Print Page | Close Window

Allegations against preservation of the Quran!

Printed From: WhyIslam.org
Category: General
Forum Name: InterReligious Dialogue
Forum Discription: Forum for people of various faiths to discuss and inquire about different religions
URL: http://www.whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29359
Printed Date: 16 June 2019 at 9:39pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Allegations against preservation of the Quran!
Posted By: sereihan
Subject: Allegations against preservation of the Quran!
Date Posted: 28 July 2012 at 6:58pm

This was actually my reply to a brother asking how to reply to allegations made against the preservation of the Quran:

I think brother the answer is very simple!

First we should not over react to the claims about doubt in the preservation of the Quran, I have seen hundreds of new converts to Islam I never saw one saying that he had problem or difficulty with that before he becomes Muslim or even after he became Muslim!, also I have entertained many Christians who know about the Quran and when I ask them why not to accept the Quran no one say because it is not preserved! Usually they say because it says Jesus pbuh is not the son of God or that Jesus pbuh was not crucified! They reject the Quran because the Quran opposes their tradition!

Now back to the answer, are we talking about the Quran that we have today? Is their any rejection that what we have today is the same canon of Othman! The answer is NO! Both Muslim and non Muslim scholars agree that the Quran that we have today is the one authorized by Othman may Allah be pleased with him and there is no divergent texts like the case in all non Islamic scriptures; so, there is no point in over clarifying this and here is a non Muslim reference reporting the agreement about this point:

Qurʾan , Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa 2004 "Contemporary Orientalist views of the collection of the Qurʾan diverge widely, ranging from the claim that it is a late forgery to near-total endorsement of traditional Muslim claims. However, with very few exceptions, there is general agreement that the current text of the Qurʾan is in accordance with Uthman's canon (as there are no traditions referring to other canons), and that the variations that prompted codification of the Qurʾan were mostly minor divergences of pronunciation and orthography and omissions in some personal copies of some chapters or insertions of prayer formulas external to the text. More importantly, it seems that the early Muslim community accepted the Uthman canon: There were no attempts made by the early dissenting political groups (Shiʿite and Khawarij) to claim a divergent text; instead, they insisted on a divergent interpretation of it."

Second, was there any corruption done by Othman himself? My approach is simple! Is Othman an acceptable authority? The answer is YES, because he was a major companion of the prophet pbuh, next who led the compilation? Zaid ibn Thabit, was he an acceptable authority? The answer is YES, because he was one of the major scribes of the prophet pbuh and he was the same chief scribe who made the compilation in the time of Abu baker may Allah be pleased with him
 
So, this Quran that we have was compiled by the same major companions and scribes of the prophet pbuh himself! Now was their any significant opposition to the Quran that was compiled by Othman by the other companions? The answer is NO, many of the major companions of the prophet were alive and witnessing this compilation and none of them objected! Even Abdullah ibn Masoud may Allah be pleased with him who resisted giving his personal copy did not object to the new compilation! He did not say this Quran that was compiled by Othman is corrupt! Even the enemies of Othman Alkhawarij did not object to this Quran! All the copies that were ordered by Othman to be burned were personal unauthorized copies parts or complete, example is Zaid ibn Thabit himself had a personal copy of the Quran and he had to give it up!

Is there an additional proof that the Quran is preserved? The answer is YES, the Quran is transmitted to us orally and we have authentic and continuous chain of transmission up to the five major companions of the prophet who were famous in teaching the Quran and one of them is Ali bin Abi Talib and also Abdullah ibn Masoud may Allah be pleased with them, because any authentic reading of the Quran has three conditions: has to be authentic narration to the companions, consistent with a written manuscript and consistent with Arabic language! So, we have oral transmission of the Quran that goes beyond the Quran that was complied by Othman may Allah be pleased with him!

Finally, one has to examine the Quran to see if it is the word of Allah swt, the Quran proves itself to be from Allah swt it can't be imitated and it is perfect without contradictions or mistakes, so if this is the case it must have been preserved!

Now, we tell Christians searching for the truth if you really can produce a gospel authored by any of the true disciples of Jesus pbuh like Matthew we as Muslims are more that willing to accepted it to be the word of God!

Gospel & Gospels, Catholic Encyclopedia "the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous… Prophecies whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better... it thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."

Introduction of Matthew's Gospel, New American Bible "The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain. "

Biblical source, Encyclopedia Britannica Online "Most of the writings in the Old Testament are of anonymous authorship, and in many cases it is not known whether they were compiled by individuals or by groups"
 
 
By Sereihan Alshammari



Replies:
Posted By: botak
Date Posted: 28 July 2012 at 7:58pm
I still don't get the idea that the Quran can't be imitated. How can anything not be imitated? The paintings of any great artist can be imitated to an extent that even experts can't tell the difference, and these are based on physical characteristics.

In relation to text, imitability is a purely subjective concept.

The Quran may well be the perfect word of God. It may well be free of contradictions. It may well be full of everlasting truths that teach us all how to live a pure and rewarding life. All of these points make conceptual sense to me. They might be true, and I can't prove that they are not true. I understand these beliefs.

But even if the Quran is the true and perfectly transcribed word of God, I just can't grasp the concept of its inimitability.

Can anyone explain?


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 28 July 2012 at 8:31pm
Originally posted by botak

I still don't get the idea that the Quran can't be imitated. How can anything not be imitated? The paintings of any great artist can be imitated to an extent that even experts can't tell the difference, and these are based on physical characteristics.

In relation to text, imitability is a purely subjective concept.

The Quran may well be the perfect word of God. It may well be free of contradictions. It may well be full of everlasting truths that teach us all how to live a pure and rewarding life. All of these points make conceptual sense to me. They might be true, and I can't prove that they are not true. I understand these beliefs.

But even if the Quran is the true and perfectly transcribed word of God, I just can't grasp the concept of its inimitability.

Can anyone explain?

Previously every prophet was given a scripture or a divine book and along with it separate miracles to support the claim of that prophet, a miracle is defined as something that goes beyond human capacity and is used to challenge people,

 The unique thing about the mission of the last prophet Muhammad pbuh that the scripture is the major miracle because his massage is meant until the Day of Judgment! So he was given a miracle that last and anyone can examine in any time!

The Quran gives falsification tests to examine its truth to be from God! Imitability is a test that can be useful to those skillful in Arabic literature, the most skillful were the contemporary Arabs to Prophet Muhammad pbuh and they could not do it not, even when the challenge came own to few verses like that of the Quran!

A falsification test is available for non Arabic speakers, is to find any mistake or contradiction in the Quran, a single one is enough to disprove the Quran& since the Quran speaks about the creation of universe, the sun the moon the earth the stars, the mountains the clouds the oceans, the animals the plants insects, the humans the embryonic development and many other things related to science& since science is so advance today as compared to the time when the Quran was revealed to prophet Muhammad(PBUH) then such falsification test should be very useful, to produce a single clear mistake in Quran will be very easy if the author was a human being living 1400 years back,

Such challenge in Quran goes against human nature,

 Quran 4:82 "Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein many a contradiction."

Leading Christian scholars affirmed that the knowledge in Quran goes beyond human capacity, Keith L.Moore who is a professor of anatomy when he examined the embryonic development described in Quran; he said "It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God."

For further similar testimonies from leading Christian scholars videotaped visit

( http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm - http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm ),

 

 



Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 28 July 2012 at 11:12pm
Keith Moore is often cited. How about some newer names?

-------------
Dear God,

Thank you for keeping me safe from your followers.

(Serge Storms via Tim Dorsey


Posted By: botak
Date Posted: 29 July 2012 at 11:42am
Originally posted by sereihan

Imitability is a test that can be useful to those skillful in Arabic literature, the most skillful were the contemporary Arabs to Prophet Muhammad pbuh and they could not do it not, even when the challenge came own to few verses like that of the Quran!


On what criteria? I still don't understand the concept.

While I might not agree, I can understand the concepts of the 'scientific miracle', and all of the other 'proofs' offered for the Quran being the word of God.

Judging the qualities of any piece of prose or poetry is completely subjective though. You can't objectively say that something is the best book, poem or song ever made.

It seems to me the argument is that no one can imitate the Quran because anything that new you write is, by definition, not the Quran. If the Quran is the criteria that you use to judge the perfection of all other writing, by definition everything else is inferior to the Quran simply because it is not the Quran.

It is the same as if I said 'Paint it black' by the Rolling Stones was the 'perfect' song, and challenged all living musicians to produce a completely original song that was as good as 'Paint it black'. Then judging them all by saying 'well your songs are all different paint it black so you all failed'.


Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 29 July 2012 at 12:58pm
The Quraan is also the only book to be memorized word for word since it was revealed, and has stood unchanged for 1400 years.


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 29 July 2012 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by botak

Originally posted by sereihan

Imitability is a test that can be useful to those skillful in Arabic literature, the most skillful were the contemporary Arabs to Prophet Muhammad pbuh and they could not do it not, even when the challenge came own to few verses like that of the Quran!


On what criteria? I still don't understand the concept.

While I might not agree, I can understand the concepts of the 'scientific miracle', and all of the other 'proofs' offered for the Quran being the word of God.

Judging the qualities of any piece of prose or poetry is completely subjective though. You can't objectively say that something is the best book, poem or song ever made.

It seems to me the argument is that no one can imitate the Quran because anything that new you write is, by definition, not the Quran. If the Quran is the criteria that you use to judge the perfection of all other writing, by definition everything else is inferior to the Quran simply because it is not the Quran.

It is the same as if I said 'Paint it black' by the Rolling Stones was the 'perfect' song, and challenged all living musicians to produce a completely original song that was as good as 'Paint it black'. Then judging them all by saying 'well your songs are all different paint it black so you all failed'.

I think what you need is example!

The Arabic language is the most complex rich old living Semitic language; scholars of the bible use it to understand Hebrew!

If you give a native Arab skillful in prose and poems like those previously living in the desert with  pure tongue and give him any peace of Arabic literature how much strong is your literature he will be able to give suggestions to improve your literature! This is their art! When they were subjected to this new literature the Quran they immediately knew this is different this is beyond human level! Why? Because they could not do as they use to do with any outstanding Arabic literature! Any suggestion will downgrade the text! This is a feeling that only skillful people will fully appreciate! And because the Quran was first revealed to the Arabs it challenged them in their most powerful area!

Another clear example, if a reciter of the Quran out of his memory switch any segment while reciting even if he maintained the grammar a skillful person in Arabic literature will be able to point out his mistake even if he heard  this peace of the Quran for the first time! He may not be able to correct his mistake but none the less he will till him YOU HAVE CHANGED THE TEXT!

Inimitability of the Quran settled long time back!



Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 29 July 2012 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by Franco

Keith Moore is often cited. How about some newer names?

( http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm - ),

In this link you will find other witnesses, Keith Moore is one of the greatest scholars in his field and a living witness to the truth of the Quran but you will find others in the link I gave you!

Notice, Keith Moore does not say that he is only impressed by the correct information of the Quran but he confessed that this is beyond human capacity!



Posted By: botak
Date Posted: 29 July 2012 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by sereihan

Another clear example, if a reciter of the Quran out of his memory switch any segment while reciting even if he maintained the grammar a skillful person in Arabic literature will be able to point out his mistake even if he heard<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>this peace of the Quran for the first time! He may not be able to correct his mistake but none the less he will till him YOU HAVE CHANGED THE TEXT!


This is a statement that can't be proved in any way. Quranic Arabic only exists in modern society as a language that revolves around the study of the Quran. Its like saying if someone changed from Shakespearean English to contemporary English then people would notice, which is an obvious statement. If you are arguing that this would also have been true in classical times then it has no basis other than hearsay.

When translated to other languages, the Quran is easily imitable. Of course, I understand that translating any text changes many fundamental qualities of the original. In your opinion, what aspects of the Quran are 'lost' in translation?


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 29 July 2012 at 8:49pm
Originally posted by botak

Originally posted by sereihan

Another clear example, if a reciter of the Quran out of his memory switch any segment while reciting even if he maintained the grammar a skillful person in Arabic literature will be able to point out his mistake even if he heard<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>this peace of the Quran for the first time! He may not be able to correct his mistake but none the less he will till him YOU HAVE CHANGED THE TEXT!


This is a statement that can't be proved in any way. Quranic Arabic only exists in modern society as a language that revolves around the study of the Quran. Its like saying if someone changed from Shakespearean English to contemporary English then people would notice, which is an obvious statement. If you are arguing that this would also have been true in classical times then it has no basis other than hearsay.

When translated to other languages, the Quran is easily imitable. Of course, I understand that translating any text changes many fundamental qualities of the original. In your opinion, what aspects of the Quran are 'lost' in translation?

Quran 24:40 "Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light"

This is one verse Pickthall transaltion, what do you think honestly?

This is the same verse, our official translation in Saudi Arabia!

"Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! For any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!"

http://quran.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=221&BookID=15&Page=1 - http://quran.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=221&BookID=15&Page=1


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 5:58am
Originally posted by sereihan

Another clear example, if a reciter of the Quran out of his memory switch any segment while reciting even if he maintained the grammar a skillful person in Arabic literature will be able to point out his mistake even if he heard<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>this peace of the Quran for the first time! He may not be able to correct his mistake but none the less he will till him YOU HAVE CHANGED THE TEXT!


Originally posted by botak

This is a statement that can't be proved in any way. Quranic Arabic only exists in modern society as a language that revolves around the study of the Quran. Its like saying if someone changed from Shakespearean English to contemporary English then people would notice, which is an obvious statement. If you are arguing that this would also have been true in classical times then it has no basis other than hearsay.

When translated to other languages, the Quran is easily imitable. Of course, I understand that translating any text changes many fundamental qualities of the original. In your opinion, what aspects of the Quran are 'lost' in translation?


I don't know about "proving" the statement, but I have heard at least one an example of a bedouin Arab who understood Islam but didn't have much Qur'an memorized, hearing an ayah wherein the speaker had made a mistake, and correcting him because of an inconsistency in the meaning. The mistake was in the name of Allah being used in the passage--it's very common for Qur'anic ayaat to conclude with two attributes (as names) of Allah together, and someone not paying close attention might confuse them because this happens so frequently. Without reflecting on the details I guess it's easy to overlook why certain names are used in relation to certain subjects, but someone looking more closely might notice the inconsistency. And this is subtle.

As for what is lost in translation... as someone who has recently come to be able to read the Qur'an in Arabic, the depth I encounter when reading in Arabic is tremendous enough that even I hate turning to translations now.

Among things that are lost in translation:
(1) Roots: most Arabic words are derived from 3-letter roots and the final or literal translation is connected to the root somehow in Arabic, although that connection is typically lost in translation.
(2) Similar words and synonyms: three different Arabic words are translated as "heart." But their meanings and usages in the Qur'an are specific and nuanced in a way that translation fails to capture. Similarly, there are three different Arabic words that get translated as "soul." But each of the Arabic words is different, and the nuances are lost by translating them all the same way.
(3) Idioms
(4) Morphed words from the same root: this happens a lot, based on the way Arabic words are derived from roots, and a lot of times similar words appear in the same ayah. For instance, "to send down" has two different forms used in the Qur'an, one implying all at once, and one implying over time--both are used, at different times.
(5) Flow: sometimes the flow, rhyme and rhythm of the recited text is an indication of parenthetical remarks.
(6) Emphasis: there are numerous ways to add emphasis in Arabic, audible to a listener, and sometimes many are used at once, on a single word. But if one attempts to translate all of extra emphasis, then the translation is burdened with an excess of verbiage like "truly," "certainly," "definitely," "surely," "without a doubt," and "especially" that just gets in the way of understanding it.
(7) Word order: in Arabic, words in a sentence can be re-arranged for emphasis, to single something out, imply exclusivity, and for other reasons. In English, word order must be fixed for subject/object comprehension.
(8) Emotion: hard to explain, but sometimes words in the Qur'an are used to convey a certain kind of emotion, and we just don't use English at all to do it so it's not possible to really translate such instances at all.

Just a few simple things.


-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: botak
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 7:01am
Originally posted by sereihan

Quran 24:40 "Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light"

This is one verse Pickthall transaltion, what do you think honestly?


By all accounts, the Quran is a very beautiful text in Arabic.

When translated many aspects of the original poetry will remain. I'm not trying to argue against the aesthetic qualities of the Quran.

To me, the example you quoted resembles classical poetry. If I didn't know its origin and was told it was written by a great poet then I could believe that. There are undoubtedly many passages of the Quran that, from a literary perspective, are well written.

I don't see that passage as being something that is objectively more beautiful or profound than other pieces of great poetry though. It contains a fairly standard dark/light metaphor and no rhetorical devices that are not commonly used.

If you compare it to the following verse from 'paradise lost', what aspects does it contain that make it objectively a better piece of writing? Which text you preferred would depend on your own subjective opinions.


"O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams,
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy sphere,
Till pride and worse ambition threw me down,"

Also, if you look at other verses from the Quran, for example "O ye who believe! Fear Allah and be with those who are true (in word and deed).", there is nothing remarkable about the language when translated.

When translated into English, the Quran contains no rhetorical features that are beyond the capabilities of highly skilled writers, it is therefore imitable.

I can't judge the original Quran, so what aspects of that do you consider beyond human capabilities to replicate?

If people believe that the Quran is, in their opinion, the most beautiful text ever written then that is a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold. I'm not trying to criticise the Quran or make an argument against its divinity either. I just can't grasp the concept of ANY text being objectively perfect. To be honest, I probably will never be able to understand it, but I'm interested in knowing other peoples opinions about why they consider it to be inimitable..


Posted By: botak
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 7:17am
Originally posted by Aviatrix



As for what is lost in translation... as someone who has recently come to be able to read the Qur'an in Arabic, the depth I encounter when reading in Arabic is tremendous enough that even I hate turning to translations now.


Thanks for your reply. Poetic language is one of the hardest things to translate without impacting on the qualities of the original.

I find it amusing to translate song lyrics literally, they usually sound ridiculous.

Out of interest, do you believe that the language of the Quran is beyond the capabilities of a human to replicate?

If so, what aspects of it make you feel this way? What makes it more than just a beautiful piece of writing? (I mean the writing itself, rather than the knowledge contained within) Are there really no verses that are 'unremarkable' stylistically?



Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 9:54am
Originally posted by botak



By all accounts, the Quran is a very beautiful text in Arabic.

When translated many aspects of the original poetry will remain. I'm not trying to argue against the aesthetic qualities of the Quran.

To me, the example you quoted resembles classical poetry. If I didn't know its origin and was told it was written by a great poet then I could believe that. There are undoubtedly many passages of the Quran that, from a literary perspective, are well written.

I don't see that passage as being something that is objectively more beautiful or profound than other pieces of great poetry though. It contains a fairly standard dark/light metaphor and no rhetorical devices that are not commonly used.

If you compare it to the following verse from 'paradise lost', what aspects does it contain that make it objectively a better piece of writing? Which text you preferred would depend on your own subjective opinions.


"O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams,
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy sphere,
Till pride and worse ambition threw me down,"

Also, if you look at other verses from the Quran, for example "O ye who believe! Fear Allah and be with those who are true (in word and deed).", there is nothing remarkable about the language when translated.

When translated into English, the Quran contains no rhetorical features that are beyond the capabilities of highly skilled writers, it is therefore imitable.

I can't judge the original Quran, so what aspects of that do you consider beyond human capabilities to replicate?

If people believe that the Quran is, in their opinion, the most beautiful text ever written then that is a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold. I'm not trying to criticise the Quran or make an argument against its divinity either. I just can't grasp the concept of ANY text being objectively perfect. To be honest, I probably will never be able to understand it, but I'm interested in knowing other peoples opinions about why they consider it to be inimitable..

To me your discussion botak is fairly honest discussion! So, let us continue focusing on the two examples, you could change your example if you like but stick to one example, something comparable in length to my example!

You said my example is like that of "a great poet" and more than that it is subjective! "objectively more beautiful or profound than other pieces of great poetry though", forget about the issue of the word of God! Here we have two English literatures very well written and I agree with you we can't objectively measure the difference! Let us focus on the meaning of these two literatures! I tell you about my example and you tell me about yours!

 My example gives analogy between two things, the unbeliever state lacking guidance and a state of darkness in an area lacking light! It speaks about a state of darkness while light or the source of light is present during the day! This state of darkness exists in the deep sea and caused by the clouds, the depth of water and the waves of the sea! Layers of darkness making this area in the sea too dim to sea yet you can see and there is some light but it is so diminished to be able to see! "When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it"

This unbeliever is in need of the light of guidance from Allah swt as much as a man in this area in the deep sea is in need of the light of the sun to see!

Now your turn!

 

 



Posted By: botak
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 2:10pm
It is from the classical (and very long) poem paradise lost by John Milton.

http://www.literaturepage.com/read/paradise-lost.html - http://www.literaturepage.com/read/paradise-lost.html

the whole poem is about the Biblical 'fall of man', and these lines are really part of a larger context.

"O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams,
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy sphere,
Till pride and worse ambition threw me down,"

These particular lines are from a section of the poem that focuses on the the self-doubts and regrets that the devil has when he remembers paradise. He is lamenting the fact hat his own vanity and designs on power caused him to rebel against God and lost him his place in heaven. Previously he had thought that having power was more important than serving God in paradise in recognition of all he had been given, and that it was his own being and egotistical fulfilment that was most important for his own happiness, rather than the environment he lived in and the blessings he had been given.

(just for context) Much earlier in the poem, he had believed:

"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

Allegorically, the first few lines I quoted relate to the common regret people have when they are unhappy with their present situation and, due to their ungratefulness, innate conceit or arrogance, reject what they have in favour of a greater future only to find that when they achieve their goal it is not as glorious as they had expected. They believe they can cast aside those who have shown them kindness as they underestimate the role that others play in their happiness. Fulfilment is not just something we can create in our mind, it relies on the environment we exist in. However, if we fill our minds with desire and envy, then we will never find happiness, no matter how many blessings we have.

(again for context) the following lines from my original quote are:

"Warring in Heav'n against Heav'ns matchless King:
Ah wherefore! he deservd no such return
From me, whom he created what I was
In that bright eminence, and with his good
Upbraided none; nor was his service hard.
What could be less then to afford him praise,
The easiest recompence, and pay him thanks,
How due! yet all his good prov'd ill in me,
And wrought but malice; lifted up so high"

Which basically mean 'why wasn't I just happy with what I had before'?


Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 7:10pm
The Quraan is also the only book to be memorized word for word since it was revealed, and has stood unchanged for 1400 years.
 
I doubt this. Oral transmission was around thousands of years before the Qur'an was.
 
On a side issue, just how is Koran, Quraan, Qu'ran, Qur'an supposed to be spelled in English?


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 8:07pm
Qur'an is perhaps the most accurate phonetically, but since it depends on English users and not on Arabic speakers, it could be spelled in any which way. I spell it Quran or Koran, depending on my mood, because I'm not speaking in Arabic. When it's in Arabic, then it would make no sense to spell it out based on English pronunciation.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 9:04pm
Originally posted by botak

It is from the classical (and very long) poem paradise lost by John Milton.

http://www.literaturepage.com/read/paradise-lost.html - http://www.literaturepage.com/read/paradise-lost.html

the whole poem is about the Biblical 'fall of man', and these lines are really part of a larger context.

"O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams,
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy sphere,
Till pride and worse ambition threw me down,"


"O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams,
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy sphere,
Till pride and worse ambition threw me down,"

Thanks for your reply though you did not comment on the meaning I gave you! Feel free to criticize it! Please I need your comment! But I still need more clarification from you! I want you to tell me about the link between the beams of the sun and "from what state he fell" then what is his point when he apparently shift to talk about " how glorious once above thy sphere" what was above the sphere of the sun? I am not trying to down grade the text but I want to see a clear and strong link between every statement and the other! Please do some exegesis for me to the above text so that I can compare how strong the meaning with the one I gave you! And show me kindly your best to explain how strong the meaning of your text!

Notice the text I gave you is around 50 words and the one you gave me is around 30 words but with the context you used is more than triple the text I used, if you can use a text that is comparable in length to my text, this will allow us more fairly to compare between the power of the meaning of the two texts! But if you chose to go with your example it will be ok! Just give me your reply to the above!

 



Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 30 July 2012 at 11:50pm
Originally posted by Franco

The Quraan is also the only book to be memorized word for word since it was revealed, and has stood unchanged for 1400 years.

 
I doubt this. Oral transmission was around thousands of years before the Qur'an was.

 

On a side issue, just how is Koran, Quraan, Qu'ran, Qur'an supposed to be spelled in English?



Oral transmission was there before the Quraan,oral transmission of poems yes, of books the magnitude of the Quraan impossible.The Quraan is the only book up to today.That is a miracle of any book. Totally preserved by God himself using the human brain as his storage place and accurately as well for 1500 years.
You doubting it means nothing.If you could have shown us one that was memorized the magnitude of the Quraan today that would would help.Just refuting with no substance is useless.


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 12:00am
Originally posted by Aviatrix



As for what is lost in translation... as someone who has recently come to be able to read the Qur'an in Arabic, the depth I encounter when reading in Arabic is tremendous enough that even I hate turning to translations now.


Originally posted by botak

Thanks for your reply. Poetic language is one of the hardest things to translate without impacting on the qualities of the original.

I find it amusing to translate song lyrics literally, they usually sound ridiculous.

Out of interest, do you believe that the language of the Quran is beyond the capabilities of a human to replicate?

If so, what aspects of it make you feel this way? What makes it more than just a beautiful piece of writing? (I mean the writing itself, rather than the knowledge contained within) Are there really no verses that are 'unremarkable' stylistically?



I do believe that, but that is how I feel when I read it. I have found poetry and prose that are beautiful to read, and which are engaging and impressive in many ways, but when I read the Qur'an it's completely different. I don't know if I can quantify why I feel that way, even though I've certainly listened to plenty of lectures, read some books and collected plenty of notes trying to address that question.

It's not just "beautiful writing." It's deep and rhetorically powerful. And beauty of the form isn't separate from the meaning, which is also deep and powerful, and clear.

And no, there aren't any ayaat which are unremarkable.

But really, I'm only offering you my opinion here, and I can't force it on anyone. I don't know if these qualities of the Qur'an can really be appreciated without actually reading the Qur'an in Arabic. And if they can, then unfortunately I am incapable of explaining them. Sorry.

Today I was translating a passage for a group of converts (we meet once a week and I do a passage each week) and even though I am extremely familiar with it, and have read it dozens of times, grammatically analyzed it, translated it on exams, memorized the root meanings of the words and their morphologies, I learned something new today. I was struck by two contrasting parables appearing next to each other, and depth and meanings which had previously escaped me.

I have this experience pretty frequently--at least every week, since at least that often I slow down enough to reflect on such things. And because the language is able to capture so much, to convey so much meaning so concisely while still creating a stunning visual image while being easy to understand on a superficial level, it just strikes me as utterly beyond human capabilities. And on a macro level, the structure of the Qur'an overall is just fascinating--how 40 pages can be grouped together, how passages balance between themes and concepts, how entire chapters can be connected.

It just amazes me. All the time.

-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 12:12am
Originally posted by Franco

On a side issue, just how is Koran, Quraan, Qu'ran, Qur'an supposed to be spelled in English?


The first letter is ق qaaf in Arabic, which is articulated behind the uvula. The letter ك kaaf is like the English K, articulated in front of the uvula. Because writing a "K" is more analogous with a kaaf, I think it's better to start with a "Q" when transliterating.

Of the short vowel sounds, there's an "a" like "at", "e" like "me" and "u" like "blue." Sometimes "o" or "u" is written, or "e" or "i" and there's no official rule about it, but I think "u" makes more sense than an "o" but either way you spell it won't affect the pronunciation much in this particular word (because of the "r" coming up.)

After the "r" sound (ر raa in Arabic) there's another letter which doesn't have an English equivalent. So sometimes it gets rendered as an apostrophe. It is a glottal stop, and the pronunciation is not correct without making it. Even though there is no English letter which may suffice in the spelling of Qur'an, I think it's good to acknowledge the presence of the letter by using an apostrophe after the r. It should never be before the r.

There can be one "a" or two in the English spelling--this is a long vowel in Arabic, meaning it's held longer than a short vowel, like the "u" in the beginning. However, constantly using double vowels looks tedious and weird in English, even if it more correctly reflects the pronunciation. Sometimes symbols are used atop of letters in English to indicate their length (hats or dashes), but usually we're too lazy to do that. I usually use just one "a" because it's simpler.



-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: Fandom
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 4:31am
Originally posted by iec786

Originally posted by Franco

The Quraan is also the only book to be memorized word for word since it was revealed, and has stood unchanged for 1400 years.

I doubt this. Oral transmission was around thousands of years before the Qur'an was.  




Oral transmission was there before the Quraan,oral transmission of poems yes, of books the magnitude of the Quraan impossible.The Quraan is the only book up to today.That is a miracle of any book. Totally preserved by God himself using the human brain as his storage place and accurately as well for 1500 years.
You doubting it means nothing.If you could have shown us one that was memorized the magnitude of the Quraan today that would would help.Just refuting with no substance is useless.



My understanding is that oral transmission was common among many cultures prior to printing, reading and writing.  Is there any proof or evidence that the entire Quran was memorized perfectly by great numbers of people?  Maybe she doubts it because nothing has been offered to prove "totally preserved by God using the human brain."

This claim seems to be an important one among Muslims, a keystone in their faith in many respects.  I would be grateful to hear it explained.




Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 5:51am
I know several people personally who have memorized the Qur'an in its entirety, all who live in the USA right now, many who live in my community here. And you can go right now into any mosque in the entire world and hear the Qur'an being recited perfectly from memory every night this month, as one of the traditions of Ramadan.

And when a person finishes memorizing, he has to get his memorization checked by someone who had memorized before him, who also was checked by someone before him, going back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions.

I find it an odd claim if someone says that only the Qur'an has been memorized in history--that just doesn't make sense. But the tradition of memorizing the Qur'an is very strong and ongoing, and it is done with care to preserve even the correct pronunciation, and literally every single page has to be reviewed with a teacher before a student memorizes it.

-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: Corinna
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 7:09am
Originally posted by iec786



Oral transmission was there before the Quraan,oral transmission of poems yes, of books the magnitude of the Quraan impossible.The Quraan is the only book up to today.That is a miracle of any book. Totally preserved by God himself using the human brain as his storage place and accurately as well for 1500 years.
.


Actually, oral transmission of Torah was in existence long before Quran ever came along.  The system was in place amongst the tribes with onespecific group that passed it from generation to generation.  That doesn't mean others didn't also memorize it, they did.  That is how it was preserved and used long before there were books, chapters, verses, etc.  It was/still is an art form.


Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 9:00am
Thanks, Aviatrix for your input. You make things clear without simplifying them. I appreciate that.
 
Oral transmission was there before the Quraan,oral transmission of poems yes, of books the magnitude of the Quraan impossible.The Quraan is the only book up to today.That is a miracle of any book. Totally preserved by God himself using the human brain as his storage place and accurately as well for 1500 years.
As you must be aware, regarding any literature as 'a miracle' is moot in the extreme.
 
The Iliad, for example, probably predates the Qur'an by 1400 years. Some scholars say it predates the Greek alphabet, and surely it was originally an oral text.
 
Moving farther east, there are books in India, Japan, China, that most surely were once transmitted in oral form.
 
Quality of rhetoric  or poetry in languages I do not read is not something I can't judge, any more than a native  Arabic speaker can judge Shakespeare, or Milton, for that matter.
 
I congratulate you on your belief that the Qur'an contains the actual words of Allah, but perhaps you will forgive me my doubts.


-------------
Dear God,

Thank you for keeping me safe from your followers.

(Serge Storms via Tim Dorsey


Posted By: JoeBlow
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by Aviatrix

I know several people personally who have memorized the Qur'an in its entirety, all who live in the USA right now, many who live in my community here. And you can go right now into any mosque in the entire world and hear the Qur'an being recited perfectly from memory every night this month, as one of the traditions of Ramadan.

And when a person finishes memorizing, he has to get his memorization checked by someone who had memorized before him, who also was checked by someone before him, going back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions.

I find it an odd claim if someone says that only the Qur'an has been memorized in history--that just doesn't make sense. But the tradition of memorizing the Qur'an is very strong and ongoing, and it is done with care to preserve even the correct pronunciation, and literally every single page has to be reviewed with a teacher before a student memorizes it.


How long does it take to recite the Quran?

Is there any documentation authenticating memorization from one reciter to the next?


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 3:07pm
Originally posted by JoeBlow


How long does it take to recite the Quran?

Is there any documentation authenticating memorization from one reciter to the next?

Yes there are authentic chains of transmission of the Quran, we call it isnad, up to the five major companions of the prophet pbuh who were famous teachers and they transmitted the readings of the Quran from the prophet pbuh, you have the names and the date of when the reciter died in arabic, of course this is example! the transmission is extremely branching now!

http://www.alwaei.com/products/boster/selselat_Asaned_Al-Quraan_alkareem.php - http://www.alwaei.com/products/boster/selselat_Asaned_Al-Quraan_alkareem.php



Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by Franco

 
I congratulate you on your belief that the Qur'an contains the actual words of Allah, but perhaps you will forgive me my doubts.

Your doubts can be solved if you want!



Posted By: JoeBlow
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 5:42pm
Originally posted by sereihan

Originally posted by JoeBlow


How long does it take to recite the Quran?

Is there any documentation authenticating memorization from one reciter to the next?

Yes there are authentic chains of transmission of the Quran, we call it isnad, up to the five major companions of the prophet pbuh who were famous teachers and they transmitted the readings of the Quran from the prophet pbuh, you have the names and the date of when the reciter died in arabic, of course this is example! the transmission is extremely branching now!

http://www.alwaei.com/products/boster/selselat_Asaned_Al-Quraan_alkareem.php -



Thanks.  The website is in Arabic.  And I looked up isnad, and it looks like it is about hadith.  I was asking about documentation for this statement:

And when a person finishes memorizing, he has to get his memorization checked by someone who had memorized before him, who also was checked by someone before him, going back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions.

It is not a big deal; I was just a little curious.




Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 7:20pm
Originally posted by JoeBlow



Thanks.  The website is in Arabic.  And I looked up isnad, and it looks like it is about hadith.  I was asking about documentation for this statement:

And when a person finishes memorizing, he has to get his memorization checked by someone who had memorized before him, who also was checked by someone before him, going back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions.

It is not a big deal; I was just a little curious.


Isnad applies for anything, in general it speaks about your source of information, for everything in Islam there is isnad this include readings of the Quran, hadith and even history, Isnad is a chain of men who are carrying the text even if it is a written text you cant narrate from that text except if you have authentic authorization from the author of that text! For example if you are living in the second century of islam and you had a written hadith by a known narrator having a continuous chain to the prophet pbuh and you narrate from his text this isnad will be interrupted and your narration is not acceptable! Even if you are contemporary to that narrator!

Isnad is actually the most fundamental difference between Islam and all other religions on earth! Take Christianity for example the four gospels they are preaching day and night their isnad is not weak but they have no isnad at all! The weak hadith we have is stronger than the entire bible! Christians do not care about isnad at all because all manuscripts they have they don’t know the writer of that manuscript or his source or even the original author of the gospel, they say it is the word of God attributing to God and unable to attribute it to any man!

In Islam we do not accept anything without strong Isnad!



Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 10:57pm
Originally posted by sereihan

Originally posted by JoeBlow

How long does it take to recite the Quran?Is there any documentation authenticating memorization from one reciter to the next?

<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; unicode-bidi: ; DIRECTION: ltr" dir=ltr =Msonormal><FONT face=Calibri>Yes there are authentic chains of transmission of the Quran, we call it isnad, up to the five major companions of the prophet pbuh who were famous teachers and they transmitted the readings of the Quran from the prophet pbuh, you have the names and the date of when the reciter died in arabic, of course this is example! the transmission is extremely branching now!<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>


<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt; unicode-bidi: ; DIRECTION: ltr" dir=ltr =Msonormal> http://www.alwaei.com/products/boster/selselat_Asaned_Al-Quraan_alkareem.php - [COLOR=#800080 size=3 face=Calibri - http://www.alwaei.com/products/boster/selselat_Asaned_Al-Quraan_alkareem.php[/COLOR - <FONT face=Calibri> <o:p></o:p>



How do you know this?


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 2:07am
Originally posted by JoeBlow

How long does it take to recite the Quran?Is there any documentation authenticating memorization from one reciter to the next?


Usually now they read about 1/30th each night, and it takes about an hour or so. (It takes longer but during the nightly prayers in Ramadan there are breaks from the reciting to bow, prostrate, and rest.)

I think it takes me about 45 minutes to an hour to read that much each day, so I can finish it in 30 days. So maybe 30 hours total? Some people read more and faster, and finish reading the Qur'an a few times in Ramadan, 2 or 3 or even more times.

I'm not sure about the documentation, though I'm assuming you mean a written chain. Some people might have theirs written, I don't know. But the poster above is trying to tell you that "isnad" is just a chain of people through whom something was transmitted--whether the Qur'an, a hadith, a story, etc. It's a list of each person who heard it, memorized it, and told it to someone else.

-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 6:54am
Originally posted by The_Rock



How do you know this?

I gave example here "you have the names and the date of when the reciter died in arabic, of course this is example!"

http://www.alwaei.com/products/boster/selselat_Asaned_Al-Quraan_alkareem.php - http://www.alwaei.com/products/boster/selselat_Asaned_Al-Quraan_alkareem.php

What do you think we are lying!?

For me if you give me isnad (chain of transmission) of any part of the bible up to the disciples of Jesus pbuh and there is agreement by the Christian bible scholars on it I don’t mind in accepting its authenticity but if you cant and I know you cant! Then you have to submit to the great difference between the authenticity of the teaching of Islam and that of Christianity!   



Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 7:47am
Why was the chain methodology developed?


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 7:51am
Sereihan,

It's not me that think Muslims were lying, it's your own scholars who developed the chain methodology to differentiate lies from truth.

At best, their efforts are a reconstruction of what happened based on logical deductions.

The truth is that Islamic history including the origins of the Quran are lost to us.
 
The hadith methodology is simply a logical framework to attempt to reconstruct that history.
 
You are free to believe that it is factually accurate, but since there is no evidence to support your view, it is a matter of opinion whether to accept the low standard that you have accepted as evidence, or whether to use our intellects and understand it for what it is.
 
In my estimation all we really know is that there was a man name Muhammad, who was some kind of political authority who was one of the founders of a movement.
 
We cannot know much more with any amount of certainty, in my estimation the qur'an is almost certainly not the work of one person, but several people, over a period of time.
 
The compilation story that the orthodoxy has today is nonsense.
 
Its very clear that there were multiple editions with varying text in the very early period.
 
This was solidified by one leader, which became the standard text.
 
It is interesting that your own hadith literature speaks of lost verses like the breast feeding verse, the sura that was the same length as al baqarah and the verse of stoning the fornicators.
 
All this is in your hadith literature.
 
Now of course you are going to tell me - those stories are not true because the chain of narrators is not sound.
 
Yet in your prior post you asked me if I thought that muslims lied?
 
To which my answer is once again, its not what I think, its what you muslims think about yourselves.
 
I dont think a single Early church father, apostle or disciple lied about Jesus.


Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 9:52am
It would be interesting to read any non-Muslim accounts of Mohammed and the early days of Islam. Can anyone point me to such?

-------------
Dear God,

Thank you for keeping me safe from your followers.

(Serge Storms via Tim Dorsey


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 12:55pm

There are no non-muslim sources regarding Muhammad or the islamic movement for the first 30 odd years itself.

However there are numerous written accounts of events during the expansion of the caliphate.
 
These records agree largely with the muslims accounts of events as well.
 
You can read a book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Islam_as_Others_Saw_It - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Islam_as_Others_Saw_It
 
I highly recommend it.
 
I do believe the islamic history in broad strokes, but there seems to be extensive mythologysing of the early 30 years.


Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 3:37pm
Thanks, the Rock. I will definitely want to read that.

-------------
Dear God,

Thank you for keeping me safe from your followers.

(Serge Storms via Tim Dorsey


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 7:11pm
Originally posted by Franco

Thanks, the Rock. I will definitely want to read that.

What Rock gave you is the most stupid source you can read! I have seen many non Muslim respected sources like the known encyclopedias and non Muslim scholars specialized in Islamic history they are called orientalists I did not see any scholar refers to this source except the great scholar Rock!!

I will give the best source that I now about which gather very high academic non Muslim scholars all non Muslims in a documentary movie about the early history of Islam by the PBS the most trustable American documentary maker (which is non profit organization) who invited non Muslim scholars to comment about the history of Islam!

The movie is found on youtube by the name Islam Empire of faith and is available on the website of the PBS, it will be interesting after you finish to compare it with the other movie they did about the early history of Christianity! which is called From Jesus To Christ, This is also available on their website. It is all for free!! PLEASE give me your comment!  

 



Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 7:19pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

 
I dont think a single Early church father, apostle or disciple lied about Jesus.

The true followers of Jesus pbuh the Jewish Christians testify that the Pauline Christians were lying about Jesus and the disciples!

·        Ebionites, Catholic Encyclopedia "they regarded St. Paul as an apostate".  

·        Ebionites, New Catholic Encyclopedia "A Jewish Christian sect that flourished between the first and the fourth century."

As you see they considered Paul and his followers as apostates!



Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 7:26pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Why was the chain methodology developed?

They developed this strict methodology to properly authenticate all the teaching of Islam to deliver them safely to us without corruption!

By the way what was the methodology of Luke who says in the beginning of the gospel that he investigated everything! How did he investigate? What was his methodology? or who ever wrote the gospel of Luke because he is actually unknown mysterious person according to the catholic encyclopedia:

             Gospel & Gospels, Catholic Encyclopedia "the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous… Prophecies whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better... it thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."



Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 7:59pm
The methodology was developed to differentiate between forgeries and truth.

It was developed because there was no way to differentiate truth and lies, in essence it was developed because an information gap existed.

You are free to believe what you want. But don't expect us to just accept it as blindly as you do.

As a born Muslim, it is next to impossible for you to consider the evidence from an unbiased point of view.

But I think I have tried to Be very unbiased and based on that unbiased view, I must reject the veracity of the Islamic record.


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 10:03pm
I have read most of the Orientalist literature in English, and have never encountered any claim that Qur'an had multiple authors.


Obviously the Orientalists,many of whom were Christian clergymen,don't believe Quran was from Allah, but they agree it's the same one Muhammad preached from. Peace be on prophet Muhammad.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 7:36am
I am surprised you say that Waheed, I have read several orientalists works and all posit that idea.


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 10:24am
They posit the idea that Muhammad was a rhetorical genius, that Qur'an is his words in a collected form, but I have never seen a claim by them that Qur'an is the work of many authors.

I am reminded of a quranic verse " do they not consider the Qur'an with care, had it been from any other than God, you would find therein many contradictions". I see no internal contradictions.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 10:31am
People wrote down their own copies of the revelation. It was used in prayers and legal reference. Thousands memorized the whole text. The Sunni and Shiite branches both have same Qur'an, even though The latter have a dislike of some of the early rulers, who had a hand it having the Qur'an collected in an official manner.

It's just impossible for there to be difffering authors or changes therein. Muslim writers have convincingly argued the stuff talked about now a days, the ayah of stoning, etc..are all late forgeries designed to create doubts and undermine the community.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 12:49pm
Waheed I have 2 points I would like for you to shed light on.

1. Why would Islamic historians forge ahadith regarding missing verses? Wouldn't they have a natural aversion to doing this?

2. This is more hearsay, but on a Shia forum, I read that the current Quran is just 1/3 the length of the Quran in heaven, have you heard a similar story?


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 12:52pm
Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, Hadith # 1934)

Narrated Aisha 'The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept
under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (SAWW.) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 12:57pm
Originally posted by waheed1

They posit the idea that Muhammad was a rhetorical genius, that Qur'an is his words in a collected form, but I have never seen a claim by them that Qur'an is the work of many authors.

I am reminded of a quranic verse " do they not consider the Qur'an with care, had it been from any other than God, you would find therein many contradictions". I see no internal contradictions.


I have never heard a claim about rhetorical genius, I have heard Gerd Puin the excavator and preserver of the Sanaa Quran claim that fully one fifth of the Quran is unintelligible.

In the 1999 Atlantic Monthly article referenced below, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.[1]
The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,' but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.

A deeper study into this issue of unintelligibility was investigated by me.

Gerd and his fellows are not suggesting that the words cannot be understood.

In fact, what Gerd posited was that the Quran is built on a Syriac substrate, these words about a fifth of the Quran do not derive from Aramaic to which arabic is related, but rather to a distant relative called Syriac.

Understand that Arabic was a very new language at the time, and it borrowed words extensively,many of the loan words were not properly understood by Muslim tafseer writers who propagated wrong interpretations.

Many of these words are now part of the Arabic lexicon but if one examines the Syriac roots one has to change the meaning of the verses significantly.

The issue is not simply one of transmission but interpretation as well.


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

The methodology was developed to differentiate between forgeries and truth.

It was developed because there was no way to differentiate truth and lies, in essence it was developed because an information gap existed.

You are free to believe what you want. But don't expect us to just accept it as blindly as you do.

As a born Muslim, it is next to impossible for you to consider the evidence from an unbiased point of view.

But I think I have tried to Be very unbiased and based on that unbiased view, I must reject the veracity of the Islamic record.

Do not give us emotional speech just reply to what is written in your official site! Is this the authentic record you want us to believe?

 

Gospel & Gospels, Catholic Encyclopedia "the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous… Prophecies whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better... it thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."

 

Then you can tell us exactly what kind of methodology you want us as muslims to follow based of course on the great Christian authentication that you are used to follow! We are ready to learn from you!



Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 1:08pm
Sereihan,
I believe the topic is about the preservation of the Quran.

If you wish to understand how Christians understand scripture, then you should start a thread about that.

Inshallah I will answer all your difficulties there :)


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 1:20pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, Hadith # 1934)

Narrated Aisha 'The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept
under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (SAWW.) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."

I think you are confused you do not have a clear idea! There are honest Christians who have real points to rise and there the opposite like you Rock!

 

What exactly you want from this? What does this prove to you? You will start giving me some stupid replies! Because you did not spend time to study!

 

So, I advise you to spend sometime studying the issue before you start posting!

 



Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 1:21pm
People wrote down their own copies of the revelation. It was used in prayers and legal reference. Thousands memorized the whole text.
 ?
This is where I get confused. When was there a 'whole text' During the life of Mohammed? When was the arrangement of the suras finalized? By whom?


-------------
Dear God,

Thank you for keeping me safe from your followers.

(Serge Storms via Tim Dorsey


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 1:29pm
Sereihan,

I am not suggesting that the Hadith posted above is true, as you have correctly stated I don't know enough about this matter.

What I do know is that Islamic history was not recorded in the way that Muslims claim it was.

Muslims were in fact the first true historians of the world with the development of Hadith studies.

But it is not a history that is verifiable.

The Indian and Egyptian dynasties used very resilient mediums to record their activities, we still have evidence of what they did 3000 years after it was done.

We simply do not have the same kind of evidence for Islam under the guidance of Muhammad.


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 1:45pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran

An interesting study of the evolution of the Quran.

According to Luxenberg, the Qur'an was not written in classical Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders' language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Qur'an was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Qur'anic text. That idea is in serious disagreement with the views of both traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam.


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 3:48pm
sereihan, when talking to the Rock, keep in mind that you're speaking to an amateur historian.
 
 
he really knows his stuff....


-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 3:56pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran

An interesting study of the evolution of the Quran.

According to Luxenberg, the Qur'an was not written in classical Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders' language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Qur'an was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Qur'anic text. That idea is in serious disagreement with the views of both traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam.
 
Rock, one thing: You and your "experts" treat the Quran as though it were a thing not memorized but only read. Even if it were in Pitman shorthand, people memorized the Quran in the masses and the written manuscript seemed more like a guide for those learning to memorize it, and those who slipped up from time to time when by themselves praying or reciting.
 
If the Quran was different, the Shias, Sunnis, Khawarij, etc. would've exploited this opportunity to insert things that gave them more credibility than their opponents. Yet all three groups use the same exact Quran because they all agree on its integrity.


-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 4:39pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Sereihan,

I am not suggesting that the Hadith posted above is true, as you have correctly stated I don't know enough about this matter.

What I do know is that Islamic history was not recorded in the way that Muslims claim it was.

Muslims were in fact the first true historians of the world with the development of Hadith studies.

But it is not a history that is verifiable.

The Indian and Egyptian dynasties used very resilient mediums to record their activities, we still have evidence of what they did 3000 years after it was done.

We simply do not have the same kind of evidence for Islam under the guidance of Muhammad.

Do you know Rock already the roles of authenticity in Islam? In hadith for example!

If you already know tell us I already know and these are the roles! If you don’t know tell us that you don’t know and only now you looked it up in the internet and then give to us! And then we can't tell if any nation in human history have developed a similar or equivalent methodology or not?

By the way the post is not preservation of the Quran as you mentioned the post is a reply to allegation made against the preservation of the Quran, it was part of my reply in the same post to cite the anonymous authors of the gospels from the catholic encyclopedias!

So, don’t run from the answer what do you have to say about that!



Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 4:54pm
Originally posted by Magister

sereihan, when talking to the Rock, keep in mind that you're speaking to an amateur historian.
 
 
he really knows his stuff....

 

Magister, he knows nothing! Wikipedia is not acceptable academic reference! And I think you missed the point in his quote! why you should reply to Rock! Notice the reply is in his own very same quote! Notice that even western non Muslim scholars reject this idea! Read in bold!

"According to Luxenberg, the Qur'an was not written in classical Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders' language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Qur'an was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Qur'anic text. That idea is in serious disagreement with the views of both traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam."



Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 4:56pm
Sereihan,
 
I believe that was Magisters attempt at sarcasm.
 
If you want to talk about the Bible, as I said "start a thread, and inshallah I will answer all your difficulties"


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 5:08pm
Originally posted by Magister

[QUOTE=The_Rock]

 

Rock, one thing: You and your "experts" treat the Quran as though it were a thing not memorized but only read. Even if it were in Pitman shorthand, people memorized the Quran in the masses and the written manuscript seemed more like a guide for those learning to memorize it, and those who slipped up from time to time when by themselves praying or reciting.

 

If the Quran was different, the Shias, Sunnis, Khawarij, etc. would've exploited this opportunity to insert things that gave them more credibility than their opponents. Yet all three groups use the same exact Quran because they all agree on its integrity.


That is a TERRIBLE argument Magister.

There were no Shia during the period under discussion.

Moreover, I have heard Shia say that the uthmanic Quran was a third the length of the fatimid Quran that he forcibly took from the daughter of Muhammad.


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 5:11pm
The idea that shiites believe in a different Qur'an is one that is largely fabricated by their enemies. Go to any shiite mosque and home and you will see the same Qur'an, and recitation in prayers [as well as cultural, social events such as weddings, funerals and the like] from the same Qur'an.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 5:14pm
Originally posted by sereihan

Originally posted by Magister

sereihan, when talking to the Rock, keep in mind that you're speaking to an amateur historian.
 
 
he really knows his stuff....

 

Magister, he knows nothing! Wikipedia is not acceptable academic reference! And I think you missed the point in his quote! why you should reply to Rock! Notice the reply is in his own very same quote! Notice that even western non Muslim scholars reject this idea! Read in bold!

"According to Luxenberg, the Qur'an was not written in classical Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders' language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Qur'an was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Qur'anic text. That idea is in serious disagreement with the views of both traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam."

 
It was a joke, akhi. Long ago he once elevated himself to the status of scholar without any qualifications whatsoever. So I joke about it now. I know he knows very little. And I knew his claim to being an amateur historian was outright hilarious because of his tendency to use Ummah.org forum Muslims as a basis for judging over a billion people around the world. But at least he's trying to learn more.
 
I wasn't being serious that he was a historian and knows his stuff..


-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 5:15pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Sereihan,
 
I believe that was Magisters attempt at sarcasm.
 
If you want to talk about the Bible, as I said "start a thread, and inshallah I will answer all your difficulties"
 
Rock is right.


-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Originally posted by Magister

[QUOTE=The_Rock]

 

Rock, one thing: You and your "experts" treat the Quran as though it were a thing not memorized but only read. Even if it were in Pitman shorthand, people memorized the Quran in the masses and the written manuscript seemed more like a guide for those learning to memorize it, and those who slipped up from time to time when by themselves praying or reciting.

 

If the Quran was different, the Shias, Sunnis, Khawarij, etc. would've exploited this opportunity to insert things that gave them more credibility than their opponents. Yet all three groups use the same exact Quran because they all agree on its integrity.


That is a TERRIBLE argument Magister.

There were no Shia during the period under discussion.

Moreover, I have heard Shia say that the uthmanic Quran was a third the length of the fatimid Quran that he forcibly took from the daughter of Muhammad.
 
No, claiming to be an amateur historian who will teach Muslims their own religion is a TERRIBLE claim


-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 5:59pm
But Rock, it's actually a very good argument. The Shias for instance were the party of Ali (raa), the cousin and 4th khalif. He was one of the closest to Muhammad (saws) in companionship. He married the Prophet's daughter. If he didn't have the right Quran,and if his followers didn't have the right Quran, you gotz lotz o' shplainin to do!

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 8:50pm
Hypothetical question.
 
Is it possible that a non-Muslim who has studied Islam and its history at length might, just maybe perhaps possibly, know more about it than the average Muslim
 
On another thread it has been explained that in Afghanistan people do not know their own religion.
 
Why not?Are there no imans to teach it to them in all those past centuries?
 
Is a non-Muslim within his (her) rights to criticize some of the crazy stuff?
 
I know, I know. Muslims are wrong but not Islam.
 
But WHY are Muslims wrong? Whose fault is it?
 
 


-------------
Dear God,

Thank you for keeping me safe from your followers.

(Serge Storms via Tim Dorsey


Posted By: Shenango
Date Posted: 02 August 2012 at 10:32pm
Originally posted by Franco

Is it possible that a non-Muslim who has studied Islam and its history at length might, just maybe perhaps possibly, know more about it than the average Muslim
In theory it's possible, of course.
 
Why not?Are there no imans to teach it to them in all those past centuries?
 
There are imams to teach, but with rampant illiteracy and general access to education severely limited, anything taught is filtered through the adopted folkways ingrained in the culture over the centuries, especially in the rural areas. What you get is a kind of folk religion, a home-brewed syncretism of orthodox teaching and local culture.
 
n-Muslim within his (her) rights to criticize some of the crazy stuff?
 
Sure.


-------------
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 9:15am
In reviewing the thread I realized The rocks question was un answered. He mentioned the so called sanaa Quran and foreign words in Qur'an. Sure ; some words are loaned from other languages, their usage in another language becomes native! As an example, thug is not originally English, but we use it. As far as Qur'an is concerned, Muslim scholars are the ones who see Ethiopian, Persian and words of other origin therein. So that's not an issue.

The sanaa Quran claim has been widely addressed elsewhere. I can't post links on my call phone, but if I get a chance I will post.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 9:16am
Pundit is also Hindi but we use it.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 10:34am
Waheed,
 
I appreciate your response. I believe the specific assertion being made is that the loan words mean different things in the original language.
 
What many orientalists are saying is that at some point there was an attempt arabize the quran, in the process of moving from arabic-syriac to classical arabic, many of the verses became unintelligible.
 
The problem isnt just one of translation.
 
The issue is that these scholars are invalidating the orthodox quranic compilation story.
 
They are saying that many texts/hands created an evolving text.
 
These texts were in arabic-syriac and other languages.
 
A single leader came along, lets call him uthman, he forced a compilation of the text in what was to become classical arabic.
 
The people who performed this exercize lets call him zayd bin Thabit et al, were unfamiliar with arabic-syriac.
 
In the process of this compilation they lost about 1/5 of the verses in translation.
 
What has resulted is an unintelligible recitation, unless one has knowledge of syriac-arabic at which point most of the problems are resolved.
 
In essence the quran you have today, was the authored by Zayd ibn Thabit on the instruction of Uthman.


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 10:45am

Can you provide specific examples?



-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 10:49am
The_Rock, is it convenient for you to take one person's opinion as fact, when it disagrees with everyone else in the academic field? Those claims you're making have in fact been widely criticized:

Luxenberg’s argument that the Qur’an has Syro-Aramaic origins has been widely discredited by the academic community. His attempts to identify an underlying Syro-Aramaic reading of the Qur’an have been viewed with great suspicion by other scholars. His methodology has been described by Angelika Neuwirth as “presupposing its very results”. D.J. Stewart describes Luxenberg’s attempts to reconstructthe Qur’an from an Aramaic reading as being “implausible and often demonstrably wrong”. Even Scholars, such as Gerald Hawting, who have questioned Orthodox Muslim understanding has described Luxemberg’s work as “arbitrary”. (Hamza Andreas Tzortzis)

You may read his brief overview of the criticism here: http://theinimitablequran.com/respondingtodispacthes.pdf

-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 10:54am
Is this that guy who says that when the Palestinian terrorists are dying for "virgins", the correct translation would be "olives"?

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 10:56am
Grapes, I think.

-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 11:00am
ahh, okay. thanks sister. Now I know who the Rock is talking about.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 11:20am
On the contrary Aviatrix.
 
 
In the academic world of history everyone has an opposing opinion, Mr Tzortiz, an apologist has provided sound bites to refute a seminal work.
 
This is not a question of my academic is greater than yours.
 
There are many that disagree with luxenberg, especially those that that produced papers and agree with orthodoxy (there are many that receive funding for this)
 
There are many that agree with him. Gerd Puin is one.
 
In my opinion his work has opened an interesting avenue of study.
 
What I do take as fact is that islamic history as presented by the orthodoxy is based on logical deductions and subjective interpretations.
 
Let us take the inscriptions on pyramids as an example. We dont really need someone to memorize and communicate it to us, because we still have the original inscription.
 
We have copper plates, iron pillars temples from far older civilizations even today, so we know without relying on anyone what they said.
 
It is astonishing that the caliphate with its growing power could not inscribe in some permanent medium its single greatest text.
 
why do you think that is?
 
Is it because the Quran was too unimportant to commit to writing on a permanent medium?
 
Or could it be that the Quran was a hodge podge of variant texts that were committed to writing only once a political leader had it committed.
 
What is really interesting is that the hadith literature itself leads us in that direction, with the hadiths of missing suras and verses, as well as the now infamous "satanic verses".
 
As I stated, I agree that islamic history is more or less accurate, except the first 30 or so years.
 
Those in my opinion are highly mythologized.


Posted By: waheed1
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 11:23am
There is nothing unintelligible in the Qur'an. Please, the rock, go get a good translation. They sell them or even give away freely everywhere. Read slowly, write down verses Abd ask questions.

-------------
http://arifinimports.com - Lectures and books
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com - My Blog

<a href="">


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 7:33pm
Perhaps this not being communicated correctly.

I am not commenting on the Quran, it's literary style or unintelligibility.

I am simply stating that Islamic history as postulated by the orthodoxy is not verifiable.

The Quran may be a unique wonderful book. But that is of little concern to me.

The issue to me is simple.

It's the issue that Muslims make central to their assertion of the validity of their beliefs.

That it's perfectly preserved.

In reality Islamic texts themselves refute this assertion.

Moreover Islamic texts openly claim that the history is lost and that they needed a logical framework to decide truth from falsehood.

I must ask Muslims, given the sheer weight of evidence against an accurate transmission of the Hadith and Quran, why do you believe it?


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 10:03pm
Gerd Puin is equally refuted and criticized in his own academic field.

The_Rock, you're taking an extreme and bizarre opinion, trying to pretend that Islamic history somehow doesn't exist. Just because the Qur'an wasn't inscribed on copper? Seriously?

Moreover, there absolutely are not missing surahs or ayaat, and what you call the "satanic verses" are not more than a myth.

You can choose not to believe the Qur'an is from God, but I'm surprised you're not embarrassed by trying to peddle this nonsense which doesn't even hold up amongst non-Muslim scholars of Islam.

And as I have presented, as well as many others (including Waheed and Shenango), there is an abundance of evidence demonstrating the means of transmission of the Qur'an, and yes, even verifying the accuracy of the transmission.

But if you don't even believe the Qur'an is from God, why do you care? If you've got to go find the wackiest out there theories which have been completely discredited in order to prove your point, why persist?

-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 10:10pm
What is this evidence aviatrix?

I am simply stating that your version of Islamic history is no more valid than luxenberg or puin because there is no evidence to support either version.

At least they are basing their study on linguistics, archeology history and deductive reasoning as well as Islamic sources.

So I ask again what empirical evidence do you have to support your version?


Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 12:05am
Originally posted by waheed1

There is nothing unintelligible in the Qur'an. Please, the rock, go get a good translation. They sell them or even give away freely everywhere. Read slowly, write down verses Abd ask questions.
 
I hope you're serious about this.
 
10:53 And we verily did tell unto the Children of Israel a fixed abode and did provide them with good things, and they differed not until the knowledge came to them.
 
Where was this fixed abode? Where is it now?
 
What's the knowledge? How did they differ once it came to them?
 
(Sorry if I have the wrong number or have copied incorrectly. I wrote this down a long time ago  and find my own handwriting to be almost unintelligible.)
 
 


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 1:34am
Originally posted by The_Rock

What is this evidence aviatrix?

I am simply stating that your version of Islamic history is no more valid than luxenberg or puin because there is no evidence to support either version.

At least they are basing their study on linguistics, archeology history and deductive reasoning as well as Islamic sources.

So I ask again what empirical evidence do you have to support your version?


The history has been documented extensively. Thousands of reports, there are books on the histories, collections of the reports, there are even dictionaries from the period. You've just decided to ignore them, for reasons I can't begin to imagine.


-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: Aviatrix
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 1:45am
Probably 10:93 is what you're looking for, Franco:

And We had certainty settled the Children of Israel in an agreeable settlement and provided them with good things. And they did not differ until [after] knowledge had come to them. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ.

The place where they were settled is the areas around Jerusalem, where the Children of Israel went after 40 years in exile in the desert, which is what they did after leaving Egypt.

Where is it now? It's called Israel and Palestine.

The knowledge is a reference to the Mosaic Law, which they received in those years in the desert, and knowledge from the prophets which they had among them. Though the Law and the prophets, they had things explained to them--what's right and wrong.

But still they separated into sects among themselves. That's one meaning of "they differed." But also that they disagreed with each other, with their prophets, with the laws. And it could mean more things than that too, I'm not sure of the tafseer of this ayah.

But it's a long way from unintelligible, isn't it?

-------------
http://ibnatalhidayah.blogspot.com - - Amy's Blog


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 7:28am
The history has been documented extensively. Thousands of reports,

The earliest "documented reports" date to about 250 years after Muhammad died.

They attempt to discern truth from fiction through a reconstructive framework.

That, my dear, is called hearsay, it does not have the powe to convince in the same manner a 1600 year old inscription on a masjid wall might.

Would you not agree?


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 7:37am
You asked me aviatrix what my interest in this is.

It's curiosity plain and simple.

I don't believe in the divine origins of the Quran, you are right.

I find Islamic history fascinating because it's had a huge impact on us, and yet we know so very little about it's origins.

I think you will find that more western scholars will eschew the classical history in time.

I am only saying this because the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest a hybrid history with some truth from the classical sources, but a revision of that history using linguistics and archeology.

We are just getting started with Islam, and we have many miles to go before we sleep, miles to go before we sleep.


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 7:46am
Anyway I have said my piece, I am not going to say more except to answer specific questions.


Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 9:58am

Two questions for you, it is also about common sense! Unless you want to continue believing there is no God! Then it will not be anymore about common sense but!!!

I have never discussed my beliefs on this forum, but as an agnostic, I am by no means sure that the gods of any culture, past or present, exist or have existed.
 
I am open to the idea that a being or beings much superior to what people currently worship may exist in some form, but apparently human moral codes are not of interest.
 
The wars and killing that have gone on in the past and continue this very day lead me to doubt the existence of any deity who gives a hoot about humans.
 
Perhaps some of the gods are merely  divine children, laughing happily as we slaughter each other on their behalfs.
 
There is, however, no more proof of  my ideas than there are of yours.
 

If the Quran is corrupted why would be today only one version of Quran unlike all other scriptures on earth?

 

Have you read 1984 by George Orwell? You might want to study the theory of the 'memory hole'.

 
And why would even non Muslim scholars testify that that the Quran which we have today is the same as that compiled by the disciples of the prophet pbuh
 
Why indeed, since they can't possibly know if it's true. Money and death threats come to mind. Are there no scholars who dispute this?
 
You may be right that the Quran has come without deviation from Allah to Mohammed to Choudary, but you can't prove it.
 
Therefore you must admit that it is a fit topic for examination.
 
 
Now a question for you. How was the order of the verses of the Quran decided? What was the rationale for that order?
 
 


Posted By: Corinna
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 10:27am
Originally posted by Aviatrix



The knowledge is a reference to the Mosaic Law, which they received in those years in the desert, and knowledge from the prophets which they had among them. Though the Law and the prophets, they had things explained to them--what's right and wrong.  Correction.  "They" had law, Abrahamic law, before Mosaic law.  Mosaic law codified and clarified G-d's laws already in existence.

But still they separated into sects among themselves. That's one meaning of "they differed." But also that they disagreed with each other, with their prophets, with the laws. And it could mean more things than that too, I'm not sure of the tafseer of this ayah.  What sects would that be, Aviatrix? 

But it's a long way from unintelligible, isn't it?


Posted By: Corinna
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 10:36am
I don't know who asked this question but I heartily disagree:   "If the Quran is corrupted why would be today only one version of Quran unlike all other scriptures on earth?"

Tanakh/Torah are not corrupted from the one version Original.  If you mean translations are misleading and/or wrong, the problem lies with the translators/translations or the languages into which it is translated .. not the Original [uncorrupted] Scriptures.  That is quite different from an Original being corrupted or 'more than one version'.   Corrupted suggests nefarious acts.  

An aside to misleading translations, some ancient languages, particularly Semitic languages, do not translate well into the more modern or different culture languages. 



Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 10:40am
Originally posted by The_Rock

Perhaps this not being communicated correctly.

I am not commenting on the Quran, it's literary style or unintelligibility.

I am simply stating that Islamic history as postulated by the orthodoxy is not verifiable.

The Quran may be a unique wonderful book. But that is of little concern to me.

The issue to me is simple.

It's the issue that Muslims make central to their assertion of the validity of their beliefs.

That it's perfectly preserved.

In reality Islamic texts themselves refute this assertion.

Moreover Islamic texts openly claim that the history is lost and that they needed a logical framework to decide truth from falsehood.

I must ask Muslims, given the sheer weight of evidence against an accurate transmission of the Hadith and Quran, why do you believe it?
we believe it at least because the Christian scholars testify that there is no divegent texts for the Quran! What more than this you need? it is your scholars testify for it


Posted By: Franco
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:04am
 the Christian scholars testify that there is no divegent texts for the Quran!
 
Your English is exceptionally good, but I would suggest that the statement above is flawed.
 
You must qualify it by saying SOME Christian scholars testify, which indicates that some do not, which makes your statement true.
 
As for the term "Christian scholars", I'm not sure what that means. I would be more convinced if you could say that (some) linguists or historians testify....
 
Just who are these Christian scholars, by the way? Are there any Christian scholars who disagree with them?


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:04am
He means western


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:06am
It's well known that no divergent texts exist today, but that isn't what we are discussing so I am not sure what he is trying to say.

It's like me saying there are no divergent readings of Paul's letters.

It's a meaningless statement.


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:08am
There are also no divergent readings of the Vedas, the diamond sutra and guru Granth sahib, so what that means to anyone is beyond me.


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:14am
Originally posted by Corinna

I don't know who asked this question but I heartily disagree:   "If the Quran is corrupted why would be today only one version of Quran unlike all other scriptures on earth?"

Tanakh/Torah are not corrupted from the one version Original.  If you mean translations are misleading and/or wrong, the problem lies with the translators/translations or the languages into which it is translated .. not the Original [uncorrupted] Scriptures.  That is quite different from an Original being corrupted or 'more than one version'.   Corrupted suggests nefarious acts.  

An aside to misleading translations, some ancient languages, particularly Semitic languages, do not translate well into the more modern or different culture languages. 

If the torah is not corrupted can you explain this word for word Plagiarism?

<< Isaiah 37 >>

New International Version 1984

 1When King Hezekiah heard this, he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and went into the temple of the Lord. 2He sent Eliakim the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary, and the leading priests, all wearing sackcloth, to the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz. 3They told him, “This is what Hezekiah says: This day is a day of distress and rebuke and disgrace, as when children come to the point of birth and there is no strength to deliver them. 4It may be that the Lord your God will hear the words of the field commander, whom his master, the king of Assyria, has sent to ridicule the living God, and that he will rebuke him for the words the Lord your God has heard. Therefore pray for the remnant that still survives.”

5When King Hezekiah’s officials came to Isaiah, 6Isaiah said to them, “Tell your master, ‘This is what the Lord says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard—those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. 7Listen! I am going to put a spirit in him so that when he hears a certain report, he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword.’”

<< 2 Kings 19 >>

New International Version 1984

1When King Hezekiah heard this, he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and went into the temple of the Lord. 2He sent Eliakim the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary and the leading priests, all wearing sackcloth, to the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz. 3They told him, “This is what Hezekiah says: This day is a day of distress and rebuke and disgrace, as when children come to the point of birth and there is no strength to deliver them. 4It may be that the Lord your God will hear all the words of the field commander, whom his master, the king of Assyria, has sent to ridicule the living God, and that he will rebuke him for the words the Lord your God has heard. Therefore pray for the remnant that still survives.”

5When King Hezekiah’s officials came to Isaiah, 6Isaiah said to them, “Tell your master, ‘This is what the Lord says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard—those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. 7Listen! I am going to put such a spirit in him that when he hears a certain report, he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword.’”

Deedat tricking a Christian priest here about this plagiarism,:

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

 

 



Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:17am
Originally posted by Franco

 the Christian scholars testify that there is no divegent texts for the Quran!
 
Your English is exceptionally good, but I would suggest that the statement above is flawed.
 
You must qualify it by saying SOME Christian scholars testify, which indicates that some do not, which makes your statement true.
 
As for the term "Christian scholars", I'm not sure what that means. I would be more convinced if you could say that (some) linguists or historians testify....
 
Just who are these Christian scholars, by the way? Are there any Christian scholars who disagree with them?
no i should say the Christian scholars not some! because of their agreement on this issue!


Posted By: sereihan
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:22am
Originally posted by The_Rock

There are also no divergent readings of the Vedas, the diamond sutra and guru Granth sahib, so what that means to anyone is beyond me.
it looks like all scriptures have no divergent texts except the bible!!!
give us a reference for your claim! we prefer a known encyclopedia! please


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:32am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib

Max Arthur Macauliffe writes about the authenticity of the scriptures:
The Sikh religion differs as regards the authenticity of its dogmas from most other theological systems. Many of the great teachers the world has known, have not left a line of their own composition and we only know what they taught through tradition or second-hand information. If Pythagoras wrote of his tenets, his writings have not descended to us. We know the teachings of Socrates only through the writings of Plato and Xenophon. Buddha has left no written memorial of his teaching. Kungfu-tze, known to Europeans as Confucius, left no documents in which he detailed the principles of his moral and social system. The founder of Christianity did not reduce his doctrines to writing and for them we are obliged to trust to the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Muhammad did not himself reduce to writing the chapters of the Quran. They were written or compiled by his adherents and followers. But the compositions of Sikh Gurus are preserved and we know at first hand what they taught.
Pearl Buck gives the following comment on receiving the First English translation of the Guru Granth Sahib:
I have studied the scriptures of the great religions, but I do not find elsewhere the same power of appeal to the heart and mind as I find here in these volumes. They are compact in spite of their length, and are a revelation of the vast reach of the human heart, varying from the most noble concept of God, to the recognition and indeed the insistence upon the practical needs of the human body. There is something strangely modern about these scriptures and this puzzles me until I learned that they are in fact comparatively modern, compiled as late as the 16th century, when explorers were beginning to discover that the globe upon which we all live is a single entity divided only by arbitrary lines of our own making. Perhaps this sense of unity is the source of power I find in these volumes. They speak to a person of any religion or of none. They speak for the human heart and the searching mind.[27]


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 04 August 2012 at 11:35am
On the other hand we know that the text of the Quran was in fluctuation in the early period.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide - http://www.webwizguide.info