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

  • #91
    Your information is incorrect.
    I am repeating the same information many, many times. If you could read and reflect on my comments ---perhaps we would not need to keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.!!!!

    The term "Preserve/Preservation" = to protect in its original form.
    Original =1. present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.
    2. created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation.
    3. something serving as a model or basis for imitations or copies.
    In the case of the Quran---"original" would mean the Quran recited by the Prophet (pbuh) and approved by him.

    The "revelation" was more or less public. The Prophet had scribes write it down when he was reciting and these scribes would read it back to him to ensure its accuracy. There were many "witnesses" who heard and saw this process (it was public) Sometimes questions would be asked by the audience or the verses/revelation would be debated among the people.

    The primary initial method of preservation of the Quran is/was memorization. The Community memorized the Quran and the written Quran served as a tool for memorization which is why it was not in "Book" form as we know it today. After the death of the Prophet (buh) with the death of many Muslims, it was decided that apart from memorization (which is still a major method of preservation today) it would be preserved in text form as well.
    So---here one could ask---why was it not in book form from the beginning?
    The reason is that the verses were not revealed sequentially (one after the other). Upon revelation, the Prophet would explain where in the already revealed Quran the verses fit. That is why some Surahs can be predominantly revealed later (Medina) but have chunks of verses that were revealed earlier (Mecca)....etc. This meant it could not be a book form unless it was completed first. (that is, until revelation fully stopped)
    (Its also why Muslims do not approve of the "Chronological Quran" method of reading/teaching used in some Western Academies as this distorts the Quran)

    This process (of compiling in text form) under the leadership of Caliph Abu Bakr, was detailed and thorough. Each piece of the Quran that was collected had to meet the criterion that it was written in front of the Prophet and that there were 2 witnesses that can attest to that and verify the verses. The final product, apparently, was recited in front of the whole community for their approval.

    What is called the "Uthmani Codex" used this (1st) compilation as well as redoing the process---that of verification and witness as explained above---It gave preference to the Quraishi dialect as the standard. (The Prophet was from the Quraishi tribe and spoke in that dialect). By this time, Islam was expanding outside of the Arabic speaking areas/territories and thus the preservation of the "original" Quran became an important issue.

    So why did Muslim "history" follow this trajectory in the preservation of the "original" Quran? (when Christians did not?)
    Its because of the concept of "Khalifa" (Trusteeship). In this conception, Humanity are not passive recipients of God's will, but active participants in God's plans. That is why we are endowed with creativity, intelligence, and free-will. This characteristic is known as Ijtihad = the use of ones reason and intelligence to find creative solutions to problems.

    From the Muslim perspective, the "Uthmani Codex" IS the original preserved Quran. When I, as a Muslim, memorize the Quran---I too am "preserving" it. Do I need a special sanction from God to memorize the Quran ? ---NO. Its simply understood as a right and a duty. For 1400+ years, Muslims have passed on the Quran from one generation to the next---does each generation require an Angel to approve? No. Each one of us (humanity) is responsible for the choices we make in how to use or disregard the wisdom we have received.

    If Islamic history had followed a different trajectory---one where a text form was not compiled---would the Quran still be preserved today? ---Probably---though one can never know, only speculate.
    Instead of the text being sent---human reciters could have been sent to the various locations to teach the original Quran and eventually it would have been recorded. (...by the 13th century, inventors had created "automata" (robots)...and other devices...)

    Comment


    • #92
      If my information about koranic preservation is "incorrect", then yours is even more so, and worse still, MISLEADING and blatantly deceptive in the light of the relevant facts and the relevant research, siam.

      In fact there has been Careless Transmission of the Koran from the seven, to ten and more "qiraats" or versions and variant Koran readings.

      There has also been careless transmission of the Quran; in fact, the circumstances leading to THE CAIRO EDITION of the Arabic Quran were because of the errors in the existing printed Quranic texts - based on UTHMAN's re-published version!

      The Egyptian government was motivated to begin the project that would lead to THE 1924 CAIRO KORAN edition due to the variations - or “ERRORS"- as an appendix to the Cairo edition describes them, found in the Koranic texts that they had been importing for Islamic state schools.

      In response, the Egyptian government DESTROYED A LARGE NUMBER OF SUCH TEXTS BY SINKING THEM IN THE NILE RIVER AND ISSUED ITS OWN DIFFERENT KORAN TEXT. This version destroyed wholesale by these muslim clerics - was the Uthmanic version of the Koran.

      The Cairo project thus simply followed in the spirit of the caliph ‘Uthman, and the governor al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf (d. 95/714), who the sunni hadith reported to have destroyed competing versions and distributed their own text of the Qur’an in the first Islamic century

      From: Gabriel Said Reynolds, “Introduction,” in The Qurʾān in its Historical Context, ed. Gabriel S. Reynolds [London, Routledge, 2008], p.3.

      The influential standard Quran of Cairo ("1342 Cairo text" using the Islamic calendar) is the Koran that is in GENERAL USE throughout almost ALL the Muslim world today - produced by the al-Azhar muslim clerics in 1924 by rejecting the so-called "standardised Uthman edition" that you claim as "preserved". However, it evidently was NOT well - preserved ENOUGH for the university's clerics & ulemas! LOL...😄 ☝️🤪

      The Egyptian edition is based on the "Ḥafṣ" version ("qira'at") based on ʻAsim's recitation, the 8TH CENTURY recitation of Kufa. But NOT the Uthman edition of the 1ST century!

      From: Böwering, "Recent Research on the Construction of the Quran", 2008.

      It uses a set of additional symbols and an elaborate system of modified vowel-signs and for minute details, NOT IDENTICAL TO ANY OLDER SYSTEM, including Uthman's redacted Koran edition or to any older system.

      From: Stefan Wild, "Reading" The Quran: an Encyclopedia, Routledge

      The Cairo edition has become the STANDARD for modern printings of the Quran.

      From: Andrew Rippin; et al. (2006). The Blackwell companion to the Qur'an ([2a reimpr.] ed.). Blackwell. ISBN 978140511752-4.For the history of compilation, see Introduction by Tamara Sonn pp. 5–6.

      And: Melchert, Christopher (2000). "Ibn Mujahid and the Establishment of Seven Qur'anic Readings". Studia Islamica (91): 5–22. doi:10.2307/1596266. JSTOR 1596266



      Originally posted by siam View Post
      Your information is incorrect.
      I am repeating the same information many, many times. If you could read and reflect on my comments ---perhaps we would not need to keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.!!!!

      The term "Preserve/Preservation" = to protect in its original form.
      Original =1. present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.
      2. created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation.
      3. something serving as a model or basis for imitations or copies.
      In the case of the Quran---"original" would mean the Quran recited by the Prophet (pbuh) and approved by him.

      The "revelation" was more or less public. The Prophet had scribes write it down when he was reciting and these scribes would read it back to him to ensure its accuracy. There were many "witnesses" who heard and saw this process (it was public) Sometimes questions would be asked by the audience or the verses/revelation would be debated among the people.

      The primary initial method of preservation of the Quran is/was memorization. The Community memorized the Quran and the written Quran served as a tool for memorization which is why it was not in "Book" form as we know it today. After the death of the Prophet (buh) with the death of many Muslims, it was decided that apart from memorization (which is still a major method of preservation today) it would be preserved in text form as well.
      So---here one could ask---why was it not in book form from the beginning?
      The reason is that the verses were not revealed sequentially (one after the other). Upon revelation, the Prophet would explain where in the already revealed Quran the verses fit. That is why some Surahs can be predominantly revealed later (Medina) but have chunks of verses that were revealed earlier (Mecca)....etc. This meant it could not be a book form unless it was completed first. (that is, until revelation fully stopped)
      (Its also why Muslims do not approve of the "Chronological Quran" method of reading/teaching used in some Western Academies as this distorts the Quran)

      This process (of compiling in text form) under the leadership of Caliph Abu Bakr, was detailed and thorough. Each piece of the Quran that was collected had to meet the criterion that it was written in front of the Prophet and that there were 2 witnesses that can attest to that and verify the verses. The final product, apparently, was recited in front of the whole community for their approval.

      What is called the "Uthmani Codex" used this (1st) compilation as well as redoing the process---that of verification and witness as explained above---It gave preference to the Quraishi dialect as the standard. (The Prophet was from the Quraishi tribe and spoke in that dialect). By this time, Islam was expanding outside of the Arabic speaking areas/territories and thus the preservation of the "original" Quran became an important issue.

      So why did Muslim "history" follow this trajectory in the preservation of the "original" Quran? (when Christians did not?)
      Its because of the concept of "Khalifa" (Trusteeship). In this conception, Humanity are not passive recipients of God's will, but active participants in God's plans. That is why we are endowed with creativity, intelligence, and free-will. This characteristic is known as Ijtihad = the use of ones reason and intelligence to find creative solutions to problems.

      From the Muslim perspective, the "Uthmani Codex" IS the original preserved Quran. When I, as a Muslim, memorize the Quran---I too am "preserving" it. Do I need a special sanction from God to memorize the Quran ? ---NO. Its simply understood as a right and a duty. For 1400+ years, Muslims have passed on the Quran from one generation to the next---does each generation require an Angel to approve? No. Each one of us (humanity) is responsible for the choices we make in how to use or disregard the wisdom we have received.

      If Islamic history had followed a different trajectory---one where a text form was not compiled---would the Quran still be preserved today? ---Probably---though one can never know, only speculate.
      Instead of the text being sent---human reciters could have been sent to the various locations to teach the original Quran and eventually it would have been recorded. (...by the 13th century, inventors had created "automata" (robots)...and other devices...)

      Comment


      • #93
        1) Quran, (as text), referred to as Uthmani Codex by historians, is the one in use today. There is only one Quran.
        2) Styles of recitation (Qirat) use a methodology (science)---this ensures the stability of these recitation styles over time.

        1)The Muslim understanding of "Quran"/'revelation"
        The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) could not read/write. Therefore, what is called the "Uthmani Codex" attempts to preserve, in text form, the Quran that was "revealed"(this distinction was made by the Prophet himself). Revelation/Ayah, in text form, is only that which was revealed to the Prophet ---any UI/UX enhancements (to make it more user friendly)---such as markers for divisions, numbers (page numbers, verse numbers...etc) and any other developments to make the text more "user-friendly" are not "revelation"....but UI/UX. The most widely used is the "Cairo edition". (The text is the Uthmani Codex)

        2) The Cairo edition also "standardized" the diacritical marks (another type of UI/UX). These marks indicate enunciation and elocution (Qirat). These recitations have a methodology(science) ---and as with all things Islamic---a line of transmission. (traceability).
        Qirat of Hafs (recitiation style of Hafs) is named after the Early Quran reciter. The Diacritical marks uses this style as recited by the person named Asim.

        There is a stability in the transmission of both text and recitations of (the official) Quran through time.

        Comment


        • #94
          Siam, your constant demand for “Muslim scholars” just exposes your partiality and somewhat narrow mindedness and lack of objectivity when it comes to critiques of your positions on Islam, the Koran, traditions etc. Despite the practical and useful advice from Muslim shaikh and koran scholar based in the USA, Dr. Yasir Qadhi, who does not try to avoid addressing the non-Muslim scholars’ criticisms and doubts about the Koran and its historical evolution.

          You asked for Muslim scholars, we will now give you the muslims you demand!

          Muslims believe they possess various Koran’s Caliph Uthman had created in the mid seventh century when he allegedly standardized and distributed the Koran after Muhammad died. To them this proves the Koran of Uthman has been perfectly preserved reaching us today.
          As Muslim writer. Murad Hofmann claims,
          “Uthman’s copy is on display at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, the second one is preserved in Tashkent” (Murad Hofmann, Islam and Qurʼan: An Introduction, [Amana Publications, 2007], p. 27).

          However, world authorities of early Koranic manuscripts are now admitting, after their independent, investigative assessments of such manuscripts, that Muslims DO NOT ACTUALLY POSSESS ANY of Uthman’s Korans.

          For example, world-class Muslim Koranic manuscript scholar & suthority, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu wrote,
          “One of the most important questions of Qur’anic history is the whereabouts of the Mushafs attributed to Caliph Uthman and whether any of them reached the present day. Unfortunately, we do not have a positive answer to this question”
          (Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 35).

          Now, one of the early Koranic manuscripts Muslims that presumptuously claim comes from Uthman is the Topkapi manuscript.

          However, Muslim scholar and koranic manuscript authority, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu notes,
          “Judging from its illumination, the Topkapi Mushaf dates neither from the period when the Mushafs of the Caliph Uthman were written nor from the time when copies based on those Mushafs were written”
          Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, The Copy at the Topkapi Palace Museum, [IRCICA, 2007], p. 10.

          Confirming this is Tayyar Altıkulaç, another high-level Koranic manuscript authority and scholar, who says,
          “Even though we would like to publish this sacred text as the Mushaf of Caliph Uthman, our research indicated that IT WAS NEITHER THE PRIVATE Mushaf (manuscript) of Caliph Uthman, NOR ONE of the Mushafs he sent to various centers”

          Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 23.

          Another Koranic manuscript that Muslims falsely claim comes from Uthman is the “Samarqand manuscript” housed in Uzbekistan. However, the MUSLIM koranic manuscript authority, Tayyar Altıkulaç notes THIS ONE IS NOT Uthmanic either,
          “Muslims generally believed that this manuscript was one of the four Uthman sent out, and widespread opinion is that ‘he was reading this copy when he was martyred’ [due to blood stains on it] . . . But [due to] its spelling . . . it is neither one of Caliph Uthman’s copies nor his private Mushaf”

          Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 65.

          He continues,
          “[There are] six reasons why it could not be so, including almost no discipline of spelling, different ways of writing the same word, scribal mistakes, copyists’ mistakes, written by a scribe who had no writing experience, and later added signs after verses. In conclusion, we can say that the Tashkent [ie. Samarqand] Mushaf WAS NEITHER the Mushaf which Caliph Uthman was reading when he was martyred, NOR ANY ONE of the Mushafs that he sent to various centers . . . NOR THE COPY that was kept in Medina for the benefit of the people

          Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, pp. 71-72.

          François Déroche dates it to the eighth century (François Déroche, "Note Sur Les Fragments Coraniques Anciens De Katta Langar (Ouzbékistan)", Cahiers D'Asie Centrale, 1999, Volume 7, p. 65).

          The Muslim writers at the Islamic-Awareness website also admit concerning this manuscript, “The dates generated by this radiometric technique and palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd century hijra) date.” Caliph Uthman died in the seventh century A.D.

          Say what you want about the Uthmanic recension as propaganda. HOWEVER, the two foremost Muslim koranic manuscript authorities - Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu and Tayyar Altıkulaç from Turkey have indisputably debunked the idea that Uthman’s codex 'exists somewhere in the world' – BUT THEY DON’T, and they are certainly confirmed to not exist in Turkey or Uzbekistan -OR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, as uninformed and unlearned Muslims preach as propaganda & want non-muslims to BLINDLY Believe.

          Check out the Works and documentation by these two muslim world manuscript authorities, Siam - I have provided their research, published works and relevant page numbers above - go study them with an open mind!


          Originally posted by siam View Post
          1) Quran, (as text), referred to as Uthmani Codex by historians, is the one in use today. There is only one Quran.
          2) Styles of recitation (Qirat) use a methodology (science)---this ensures the stability of these recitation styles over time.

          1)The Muslim understanding of "Quran"/'revelation"
          The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) could not read/write. Therefore, what is called the "Uthmani Codex" attempts to preserve, in text form, the Quran that was "revealed"(this distinction was made by the Prophet himself). Revelation/Ayah, in text form, is only that which was revealed to the Prophet ---any UI/UX enhancements (to make it more user friendly)---such as markers for divisions, numbers (page numbers, verse numbers...etc) and any other developments to make the text more "user-friendly" are not "revelation"....but UI/UX. The most widely used is the "Cairo edition". (The text is the Uthmani Codex)

          2) The Cairo edition also "standardized" the diacritical marks (another type of UI/UX). These marks indicate enunciation and elocution (Qirat). These recitations have a methodology(science) ---and as with all things Islamic---a line of transmission. (traceability).
          Qirat of Hafs (recitiation style of Hafs) is named after the Early Quran reciter. The Diacritical marks uses this style as recited by the person named Asim.

          There is a stability in the transmission of both text and recitations of (the official) Quran through time.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: yr post #94
            "Tayyar Altıkulac, another high-level Koranic manuscript authority and scholar"/Topkapi Quran

            Your information is incorrect in its conclusions...

            Dating of early Quran manuscripts can be in a couple of ways---one is carbon dating the "document" the other is development of writing style (orthography).

            Neither is exact---carbon dating gives an approx time-period and orthography is based an assumptions made from available data.

            Topkapi Quran---It is claimed that it is the same as the Uthmani Codex. Research shows the text is the same---though it has other features (such as decorations) that put its production to a later date---that is---its a copy of the Uthmani Codex produced at a later time period (carbon dating puts it to approx early to mid 8th century CE)
            https://themuslimtimes.info/2015/07/...he-holy-quran/

            According to the scholar (u used)Tayyar Altıkulac ---This Quran is a copy of the Uthmani Codex which was sent to Medina by the Caliph Uthamn.
            "... is among the muṣḥafs sent by ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to several Islamic cities; the Topkapi and Ṣan‘āÂ’ muṣḥafs are related to the Medina muṣḥaf; ...They are either copied directly from the ʿUthmānic muṣḥafs or from copies that were copied from them."
            https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2017/0...cript-studies/

            However, more recent discoveries of Early Quran folios/manuscripts with dating to 7th century CE, with features similar to the Topkapi Quran,---may refine orthographical assumptions....?....

            Today, among historians, its pretty much settled that the "text" of the Quran we have today is the Uthmani Codex. Most scholars in Quranic studies have moved on to exploring other areas/ideas in this field.
            Last edited by siam; 07-24-2020, 04:07 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              "My conclusions" on the claims of the "authenticity of the Topkapi as Uthmanic" are actually the Muslim scholars' conclusions - according to another koran manuscript authority, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu a Muslim world-class koranic scholar:
              “One of the most important questions of Qur’anic history is the whereabouts of the Mushafs attributed to Caliph Uthman and whether any of them reached the present day. Unfortunately, we do not have a positive answer to this question”

              Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 35.

              This Muslim scholar and koranic manuscript authority, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu continues his honest appraisal-
              “Judging from its illumination, the Topkapi Mushaf dates neither from the period when the Mushafs of the Caliph Uthman were written nor from the time when copies based on those Mushafs were written”

              Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, The Copy at the Topkapi Palace Museum,[IRCICA,2007], p. 10.

              However, another MUSLIM koranic manuscript authority quoted, Tayyar Altıkulaç notes THIS ONE IS NOT Uthmanic either - in agreement with Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Altıkulaç said:
              “Muslims generally believed that this manuscript was one of the four Uthman sent out, and widespread opinion is that ‘he was reading this copy when he was martyred’ [due to blood stains on it] . . . But [due to] its spelling . . . it is neither one of Caliph Uthman’s copies nor his private Mushaf”

              Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 65.

              Tayyar continues,
              “[There are] SIX reasons why it could not be so, including almost no discipline of spelling, different ways of writing the same word, scribal mistakes, copyists’ mistakes, written by a scribe who had no writing experience, and later added signs after verses. In conclusion, we can say that the Tashkent [ie. Samarqand] Mushaf WAS NEITHER the Mushaf which Caliph Uthman was reading when he was martyred, NOR ANY ONE of the Mushafs that he sent to various centers . . . NOR THE COPY that was kept in Medina for the benefit of the people”

              Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, pp. 71-72.

              It is also quite likely your blind faith and irrational devotion to islam and the unproven koran to conclude in contradiction to Dr. Yasir Qadhi's conclusion - that "the standard narrative of the Koran has holes in it." As the above muslim koranic manuscript scholars have concluded.

              Yasir Qadhi said that in this clip:-

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_8Zv1sB4Aw

              These damning conclusions are also the conclusions of the early orthodox Muslims and companions/sahabah of Muhamed - who stated clearly that perversion and loss of large fragments of the QurÂ’an did occur.

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

              AÂ’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,
              "During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the QurÂ’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).

              The same statement is made by Ubay ibn KaÂ’b, one of the great companions of Muhamed. On page 72, part 3, al-Suyuti says,
              "This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ Ubay told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’

              In regards to copyist mistakes in the 8th century Korans Muslims falsely claim are Uthmanic, as well as other fragments and partial codices from the same period, these count as textual variants. Regarding the Topkapi manuscript, Altıkulaç notes: “There are deviations from grammatical rules . . . and spelling mistakes in the Mushafs attributed to Caliph Uthman” (Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 41).

              These, and other reasons, are all part of the evidences for Dr. Yasir Qadhi's conclusions that "the standard narrative of the Koran has holes in it."

              There are simply NO good reasons to consider the Koran as perfectly, or even well-preserved.

              Muslim Scholars Shatter the Myth of Quran Preservation!:


              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANo6dXc2i-0







              Originally posted by siam View Post
              Re: yr post #94
              "Tayyar Altıkulac, another high-level Koranic manuscript authority and scholar"/Topkapi Quran

              Your information is incorrect in its conclusions...

              Dating of early Quran manuscripts can be in a couple of ways---one is carbon dating the "document" the other is development of writing style (orthography).

              Neither is exact---carbon dating gives an approx time-period and orthography is based an assumptions made from available data.

              Topkapi Quran---It is claimed that it is the same as the Uthmani Codex. Research shows the text is the same---though it has other features (such as decorations) that put its production to a later date---that is---its a copy of the Uthmani Codex produced at a later time period (carbon dating puts it to approx early to mid 8th century CE)
              https://themuslimtimes.info/2015/07/...he-holy-quran/

              According to the scholar (u used)Tayyar Altıkulac ---This Quran is a copy of the Uthmani Codex which was sent to Medina by the Caliph Uthamn.
              "... is among the muṣḥafs sent by ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to several Islamic cities; the Topkapi and Ṣan‘ā’ muṣḥafs are related to the Medina muṣḥaf; ...They are either copied directly from the ʿUthmānic muṣḥafs or from copies that were copied from them."
              https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2017/0...cript-studies/

              However, more recent discoveries of Early Quran folios/manuscripts with dating to 7th century CE, with features similar to the Topkapi Quran,---may refine orthographical assumptions....?....

              Today, among historians, its pretty much settled that the "text" of the Quran we have today is the Uthmani Codex. Most scholars in Quranic studies have moved on to exploring other areas/ideas in this field.

              Comment


              • #97
                Your information is completely incorrect.
                I would recommend you no longer rely on info from whatever site you are getting it from as it seems to be consistently incorrect.
                RE: Yr post # 96

                1) "koran manuscript authority, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu a Muslim world-class koranic scholar:" ---incorrect.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekmele...0hsano%C4%9Flu
                If its the same guy---he is a diplomat (Turkey)
                He is also an academic (Professor) and has written preface to a book edited by Tayyar Altıkula
                https://www.amazon.com/attributed-pu.../dp/9290631678

                As quoted earlier in my previous comment---Altikulac acknowledges that the Topkapi Quran is a copy of the one sent by Caliph Uthman to Medina.

                2) Topkapi and Samarkhand are 2 different locations.
                Topkapi Quran is in Turkey.
                Samarkhand is in Uzbekistan.
                Tashkent is the capital city of Uzbekistan.
                What is referred to as the Samarkhand Kufic Quran is housed in a library in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
                Carbon dating gives 2 possible dates---a) 595-855 CE b)775-995 CE.

                This is what Tayyer Altikulac actually says about the Tashkent Quran ...
                "In terms of ... orthography, the Tashkent muṣḥaf is related to the Kūfa muṣḥaf, which is among the muṣḥafs sent by ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to several Islamic cities..."
                https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2017/0...cript-studies/

                (mushaf ="writing/text", Qirat = recitation/elocution)f

                Dr Yasir Qadi (utube)
                I did not see the whole video but it seems Dr Qadi is speaking about ahruf (Dialect) and Qirat (recitation). Apparently he had some personal struggles with this issue which is commendable. Islam/Quran does not encourage blind belief, instead encourages asking questions, reflection, and seeking knowledge. Therefore, he was doing his duty as a Muslim and as a scholar.

                The ahruf/dialect we have today is the "Uthmani Codex". This comes with several "Qirat" recitations with the Hafs of Asim being the most popular.(see my post #93 for more clarification)

                Note:- Reference to the Quran as the Uthamni Codex is done out of politeness. The Muslim position is that the Quran we have today is what was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh). However, from an Academic standpoint---only the "Uthmani Codex" is verified so far.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by siam View Post
                  Your information is completely incorrect.
                  I would recommend you no longer rely on info from whatever site you are getting it from as it seems to be consistently incorrect.
                  RE: Yr post # 96

                  1) "koran manuscript authority, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu a Muslim world-class koranic scholar:" ---incorrect.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekmele...0hsano%C4%9Flu
                  If its the same guy---he is a diplomat (Turkey)
                  He is also an academic (Professor) and has written preface to a book edited by Tayyar Altıkula
                  https://www.amazon.com/attributed-pu.../dp/9290631678

                  As quoted earlier in my previous comment---Altikulac acknowledges that the Topkapi Quran is a copy of the one sent by Caliph Uthman to Medina.

                  2) Topkapi and Samarkhand are 2 different locations.
                  Topkapi Quran is in Turkey.
                  Samarkhand is in Uzbekistan.
                  Tashkent is the capital city of Uzbekistan.
                  What is referred to as the Samarkhand Kufic Quran is housed in a library in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
                  Carbon dating gives 2 possible dates---a) 595-855 CE b)775-995 CE.

                  This is what Tayyer Altikulac actually says about the Tashkent Quran ...
                  "In terms of ... orthography, the Tashkent muṣḥaf is related to the Kūfa muṣḥaf, which is among the muṣḥafs sent by ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to several Islamic cities..."
                  https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2017/0...cript-studies/

                  (mushaf ="writing/text", Qirat = recitation/elocution)f

                  Dr Yasir Qadi (utube)
                  I did not see the whole video but it seems Dr Qadi is speaking about ahruf (Dialect) and Qirat (recitation). Apparently he had some personal struggles with this issue which is commendable. Islam/Quran does not encourage blind belief, instead encourages asking questions, reflection, and seeking knowledge. Therefore, he was doing his duty as a Muslim and as a scholar.

                  The ahruf/dialect we have today is the "Uthmani Codex". This comes with several "Qirat" recitations with the Hafs of Asim being the most popular.(see my post #93 for more clarification)

                  Note:- Reference to the Quran as the Uthamni Codex is done out of politeness. The Muslim position is that the Quran we have today is what was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh). However, from an Academic standpoint---only the "Uthmani Codex" is verified so far.
                  siam,

                  If the information is wrong, let us tear it apart, peice by peice. We simply start by picking one wrong claim at a time.

                  Help us out. PLease start with one.

                  Then after the one is shown to have been a false claim against the Quran. Then a second, so on and so forth.
                  . . . 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


                  • #99
                    Your denial is only as irrationally stubborn as your blind faith in the inconsistent and dubious histories of the 'preservation of the koran' and how it fails its own claims of so-called perfection and preservation over the centuries!

                    These damning conclusions are also the conclusions of the early orthodox Muslims and companions/sahabah of Muhamed - who stated clearly that perversion and loss of large fragments of the QurÂ’an did occur.

                    'Ibn Umar al–Khattab explicitly admits,
                    "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, I have acquired of it what is available"’

                    From: As-Suyuti: Itqan fi-ulum al-quran, part 3, page 72.

                    The favorite wife of Muhamed - his child-bride, ’isha (also page 72) ADDS to the story of ibn Umar and says,
                    "During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the QurÂ’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).

                    The same statement is made by Ubay ibn KaÂ’b, one of the great companions of Muhamed. On page 72, part 3, as-Suyuti says,
                    "This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses. ’ Ubay told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning. The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’

                    In regards to copyist mistakes in the 8th century Korans Muslims falsely claim are Uthmanic, as well as other fragments and partial codices from the same period, these count as textual variants. Regarding the Topkapi manuscript, Altıkulaç notes: “There are deviations from grammatical rules . . . and spelling mistakes in the Mushafs attributed to Caliph Uthman”

                    Tayyar Altıkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 41.

                    These, and other reasons, are all part of the evidences for Dr. Yasir Qadhi's conclusions that "the standard narrative of the Koran has holes in it."

                    Scholar Yasir Qadhi has conceded in the video that there are no ayats / verses of the koran that muslim scholars - like himself - can confidently transcribe from earlier manuscript sources into a "blank page" that "are munnazzal" i.e. are revelation directly from God / Allah. - That is why his fellow-muslim interlocutor, Muhd. Hijab DELETED 28 MINUTES of his interview with Qadhi. When Qadhi admitted proof that the "standard narrative (of islam) for the koran, HAS HOLES IN IT"! And refused to comply with Hijab's demand to confirm the Koran's reliable manuscript preservation.

                    Muslim Scholars Shatter the Myth of Quran Preservation!:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANo6dXc2i-0

                    Here, Abdullah Sameer - an ex-Muslim, observed that Muhd. Hijab "threw his guest Dr. Yasir Qadhi UNDER THE BUS" for NOT confidently affirming reliable Koran manuscript preservation and DELETED 28 Minutes of his interview with Qadhi.

                    Even if you ignored the Turkish manuscript scholars findings, the earlier statements from the close companions of Muhamed, Umar al-Khattab, Aisha, Ubai bin Kab - and others above in Suyuti's Itqan corroborate and confirm Qadhi's honest stance that the "standard narrative of the Koran HAS HOLES IN IT" and this irritated M. Hijab so much, that he deleted the relevant portion of the interview, which is an irrational action. Why? Because Qadhi DID NOT DELETE his recording of the same interview, and because others have recorded the same interview and the whole, undeleted video can be viewed from Qadhi's and the others' YouTube recording.

                    Well, there are simply NO good reasons to consider the Koran as perfectly, or even well-preserved.




                    Originally posted by siam View Post
                    Your information is completely incorrect.
                    I would recommend you no longer rely on info from whatever site you are getting it from as it seems to be consistently incorrect.
                    RE: Yr post # 96

                    1) "koran manuscript authority, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu a Muslim world-class koranic scholar:" ---incorrect.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekmele...0hsano%C4%9Flu
                    If its the same guy---he is a diplomat (Turkey)
                    He is also an academic (Professor) and has written preface to a book edited by Tayyar Altıkula
                    https://www.amazon.com/attributed-pu.../dp/9290631678

                    As quoted earlier in my previous comment---Altikulac acknowledges that the Topkapi Quran is a copy of the one sent by Caliph Uthman to Medina.

                    2) Topkapi and Samarkhand are 2 different locations.
                    Topkapi Quran is in Turkey.
                    Samarkhand is in Uzbekistan.
                    Tashkent is the capital city of Uzbekistan.
                    What is referred to as the Samarkhand Kufic Quran is housed in a library in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
                    Carbon dating gives 2 possible dates---a) 595-855 CE b)775-995 CE.

                    This is what Tayyer Altikulac actually says about the Tashkent Quran ...
                    "In terms of ... orthography, the Tashkent muṣḥaf is related to the Kūfa muṣḥaf, which is among the muṣḥafs sent by ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to several Islamic cities..."
                    https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2017/0...cript-studies/

                    (mushaf ="writing/text", Qirat = recitation/elocution)f

                    Dr Yasir Qadi (utube)
                    I did not see the whole video but it seems Dr Qadi is speaking about ahruf (Dialect) and Qirat (recitation). Apparently he had some personal struggles with this issue which is commendable. Islam/Quran does not encourage blind belief, instead encourages asking questions, reflection, and seeking knowledge. Therefore, he was doing his duty as a Muslim and as a scholar.

                    The ahruf/dialect we have today is the "Uthmani Codex". This comes with several "Qirat" recitations with the Hafs of Asim being the most popular.(see my post #93 for more clarification)

                    Note:- Reference to the Quran as the Uthamni Codex is done out of politeness. The Muslim position is that the Quran we have today is what was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh). However, from an Academic standpoint---only the "Uthmani Codex" is verified so far.

                    Comment


                    • Since this track is ALSO on the Quran - and hence its reliability or OTHERWISE. It is interesting to review its 'preservation' as many Muslims have recently done.

                      You may selectively just subscribe to what lulls you into a stupor of intellectual complacency about the koran's 'validity' and/or 'preservation'.

                      There are others - equally intelligent & THINKING - CRITICAL thinking Muslims, I might add, who taught just like you siam, but that was in the past. The realisation of their naivete caught up with them and their eyes are now fully opened about the koran and its authenticity.

                      Their expose is on YouTube:

                      1. Yasir Qadhi, Mohd Hijab are reviewed by Abdullah Sameer, WHY did orthodox islam scholar & sheikh Dr.Yasir Qadhi expose and admit that the standard narrative of the Koran and Islam has many "HOLES IN THEM?" - that the Koran is NOT preserved and the Qiraat, ahruf (variants and versions) expose & confirm the doubtful transmission and unreliability of the Koran -

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_8Zv1sB4Aw

                      2. Knowledgeable muslims quarrel, disagree and mutually CONDEMN one another about the Koran's preservation (this puts paid to the "unity of the ummah claim) -

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnZw...ature=youtu.be

                      3. Abdullah Gondal and Abdullah Sameer discuss in open forum the ADMISSIONS of multiple variants and versions of Koran readings by Yasir Qadhi and Mohd Hijab's disappointments with sheikh Qadhi's scholarly findings:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2wSMm_gblE

                      The Muslim world - like M. Hijab himself, has something embarassing and shameful to hide about the Koran's validity and preservation.

                      Time to wake up from your sleep, Muslims.


                      Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                      Your denial is only as irrationally stubborn as your blind faith in the inconsistent and dubious histories of the 'preservation of the koran' and how it fails its own claims of so-called perfection and preservation over the centuries!

                      These damning conclusions are also the conclusions of the early orthodox Muslims and companions/sahabah of Muhamed - who stated clearly that perversion and loss of large fragments of the QurÂ’an did occur.

                      'Ibn Umar al–Khattab explicitly admits,
                      "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, I have acquired of it what is available"’

                      From: As-Suyuti: Itqan fi-ulum al-quran, part 3, page 72.

                      The favorite wife of Muhamed - his child-bride, ’isha (also page 72) ADDS to the story of ibn Umar and says,
                      "During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the QurÂ’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).

                      The same statement is made by Ubay ibn KaÂ’b, one of the great companions of Muhamed. On page 72, part 3, as-Suyuti says,
                      "This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses. ’ Ubay told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning. The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’

                      In regards to copyist mistakes in the 8th century Korans Muslims falsely claim are Uthmanic, as well as other fragments and partial codices from the same period, these count as textual variants. Regarding the Topkapi manuscript, Altıkulaç notes: “There are deviations from grammatical rules . . . and spelling mistakes in the Mushafs attributed to Caliph Uthman”

                      Tayyar Altıkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 41.

                      These, and other reasons, are all part of the evidences for Dr. Yasir Qadhi's conclusions that "the standard narrative of the Koran has holes in it."

                      Scholar Yasir Qadhi has conceded in the video that there are no ayats / verses of the koran that muslim scholars - like himself - can confidently transcribe from earlier manuscript sources into a "blank page" that "are munnazzal" i.e. are revelation directly from God / Allah. - That is why his fellow-muslim interlocutor, Muhd. Hijab DELETED 28 MINUTES of his interview with Qadhi. When Qadhi admitted proof that the "standard narrative (of islam) for the koran, HAS HOLES IN IT"! And refused to comply with Hijab's demand to confirm the Koran's reliable manuscript preservation.

                      Muslim Scholars Shatter the Myth of Quran Preservation!:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANo6dXc2i-0

                      Here, Abdullah Sameer - an ex-Muslim, observed that Muhd. Hijab "threw his guest Dr. Yasir Qadhi UNDER THE BUS" for NOT confidently affirming reliable Koran manuscript preservation and DELETED 28 Minutes of his interview with Qadhi.

                      Even if you ignored the Turkish manuscript scholars findings, the earlier statements from the close companions of Muhamed, Umar al-Khattab, Aisha, Ubai bin Kab - and others above in Suyuti's Itqan corroborate and confirm Qadhi's honest stance that the "standard narrative of the Koran HAS HOLES IN IT" and this irritated M. Hijab so much, that he deleted the relevant portion of the interview, which is an irrational action. Why? Because Qadhi DID NOT DELETE his recording of the same interview, and because others have recorded the same interview and the whole, undeleted video can be viewed from Qadhi's and the others' YouTube recording.

                      Well, there are simply NO good reasons to consider the Koran as perfectly, or even well-preserved.

                      Comment


                      • "You may selectively just subscribe to what lulls you into a stupor of intellectual complacency about the koran's 'validity' and/or 'preservation'."---might apply to you?

                        In any case, we are both free to analyze any information and make up our own minds....

                        Comment


                        • Now, that describes muslims and yourself TO A TEE. You believe the "Gospel" not because of the facts, but in spite of the clear facts.

                          The koran misrepresents and tries to supplant the real Gospel with its after-the-facts lies and deceptions of Jesus not crucified on the Cross (s. 4/157), not the Son of God (6/101) and a false Trinity (5/116) etc.

                          But it fails in all ofthe above because the Koran fails to furnish any convincing proofs to support such polemics and truth is not on the koran's side.

                          Originally posted by siam View Post
                          "You may selectively just subscribe to what lulls you into a stupor of intellectual complacency about the koran's 'validity' and/or 'preservation'."---might apply to you?

                          In any case, we are both free to analyze any information and make up our own minds....

                          Comment


                          • The Koran's arrangement is another expose and telling evidence it can never be of any divine origin. Firstly, it is not chronological as would be expected from a sensible volume. Secondly, it was from a human (not divinely inspired) decision to arrange the koranic chapters in order of size and length, resulting in a hodge-podge JUMBLE of unrelated suras sequentially. Sura 1 itself is not a revelation from God, but a PRAYER and made compulsory for muslims to slavishly parrot over 10 times a day.

                            If it was a revelation of God why does it say "Thee alone we worship, you alone we ask for help"? Or "Show us the straight path?" (V.5 &6).

                            Does God pray to himself? And ask for directions to be rightly guided? Then he must be a very ignorant Allah indeed!

                            Regarding variant words or phrases which affect the meaning of the text in early Korans, in the lower or earlier text of the Sana’a palimpsest manuscripts (or “Sana’a 1” as it is sometimes called), which is an incomplete codex comprising about half of the Koran, dated possibly to the late seventh century.
                            (Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, Sana'aa and the Origins of the Qur'an, [Der Islam, 2012], p. 1).

                            There are many variants DIFFERENTIATING IT from the standard 1924 Cairo edition of the Koran Muslims use today.

                            For example Behnam Sadeghi (Behnam Sadeghi; Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the QurÂ’ān of the Prophet,” Arabica, Volume 57, Number 4, 2010, p. 21) notes the lower text of this early Koran disagrees with the modern edition of the Koran in Surah 2:196.

                            Here the Sana’a palimpsest says “Do not shave until the offering reaches its destination,” while the modern edition says “Do not shave your heads until the offering reaches its destination.”

                            In the same verse the Sana’a palimpsest says “fasting, or alms, or an offering,” while the modern edition says “fasting or an offering.”

                            In Koran 2:201 the Sana’a palimpsest says, “Our Lord, give us in this world and the next,” while the modern edition says, “Our Lord, give us good in this world and good in the next.”

                            Sadeghi and Goudarzi list many more variants in the lower text of this manuscript which AFFECT THE MEANINGS of the text (Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, Sana'aa and the Origins of the Qur'an, [Der Islam, 2012], pp. 116-122).

                            Such variants show this Koran does not come from Uthman.

                            Such variants should not exist in this text if the Koran was complete, perfect and standardized in the time of Uthman.

                            In fact, these scholars note the SanaÂ’a palimpsest represents a textual tradition different than the Uthmanic textual tradition, which refutes the Muslim claim that there were no different textual traditions prior to the Koranic standardization of Uthman, but that the Koran was perfect from the time of Muhammad, to Abu Bakr, to Uthman (Ejaz Naqvi, The Quran: With Or Against the Bible?, [iUniverse, 2012], p. 16).

                            Yet, Sadeghi and Goudarzi say otherwise noting there were different Koranic traditions: “. . . the textual tradition to which it [the SanaÂ’a palimpsest] belonged and the ‘Uthmānic tradition must have diverged some-time before the spread of the ‘Uthmānic tradition in the mid-seventh century AD” (Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, Sana'aa and the Origins of the Qur'an, [Der Islam, 2012], p. 8).

                            This is groundbreaking. Which one is the real word of God?

                            Comment


                            • why non-chronological?
                              1) Chronology = Chronology (from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chrónos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia)[2] is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time.
                              One could also ask---why chronology? ...after all, God is outside of "time"---right?
                              The Quran is arranged thematically. It also does not have a "beginning/end" construction.

                              2) Al Fatiha
                              1 In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
                              2 Praise be to God, The Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds;
                              3 Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
                              4 Master of the Day of Judgment.
                              5 Thee do we worship, And Thine aid we seek.
                              6 Show us the straight way,
                              7 The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose (portion) Is not wrath, And who go not astray

                              This Surah introduces the concept of God and how humanity should pray to God. (should pray for ethico-moral guidance---not prosperity and such...)
                              It has a different focus from the (Christian) Lords prayer which asks for bread and relief from debt?....

                              3) Sanaa manuscript.---Carbon dating is 578 CE-669 CE.
                              The upper text of the Sanaa manuscript is the Uthmani Codex.
                              (Note:---the first compilation of the Quran in "text" form took place during Caliph Abu Bakr. The 2nd compilation (Uthmani Codex) used this material as the base.)

                              Chronology----
                              Prophet dies 632 CE
                              Caliph Abu Bakr--632-634CE (First compilation in text form)
                              Caliph Umar ibn Khattab---634--644 CE (rapid territorial expansion)
                              Caliph Uthman ibn Affan ---644--656 CE (2nd compilation)

                              Carbon dating plus the confirmation that the text is the Uthmani codex verifies the Traditional Islamic narrative of the Compilations of the "text" of the Quran.

                              Underscript Sanaa manuscript.
                              The purpose of the script is unknown. One can speculate as to why it was written---as a tool for memorization, an exercise in writing, or somewhat of an exegesis...In any case, one cannot definitively say it is a "Quran" (Quran =approved by the Prophet)
                              During the time the Prophet was alive, several ahruf (dialect) were approved by him. However, by the time of Caliph Uthman---the "text" was standardized to the Uthmani Codex. The existence of this underscript confirms the traditional Muslim history that it became necessary to standardize the Quran.

                              From the Muslim perspective, what is referred to as the "Uthmani Codex" is the Quran approved by the Prophet (pbuh)...and is the Quran in use today---by ALL Muslims.

                              Comment


                              • Obviously, the koranic chapters are NOT chronological but is only a messy hodge-podge, JUMBLED up alphabet soup of unrelated chapters and confused AND UNRELATED themes that jump from chapter to chapter eg. The Cow (3) to Imran's Family (4), Joseph (12) to the Thunder(13), The Bee (16) to the Night Journey (17), Spider (29) to the Byzantines (30), The Council (42) to the Ornaments (43), The Sand Dunes (46) to Muhammad (47), Pleading Woman (58) to the Banishment (59), etc - you catch the drift of plain INCOHERENCE and unintelligible arrangement in the sequence of the chapters of the Koran.

                                What has the Spider to do with the Byzantines (Romans), Just WHAT has Joseph to do with Thunder ? And the Cow to with Imran's family, or the Bee to the Night Journey? Or the Women with the Banishment??

                                Yet these pairs of chapters are all placed sequentially beside each other, totally makes NO SENSE Whatsoever.

                                Then you say al-Fatihah - sura chapter 1, "as a prayer" that introduces God/Allah to the reader. Then, it sure introduces your muslim God who is anti-Semitic, anti Jewish Hater. And a vilifier of Christians and introduces and promotes hate speech against the Christians, multiple times a day!

                                Surah 1. The Opening

                                1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
                                2. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
                                3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
                                4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
                                5. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
                                6. Show us the straight way,
                                7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.


                                I asked you, siam about the hate speech found in Surah Fatihah 1 verses 6 & 7 highlighted above. The HATE SPEECH, and VILIFICATIONS are there, and confirmed by the well-known orthodox islamic authorities.

                                from sura fatihah (1) / 6-7:

                                Many people (including Muslims) are unaware of the fact that Surah al-Fatihah, the chapter that Muslims are required to recite at the start of each and every one of their daily prayers (SALAT / NAMAZ) actually contains an invocation asking Allah TO NEVER ALLOW THEM them to become like a Jew or a Christian, in effect, vilifying and condemning THEM JUST LIKE ADVERSARIES AND VIRULENT ENEMIES.

                                In sura 1 vs 6-7, Muslims pray that Allah guide them to the straight path, saving them from the path of those who have incurred his anger and/or who have gone astray:

                                "Show us the straight way, The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose portion is not WRATH, and who go not ASTRAY." A. Yusuf Ali

                                According to the AUTHORITATIVE, MUSLIM sources, THE JEWS are the ones who have incurred AllahÂ’s WRATH/CURSE/CONDEMNATION, and THE CHRISTIANS are those who have GONE ASTRAY & LOST THEIR WAY:


                                "The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)." S. 1:7 Hilali-Khan

                                Narrated Adi bin Hatim: I asked Allah’s Messenger (1) about the Statement of Allah: "Gharil maghdubi ‘alaihim - not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger - WRATH AND CURSE!" he replied: "THEY ARE THE JEWS".

                                And (2): "Walad dallin (nor of those who went astray)," he replied: "THE CHRISTIANS, and they are THE ONES WHO WENT ASTRAY".

                                This is confirmation of VILIFICATION and Hate Speech from these koran verses against the Christian and the Jews.


                                [The above Hadith are quoted by At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud].

                                FROM: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble QurÂ’an in the English Language with Comments from Tafsir At-Tabari, Tafsir Al-Qurtubi and Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Ahadith from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other Ahadith books [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Lahore, Houston, New York], Part 1: From Surah 1 to 5, p. 30.

                                The above statements are 100% CONFIRMATION from recognised modern muslim scholars and authorities like Muhd Muhsin Khan, Taqiuddin al-Hilali and the classical ulamas and the Tafsirs (commentaries, exegesis etc) of recognised luminaries like ibn Kathir, Tabari, Qurtubi

                                And, WHAT Part of "adversarial" and Hate speech & vilification don't you understand from the above, siam?

                                The Christians are NOT being adversarial here, but so many of the the Koran's verses, statements and commands here, ARE! And full of unjustified HATE SPEECH against Jews and Christians. OR - are you just denying these verses AND the Ulamas/Muslim scholars confirmations from your Koran?

                                The Koran's chapter 1 - sura Fatihah 6-7, reveals the nature and character of God as a promoter and practitioner of HATE SPEECH, Anti-semitism and Christianophobia anti-Christian vilification ON A DAILY BASIS when it forces compliant muslims to say this prayer 17 times - in TOTAL Daily, in their 5 times compulsory ritual prayers.

                                Would you care to tell us how many times this Surah is repeated daily in the prayers of a devout Muslim, siam sahib??

                                No wonder there is so much Jew-hatred among common muslims today, and vilification of Christians across the board. Islamic orthodox authorities all confirm this hate-speech and condemnation without reservations.

                                What Islam? a 'religion of peace'?!? What pure, plain nonsense.


                                Originally posted by siam View Post
                                why non-chronological?
                                1) Chronology = Chronology (from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chrónos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia)[2] is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time.
                                One could also ask---why chronology? ...after all, God is outside of "time"---right?
                                The Quran is arranged thematically. It also does not have a "beginning/end" construction.

                                2) Al Fatiha
                                1 In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
                                2 Praise be to God, The Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds;
                                3 Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
                                4 Master of the Day of Judgment.
                                5 Thee do we worship, And Thine aid we seek.
                                6 Show us the straight way,
                                7 The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose (portion) Is not wrath, And who go not astray

                                This Surah introduces the concept of God and how humanity should pray to God. (should pray for ethico-moral guidance---not prosperity and such...)
                                It has a different focus from the (Christian) Lords prayer which asks for bread and relief from debt?....

                                3) Sanaa manuscript.---Carbon dating is 578 CE-669 CE.
                                The upper text of the Sanaa manuscript is the Uthmani Codex.
                                (Note:---the first compilation of the Quran in "text" form took place during Caliph Abu Bakr. The 2nd compilation (Uthmani Codex) used this material as the base.)

                                Chronology----
                                Prophet dies 632 CE
                                Caliph Abu Bakr--632-634CE (First compilation in text form)
                                Caliph Umar ibn Khattab---634--644 CE (rapid territorial expansion)
                                Caliph Uthman ibn Affan ---644--656 CE (2nd compilation)

                                Carbon dating plus the confirmation that the text is the Uthmani codex verifies the Traditional Islamic narrative of the Compilations of the "text" of the Quran.

                                Underscript Sanaa manuscript.
                                The purpose of the script is unknown. One can speculate as to why it was written---as a tool for memorization, an exercise in writing, or somewhat of an exegesis...In any case, one cannot definitively say it is a "Quran" (Quran =approved by the Prophet)
                                During the time the Prophet was alive, several ahruf (dialect) were approved by him. However, by the time of Caliph Uthman---the "text" was standardized to the Uthmani Codex. The existence of this underscript confirms the traditional Muslim history that it became necessary to standardize the Quran.

                                From the Muslim perspective, what is referred to as the "Uthmani Codex" is the Quran approved by the Prophet (pbuh)...and is the Quran in use today---by ALL Muslims.

                                Comment

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