the truth about the sources of orthodox islam - the Koran, hadith and the Sirah.

    Brother Rachid of Morocco, a native Arab speaker, devoted Muslim and seeker for truth produced a powerful video and PowerPoint on his research into the "official biography of Muhamed" the sirat rasulullah by the 'well-known' Ibn Ishaq. Rachid has since left Islam and become a Christian, resulting from his diligent research and open, objective investigation into the sources of Islam and the sunna.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5tL4LDH-M

    It is amazing how much forgery there are in the origins of Rachid's religion that he quit..And they dare claim the New Testament and Gospel have been 'corrupted', tampered and changed, when the proofs are not at all in their favor, while the proofs for the veracity and reliability of the NT, Gospel and the Bible are overwhelmingly strong.







    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    Not true, siam. Your appeal to such circular reasoning "internal witness' narratives for your dubious Koran falls flat on its face when Koranic studies scholars - who have objectively examined the evidence - BOTH Internal and External, have NOTHING flattering to say about koranic reliability:
    "TO describe, still less to account for, the rise of Islam is a matter
    of peculiar difficulty. RenanÂ’s claim that Islam was the only religion
    to be born in the full light of history can hardly be sustained in
    view of the fact that we have virtually no contemporary witness.

    "Our knowledge of Muhammad is derived from the Koran, the
    hadith or traditions, and the sira or formal biography.

    Concerning the first - the Koran, no non-Muslim scholar has ever doubted that
    it was his personal composition
    , the revelations he claimed to have received
    from God during the last twenty years of his life; it is therefore the
    most authentic mirror of his career and doctrine, but its figurative
    style, obscure allusions, and uncertain dating of its suras or
    chapters
    , make it highly unsatisfactory as a biographical source. !

    "The second consists of an enormous mass of sayings and stories
    attributed to the Prophet, and guaranteed by an isnad, or chain of
    witnesses, framed on the pattern: ‘I heard from A, who heard from
    B, who heard from C, that the Prophet saidÂ…Â’ But memory is fallible,
    and isnads may be forged, and the desire of parties or
    groups in later years to justify their particular beliefs
    or practices
    by citing the authority of Muhammad for them undoubtedly
    produced an alarming amount of falsification.


    To base a life of the Prophet on the hadith is to BUILD ON SAND. The sira
    is a more valuable and reliable source, since it gives a full account of
    MuhammadÂ’s career in narrative form, but the earliest of these
    compositions which has come down to us, the Sirat Rasul Allah,
    or Life of the Apostle of God, by Ibn Ishaq, was put together well
    over a century after his death, and the portrait is already tinged
    with miracle and legend
    . Nor can we rely on foreign witnesses.

    The records of the Persian kingdom perished in the Arab conquest, and
    the oldest historical account of Muhammad by a Byzantine Greek
    is that of the monk Theophanes, who wrote when the Prophet had
    been dead nearly two hundred years. Every sketch of his life must
    thus be fragmentary and defective, and the many gaps must be
    filled by speculation.


    J.J. Saunders, A History of Medieval Islam, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002, 19-20.

    Comment


    • #77
      Only the western koranic studies? Then, an eastern Muslim scholar like Yasir Qadhi shouldn't have gone to Yale university in the USA to get an M.Phil followed by a PhD in islam and koranic studies.

      Here, Dr.Jay Smith analyses the interview between Y.Qadhi and Mohd.Hijab, an aggressive muslim evangelist and da'i. The outcome leaves much to be desired by Hijab who kept pressing Qadhi for a clear answer which Qadhi kept resisting and even waffles many times.

      https://youtu.be/vstGbZkjUcw

      Eastern muslim scholars are already embracing western scholastic conclusions about the Qiraat, ahruf, masahif and other aspects of koranic analysis and studies.


      Originally posted by siam View Post
      Though Western Quranic studies is still in its infancy, "Post-orientalist" views of many scholars today incline them towards taking the Quranic "voice"/agency more seriously. The question of the Quranic compilation is no longer of much interest as it has become pretty much accepted that the Islamic history was accurate. (ex, Estelle Whelan, Adrian Brocket...etc) Some Western scholars have moved on to the linguistic and structural aspects of the Quran. (Mary Douglas, Micheal Cuyprs, Raymond Farrin...etc) and others exploring the thematic, intertextual, intratextual aspects (ex Toshihiko Istuzu, Angelicka Neuwirth...etc) The idea that the Quran borrows/repeats Jewish/Christian texts/stories is also being discarded in favor of a Quranic "dialogue" with the Quran using rhetorical/literary devices to persuade towards its paradigmatic views. Such endeavors requires a more thorough and in-depth scrutiny and analysis of the Quran than was previously done in Western academia. (Muslim scholars have already done this centuries ago)
      Hopefully these will yield interesting new insights that will benefit both Muslims and Non-Muslims.

      Comment


      • #78
        Here are some links. I gave them weeks ago but all you can do siam, is kept quiet. Naturally, because the facts I shared are not made up.

        The Muslim Ali Dashti's findings about the Koran:

        https://1400years.org/books/twentythreeyearsEN.pdf

        Dashti said that the language and forms of the verses/ayats of your Koran has already been replicated by other Arab speakers. In many places they have superseded the koranic quality.

        Here is another link to an example for that:

        https://www.amazon.com/True-Furqan-A.../dp/1579211755

        Called "The True Furqan" . So has the challenge of the Koran's inimitability and "beautiful forms" been met?

        Of course it has! And been superseded too. In grammar, vocabulary, style and poetic quality.


        Originally posted by siam View Post
        Provide links so I can double-check, otherwise I will view info as suspect.

        The Quran was revealed in a socio-cultural background that highly valued poetry and had a high literary sophistication.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_poetry
        The first major poet in the pre-Islamic era is Imru' al-Qais, the last king of the kingdom of Kindah. Although most of the poetry of that era was not preserved, what remains is well regarded as the finest of Arabic poetry to date. In addition to the eloquence and artistic value, pre-Islamic poetry constitutes a major source for classical Arabic language both in grammar and vocabulary, and as a reliable historical record of the political and cultural life of the time.

        Poetry held an important position in pre-Islamic society with the poet or sha'ir filling the role of historian, soothsayer and propagandist. Words in praise of the tribe (qit'ah) and lampoons denigrating other tribes (hija') seem to have been some of the most popular forms of early poetry. The sha'ir represented an individual tribe's prestige and importance in the Arabian peninsula, and mock battles in poetry or zajal would stand in lieu of real wars. 'Ukaz, a market town not far from Mecca, would play host to a regular poetry festival where the craft of the sha'irs would be exhibited.


        The Quran is NOT poetry, nevertheless it has its own rhythm (saj)
        (Saj)--"It is a species of diction to which the Arabic language peculiarly lends itself, because of its structure, the mathematical precision of its manifold formations and the essential assonance of numerous derivatives from the same root supplying the connexion between the sound and signification of words."
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saj%27

        Apart from saj, the Quran uses many other grammatical and literary devices. It also has a ring structure, chiastic structure...etc.
        The use of these tools creates a balance in the verses and Surahs of the Quran such that changing a single word unbalances it. On the other hand, the saj and balance of Quranic surahs make them easier to memorize without error.

        The Quranic revelation was recited in public and freely for Muslims and non-Muslims to hear. It was also interactive to a degree---so, for example, when there was a complaint made that Arabic was grammatically gendered towards the male default, verses 35 of Surah 33 was revealed which specifically mentions women.---
        “For men and women who are devoted to God – believing men and women, obedient men and women, truthful men and women, steadfast men and women, humble men and women, charitable men and women, fasting men and women, chaste men and women, men and women who remember God often – God has prepared forgiveness and a rich reward.” Qur’an 33:35 On another occassion, a complaint was made that the Quranic stories are short/there is not a full story (beginning, middle, end) and the story of Prophet Joseph/Yusuf was revealed. The literary quality of the Quran was so high that some complained that the Prophet (pbuh) was a poet---the Quran answers that he is not.
        What none of the Arab listeners ever complained about was grammatical errors or low literary quality of the Quran.

        If a Quranic surah was so easy to replicate---it could have been done anytime in the 1,400 years of its existence. But not once has a single surah been replicated to the high literary sophistication of the Quran.

        Comment


        • #79
          YouTube Newsflash!

          YouTube has restored Dr. David Wood's video on "Secrets of the Quran", and rightly so.

          Islamic scholar Dr. Yasir Qadhi failed in his bid to ban David's expose on Qadhi's public admission on the imperfect preservation of the Koran - as there was nothing wrong with it factually, nor was it in any way "hate speech".

          Now Siam and Hakeem, what was an imperfect Koran, shown by Dr Wood and Yasir Qadhi as far from perfectly "preserved", doing, co-existing eternally with God / Allah on eternal tablets of the "mother of the book"? What about islamic "tauhid" eternal monotheism?

          Yasir Qadhi tried to remove this "Secrets of the Quran" video done by David Wood on YouTube but failed. Many muslims will back down about promoting a "perfectly preserved Quran" propoganda now because their OWN Muslim scholar has exposed its imperfections:

          https://youtu.be/gAzAEDuMMzM

          And here -

          https://youtu.be/nFiOigU8SPk


          Originally posted by siam View Post
          Thanks for the video.

          It is important to question...without questioning we cannot build Iman (faith/trust). Blind belief is discouraged in the Quran. Sometimes, each generation needs to ask the same questions that a previous generation asked....and answered...so as to be independently convinced rather than simply following in the "traditions" of the past. This struggle/Jihad for knowledge is necessary in order to have conviction---Iman = the use of ones intellect and reason to arrive at heartfelt conviction.
          God willing, this person will find the answers he is searching for.

          The material that Dr Saleem (and others with the same questions) uses is all from Islamic sources. This material is open to all scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim and has been so from the beginning. The questions that this person asks are not new. Muslim scholars have seen these materials/sources, have researched and come to the conclusion that the Quran is as Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) meant it to be.

          I am fine with that conclusion...because I do not have the time or the intellectual capacity to re-ask all these questions---for me, reading the Quran has convinced me of its wisdom and that works for me.


          Also Note---I gave a link to Surah Al Fatiha previously.....
          there are different readings of the word "Malik" ---so that in one case it means King and in the other it means Owner. The video link of the explanation of Al-Fatiha uses the reading of "Owner".

          Comment


          • #80
            The Quran---called the Uthmani Codex by Western historians---is the same Quran we have today.
            The Prophet (pbuh) was from the Tribe of Quraish and this "ahruf" is predominantly preserved in the Uthmani Codex.
            Qirat are the ways of pronunciation (accent) and these have been preserved and used in Quran recitations.

            Some points of contention have remained within the "Ummah" (Muslim community) with regards to some punctuation points, verse separation and numbering....etc...etc. None of which is a secret or has every been a secret.

            The whole point of "standardizing" the Quran during the time of the 1st 4 Caliphs WAS for its preservation. The method of its preservation has been clearly spelled out and Muslims---both scholars and average persons are satisfied. Millions of people from all over the world memorize the Quran and recite it in public competitions. They all recite the same Quran---not different Qurans.

            The official Quran that Muslims use is what is referred to by historians as the "Uthmani Codex"---however, any individual can copy the Quran and in doing so create "mistakes" intentionally or unintentionally. One such attempt that is preserved till today is in a museum---it is an attempt at a printed Quran done by a non-Arab speaking person and has spelling mistakes in it. (However, such Qurans are not "official" in that they are not used by Muslims)
            (---from BBC documentary "Science and Islam" Jim Al Khalili)
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9eLxDm7mrE
            at 2:39:30

            Verses...or even surahs of the Quran can be copied/used in unofficial ways such as in artworks, displays, rituals such as remembering/reflection (dikr) etc. Such use may create additions/subtractions/changes ---(such as the print that has spelling mistakes) This does not mean that the official Quran (Uthmani codex) has "changed".

            The Quran that ALL Muslims use today is the same one that was given to the Prophet (pbuh).


            Islamic history follows a different trajectory than Christian history and its ok.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by siam View Post
              The Quran---called the Uthmani Codex by Western historians---is the same Quran we have today.
              The Prophet (pbuh) was from the Tribe of Quraish and this "ahruf" is predominantly preserved in the Uthmani Codex.
              Qirat are the ways of pronunciation (accent) and these have been preserved and used in Quran recitations.

              Some points of contention have remained within the "Ummah" (Muslim community) with regards to some punctuation points, verse separation and numbering....etc...etc. None of which is a secret or has every been a secret.

              The whole point of "standardizing" the Quran during the time of the 1st 4 Caliphs WAS for its preservation. The method of its preservation has been clearly spelled out and Muslims---both scholars and average persons are satisfied. Millions of people from all over the world memorize the Quran and recite it in public competitions. They all recite the same Quran---not different Qurans.

              The official Quran that Muslims use is what is referred to by historians as the "Uthmani Codex"---however, any individual can copy the Quran and in doing so create "mistakes" intentionally or unintentionally. One such attempt that is preserved till today is in a museum---it is an attempt at a printed Quran done by a non-Arab speaking person and has spelling mistakes in it. (However, such Qurans are not "official" in that they are not used by Muslims)
              (---from BBC documentary "Science and Islam" Jim Al Khalili)
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9eLxDm7mrE
              at 2:39:30

              Verses...or even surahs of the Quran can be copied/used in unofficial ways such as in artworks, displays, rituals such as remembering/reflection (dikr) etc. Such use may create additions/subtractions/changes ---(such as the print that has spelling mistakes) This does not mean that the official Quran (Uthmani codex) has "changed".

              The Quran that ALL Muslims use today is the same one that was given to the Prophet (pbuh).


              Islamic history follows a different trajectory than Christian history and its ok.
              1 hour 12 minutes:
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                1 hour 12 minutes:
                Please don't just post a vid without providing some sort of summary. It can be as short as a couple of sentences.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Please don't just post a vid without providing some sort of summary. It can be as short as a couple of sentences.
                  You are right.

                  The video's title is "An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings - Jay Smith" 48 minutes into this video for a discussion of the 6 oldest Qurans in existence.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    You are right.

                    The video's title is "An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings - Jay Smith" 48 minutes into this video for a discussion of the 6 oldest Qurans in existence.
                    If this had been a video from a historical scholar---I would have major problems with it---however, Smith is not a scholar of Islam/Muslim history but is doing apologetics.

                    In Western historical scholarship, there have been 2 trends, One is a revisionist school that presumes all Muslim "sources" must be discounted as biased,...and what might be called the "traditionalists", who are fine with using Islamic/Muslim sources as well as contemporaneous non-Muslim sources to reconstruct History.

                    Today, knowledge production is moving towards the trend of Post-orientalism and de-colonization which allows for more seriousness and agency towards non-western knowledge production. This allows for respectful collaboration between Non-Muslim and Muslim historians. Today, the existence of the Prophet (pbuh) is no longer in dispute. The Quran in use today is, what Western historians call, the "Uthmani Codex" is also not in dispute.
                    In academia, there seems to be more interest in reconstructing the "audience" or milieu of early Islam/pre-Islam. In particular---the beliefs, practices and literary works (poetry, liturgy, folk tales, religious works...etc) of Eastern Christians and Eastern Jews. Some western historians argue that the Quranic discourse is built around reactions to existing religio-philosophical ideas of that time. (reactions -- not influence)

                    Ofcourse its not just Western Academia that is interested---Eastern non-Muslim scholarship is also interested in comparative philosophical ideas. Islam came to China (Tang Dynasty) pretty early in Islamic history. The exchange and development of ideas between Islam and the Far East is also academically interesting.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Dr.Jay Smith was simply citing the works, points and research findings of a MUSLIM SHAIKH AND ISLAMIC SCHOLAR - Dr. YASIR QADHI. And the interview discussion between him and MUSLIM missionary MUHD HIJAB.

                      Dr.Smith was just quoting verbatim - view the video - what he quoted QADHI was saying.

                      Muslim scholar QADHI was stating there, that the Koranic narratives has MANY HOLES IN THEM. And Muslims now cannot answer the historical and source critical questions that today's research have factually uncovered and exposed about your Koran, hadith sirah and tarikh.

                      For example, the standard issue of Muhd's Sirah rasulullah, written and redacted by Ibn Ishaq (no original text or corpus) and then further RE-REDACTED by ibn Hisham was written over 200 years from Muhd's conventional death.

                      So, there is NO real reliable text about Muhamed's biography and life history. The over 200 years gap exposes the sira to legends, interpolations and fasifications.

                      Al-Bukhari's Hadith is worse. It was collected and collated AFTER ibn Hisham's Sira. So now do you understand WHY history scholar JJ Saunders declared that the Koran and sunnah sources are totally unreliable resources for historical facts to study about Muhamed and even worse, for the life and times of Jesus Christ.

                      In his book "A History of Medieval Islam".

                      I gave you the link to Saunder's book a while ago already.


                      Originally posted by siam View Post
                      If this had been a video from a historical scholar---I would have major problems with it---however, Smith is not a scholar of Islam/Muslim history but is doing apologetics.

                      In Western historical scholarship, there have been 2 trends, One is a revisionist school that presumes all Muslim "sources" must be discounted as biased,...and what might be called the "traditionalists", who are fine with using Islamic/Muslim sources as well as contemporaneous non-Muslim sources to reconstruct History.

                      Today, knowledge production is moving towards the trend of Post-orientalism and de-colonization which allows for more seriousness and agency towards non-western knowledge production. This allows for respectful collaboration between Non-Muslim and Muslim historians. Today, the existence of the Prophet (pbuh) is no longer in dispute. The Quran in use today is, what Western historians call, the "Uthmani Codex" is also not in dispute.
                      In academia, there seems to be more interest in reconstructing the "audience" or milieu of early Islam/pre-Islam. In particular---the beliefs, practices and literary works (poetry, liturgy, folk tales, religious works...etc) of Eastern Christians and Eastern Jews. Some western historians argue that the Quranic discourse is built around reactions to existing religio-philosophical ideas of that time. (reactions -- not influence)

                      Ofcourse its not just Western Academia that is interested---Eastern non-Muslim scholarship is also interested in comparative philosophical ideas. Islam came to China (Tang Dynasty) pretty early in Islamic history. The exchange and development of ideas between Islam and the Far East is also academically interesting.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        It's tragically nice for muslims like you Siam, to confirm that you believe in islam & the koran not because of the facts, but IN SPITE OF NO facts and actual falsehoods mentioned in your scripture.

                        So, you can believe the koran talks about embryology, sperm production and the iron wall made by Dhulqarnyn despite these all being falsehoods scientifically and historically! ALL the equivalents of fairy-tales and fables.

                        Just because muhamed said the Koran came down from God to him so it must be true and factual...LOL! That's FORCING PEOPLE TO BELIEVE even though theres no convincing facts to support believing in them - SHEER BLIND FAITH.

                        What a joke really.. tell us about that iron wall made by Dhulqarnyn in some mountains that's taught in surah al-kahf (18)! Is it real? Are there verifiable photos or at least some archaeological evidence to back up the claims? So far there's nothing! Just an imaginary fable taught in sura 18:95-97.

                        Dr. William Campbell has already exposed and debunked the many fabulous fairy tales in your Quran, like the ones above, in his book "The Bible, the Quran and Science" :-

                        https://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/contents.html

                        You also make a false accusation from ignorance and condescension, that these are "Christian" scholars I quoted from.

                        Saunders did not write from a religious perspective when he critiqued the koran. NEITHER was he writing as A Christian as you wrongly assume. In fact, it is doubtful if he was a Christian at all. Don't assume that just because the scholar, historian or researcher has a western name, they MUST be Christians somehow.

                        They are writing from a purely historical and objective angle. To evaluate the development of the Koran historically and critically in a unbiased an open manner. Why are muslims so scared of open scrutiny of their scripture?

                        If the Koran fails such critical and open examination then many if not most of its tenets are called into question and are dubious bases for faith.

                        Many other non-Christian historians and reputable research scholars like Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Dr.Gerd Puin and Christoph Luxenburg etc, all question the historical and factual value of your koran.

                        In fact, even muslim scholars like Ali Dashti and Ibn Khaldun have also criticised the Koran for numerous irregularities and inconsistencies. So don't blame the Christians or Jews for a superbly flawed Quran.


                        Originally posted by siam View Post
                        The Quran---called the Uthmani Codex by Western historians---is the same Quran we have today.
                        The Prophet (pbuh) was from the Tribe of Quraish and this "ahruf" is predominantly preserved in the Uthmani Codex.
                        Qirat are the ways of pronunciation (accent) and these have been preserved and used in Quran recitations.

                        Some points of contention have remained within the "Ummah" (Muslim community) with regards to some punctuation points, verse separation and numbering....etc...etc. None of which is a secret or has every been a secret.

                        The whole point of "standardizing" the Quran during the time of the 1st 4 Caliphs WAS for its preservation. The method of its preservation has been clearly spelled out and Muslims---both scholars and average persons are satisfied. Millions of people from all over the world memorize the Quran and recite it in public competitions. They all recite the same Quran---not different Qurans.

                        The official Quran that Muslims use is what is referred to by historians as the "Uthmani Codex"---however, any individual can copy the Quran and in doing so create "mistakes" intentionally or unintentionally. One such attempt that is preserved till today is in a museum---it is an attempt at a printed Quran done by a non-Arab speaking person and has spelling mistakes in it. (However, such Qurans are not "official" in that they are not used by Muslims)
                        (---from BBC documentary "Science and Islam" Jim Al Khalili)
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9eLxDm7mrE
                        at 2:39:30

                        Verses...or even surahs of the Quran can be copied/used in unofficial ways such as in artworks, displays, rituals such as remembering/reflection (dikr) etc. Such use may create additions/subtractions/changes ---(such as the print that has spelling mistakes) This does not mean that the official Quran (Uthmani codex) has "changed".

                        The Quran that ALL Muslims use today is the same one that was given to the Prophet (pbuh).


                        Islamic history follows a different trajectory than Christian history and its ok.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Siam, you asked and I gave you the links requested. I gave them here, WEEKS ago but all you can do siam, is to keep quiet. Naturally, because the facts I shared are ALL NOT MADE UP.

                          The Muslim Ali Dashti's findings about the Koran:

                          https://1400years.org/books/twentythreeyearsEN.pdf

                          Dashti said that the language and forms of the verses/ayats of your Koran has ALREADY BEEN REPLICATED by other Arab speakers. In many places they have SUPERSEDED the koranic quality.

                          It is worth downloading and it is FREE!

                          Here is another link to an example for that:

                          https://www.amazon.com/True-Furqan-A.../dp/1579211755

                          Called "The True Furqan" . So has the challenge of the Koran's inimitability and "beautiful forms" been met?

                          Of course it has - TOTALLY! And has been superseded too. In grammar, vocabulary, style and poetic quality compared with the Koran.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Dr. Dan Brubaker is a scholastically qualified Arabist, islamist and qualified reader and manuscripts authority of Koranic arabic and its variant documents.

                            He is acknowledged and respected by the middle eastern Arab muslim countries and they even allowed him access to their museums and ancient manuscript libraries to study the ancient koranic texts. He is also a Christian, now THAT DID NOT DISQUALIFY Dr Brubaker in the eyes of these Islamic nations and authorities.

                            This is his Youtube video channel about the extensive Koranic manuscripts research done, and the plentiful variants that are found in all the primitive texts:

                            https://youtu.be/IMa5tqfdNzw

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Here are a couple more links to Dr.Brubaker's Koranic and Arabic research, bookmark the pages:-

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=dan+...VvYYj6V4,Eod:0

                              And:-

                              https://youtu.be/HmUEub1O5FU

                              Enjoy and be truly enlightened!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                The whole "purpose" of caliph Uthman's burning and wholesale destruction of all the variant Korans in his time was for "standardizing" and "preserving" the Koran - as you are saying it. This act of wanton koran manuscripts destruction was recorded in islamic orthodox sources like Bukhari etc.

                                But the koran itself said that "God / Allah protects and preserved his words" from changes - QS 6/115, 5/48 etc.

                                Did Allah send a message through angel Gabriel to Uthman, commanding Uthman to burn all the non-Quraishi versions?

                                Obviously not!

                                Did another angel reveal to Uthman the word of Allah to put together an editorial committee, and appoint a young Muslim Zaid b.Thabit to be the head redactor of it, & to selectively use the Hafsa version only ?

                                No! These are all acts of human intervention, re-editions, deliberate redactions and re-publication of a revised Koran under the supervision of a caliph, with no record of a divine sanction and order to do so.

                                Bottom line: today's Koran is the result of a human editorial committee's re-publishing of the book, not directly from a divine fiat. As traditional orthodox islam wants everyone to believe. The Uthmani rasm was not the original one and differed in content and substantially with olthe other codices more primitive to it, i.e. those owned by Ubai bin Kab, Abdullah b. Masud, Ali b.Abi Talib and others.

                                Orthodox islamic sunni sources tell that the senior Muslims mentioned above did not willingly surrender their manuscripts / mushafs per the command of the caliph to be destroyed. Rather they even resisted such a move but were forced to do so in the end.

                                So much for "perfect preservation" of the Qureshi Koran. However in 1924, the clerics at the islamic al-azhar university did not pick this "Uthman edition" as the standard for the muslim world.

                                Its own "Cairene codex" is the standard for today.

                                There are the variant "Warsh" and "Hafs" texts that further crowd the field of different Korans, as is seen from Korans read in north Africa, different again from that im the Arab muslim world of the middle East.

                                There is no ONE standard koran that is followed by islam today, that is a plain fact.



                                Originally posted by siam View Post
                                The Quran---called the Uthmani Codex by Western historians---is the same Quran we have today.
                                The Prophet (pbuh) was from the Tribe of Quraish and this "ahruf" is predominantly preserved in the Uthmani Codex.
                                Qirat are the ways of pronunciation (accent) and these have been preserved and used in Quran recitations.

                                Some points of contention have remained within the "Ummah" (Muslim community) with regards to some punctuation points, verse separation and numbering....etc...etc. None of which is a secret or has every been a secret.

                                The whole point of "standardizing" the Quran during the time of the 1st 4 Caliphs WAS for its preservation. The method of its preservation has been clearly spelled out and Muslims---both scholars and average persons are satisfied. Millions of people from all over the world memorize the Quran and recite it in public competitions. They all recite the same Quran---not different Qurans.

                                The official Quran that Muslims use is what is referred to by historians as the "Uthmani Codex"---however, any individual can copy the Quran and in doing so create "mistakes" intentionally or unintentionally. One such attempt that is preserved till today is in a museum---it is an attempt at a printed Quran done by a non-Arab speaking person and has spelling mistakes in it. (However, such Qurans are not "official" in that they are not used by Muslims)
                                (---from BBC documentary "Science and Islam" Jim Al Khalili)
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9eLxDm7mrE
                                at 2:39:30

                                Verses...or even surahs of the Quran can be copied/used in unofficial ways such as in artworks, displays, rituals such as remembering/reflection (dikr) etc. Such use may create additions/subtractions/changes ---(such as the print that has spelling mistakes) This does not mean that the official Quran (Uthmani codex) has "changed".

                                The Quran that ALL Muslims use today is the same one that was given to the Prophet (pbuh).


                                Islamic history follows a different trajectory than Christian history and its ok.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X