Has Quran been changed?
Mustafa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html
http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfectquran/notrevealed.htm#top
John Smith
"Mustafa" <entr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9779f165.01061...@posting.google.com...
efkent
The Qur'an was written in Arabic, and any person that is learned in Arabic
can read it in its original form. It has never been revised as has the
Bible.
Mustafa <entr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9779f165.01061...@posting.google.com...
deecups
were collated and edited into what is now known as the Koran 300 years after
Mohd died.. So has it been change? anybody's guess.
efkent <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
news:tid0te5...@corp.supernews.com...
John Smith
after it was revealed. Only that it has not been put together as a whole
like a book in one place. Technology 1000 years ago does not allow mass book
production. During Othman, (he is alive during the prophet life), he think
that it is good to get rid of the old pieces of the writings because it is
not organize, and put it all together in as a book.
"deecups" <dee...@yowho.com> wrote in message
news:9g74hq$55o$1...@coco.singnet.com.sg...
Q&A
http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/contents.html or
www.aperfectquran.co.uk.
and be open minded.
"John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b268...@news.tm.net.my...
Slicer
death.
He could neither read or write.
So how could the content of the Koran, remain untouched or unaltered
for 600 years after being passed around orally for six centuries.
"efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message news:<tid0te5...@corp.supernews.com>...
John Smith
I think you must be waiting for the latest revision of the bible. Coming
soon, you don't have to wait to long for that.
"Q&A" <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b276...@news.tm.net.my...
deecups
by his followers were thrown away and were re-written and re-organised into
a book called the Koran. Mohd was an illiterate and you do know this of
course.
John Smith <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b275...@news2.tm.net.my...
efkent
people had the habit of learning a great deal by heart. Anyone who knew the
full text of the Qur'an was known as a hafiz (plural huffaz). However when
many of the original huffaz were slain in battle, people began to worry how
the accuracy of the text would be checked after the Prophet's death. They
were beginning to repeat the verses and jot down them down inn their own
dialects, and this brought with it the danger of personal interpretation ,
misinterpretation , and alternative versions.
The first Caliph, Abu Bakr "who was a companion of Muhammad" requested the
Prophet's companion Zaid ibn Thabit, to make a complete written version in
one book. He did not alter the messages in any way; no explanations or
editorial comments were added. This text was given to the Prophet's widow
Hafash, the daughter of Caliph Umar. In the reign of Caliph Uthman, some
twenty years after the Prophet's death, any other written versions, which
individuals had were either checked for full agreement against this one, or
destroyed. Numerous copies of the 'standard' text were made and sent to all
the chief Muslim centers, and all copies since then has been identical.
The earliest known Qur'an that still exist are in Tashkent and Istanbul.
Modern technology has now taken over the task of the copyist; the Tashkent
Qur'an has recently been photocopied.
deecups <dee...@yowho.com> wrote in message
news:9g74hq$55o$1...@coco.singnet.com.sg...
Q&A
the proof to deny otherwise and that sounds so typical since eons. The fact
is that someone has proven that the Quran has changed somehow. As far as
belief is concern, that is another matter. Denial without proof is as good
as anything goes!
As far as the new version of the Bible is concern, I would like to have one;
for the purpose of rational reading and comparision. So long as the meaning
does not change, that will be fine.
If truly the Quran has not changed, why then different people interpret it
differently? Or may be the Quran has not change but the meaning changes
depending on the reader? Afterall, not everyone knows Quranic Arab. For
many, it is not the "unchanged" Arabic Quran that the readers understand.
What they read and understand is the translation of the Quran written by a
great number of people in different languages. And that my friend is true!
"John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b278...@news2.tm.net.my...
John Smith
translation and not Quran. Unlike bible, the translation of bible is the
bible. You will never see the word 'Quran' in a cover book of a translation
of Quran, they will print the cover as 'Translation of Quran'. Sometimes
printers will put the Quran and the translation together so that readers can
right away see the meaning.
People read Quran translation to investigate and to understand the meaning.
***** A lot of malaysian can read the Quran in it's original form but they
don't know the meaning. But it is the Quran and they are reading the
original.****** And this is the tradition, read the original form. Not
reading the translation. Sometimes they go to the translation to read the
meaning. Can you read the original bible? Are you capable of doing that?
When you translate a foreign languange, there will be different kind of
structures and meaning that does not fit directly. Especially arabic
language, it has a totally different structures than english language. So it
is normal for two translators to have different choice of words. Also, when
times change, we understand more than what earlier translators understand,
so they translate to make it better and to fit what he know. But it is not
the quran. Only the translation.
As for little different between one quran at a specific time and place, and
another quran writen in another specific time and place; the different is so
unsignificant. As arabic is a spoken languange, it evolves too and the
writing can change in 1000 years. So another latter that is not in the other
writing of Quran is unsignificant. Usually both will be considered correct.
"Q&A" <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b279...@news.tm.net.my...
Prof Orkburp
"Slicer" <49...@telkom.net> wrote in message
news:1dd0adba.01061...@posting.google.com...
Q&A
the Quranic revelations but died in wars before anything could be done about
it. Then one could argue that what we have now is an incomplete revelation?
If one cares to read the history of how the Quran comes as it present being,
then there is no point to argue about it any longer. Again we say, belief is
another thing altogether.
"John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b275...@news2.tm.net.my...
KZ
coba di repeat. R E F O R M A S I.
"Prof Orkburp" <o...@lopop.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tif9819...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
John Smith
dies. Remember that they win almost all wars and battle during the period.
Most of muslims at that time, remember Quran by heart. Because of the risk
of losing them all in the war, Uthman made a wise decision to collect all of
the writing in a book and to ask his friends that remembers the Quran for
verification.
***Don't forget that Uthman too remembers the Quran and he in fact can made
his own without refering to anybody.*** But because he wants to be careful,
he choose to do it together with everybody.
"Q&A" <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b29d...@news.tm.net.my...
Q&A
(Formerly entitled, "The Seven Readings of the Qur'an")
By Samuel Green
Most of the Muslims I have spoken to boast about the Qur'an. One of the
common boasts that I have been told and read about is that all the Qur'ans
in the world are identical, and that it is perfectly preserved and free from
any variation. This idea about the Qur'an is often said as a way of
attacking the Bible and trying to show that the Qur'an is superior to the
Bible. Consider the following quote from a Muslim publication widely used in
Australia in the 1990's.
No other book in the world can match the Qur'an ... The astonishing fact
about this book of ALLAH is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot,
over the last fourteen hundred years. ... No variation of text can be found
in it. You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of
Muslims from different parts of the world. (Basic Principles of Islam, Abu
Dhabi, UAE: The Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahayan Charitable & Humanitarian
Foundation, 1996, p. 4, bold added)
The above claim is that all Qur'ans around the world are identical and that
"no variation of text can be found". In fact the author issues a challenge
saying, "You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of
Muslims from different parts of the world". In this short article we take up
this challenge to see if all Qur'ans are in fact identical.
Our investigation will be in three parts:
We will briefly examine some history related to the recitation of the
Qur'an.
Then we will compare two Arabic Qur'ans from different parts of the world.
Finally, we will look at a Qur'an that has variant readings listed in its
margin.
May God grant us success.
To start off our investigation let us begin by reading the introduction to a
translation of the Qur'an. N.J. Dawood is an Arabic scholar who has
translated the Qur'an, he writes:
... owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was
originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points,
variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority. (N.J.
Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983, p. 10, bold
added)
According to this Arabic scholar there are variant readings of the Qur'an.
But what is the nature of these variant readings? To begin to answer this
question we need to realise that the Qur'an has been passed down to us from
men called "The Readers". They were famous reciters of the Qur'an in the
early centuries of Islam. The way in which the Qur'an was recited by each of
these "Readers" was formerly recorded in textual form by other men called
"Transmitters". The text made by a "Transmitter" is called a "transmission"
of the Qur'an. Thus a "transmission" is the Qur'an according to a particular
authoritative "Reader". Any modern Qur'an will be written according to one
of these transmissions. You cannot read the Qur'an except according to one
of these transmissions. It is of interest to our investigation to note that
different transmissions are currently used around the world today.
The following quote is from a Muslim and explains in a little more detail
what I have said above:
(c)ertain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as
the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate
(basic) Arabic script, lacking vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals
to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate. ... In the 4th
Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings"
(qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order,
moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl.
ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts
(al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted
versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all
containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks.
... The authoritative "readers" are:
Nafi (from Medina; d.169/785)
Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d.119/737)
Abu `Amr al-'Ala' (from Damascus; d.53/770)
Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d.118/736)
Hamzah (from Kufah; d.156/772)
al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d.189/804)
Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d.158/778)
The predominant reading today, spread by Egyptian Koran readers, is that of
`Asim in the transmission (riwayah) of Hafs (d. 190/805). In Morocco,
however, the reading is that of Nafi` in the riwayah of Warsh (d. 197/812)
and Maghrebin Korans are written accordingly. (Cyril Glassé, The Concise
Encyclopedia of Islam, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989, p. 324, bold
added)
... the Reading of Abu `Amr in the version of al-Duri ... prevails in the
Sudan, Nigeria, and Central Africa. (Labib as-Said, The Recited Koran: A
History of the First Recorded Version, tr. B. Weis, et al, Princeton, New
Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1975, p. 84)
From the above we can see that there are different transmissions of the
Qur'an in use around the world. Morocco uses the Warsh transmission; Sudan,
Nigeria, and Central Africa use the al-Duri transmission, and the Hafs
transmission we are told is in use elsewhere. Some of these places may use
more than one tranmission.
There are in fact many more Readers and Transmitters than those listed
above. The table below lists the commonly accepted Readers and their
transmitted versions.
The Readers and their Transmitted Versions
The Reader The Transmitter
"The Seven"
Nafi` Warsh
Qalun
Ibn Kathir al-Bazzi
Qunbul
Abu `Amr al-'Ala' Al-Duri
al-Suri
Ibn `Amir Hisham
Ibn Dhakwan
Hamzah Khalaf
Khallad
al-Qisa'i al-Duri
Abu'l-Harith
Abu Bakr `Asim Hafs
Ibn `Ayyash
"The Three"
Abu Ja`far Ibn Wardan
Ibn Jamaz
Ya`qub al-Hashimi Ruways
Rawh
Khalaf al-Bazzar Ishaq
Idris al-Haddad
There are even more Readers than these but
these are considered the most authoritative.
What the above means is that the Qur'an has come down to us through many
transmitted versions. Not all of these versions are printed today. The
transmissions of Hafs, Warsh, Qalun and Al-Duri are in print.
Now all these facts can be a bit confusing when you first read about it. If
you are feeling that way don't worry; it's normal. To make things simple we
will now look at two Qur'ans from different parts of the world which are
printed according to two different transmissions. We will compare two
Qur'ans to see whether or not they are identical as the Muslim quote
referred to at the beginning of this article claimed. The Qur'an on the left
is the most commonly used Qur'an and is according to the Hafs' transmission.
The Qur'an on the right is according to the Warsh' transmission and is
mainly used in North Africa.
When you compare these Qur'ans it becomes obvious that they are not
identical. There are three main types of differences between them.
Graphical/Basic letter differences
Diacritical differences
Vowel differences
Let us now look at examples of these differences. The words listed below are
from the same aya/verse though the numbering of ayat/verses differs between
the two Qur'ans.
GRAPHICAL/BASIC LETTER DIFFERENCES - These are differences between the basic
printed letters in the Qur'an text. It was these letters that Uthman
standardized in his recension of the Qur'an.
THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE HAFS TRANSMISSION THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE
WARSH TRANSMISSION
surah 2:132 (wawassaa)
surah 2:129 (wa'awsaa)
surah 2:132 (himu)
surah 2:131 (hiimu)
surah 3:133 (wasaari'uu)
surah 3:133 (saari'uu)
surah 5:54 (yartadda)
surah 5:56 (yartadid)
The above examples show that there are differences between the basic letters
of these two Qur'ans.
DIACRITICAL DIFFERENCES - Arabic uses dots to distinguish between certain
letters that are written the same way. For instance the basic symbol
represents five different letters in the Arabic language depending upon
where the diacritical dots are placed. For the above example, the five
letters with their diacritical dots are as follows: baa', taa', thaa',
nuun, yaa'. However these dots were a later development of the Arabic
script and were not in use when Uthman standardized the text of the Qur'an.
Thus the Uthman' Qur'an did not have any dots and was in this way ambiguous.
It served as a guide to the oral tradition of the different Readers of the
Qur'an, but not as a complete guide for it did not record where the
diacritical dots were to go. The two Qur'ans that we are examining come from
two different Readers and so have two different oral traditions. These
traditions have their own unique system of where the dots (and vowels)
should go. Here we see another difference between these two Qur'ans for they
do not have the dots in the same place. We see that for the same word these
two Qur'ans have the dots in different positions.
THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE HAFS TRANSMISSION THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE
WARSH TRANSMISSION
surah 2:140 (taquluna)
surah 2:139 (yaquluna)
surah 3:81 (ataytukum)
surah 3:80 (ataynakum)
surah 2:259 (nunshizuhaa)
surah 2:258 (nunshiruhaa)
From the above examples we can see that there are many dots that are
different between these two Qur'ans.
VOWEL DIFFERENCES - In the Arabic script of the modern Qur'an the vowels are
indicated by small symbols above or below the basic printed letters. Like
the diacritical dots, these vowel symbols were a later development in the
Arabic script and were not in use when Uthman standardized the text of the
Qur'an. Thus the vowels too were not written in the Uthman' Qu'ran. With the
vowels we see another difference between these two Qur'ans, for on many
occasions they do not have the same vowels used for the same word. Consider
the following examples of how the vowels differ between these two Qur'ans.
THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE HAFS TRANSMISSION THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE
WARSH TRANSMISSION
surah 2:214 (yaquula)
surah 2:212 (yaquulu)
surah 2:9 (yakdhibuuna)
surah 2:9 (yukadhdhibuuna)
surah 2:184 (ta'aamu miskiinin)
surah 2:183 (ta'aami masakiina)
Some Muslims claim that the differences between the diacritical dots and the
vowels are not the result of ambiguity of the Uthman text but that the
accepted variants are all genuine Qur'an. Thus there is not one way to
recite the Qur'an but many ways. Other Muslims though do not agree with
this. There is a link at the end of this article to discuss this further.
Regardless of the answer to this question the fact remains that there are
real differences between these two Qur'ans and that is what we are
considering in this article. There are differences in the basic letters,
diacritical dots, and vowels. These differences are small, but they do have
some effect on the meaning.
The following is a summary from a scholar who has done a more comprehensive
study of this than I have. Again he is only comparing two of the many
transmissions:
Lists of the differences between the two transmissions are long, ...
(however) The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal
(vowel and diacritical points) or graphic (basic letter), between the
transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on
the meaning. Many are differences which do not change the meaning at all,
and the rest are differences with an effect on meaning in the immediate
context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on
Muslim thought. One difference (Q. 2/184) has an effect on the meaning that
might conceivably be argued to have wider ramifications. (Adrian Brockett,
`The Value of the Hafs and Warsh transmissions for the Textual History of
the Qur'an', Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an,
ed. Andrew Rippin; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, pp. 34 and 37, bold added)
Our investigation so far has only considered two transmissions of the Qur'an
but as we saw at the beginning of this article there are many more
transmissions that could also be examined for variants. The book below has
done just that. It is a collection of all the variant readings that are
known from among The Ten Accepted Readers.
Translation
Making Easy the Readings of What Has Been Sent Down
Author
Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun
The Collector of the 10 Readings
From Al-Shaatebeiah and Al-Dorraah and Al-Taiabah
Revised by
Muhammad Kareem Ragheh
The Chief Reader of Damascus
Daar Beirut
In this edition of the Qur'an Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun has collected all of
the known variants from among The 10 Accepted Readers and included them in
the margin of the Qur'an (Hafs' transmission). These are not all the known
variants. There are other variants that could have also been included but
the author has limited himself to the variants of The 10 Accepted Readers.
As the title of his book suggests this makes it easy to know what the
variant readings are because they are clearly listed with the text of the
Qur'an.
Below is a copy of a random page from this Qur'an. You can see the variant
readings listed in the margin. About two thirds of the ayat (verses) of the
Qur'an have some type of variant.
CONCLUSION. We began this article by considering the following quote from a
Muslim organisation about the Qur'an:
No other book in the world can match the Qur'an ... The astonishing fact
about this book of ALLAH is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot,
over the last fourteen hundred years. ... No variation of text can be found
in it. You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of
Muslims from different parts of the world. (Basic Principles of Islam, Abu
Dhabi, UAE: The Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahayan Charitable & Humanitarian
Foundation, 1996, p. 4, bold added)
I have checked this claim for myself by obtaining Qur'ans from different
parts of the world and comparing them to see if they are absolutely
identical. What my research has revealed is that the above claim about the
Qur'an is wrong. The Qur'ans of the world are not absolutely identical.
There are small differences in the basic letters, diacritical dots, and
vowels. In fact there are Qur'ans which list these variants in their margin.
This means that how the Qur'an is recited in different parts of the world is
also not absolutely identical. Since the Qur'an has variation within its
text and oral tradition it is not superior to the Bible. Please do not make
or believe the exaggerated claims about the Qur'an.
For more information, please visit:
http://answering-islam.org/Green/Seven.htm
Q&A
The text we have today is not even Uthman's Revised Version of the Qur'an,
but it incorporates changes by Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi.
Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi, who lived in the years A.D. 660-714, was a
teacher of Arabic language in the city of Taif. Then he joined the military
and became the most powerful person during the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik
Ibn Marawan and after him his son Al-Waleed Ibn Abd al-Malik. Because
Al-Hajjaj taught Arabic, he gave himself the liberty to change several words
of Caliph Uthman's Koran, which is an indication that he did not believe
that the Koran was verbally inspired or was inscribed in a "tablet
preserved."
We will mention but a few of the words Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi
changed:
(1) In Surat Yunus 10:22, he changed the word yanshorokom, which means
"spread you," to yousayerokom, which means "makes you to go on."
(2) In Surat Ash-Shuara 26:116, he changed the word Al-Mukhrageen, which
means "the cast out," to Al-Margoomeen, which means "those who are to be
stoned [to death]."
(3) In Surat Ash-Shuara 26:167, he changed the word Min Al-Margoomeen, which
means "those who are to be stoned to death," to Al-Mukhrageen, which means
"those who will assuredly be cast out."
(4) In Surat Muhammad 47:15, he changed the word yasen, which is poor Arabic
to Asen, which means "unpolluted."
(5) In Surat Al-Hadid 57:7, he changed the word wataqu, which means "feared
Allah," to Wa-anfaqu, which means "spend in charity."
The above is excerpted from chapter 8 of the book Islam, Muhammad and the
Koran.
Actually, according to Ibn Abi Dawud, Al-Hajjaj changed 11 verses of the
Qur'an.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/hajjaj.html
Q&A
THE MISSING PASSAGES OF THE QUR'AN
1. THE MUSHAF: AN INCOMPLETE RECORD OF THE QUR'AN TEXT.
We have already seen that on the Day of Yamama not long after Muhammad's
death texts of the Qur'an that were said to have been known only to those
who perished in the battle were irretrievably lost. We also find many other
instances in the historical record of the Qur'an text where individual
verses and, at times, lengthy portions are said to have been omitted from
it. There is, in fact, a virtually unanimous opinion among the early
historians that the Qur'an, as it stands, is incomplete. Abdullah ibn Umar,
in the earliest days of Islam, was quite emphatic about this:
It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar
who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'.
How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared?
Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti,
Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).
There are a number of examples that could be quoted but we shall confine
ourselves to perhaps the most well-known of these to prove the point. A
typical case relates to a verse which is said to have read:
The religion with Allah is al-Hanifiyyah (the Upright Way) rather than that
of the Jews or the Christians, and those who do good will not go unrewarded.
(as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.525).
According to at-Tirmithi in his Kitab al-Tafsir, one of the sections of his
Jami', his collection of hadith records which rates as one of the six major
works of authentic tradition literature in Islam alongside the Sahihs of
al-Bukhari and Muslim and the three sunan works of Abu Dawud, an-Nasai and
Ibn Maja, this verse at one time formed part of Suratul-Bayyinah (Surah 98)
in the Qur'an (Nöldeke, Geschichte, 1.242). This is quite possible as it
fits well into the context of the short surah which contains, in other
verses, some of the words appearing in the missing text, such as diin
(religion, v.5), 'aml (to do, v.7), and hunafa (upright, v.4), and also
contrasts the way of Allah with the beliefs of the Jews and the Christians.
It is also significant to note here that, whereas the standard text of Surah
3.19 today reads innadiina 'indallaahil-Islaam - "the religion before Allah
is al-Islam (i.e. the Submission)", Ibn Mas'ud read in place of al-Islam the
title al-Hanifiyyah, i.e. "the Upright Way" (Jeffery, Materials, p.32), thus
coinciding with the text said to have been part of Surah 98 by at-Tirmithi.
At the beginning of Muhammad's mission there were a number of people in
Arabia who disclaimed the worship of idols and called themselves hunafa,
specifically meaning those who follow the upright way and who scorn the
false creeds surrounding them.
It may well be that Muhammad first chose this same title al-Hanfiyyah to
describe his own faith but, as his religion took on its own unique identity,
he substituted al-Islam for it and called believers Muslims, signifying that
they were not only followers of the right way but, at the same time,
submitters to Allah who reveals that way and commands obedience to it. This
would account for the lapse of the earlier title in the Qur'an and the
omission of the verse we have been considering from its text.
We have evidence of a whole section of the Qur'an that is now said to be
missing in the as-sunan al-Kubra of al-Baihaqi, an extensive collection of
hadith records not regarded as authentic as the six major works we have
mentioned but nonetheless of great interest and importance. Ubayy ibn Ka'b
is said to have recalled a time when Suratul-Ahzab (the thirty-third Surah)
once was the same length as Suratul-Baqarah (the second Surah), which means
it must have had at least two hundred verses not found in its text today
(Al-Baihaqi, As-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 8, p.211). Significantly this missing
section is said to have contained the verses commanding the death sentence
for adulterers, which we shall shortly consider.
There are further evidences of whole surahs said to be missing from the
Qur'an as it is today. Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, one of the early authorities on
the Qur'an text and a companion of Muhammad, is reported to have said to the
reciters of Basra:
We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah)
Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I
remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son
of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the
stomach of the son of Adam but dust". ( Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501).
The one verse he said he could recall is one of the well-known texts said to
be missing from the Qur'an and we shall give separate attention to it
shortly. Abu Musa went on to say:
We used to recite a surah similar to one of the Musabbihaat, and I no longer
remember it, but this much I have indeed preserved: 'O you who truly
believe, why do you preach that which you do not practise?' (and) 'that is
inscribed on your necks as a witness and you will be examined about it on
the Day of Resurrection'. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.526).
The tradition as here quoted follows the record of it in the Sahih Muslim
where it is recorded after the statement about the surah resembling the
ninth surah and containing the verse about the son of Adam (Vol. 2, p.501).
The Musabbihaat are those surahs of the Qur'an (numbers 57, 59, 61, 62 and
64) which begin with the words Sabbaha (or yusabbihu) lillaahi maa
fiis-samaawati wal-ardth - "Let everything praise Allah that is in the
heavens and the earth" (cf. Nöldeke, 1.245).
The words of the first verse mentioned by Abu Musa are exactly the same as
those found in Surah 61.2 while the second text is very similar to Surah
17.13 ("We have fastened every man's fate on his neck and on the Day of
Resurrection We shall bring out an inscription which he will see spread
out") which would explain why he particularly recalled these two verses.
Those Muslims who claim that the Qur'an is exactly the same today as it was
when first delivered by Muhammad, nothing varied, added or omitted, have to
reckon with such evidences that much is indeed missing from the standardised
text. Some take the convenient and easy way out and simply declare such
records to be fabricated, but others, more inclined to take them seriously,
have another answer to the problem. They say such passages have been
abrogated and that such abrogation was decreed by Allah himself during
Muhammad's own lifetime while the Qur'an was still being completed. Let us
give some attention to this claim.
2. AL-NASKH WA AL-MANSUKH: THE DOCTRINE OF ABROGATION.
This is a doctrine which is spurned by many Muslims who believe it reflects
most unfavourably on the supposed textual perfection of the Qur'an, but one
that is generally accepted by the more conservative Muslims and orthodox
maulanas such as Desai. The doctrine is based fairly and squarely on the
teaching of the Qur'an itself, in particular the following verse:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We
substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power
over all things? Surah 2.106
In the early days of Islam this text was taken to mean that parts of the
Qur'an could become mansukh (abrogated) while other fresh revelations, the
naskh texts, were sent down to replace them. Both the great commentators
al-Baidawi and Zamakshari taught emphatically that the abrogated verses
should no longer be recited and that any laws based on them were to be
regarded as annulled. It was generally believed that the abrogated verses
were deleted from the Qur'an by Jibril (the angel said to have transmitted
the Qur'an to Muhammad - Surah 2.98), though in many cases both the original
text and the one abrogating its dicta are said to have been retained and are
still part of the Qur'an text.
The relevant verse plainly states that Allah does indeed abrogate some of
his ayat ("revelations"), a word often used for the text of the Qur'an
itself as in Surah 3.7 where it is said that some of the ayat of the
Scripture (al-Kitab) sent down to Muhammad are basic and whose meaning is
obvious whereas others are allegorical (cf. also Surah 11.1). There can be
no doubt, therefore, that the Qur'an does teach an abrogation of the ayat of
Allah and, as this very word is used in the book for its own texts, the
interpretation that it was actual verses of the Qur'an that were abrogated
cannot be challenged on the grounds of exegetical fairness or probability.
The word ayat is a very common Qur'anic word usually meaning the "signs" of
Allah (that is, his supernatural or other portents for mankind), but it is
quite obvious that it cannot be these that are said to have been abrogated.
The text can only refer to revelations of scripture, it cannot refer to
historical signs once these have occurred as a warning to the nations.
Muslim scholars are well aware of this and the only question then is, which
scriptures are in fact being spoken of here?
Thus those modern Muslim scholars who deny that any of the verses of the
Qur'an have been abrogated teach instead that this text refers to the
revelations of Allah to the Jews and Christians beforehand. This
interpretation is unacceptable as the Qur'an nowhere specifically uses the
word ayat to describe the texts of the Tawraat (the Law, the Scripture of
the Jews, said to have been given to them by Moses) and the Injil (the
Gospel, the Scripture of the Christians, said to have been given to them by
Jesus), nor does it suggest that these previous scriptures were ever
abrogated.
On the contrary the Qur'an claims to be a scripture musadiqallimaa bayna
yadayhi - "confirming what went before it" (Surah 3.3), namely the Tawraat
and the Injil which are specifically mentioned in the next clause. The
Qur'an thus is said not to be the means of abrogating the previous
revelations but rather the very opposite, namely of establishing them.
Elsewhere the Jews are expressly commanded to judge by what is written in
their scripture rather than come to Muhammad for judgment (Surah 5.47) and
the Christians are commanded to do likewise (Surah 5.50). In addition both
the Jews and the Christians are called upon to stand fast by the Tawraat and
the Injil respectively and all that their Lord had revealed to them. (Surah
5.71).
The abrogation of which the Qur'an speaks, therefore, cannot refer to the
previous scriptures and can only refer to the texts of the Qur'an itself,
the interpretation universally placed on the verse in the earliest days of
Islam. The problem for modern Muslim writers is that the Qur'an claims to
proceed from a "preserved tablet" (lawhim-mahfuudh - Surah 85.22) and the
question obviously arises - if parts of the Qur'an have been abrogated and
eliminated, were they on the original heavenly tablet or not? If they were,
then the Qur'an today is not an exact replica of the text on that tablet for
they could not have been removed from it, the Qur'an being regarded as
Allah's eternal speech. If they were not on the tablet, however, how did
they come to be delivered to Muhammad as part of the text? We are right back
at the original popular sentiment that the Qur'an has been preserved
perfectly to the last dot and letter by Allah himself, nothing varied,
added, omitted or, in consequence, "abrogated". To maintain this popular
hypothesis modern Muslim writers thus have to resort to a clearly
unacceptable interpretation of Surah 2.106, one which cannot be derived ex
facie from the text, in preference over the obvious and more reasonable
interpretation of the early historians of Islam, namely that parts of the
Qur'an text itself have been abrogated.
The doctrine is unpalatable to thinking Muslims for other reasons, for
example it represents Allah as a divine author who revokes his earlier
announcements as though he had cause to change his mind or had, in time,
discovered a better course of action. Nonetheless the text must be taken to
mean what it was originally intended to mean, not what modern Muslim writers
would like to force it to mean according to their own inclinations.
There are other passages in the Qur'an which clearly support the obvious
interpretation, such as the following text:
When We substitute one revelation for another - and God knows best what He
reveals (in stages), - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them
understand not. Surah 16.101
This verse quite clearly refers to the substitution and elimination of texts
of the Qur'an itself for it does not say that Allah replaces one kitab (the
Tawraat or the Injil, for example) with another, but rather that he
substitutes one ayah for another ayah and, as we have seen, in the Qur'an
this refers to the verses of the book itself and not to the previous
revelations. It was in fact this very claim, that Allah himself had replaced
some of the earlier texts of the Qur'an, that made Muhammad's opponents
accuse him of being a forger, for this appeared to be a very convenient
manner of explaining away earlier texts which Muhammad had by that time
forgotten or replaced.
Having established that the Qur'an does teach that Allah did, in fact,
abrogate and cancel earlier passages revealed to Muhammad, one would think
that acceptance of this principle would suffice to prove that the Qur'an, as
it is today, is incomplete. That, in fact, is just how modern Muslim writers
see it and so they reject the doctrine of abrogation. Certainly the Qur'an
cannot be regarded as an exact replica of all that was delivered to
Muhammad, nor can it be claimed that nothing has been lost or omitted. Yet
we find Desai using this very doctrine of abrogation as an argument for the
perfection of the Qur'an text! He says:
Abrogation of verses by Allah Ta'ala during the time of Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while the incidence of Wahi (Revelation) was in
progress is a fact well-known to all. ... Once a verse has been abrogated on
the authority of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), it cannot be
included in the Qur'aanic text any longer. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable,
pp.48,49).
The argument goes that the missing passages of the Qur'an referred to in the
hadith literature cannot be adduced as evidence that the Qur'an is
incomplete or imperfect. It is summarily assumed that every text of the
Qur'an that could not be traced at the time of its compilation, or which was
omitted for some other reason, must have duly been abrogated by Allah.
Therefore nothing is actually "missing" from the text - whatever has been
omitted has been expunged by divine decree so that what remains is an exact
record of what Allah intended to survive. We find that even Umar, troubled
by Ubayy ibn Ka'b's excellent knowledge of the Qur'an, when confronted with
texts known to the companion but not to the Caliph, likewise claimed that
they must have been abrogated:
Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said "Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation
(of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites". Ubayy says, "I have
taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle (saw) and will not leave it for
anything whatever". But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate
or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar
(2.106). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.489).
Quite obviously Ubayy was convinced that he should not forego anything he
had learnt directly from Muhammad himself and the only recourse of those
unfamiliar with the verses he was reciting was to regard them as passages
that Allah must have abrogated.
We do have one clear case where a verse not found in the Qur'an today is, in
the hadith literature, indeed said to have been abrogated. While Muhammad
was based in Medina some of the tribes resident near the city and who
professed allegiance to him requested assistance against their enemies.
Muhammad accordingly despatched seventy of the ansar who, when they reached
Bi'r Ma'una (the well of Ma'una) were duly massacred by members of the
tribes they had been sent down to assist. Anas ibn Malik said:
We used to read a verse of the Qur'an revealed in their connection, but
later the verse was cancelled. It was: "convey to our people on our behalf
the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and
has made us pleased". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.288).
The word used for "cancelled" in this hadith is rufa'a which, in its
original form rafa'a, means "to take away, remove, abolish or eliminate". It
is thus clearly taught in this text that a verse, clearly said to have been
part of the Qur'an itself, was later abrogated. The text was widely recorded
and amongst the sources for it we find Ibn Sa'd, at-Tabari, al-Waqidi and
Muslim (Nöldeke, Geschichte, 1.246). Elsewhere we read that the relevant
text was "sent down in a Qur'an verse until it was withdrawn" (as-Suyuti,
Al-Itqan, p.527), another clear proof that the verse was originally a part
of the Qur'an text. The difficulty here, and with all the other passages of
the Qur'an reported in the hadith literature as now omitted from the text,
is that one cannot find a reason why it should have been "abrogated" or what
"better or similar" verse duly came in its place.
The Qur'an plainly states, in both Surahs 2.106 and 16.101, that Allah
substitutes such a "better or similar" verse for the original text. Thus we
are told in one place of the Qur'an that intoxicating wine has both good and
bad effects (Surah 2.219) and that Muslims should not come to their prayers
in a state of intoxication (Surah 4.43). Later, however, the consumption of
wine was forbidden altogether (Surah 5.93-94) and the latter verses are said
to have been substituted for the former verses (which nevertheless remain in
the Qur'an text). This is a reasonable and consistent example of what we
would expect to find when the Qur'an says that not one of Allah's
revelations are abrogated without something else coming in its place.
The hadith quoted about the mutual pleasure of Allah and those slain at Bi'r
Ma'una, however, does not tell us what came in place of the verse said to
have been withdrawn. The same goes for all the other passages we have
mentioned - what came in their place? What was the naskh that took the place
of the mansukh?
It is far more reasonable to conclude that most of the various passages said
to have been omitted from the Qur'an were either overlooked, or not known to
all the companions, or quite simply forgotten (such as the passage said by
Abu Musa to have contained the verse about the insatiable greed of man - cf.
Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501). Desai's attempt to blanket every passage said
to have been omitted from the Qur'an under the cover of the doctrine of
divine abrogation appears to be an expedient means of explaining away the
imperfections in the original collection of the Qur'an and the ultimate
incompleteness of the text. Let us conclude with a consideration of two
famous passages said to have been part of the Qur'an but eventually omitted
from it.
3. THE MISSING VERSE ON THE INSATIABLE GREED OF MAN.
We have already quoted from the Sahih Muslim the verse about the greed of
the son of Adam who, even if he were to be given two valleys full of riches
would covet yet a third and nothing would satisfy him. This tradition, to
the effect that this passage once formed a part of the Qur'an text, is so
widely reported that it must be authentic in its basic details. As-Suyuti's
selection of some of the other hadith records quoting this text shows just
how extensive the authorities for it were, one of which reads:
Abu Waqid al-Laithii said, "When the messenger of Allah (saw) received the
revelation we would come to him and he would teach us what had been
revealed. (I came) to him and he said 'It was suddenly communicated to me
one day: Verily Allah says, We sent down wealth to maintain prayer and deeds
of charity, and if the son of Adam had a valley he would leave it in search
for another like it and, if he got another like it, he would press on for a
third, and nothing would satisfy the stomach of the son of Adam but dust,
yet Allah is relenting towards those who relent.'" (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii
Ulum al-Qur'an, p.525).
This record is followed by a similar tradition, where Ubayy ibn Ka'b is said
to be the original transmitter, giving the verse in much the same words,
except that the companion expressly stated that Muhammad had quoted this
verse as part of the Qur'an (al-Qur'an in the text) which he had been
commanded to recite to them. Following this is the tradition of Abu Musa,
similar to the record of it in the Sahih Muslim, which states that the verse
was from a surah resembling Suratul-Bara'ah in length, except that in this
case Abu Musa is not said to have forgotten it but rather that it had
subsequently been withdrawn (thumma rafa'at - "then it was taken away"), the
verse on the greed of the son of Adam alone being preserved (As-Suyuti,
Al-Itqan, p.525).
It is also said by some authorities that the verse was read by Ubayy ibn
Ka'b just after Surah 10.25 in his codex (Jeffery, Materials, p.135) while
other records state that it was also reported by Anas ibn Malik, Ibn Abbas,
Ibn Zubair and others (Nöldeke, Geschichte, 1.234) but with none of these
being sure, as Ubayy most certainly was, whether it was part of the Qur'an
text or not (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.500). The tradition was, thus,
mutawatir, a well-attested hadith confirmed by a number of companions whose
authority could not be questioned or challenged.
This verse is expressly said to have been a part of the Qur'an text that was
revealed to Muhammad in the two records of the hadith deriving from Abu
Waqid and Ubayy ibn Ka'b and, in the narrative of Abu Musa recorded in
as-Suyuti's selection, it is stated to have been one of the Qur'an verses,
indeed a portion of a whole surah, that was abrogated. It is also
acknowledged as such in the works of commentators on the Qur'an such as Abu
Ubaid in his Fadhail al-Qur'an and Muhammad ibn Hazm in his Kitab al-Nasikh
wa'l Mansukh, both authors stating that it was a valid text of the Qur'an
before it was withdrawn. It is thus one of many passages which, although
Allah is said to have caused it to be forgotten upon its retraction,
remained in the memories of the companions and has duly been preserved as
one of the missing verses of the Qur'an.
4. UMAR AND THE VERSES OF STONING FOR ADULTERY.
One of the most well-known passages said in hadith records to be missing
from the Qur'an relates to the so-called "stoning verses" wherein Muhammad
is said to have been commanded to stone to death married people who commit
adultery. The records all state that the second Caliph of Islam, Umar, once
brought the existence of these missing verses to the attention of the Muslim
public during one of his sermons from the minbar (the pulpit) of the mosque
in Medina. Umar is reported as narrating the matter as follows:
Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him,
and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of
married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite
this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle (saw) did carry
out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that
after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find
the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book', and thus they will go astray by
leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8,
p.539).
In the Qur'an as it stands today the only punishment prescribed for
adulterers is a hundred stripes (Surah 24.2), no distinction being made
between the married or unmarried state of each of the parties involved.
Umar, however, clearly stated that Allah had originally revealed a passage
prescribing rajam (stoning to death) for adulterers. From the original
Arabic text of the narrative in the Sahih of Bukhari as quoted above it can
be seen quite clearly that Umar was convinced that this passage was
originally a part of the Qur'an text. The key words are wa anzala
alayhil-kitaaba fakaana mimmaa anzalallaahu aayaatur-rajm, meaning
literally, "And He sent down to him the Scripture (viz. the Qur'an), and
part of what Allah sent down (therein) was the verse of stoning".
In another record of this incident we find that Umar added: "Verily stoning
in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit
adultery, if proof stands or pregnancy is clear or confession is made" (Ibn
Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.684). Both the records of the tradition in the
Sahih of Bukhari and the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq add that Umar mentioned another
missing verse which was once part of the kitabullah (viz. the Qur'an) which
the earliest of Muhammad's companions used to recite, namely "O people! Do
not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief
on your part to claim to be the offspring of other than your real father."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.540).
In both narratives there is a prologue where we find Umar cautioning against
any attempt to deny what he was saying, warning that those who could not
accept what he was about to disclose were not thereby entitled to tell lies
about him (that is, to say that he did not disclose it). He obviously was
very serious about what he was doing and anticipated an adverse reaction
from those Muslims of a later generation who were not aware of the missing
verses which clearly contradicted the injunction in Surah 24.2, or that
Muhammad had in fact stoned adulterers to death. That he did so is clear
from the following hadith:
Ibn Shihab reported that a man in the time of the Apostle of Allah (may
peace be upon him) acknowledged having committed adultery and confessed it
four times. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) then ordered and he
was stoned. " (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.350).
There are numerous other records of instances similar to this one where
Muhammad had adulterers stoned to death. What was, in fact, the "Verse of
Stoning"? It is mentioned in the following tradition:
Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: "Ubayy ibn Ka'b said to me, 'What is the extent
of Suratul-Ahzab?' I said, 'Seventy, or seventy-three verses'. He said, 'Yet
it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of
stoning'. I said, 'And what is the verse of stoning'? He replied, 'The
fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women
(ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah
is Mighty and Wise."' (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).
Whereas the Qur'an makes no distinction in Surah 24.2 between the married or
unmarried state of those who are guilty of fornication (it simply calls them
az-zaaniyatu waz-zaanii - "the female and male fornicators"), the text as
given in the above tradition only states that married men and women who are
caught in adultery should be stoned (the actual meaning of the word is "old"
or "adult" men and women, implying married persons).
This has led to much discussion in Muslim writings about the meaning of the
verse. The general understanding among Muslim scholars of earlier
generations was that any portion of the Qur'an totally abrogated by Allah
was also caused to be entirely forgotten (on the strength of Surah 2.106:
nansakh ... aw nunsihaa naati - "abrogate ... or cause to be forgotten", the
two being taken together as an entity). So when a verse was found to be
retained in the memory of a companion as distinguished as Umar, it was
assumed that, whereas the text may indeed have been withdrawn from the
Qur'an, teaching and prescription found in it nevertheless binding as part
of the sunnah of the Prophet of Islam. The dilemma was generally resolved by
presuming that the Qur'anic command to impose one hundred stripes on
fornicators applied only to unmarried persons, whereas married persons
guilty of actual adultery were to be stoned according to the sunnah.
Numerous other solutions to the issue have been proposed and the subject has
been exhaustively treated in the various works of historical Islamic
literature.
We are not here concerned with the theological or legal implications of the
doctrine of abrogation, however, but only with the actual compilation of the
Qur'an text itself. The question here is, was this verse once a part of the
Qur'an text or not and, if it was, why is it now omitted from its pages?
From the traditions quoted thus far we can see that it was clearly regarded
by Umar as part of the original Qur'an text, yet in another tradition we
read that Umar had some hesitancy about it:
Zaid ibn Thabit and Sa'id ibn al-As were writing out the mushaf (the written
codex of the Qur'an) and when they came to this verse Zaid said, "I heard
the messenger of Allah (saw) say: 'The adult men and women who commit
adultery, stone them as a punishment"'. Umar said, "When it was revealed I
went to the Prophet (saw) and said, 'Shall I write it?', but he seemed very
reluctant". (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.528).
This hadith, however, irrespective of its isnad (its chain of transmitters),
has some obvious contradictions in its content (its matn). It places Umar
with Zaid and Sa'id ibn al-As at the time when the Qur'an was being copied
out by the latter two men together and, as this is known to have occurred at
Uthman's instigation long after Umar's death, Umar could hardly have so
discoursed with them. In any event most of the other hadith records make it
quite plain that Umar had no doubt that the stoning verse was originally
part of the Qur'an text and it was for this reason that he was so serious
about its retention.
It was occasionally argued that the hadith records of the existence of the
stoning verse all attribute its origin to just one man, Umar, thus making it
dependent on khabar al-wahid, the report of only one witness, and therefore
unreliable. The prominence of that one witness, however, just could not be
summarily ignored. It was no less a personality than Umar ibn al-Khattab,
one of Muhammad's earliest and most well-known companions, who reported the
existence of the verse which he claimed he received directly from Muhammad
himself and, when such a report was given during his reign as Caliph over
the whole Muslim community, it could not be disregarded or considered
lightly.
Nonetheless modern Muslim writers, determined to discount even the slightest
possibility that anything originally revealed as part of the Qur'an text has
now been omitted therefrom for whatever reason, seek to reject the claim
that the stoning verse was ever part of the Qur'an. Siddique, for example,
unable to simply brush the records aside, claims that Umar made a mistake!
In the context of his comments on the stoning verse he says, "As for 'Umar
(ra) we know that he was a great mujtahid, but he also made mistakes which
are documented in the hadith" (Al-Balaagh, op,cit., p.2). On what grounds
does a twentieth-century Muslim writer accuse the great Caliph of Islam,
Umar ibn al-Khattab, of making a mistake about something he experienced
directly during Muhammad's own lifetime? On no other ground than that Umar's
disclosure undermines the popular Muslim sentiment that the Qur'an has been
perfectly preserved with nothing varied or omitted.
He goes on to claim, like many other scholars, that Uthman was not talking
of the Qur'an when he spoke of the command to stone adulterers as being part
of the "Book of Allah" (kitabullah) but rather of the Tawraat as Muhammad is
said in some of the hadith records to have stoned Jews who committed
adultery according to the prescribed laws of their own scripture. The hadith
records quite clearly state, however, that Umar claimed that the verse had
been revealed to Muhammad and that he himself would have considered writing
it into Allah's revealed scripture were it not that some people would have
claimed that he was adding to it. He is recorded as saying:
"See that you do not forget the verse about stoning and say: We do not find
it in the Book of Allah; the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) had
ordered stoning and we too have done so, after him. By the Lord Who holds
possession of my life, if people should not accuse me of adding to the Book
of Allah, I would have this transcribed therein: Ash-shaikhu wash-shaikhatu
ithaa zanayaa faarjumuu humaa. We have read this verse". (Muwatta Imam
Malik, p.352).
As the verse is expressly said to have been revealed to Muhammad in the
other hadith records, it is hard to see how Umar could have contemplated
writing it into the Tawraat! The Caliph's total ignorance of the Hebrew
language should also be given some consideration!
Desai contradicts Siddique by freely acknowledging that the stoning verse
was indeed a part of the original text of the Qur'an but, as he conveniently
does with all texts now said to be omitted from the Qur'an, he claims that
it was subsequently abrogated (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.48). Because its
existence was preserved and as other records of Muhammad's capital
punishment upon adulterers were also handed down in the hadith texts, he
states that it was one of the mansukhut tilawah, that is, texts whose
recitation has been cancelled while the laws expounded in them have been
retained (op.cit.). Such verses, he points out, are unlike other Qur'anic
texts where the recitation has been retained but the laws contained therein
(the hukm, the "effects") have been cancelled and abrogated.
Writers like Siddique immediately sense the weakness of such arguments and
the consequent vulnerability of the Qur'an to the charge that it was
undergoing some strange mutations in respect of the development of its text
and teaching during the time of its deliverance. Only credulous conservative
writers like Desai can fail to see that the doctrine of abrogation, in its
various forms, has a deliberate weakening effect on the overall authenticity
of the Qur'an text as it stands today. In any event there is nothing in
Umar's declaration on the pulpit that day to suggest that the ayatur-rajm
was ever abrogated. His bold statement that he would write it into the
Qur'an himself were it not for the anticipated charge that he had tampered
with the text is clear evidence that he considered it to be a valid passage
whose exclusion from the Qur'an was to be regretted. Even if he had no hope
of persuading the Muslim community to reinstate it in the text (particularly
if it had formed a portion of a whole section that was lost), he was
determined to publicise and establish its existence as part of the original
Qur'an as delivered to Muhammad.
The doctrine of abrogation is constantly shown up as a weak explanation of
the disappearance of certain texts from the Qur'an. A good example can be
found in a further hadith which was widely reported and which stated that
the Qur'an originally contained a law forbidding marriage between two people
who had been breastfed by the same woman. The Tradition reads as follows:
A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the
Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was
abrogated by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (saw) died and before that
time it was found in the Qur'an. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.740).
It is clearly stated that the Qur'an had originally contained a verse
prescribing a prohibition on the marriage of two people who had been
breastfed by the same woman at least ten times. This verse was then
abrogated and another was substituted for it, restricting the number to
five. Where is this verse in the Qur'an? It too is missing - has it also
been abrogated? If so, what came in its place? It is in traditions like
these that the doctrine of abrogation is shown to be extremely vulnerable on
closer analysis.
One verse, the naskh, is said to have replaced the abrogated verse, the
mansukh. Yet in this case even the naskh has become mansukh! One must surely
look for a more reasonable explanation. It appears that, during his
lifetime, Muhammad did indeed proclaim that certain passages were abrogated
by others, but from the examples we have studied, it appears that sometimes
the original verses had quite simply dropped out of the recitation of the
Qur'an for whatever reason - they were overlooked, forgotten, replaced,
etc. - and after the death of Muhammad it became convenient to explain away
the omission of such verses as the result of divine abrogation. In many
cases, however, particularly those we have studied, there are evidences that
they were omitted for other reasons and no mention of their supposed
abrogation appears in the text of the relevant hadith.
This chapter has illustrated quite sufficiently that the Qur'an, as it
stands today, is somewhat incomplete. Numerous individual verses and, at
times, whole passages, are said to have once formed part of the original
text and the attempt to evade the implications by suggesting that all such
passages must have been abrogated simply because of the fact of their
omission from the standardised text cannot overcome the key problem facing
those Muslims who claim that the Qur'an has been preserved absolutely intact
to the last dot and letter, nothing added, omitted or varied, indicating a
divine oversight of its transmission. The text as it stands today just
cannot sincerely be regarded by the Muslims as an exact replica of the
"preserved tablet" in heaven from which it was all said to have been
delivered to Muhammad. While nothing can be shown to have been added to the
text or interpolated into it, much of what was there in the beginning is
quite obviously missing from it now and, in comparison with that supposed
heavenly original, it cannot be regarded as perfect and complete.
Desai uses the doctrine of abrogation to explain away the omission of
certain key texts from the Qur'an and thereby he seeks to maintain the
hypothesis that the Qur'an today is exactly as Allah intended it to be. How
does he get around the wealth of variant readings found in all the early
codices of the Qur'an before Uthman's order that all but one of them should
be destroyed? Let us in the next chapter analyse his arguments and
investigate the doctrine of the seven different readings of the Qur'an.
For further reading, please go to:
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/Chap4.html
John Smith
information, the seven different reading was taught even in Malaysia. It is
not as strange as you think it is.
SAB'AT-I-AHRUF: THE SEVEN DIFFERENT READINGS
The wordings of the above cited sub-heading and the first two Hadiths quoted
under this sub-heading, in support of the serious allegations, in fact
demonstrate that seven different styles of "poetical recitals" of the
Qur'anic Text is the alleged "Change" after 'Uthman. I suggest the learned
Christian Critic to honestly ask himself the following question; If two
citizens of the United States of America, living in two different States of
USA, were to sign the same National Anthem of America in their own
individual styles or in two different tunes would he consider that be an
"Evidence of Change" within The National Anthem of USA?
Here are those two Hadiths:
The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so
recite of it that which is easier for you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6,
p.510).
Ibn Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
Gabriel taught me to recite in one style. I replied to him and kept asking
him to give more (styles), till he reached seven modes (of recitation). Ibn
Shihab said: It has reached me that these seven styles are essentially one,
not differing about what is permitted and what is forbidden.
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.390)
Note: Prior to the collection of the verses of the Qur'an and the final
compilation done by Calipha 'Uthman, Muslims living in distant areas used to
recite the verses of the Qur'an in their own dialects. 'Uthman eliminated
all other dialectal variations and decided that only the dialect of the
tribe of Quraish, to which the Qur'an was revealed, be adopted.
"Q&A" <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b2c2...@news2.tm.net.my...
> and Maghrebin Korans are written accordingly. (Cyril Glassi, The Concise
John Smith
The Christian Critic questions as above and then remarks:
The text we have today is not even Uthman's Revised Version of the Qur'an,
but it incorporates changes by Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi.
Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi, who lived in the years A.D. 660-714, was a
teacher of Arabic language in the city of Taif. Then he joined the military
and became the most powerful person during the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik
Ibn Marawan and after him his son Al-Waleed Ibn Abd al-Malik.
After this formal introduction of Ibn Yusuf the Critic quotes five examples
of the changes and claims that since Ibn Yusuf was the teacher of Arabic
language "he gave himself the liberty to change several words of Caliph
Uthman's Koran." What is the source of his information? He quotes excerpts
from chapter 8 of the book Islam, Muhammad and the Koran. A book which is
sold by "Blessed Hope Ministry" and is well publicized on a website that has
adopted the word "koran" in its URL but in reality it is "designed by
sincere followers of Jesus who want to tell followers of Allah about who
Jesus is and what He teaches." I found an interesting "discovery" made by
the Christian author, on that Evangelical Site. He remarks: "When the Koran
is translated into any other language, it totally loses its poetic rhyme and
becomes almost incomprehensible." I need not comment any further.
Since this is a very serious allegation against the Book of Allah let me
reproduce the actual passage written by the author from Chapter # 8.
The Teacher Who Corrected the Koran
Al-Hagaag Ibn Yousof Al-Thakafi, who lived in the years 660-714
A.D., was a teacher of Arabic language in the city of Taif. Then he joined
the military and became the most powerful person during the reign of Caliph
Abd-Elmalik Ibn Marawan and after him his son AlWaleed Ibn Abd-Elmalik.
Because Al-Haagag taught Arabic, he gave himself the liberty to change
several words of Caliph
Uthman's Koran, which is an indication that he did not believe that the
Koran was verbally inspired or was inscribed in a "tablet preserved." We
will mention but a few of the words Al-Haagag Ibn Yousof AlThakafi changed:
(Here under appears the transliterated texts of examples)
1. The author, irrespective of the truthfulness of the above changes, does
not claim or state that Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf was in a position to institute a
Command and/or had circulated those changes to all the regions of the world,
where ever the communities of Muslims used to live, and in fact brought
about the universal change to the earlier circulated text by 'Uthman. Was
such a change to the verses of the Qur'an accepted, with or without any
protest, by other authoritative Qurra who had been reciting the earlier
text, for nearly half a century?
2. The Christian Critic from <answering-islam.org> had added after the text
from chapter number 8; "Actually, according to Ibn Abi Dawud, Al-Hajjaj
changed 11 verses of the Qur'an, available here in Arabic script." Upon
visiting the indicated link one finds the verses written in contemporary
Arabic script only. There are no verses in the ancient Arabic script in
which the original verses were circulated by Calipha 'Uthman to compare and
judge. The Critic has not mentioned the qualifications of Ibn Abi Dawud or
the source document for reference.
Compare Not the Oranges with the Apples
Here is my challenge to the Critic. Please faithfully reproduce the verses
that are under dispute, as they appear in the 'Uthman's definitive text that
was determined by a commission headed by Zaid ibn Thabit, along with
'Abd-Allah ibn az-Zubayr, Sa'id ibn al-'As and 'Abd ar Rahman ibn al-Harith.
Keeping in mind that this text was written in the inchoate Arabic script,
lacking the vowel signs as well as the diacritical to distinguish between
certain consonants. Next to these verses please also faithfully reproduce
the verses of the Qur'an that Muslims read today, in the contemporary Arabic
script minus the vowel signs as well as minus the diacriticals. This will
give me the opportunity to scrutinized each and every cited example in its
true perspective. Thanks.
Some historical data:
Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf:
In 650 copies of the Quran that were authorized by Calipha 'Uthman were
distributed to various Islamic regions. Some ten years later Al-Hajjaj ibn
Yusuf was born. When he grew up he joined the military and became
instrumental in the capture of Mekkah in 692. After that he pulled down the
enlarged Kab'ah, a portion of which had burnt down by a fire. He then
rebuilt it to the previous scale. After that he came into the lime light.
This must be more than 40 years after the circulation of the approved text
by Calipha 'Uthman. Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf died in 714.
The introduction of diacritical marks to the verses of the Qur'an:
It was in the first centuries of Islam the diacritical marks upon the
consonants were placed. Prior to that the authority of the Qurra (singular
Qari, the authoritative reciter of the Qur'an) and the authority of the oral
transmissions were the indispensable and essential compliments to the text
that had been circulated by 'Uthman in 650.
Here is an excerpt from The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse:
As Islam became diffused among peoples whose Arabic fell far short of the
Quraysh standard, or for whom Arabic was not even a mother tongue, it became
a matter of urgency to remedy the deficiencies of the script, formalize
grammar and preserve the integrity of the revealed text and of Arabic, the
sacred language. The rapid vulgarization of Arabic that ensued in the first
centuries of Islam when the language, no longer protected by its isolation,
became the lingua franca of a vast realm, was a phenomenon noted and
deplored by the scholars of the age.
"Q&A" <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b2c2...@news.tm.net.my...
John Smith
passage of the quran and yet aggree that all of the other passages is
correct. You are disputing that the authority at that time unable to find
the correct Quran and yet you, right now after 1000 years able to find it.
Is that reasonable?
If I were to dispute the bible, where do you want me to start? Give a
suggestion so I can dispute where it comes from and what is your prove of
that specific passage has not been corrupted. I choose the word corrupted
because the person that change the bible has a malicious intention to
capitalize on the changes.
For a person that does not believe any of the revelations, as lots of
chinese are, they should start to change course. Despite adopting english
names and adopting their religion as is, they should think first which one
is correct.
"Q&A" <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b2c2...@news2.tm.net.my...
> in the Qur'an (Nvldeke, Geschichte, 1.242). This is quite possible as it
> heavens and the earth" (cf. Nvldeke, 1.245).
> Muslim (Nvldeke, Geschichte, 1.246). Elsewhere we read that the relevant
> Ibn Zubair and others (Nvldeke, Geschichte, 1.234) but with none of these
Q&A
Anyway, I do not wish to continue this endless debate. Suffice to say that
if one looks at the positive things in life, it will be positive and
vice-versa. I believe what we are discussing is about our belief. In the
end, it is not how much we can debate and refute that really matters to God.
Our belief is! Our belief will safe us.
Thank you for the exchange and I do not wish to continue. Amen.
"John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b2c3...@news.tm.net.my...
Observer
> Let say that 80 or so dies. There at least will be 80 or more who did not
> dies. Remember that they win almost all wars and battle during the period.
> Most of muslims at that time, remember Quran by heart. Because of the risk
> of losing them all in the war, Uthman made a wise decision to collect all
of
> the writing in a book and to ask his friends that remembers the Quran for
> verification.
My question would then be:
If all the early textual recordings of the Qur'an by scribes
were accurate and that the memories of all these companions
were accurate too and can be verified by the records.....why then
the need to destroy all these records?
The only logical answer I can think of is that some of these
recorrds do not match the memories of these companions.
If that is the case,how are we to know which of these sources
are more accurate?
efkent
better to learn classical Arabic and understand the Qur'an then accept some
one who claims to be a scholar.
There is plenty of evidence that the Qur'an was written down in its
entirety, shortly after Muhammad died and it was edited by people that
verbally memorized it in its entirety during Mohammed's life. regardless
what certain persons claim. And these persons were experienced in Arabic.
Which is the only language that the Qur'an was written in for over a
thousand years. Not persons that were affluence in Greek or Latin.
Q&A <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b2c2...@news2.tm.net.my...
efkent
your doing is exposing yourself as ignorant of the Qur'an.
As for the Coptics or Alexandria Orthodox Christians, that is entirely
another story.
From the Popes, by Eric John.
Theodore I 642-649.
Theodore was Greek whose father was a native of Palestine and had been
bishop. He inherited a difficult situation from John IV. The Holy See had
now taken a stand against Monothelectism and firmly condemned the formally
of Heraclis and Sergius which seemed to favor the heresy. By now the rise
of Islam was threatening the Near Eastern provinces of Byzantine Empire.
This led the new Emperor, Constans II, to resist the condemnation of the
heresy which would alienate still further his remaining subjects. It also
meant a weakening of discipline and authority throughout the Empire.
John Smith <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b2c3...@news.tm.net.my...
Observer
"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
news:ca7pitc2bg90mras1...@4ax.com...
> Worse than that. The written records, which were dictated to the
> prophets secretaries bear no resemblance to the current version, being
> a kind of aide memoir to those who knew the material.
You mentioned the "original" text (the ones actually
written in the Prophet's(saw) presence),are they
around still for you to have made that comparison?
AFAIK they're all gone...(from religious sources).
> Unfortunately,
> there were at least sixty different ways of reciting the material,
> with different meanings.
Agreed.Without the pronunciation markings,they can be read
in a variety of ways and almost impossible for anyone not
conversant with Arabic language to decipher.
> At least fifty of these methods were
> extinguished, so our knowledge of the correspondence of the text to
> the original is quite poor.
Are we talking about dialects (of Arabic) of which
seven was said to be allowed?
However even these were extinguished too since the
Uthman's(ra) version was done (taking only the main readers
of Quraish interpretation).
> Despite the vehemence of the claimants that the current version was
> the only version.....
Yes...evidence points to the contrary as the many
old artifacts found which includes copies of the Qur'an.
> The earliest versions in existence differ from the current one, and
> even show many differences from one another.
Yes...that seems correct.
Again as I said in another posting,I would have hoped
the Islamic scholars (or those that claim to be one) would
address the existence of this issue instead of coming out with
preposterous propaganda as Hamid does.
> The most common way that this problem has been dealt with is by
> refusing access to such early manuscripts......
Why...even most Muslims have NO access to these
early artifacts nor are they discussed openly in religious
classes.
Have you done research in this area as the German
scientists was reported to have done sometime back?
As the Qur'an is a very important document (at least to
Muslims) I would have thought they should be given the
right to inspect the very document that will in many ways
affect their lives..(some by force it seems).
> The claim to the Koran existing only as an oral tradition is one made
> by Sunni's in an attempt to put their frequently variant hadith on an
> equal footing with the koran, when clearly they are highly unreliable.
Cab you elaborate on this further.
I was taught from young that there was written
text done during the Prophet's time and I'm quite puzzled
actually by this claim of oral tradition though during those times
more people would have it transmitted it orally due to illiteracy
I suppose.
And how exactly does this help them (the Sunnis)
in putting the Hadiths on par with the Qur'an.(which
it should not be as exemplified by the issue of stoning
for adulterers).?
Hiscoming
most reliable storage facility than the written document. What of if you
memorise corrupt message? does that mean your memorising of the message make
it reliable? And a lot of lies about this memorising claim?
"Observer" <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote in message
news:3b2d0de6$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
munyas
irrefutable!
Millions of people memorize the entire text of the Quran. The practice
of memorization began with the prophet, SAW. Other scriptures are not
even in the running. Has even a single person memorized any other
scripture?
Any other book? If not isnt that a miracle?
Every year the entire Quran is recited from memory in front of large
audiences at tens of thousands of places across the globe. (The
'taraweeh'in 'Ramadhan'.)This happens in almost all the cities of the
world,
Muslim as well as non-Muslim. The practice has gone on uninterrupted
since the
time of the prophet, SAW. Is there anything comparable? Is any other
scriptures recited that way, or even just read in public in its
entirety? Any
other book? The constitution of any nation? The charter of the United
Nations? Anything else at all? If not, isnt that a miracle?
The Quran was written down as it was being revealed. Uthman, RA was
among the very first companions of the prophet, SAW. The copy of the
Quran
he used to recite is preserved in the museum. His blood stained verse
127 of
Chapter II. What about the other scriptures? The christian bible is
the
closest. The earliest document available is dated around 400 AD, 370
years after
the departure of Jesus.
Five letters signed by the prophet of Islam are preserved in the
museums around the world. One of them was addressed to the Ceasor of
the Roman Empire, the other to Khusro Pervaiz, the emperor of Persia.
The other scriptures? The difference is so stark and striking!
The original language of the Quran is spoken by 300 million Muslims
and 30 million non-Muslims. The language of the Quran is alive and
living.
The other scriptures? The language Jesus spoke is extinct. No one
speaks
that language any more. It is a dead language, and not even a single
human
being understands that language. It was been extinct for the last
twelve
centuries.
The Quran became the law of the land even while it was being revealed.
The other scriptures? The kings embraced the cults several centuries
later. The christians have the best record. Its mentor, Constantine
professed
faith in 300 AD. Even then, bible never became the law of the land.
The historical events preceeding and following the advent of Islam has
been recorded by four distinct groups. They were recorded by the
adherents
of Islam within Arabia, and by the opponents. Events were also
recorded
by the concerned and unconerned international historians and
observers. The
prophet of Islam was not just a saint, but the head of State. His
pronouncements affected political, economic and cultural lives of the
people.
The two superpowers of the time, the Roman and the Persian Empires
devoted their resources to gathering and recording the events taking
place in
the Islamic state. It was important for their survival. They
meticulously
chronicled the speeches of the prophet of Islam and his emissaries.
They received and awarded diplomatic status to the ambassadors of the
Islamic state.
Compared to that, the events surrounding the other scriptures are
shrouded in mystery. History simply ignored them. Once again
Christianity's
record regarding that is better than that of any other scripture.
Events
surrounding Jesus and his teachings were ignored by history for only
about 300 years. Many christian scholars have challanged even the
existence
of Jesus They claimed that the whole thing was just a myth fashioned
after the mythology of the Romans and Greeks. Christian scholars are
hard
pressed to come up with even a single mention of Jesus in secular
literature.
Josephus, the roman historian who lived in Rome 2000
years ago devoted a single line to Jesus while writing the history of
that era. Some think even that line was interpolated later on.
In less than two decades after the Quran was revealed, the Islamic
State itself became a super power. The Quran became the constitution
and the
source of law of that super power. For seven centuries after that the
Quran ruled the only super power of its time. It was the largest
empire the
world had ever known. What about the other scriptures? None possesses
even a
rudiment of becoming the law or the source of law. Other than some
vague and conflicting moral injunctions, none has anything to offer.
Christians
pride themselves in talking 'in tongue'. A significant portion of the
new
testament is in parables.
The Quran became the law and the constitution of the Islamic State
even while it was being revealed. Fourteen centuries have gone by
since
then. It has not relinquished that honor ever! In the last fourteen
hundred
years this world has not seen even a single day when the Quran was not
the
constitution of one or the other country of the world. Not even a
single day! I dare you! Check the history for the accuracy of the
above
statement.
What about the other scriptures? None of them, not even a single one
of them has ever achieved the status of the constitution and the
source of law
of any place on earth. Not even for a single day! I dare you! Quote an
example. One single solitary example!
The life history of the prophet of Islam, SAW, is recorded in the
minutest detail. Not just the public life, but his private and
personal life
too has been recorded in exquisite detail. History has not recorded
the life
history of any other human so meticulously. That goes for all human
beings in
all field of human existence, arts, culture, philosophy, politics,
economics and religion. I dare you! Quote a single example of any
other human being, historical or contemporary, about whom we know
more.
Much has been written about the eloquence of the Quran. The prophet of
Islam was unlettered and that makes the miracle of the Quran far more
awesome and too profound to ignore. But even more miraculous is the
fact that it
achieved eloquence without resorting to exxageration of any sort.
Many scientific facts are written in the Quran. One example: only the
female spider spins its web, the male does not. That fact has come to
light
only within the last hundred years. It is written in the Quran for all
to
see. Would you recognize a miracle if it slapped you on the face and
introduced itself? Such examples are too numerous to recount here.
One of the proofs the Quran offers of its authenticity is the fact
there is nothing contradictory in the Quran. What about the other
scriptures?
Once again the christian scripture has the fewest contradictions. Yet,
the
contradictions in the bible are too many and too glaring. To quote
just one example:
Mathew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he
went away and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a
field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his
intestines
spilled out.
Need one say more?
No, of course not. People are christian or hindus not because they
have read the bible, or the hindu scripturesbut because they were born
into the
faith. They are christians or hindus because of what the bible and the
hindu scriptures say, but rather, in spite of what they say. The
christian beliefs of three gods, original sin, blood atonement and the
saviour god dying for the sins of men are unsupported by the bible.
The less said about the hindus, the better
P.S. whoever wants to see the letters signed by the prophet of God may
just e-mail me. I will, Insha Allah e-mail them the copy. Those
interested
in more details may visit www.quran-easytranslation.com
Zubair
Hamid AzizPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net
> LATER CORRUPTION OF THE TEXT OF THE QUR'AN?
> The text we have today is not even Uthman's Revised Version of the Qur'an,
but it incorporates changes by Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi.
> (1) In Surat Yunus 10:22, he changed the word yanshorokom, which means
> "spread you," to yousayerokom, which means "makes you to go on."
>
> (2) In Surat Ash-Shuara 26:116, he changed the word Al-Mukhrageen, which
means "the cast out," to Al-Margoomeen, which means "those who are to be
stoned [to death]."
Comment:-
This writer and his sources know
(a) What the original words were.
(b) What they were changed to
(c) Who did it.
So we conclude that the original still exists. That we know the changes made
and by whom and can reject these.
So the Quran is still preserved.
Q.E.D.
--
H. S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Hamid AzizPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net
> THE MISSING PASSAGES OF THE QUR'AN
> 1. THE MUSHAF: AN INCOMPLETE RECORD OF THE QUR'AN TEXT.
Comment:-
This has been answered several times before.
(a) The Quran should not be identified with paper and ink but with its
meaning and the transforming force it contains. As we know, it was not
revealed as a written text and punctuation and other marks were added
latter.
(b) There is no evidence that there is anything in the present Quran which
was not originally revealed.
(c) The same ideas were repeated many times as we can also see from the
present Quran. Therefore, the loss of a verse does not matter.
(d) The Quran says that if something is forgotten then it will be replaced
by its equivalent.
(e) If there is a record that something was in the Quran and is not now
there, then this record itself proves that the idea is preserved.
(f) The Quran was preserved in the memory of those who memorised it. The
meaning and significance of it can be regarded as still being preserved in
the Community or in that part of it which is entrusted with the preservation
and propogation of Islam.
(g) According to a Hadith the Quran was sent in 7 modes. Everyone of these
is valid.
(h) The hostile critics have a vested interest in presenting things through
"distorting glasses". There is nothing unusual about this.
Observer
"munyas" <zub...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:92cf3f6e.01061...@posting.google.com...
> The following are cold hard facts, and not hyperbole. They are
> irrefutable!
They are irrefutable because you did address the
subject.
> Millions of people memorize the entire text of the Quran.
We are talking about accuracy...not quantity.
> The practice
> of memorization began with the prophet, SAW.
So is the textual recording.
Why is it these texts were destroyed during the Uthmaniah reign?
That is the question.
>Other scriptures are not
> even in the running.
Other scriptures has nothing to do with this subject.
> P.S. whoever wants to see the letters signed by the prophet of God may
> just e-mail me. I will, Insha Allah e-mail them the copy. Those
> interested
> in more details may visit www.quran-easytranslation.com
Yeah...what about all those ancient Qur'anic artifacts.
Why is it the Islamic Governments never publish their
contents?
Are they not the same with the present ones?
These are the questions....so answer them....
not some merry go round ...
Observer
"Hamid AzizPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:stgX6.109961$ML4.7...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> (b) There is no evidence that there is anything in the present Quran which
> was not originally revealed.
Hehe...that don't mean that it contains ALL that was
revealed nor does it imply that the earlier Qur'an
is the same as what it is now.
> (c) The same ideas were repeated many times as we can also see from the
> present Quran. Therefore, the loss of a verse does not matter.
Haha....that its safe to delete some?...
So you admit there are "losses"...in the Qur'an?
So whats with the claim that Qur'an has not changed?
BTW...it seems Hamid only wants to answer
questions from non Muslims....and friendly Muslims only...
LOL
> (d) The Quran says that if something is forgotten then it will be replaced
> by its equivalent.
Yes...and that there were ayats not replaced does not
add weight to this claim.
> (e) If there is a record that something was in the Quran and is not now
> there, then this record itself proves that the idea is preserved.
But that does not mean these record should be held in the same
levbel as the Qur'an.The claim that whatever is left out is abrogated
is then false as there is still insistence that stoning is compulsory when
there is no verse about it left.
Why is it Muslims should be killed because of a reported Hadith which
NOT supported in the Qur'an?Isn't one of the biggest test of authenticity
of Hadiths is the comparison of supporting ayats in the Qur'an and not
vice versa?
But if these questions are too difficult,you may try to look
aas if you never see them,as usual....LOL
> (f) The Quran was preserved in the memory of those who memorised it.
Which does not prove anything about their ability to
retain 100% of anything,quantity or quality.
The claim that oral memory is superior to textual recordings
is illogical.
>The
> meaning and significance of it can be regarded as still being preserved in
> the Community or in that part of it which is entrusted with the
preservation
> and propogation of Islam.
How can you know that if you do not even know what was initially
revealed nor have any records of it?That you now claim ALL ideas
were preserved arbitrarily without proof by comparison is laughable.
Indeed it might well be preserved as you say,but who can tell?
Only those "entrusted" ones?....LOL
> (g) According to a Hadith the Quran was sent in 7 modes. Everyone of these
> is valid.
And where are these modes now?.....
And how do you know they all convey the same meanings,
nuances...etc....again without the ability to compare all of
them?
> (h) The hostile critics have a vested interest in presenting things
through
> "distorting glasses". There is nothing unusual about this.
Nope...they've just stated FACTS which is easily read
from Islamic sources itself including works by Muslim,Bukhari,
Sayuti.....So are these "quoted" works WRONG?....LOL
Deal with the facts...not the conclusions....thats the issue.
Did the events mentioned by the critics occured?
Were they fabrication?
Thats the question.
Stop behaving like an IDIOT.
You're giving Muslims a bad name.
Observer
> Comment:-
> This writer and his sources know
> (a) What the original words were.
> (b) What they were changed to
> (c) Who did it.
This shows that you do not.
> So we conclude that the original still exists. That we know the changes
made
> and by whom and can reject these.
> So the Quran is still preserved.
Hehe....he mentions that the Uthmanic Qur'an is
DIFFERENT from the Qur'an today.
So are we going to burn the current Qur'an and
use the text of the Uthmanic Qur'an?....smart aleck.
Stop giving Muslims and scholars a bad name by your
imbecilic propositions.
Observer
"Observer" <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote in message
news:3b2daa90$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
>
> "munyas" <zub...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:92cf3f6e.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > The following are cold hard facts, and not hyperbole. They are
> > irrefutable!
>
> They are irrefutable because you did NOT address the
> subject.
xosni
collecting procedure which I believe was an editing procedure as well.
We cann't trust the guidelines the collector was folloeing during the
process of collecting the verses based on the memories of the those
"trusted ones".
Another point to take into consideration: the Reddah (apostacy wars)
during the reign of the first caliph was actually an ideological war-a
cultural revolution. The caliph main aim was to get rid of any source
of heresy in the nascent religious establishment; he called them
apostates-who knows?. He succeeded. A lot of political, ideological
opponants were abolished forever. Just take into account that Quoran
was collected after this war; it made the job easier for Zeid ibn
Thabet.
Xosni
an egyptian apostate
xosni
> Islam began at a time when books were the property of only the rich, and
> people had the habit of learning a great deal by heart. Anyone who knew the
> full text of the Qur'an was known as a hafiz (plural huffaz). However when
> many of the original huffaz were slain in battle, people began to worry how
> the accuracy of the text would be checked after the Prophet's death.
They
> were beginning to repeat the verses and jot down them down inn their own
> dialects, and this brought with it the danger of personal interpretation ,
> misinterpretation , and alternative versions.
This started before the war. The war was a reaction against the
"misinterpretation", "alternative versions" & "personal
interpretations".
Many of the original memorizers were "slain", yes, but more were the
"misinterpretors". I believe if they were to live-not to say win the
war- we could have had a very different islam!
> The first Caliph, Abu Bakr "who was a companion of Muhammad" requested the
> Prophet's companion Zaid ibn Thabit, to make a complete written version in
> one book. He did not alter the messages in any way; no explanations or
> editorial comments were added.
How do you know?
This text was given to the Prophet's widow
> Hafash, the daughter of Caliph Umar. In the reign of Caliph Uthman, some
> twenty years after the Prophet's death, any other written versions, which
> individuals had were either checked for full agreement against this one, or
> destroyed.
Who were to judge? What were the guidlines?
Xosni
Rasi Keto
understand but not the Qur'an itself?
That is to simply say, it is the translation of the Qur'an that majority of
us understood. Without the translation, it is safe to argue that the Qur'an
is but a book for many. May be the Qur'an does not change (from when until
when?), but the meaning of the translation of the Qur'an varies from
translator to translator; and that is what is understood by the readers; i.e
the translation of the Qur'an and NOT the Qur'an itself.
If I were to but a book, I would definitely buy one written in a language
that I can understand, which is of course not necessarily Arabic.
"John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b27a...@news2.tm.net.my...
> The translation of Quran has never been regarded as the quran. It is the
> translation and not Quran. Unlike bible, the translation of bible is the
> bible. You will never see the word 'Quran' in a cover book of a
translation
> of Quran, they will print the cover as 'Translation of Quran'. Sometimes
> printers will put the Quran and the translation together so that readers
can
> right away see the meaning.
>
> People read Quran translation to investigate and to understand the
meaning.
> ***** A lot of malaysian can read the Quran in it's original form but they
> don't know the meaning. But it is the Quran and they are reading the
> original.****** And this is the tradition, read the original form. Not
> reading the translation. Sometimes they go to the translation to read the
> meaning. Can you read the original bible? Are you capable of doing that?
>
> When you translate a foreign languange, there will be different kind of
> structures and meaning that does not fit directly. Especially arabic
> language, it has a totally different structures than english language. So
it
> is normal for two translators to have different choice of words. Also,
when
> times change, we understand more than what earlier translators understand,
> so they translate to make it better and to fit what he know. But it is not
> the quran. Only the translation.
>
> As for little different between one quran at a specific time and place,
and
> another quran writen in another specific time and place; the different is
so
> unsignificant. As arabic is a spoken languange, it evolves too and the
> writing can change in 1000 years. So another latter that is not in the
other
> writing of Quran is unsignificant. Usually both will be considered
correct.
>
> "Q&A" <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b279...@news.tm.net.my...
> > The original question is that "Has Quran been changed?". You have not
got
> > the proof to deny otherwise and that sounds so typical since eons. The
> fact
> > is that someone has proven that the Quran has changed somehow. As far as
> > belief is concern, that is another matter. Denial without proof is as
good
> > as anything goes!
> >
> > As far as the new version of the Bible is concern, I would like to have
> one;
> > for the purpose of rational reading and comparision. So long as the
> meaning
> > does not change, that will be fine.
> >
> > If truly the Quran has not changed, why then different people interpret
it
> > differently? Or may be the Quran has not change but the meaning changes
> > depending on the reader? Afterall, not everyone knows Quranic Arab. For
> > many, it is not the "unchanged" Arabic Quran that the readers
understand.
> > What they read and understand is the translation of the Quran written by
a
> > great number of people in different languages. And that my friend is
true!
> >
> >
> > "John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
> > news:3b278...@news2.tm.net.my...
> > >
> > > I think you must be waiting for the latest revision of the bible.
Coming
> > > soon, you don't have to wait to long for that.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Q&A" <Q&A@?.com> wrote in message news:3b276...@news.tm.net.my...
> > > > For futher reading, please go to
> > > > http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/contents.html or
> > > > www.aperfectquran.co.uk.
> > > > and be open minded.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
> > > > news:3b268...@news.tm.net.my...
> > > > > The question should be has the bible been corrupted.
Over it is 19
"We have a mathematically coded book: The Final Testament. It is a
book with built-in physical evidence that it is God's message to us;
it is mathematically composed far beyond human capability. Besides, it
provides a physical proof for the existence of God. (The same
mathematical code was also discovered in an original part of the Old
Testament by Rabbi Judah in 11th century. See: Studies in Jewish
Mysticism, Cambridge University, 1982. This has nothing to do with the
so-called Bible Code, which has no mathematical merit).
This mathematical code is simple to understand, but impossible to
imitate. You do not need to learn the original language of the
Scripture in order to witness the miracle. If you can see letters or
words and can count until 19 you can verify most of the evidence.
This mathematical message, coded by the prime number 19, promises a
new era in the world of religions. Not only it does provide an
examinable, physical evidence for the existence of God, it also
exposes the widespread corruption plagued by organized religions. This
mathematical code suggests (as published in our numerous books) a
"Copernican revolution" in theology of religions. Instead of
Krishna-centered, or Jesus-centered, or Muhammad-centered religions we
must turn to the original center, to the God-centered model."
Sites like http://www.ropelist.com/articles/english/code19/zlatan.html
dispute the miracle and claimed that it is fake. Fake? But why do some
christian scholars accept it though they claim that the bible has a
mathematical code too.
If one cares to compare the two mathematical codes, one will realise
that unlike the Quran, the bible code is found via means of ELS.
Again, there are people disputing it and again there are people who
accepts it.
So there is no point in debating whether the Quran or the Bible is
corrupted as whatever questions you need to ask, the answers already
exist in the internet. If one is sincere in finding the answers, then
one should use the initiative to use the search engines and visit some
official websites. Most questions have been asked and answered. Why
bother asking them again? It only proves one's ignorance and
insincerity.
Robert Knowles
Robert Knowles
> irrefutable!
>
> Millions of people memorize the entire text of the Quran. The practice
> of memorization began with the prophet, SAW. Other scriptures are not
> even in the running. Has even a single person memorized any other
> scripture?
How easy would the memorization be without the book,
but purely oral?
kala
> > just e-mail me. I will, Insha Allah e-mail them the copy. Those
> > interested
> > in more details may visit www.quran-easytranslation.com
>
> Yeah...what about all those ancient Qur'anic artifacts.
> Why is it the Islamic Governments never publish their
> contents?
> Are they not the same with the present ones?
> These are the questions....so answer them....
> not some merry go round ...
Damn, Muslim will not do that. They have only faith but not truth.
They fear to reveal truth.
-------
Kala
Robert Knowles
>
> If I were to dispute the bible, where do you want me to start? Give a
> suggestion so I can dispute where it comes from and what is your prove of
> that specific passage has not been corrupted. I choose the word corrupted
> because the person that change the bible has a malicious intention to
> capitalize on the changes.
Many Old Testament stories come from the Babylonian story
of Gilgamesh, they are not original.
>
> For a person that does not believe any of the revelations, as lots of
> chinese are, they should start to change course. Despite adopting english
> names and adopting their religion as is, they should think first which one
> is correct.
Correctness depends on which ancient Middle Eastern group you
hold in higher regards, Jews or Arabs.
If the Chinese are smart, they'll look at them both and run from
their hateful, tribal religions.
Robert Knowles
not accept an Arab as a prophet.
So Arabs invented their own monotheism which shuns the Jews.
Now, you both spend your days arguing and killing each other
over past mistakes and think you are seeking the truth.
May your past always be with you.
John Smith
Quran. He/she is blind from the day he/she was born but that has not hinder
them to memorize the whole Quran. Yet they are only an ordinary person, not
a super genius and only taught the Quran indirectly. You can read any of the
passage in the Quran and he or she can continue from where you stop.
"Robert Knowles" <knowl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:CvoX6.82536$aA5.4...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
John Smith
Muslims that speak arabic don't have to read the translation. That is the
major different between this revelation and other previous revelation. They
read the original Quran that is written in arabic even though they did not
know the meaning. Is that very strange for you? They can read aloud the word
perfectly and yet they don't know the meaning but they are still reading.
Yes choice of words and sometimes the translators interpretation of the
meaning is different from one translator to another translator. But the
translation is not the Quran. The translator can be wrong. He base his
translation on primarily on the 'reason of revelation' of that specific
passage. 'Reason of revelation' is what had happen that cause the passage to
be reveiled.
Again, it is not an ordinary book.
I would like to paste the disclaimer of a translation of Quran below.
---
Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most definitely
contain errors (e.g. see our online list of corrections). We have provided
three translations here to emphasize this point. In its natural language
(Arabic), the Qur'an is the direct Word of Allah (God) to mankind through
the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Any translation of the Qur'an no
longer retains that 'official' and perfect status, however it can be
tremendously helpful to beginning students wanting to learn more about
Islam.
We would strongly encourage those want to learn about Islam to purchase a
hardcopy of the Qur'an but with the following conditions:
a.. get one with commentary (tafseer)
b.. make sure the tafseer is scholarly (e.g. references to reasons behind
a verse, references to hadith and sunnah, etc.)
Unfortunately, the three translations presented here do NOT meet these
simple conditions. To the best of our knowledge, an excellent English
translation and commentary of the Qur'an is Maududi's recently published
work "The Meaning of the Qur'an". This work took more than forty years to
complete, and was published beginning in the mid to late 1980's. We have
included Maududi's introduction to each chapter of the Qur'an, but the
complete commentary is not online (yet!). Maududi's work is superior to the
three works presented here, HOWEVER please note that we are not in any way
decrying the tremendous efforts of Ali, Pickthal, or Shakir. May Allah
reward them all.
"Rasi Keto" <rasi...@bbz.you> wrote in message
news:3b2de...@news.tm.net.my...
John Smith
prove that you might understand. The easiest way to know god is to look at
the creation and wonder how could it be that way. Each of the passages has
been translated three times by three translator. Notes: In the future, this
words could mean more as we know more. For example the last passage in this
example 021.033 said rounded course of the planets. Yet when we look into
the original text, the translator has overlook the words, the original word
in arabic does not mean an exact round orbit but rather ecliptic plane.
021.030
YUSUFALI: Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were
joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We
made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
PICKTHAL: Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth
were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of
water? Will they not then believe?
SHAKIR: Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were
closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything
living, will they not then believe?
021.031
YUSUFALI: And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it
should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between
mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.
PICKTHAL: And We have placed in the earth firm hills lest it quake with
them, and We have placed therein ravines as roads that haply they may find
their way.
SHAKIR: And We have made great mountains in the earth lest it might be
convulsed with them, and We have made in it wide ways that they may follow a
right direction.
021.032
YUSUFALI: And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they
turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)!
PICKTHAL: And we have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they
turn away from its portents.
SHAKIR: And We have made the heaven a guarded canopy and (yet) they turn
aside from its signs.
021.033
YUSUFALI: It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the
moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.
PICKTHAL: And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and
the moon. They float, each in an orbit.
SHAKIR: And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the
moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.
"Robert Knowles" <knowl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:AroX6.82535$aA5.4...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
mogan
anything on Earth.
It meant to be that way. There two major groups in Islam. The Sunni
and Shiahs, both have different following of Quran, why it that.
If Quran is same then there shouldn't be any misunderstanding leading
to diversion.
"KZ" <K...@hotmail.nospam.please.> wrote in message news:<n1xW6.30922$0e3.29...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>...
> Mas mas , Ini Forum Reformasi. bukan forum agama.
> coba di repeat. R E F O R M A S I.
>
>
> "Prof Orkburp" <o...@lopop.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tif9819...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> > no the quran has not changed, its still a pile of shit.
> > "Slicer" <49...@telkom.net> wrote in message
> > news:1dd0adba.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > The Koran was written nearly 600 years after the Prophet Mohammed
> > > death.
> > > He could neither read or write.
> > >
> > > So how could the content of the Koran, remain untouched or unaltered
> > > for 600 years after being passed around orally for six centuries.
> > >
> > >
> > > "efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
> news:<tid0te5...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > The Qur'an never changes. Only groups interpret it to their own
> reasoning.
> > > > The Qur'an was written in Arabic, and any person that is learned in
> Arabic
> > > > can read it in its original form. It has never been revised as has the
> > > > Bible.
> > > >
> > > > Mustafa <entr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9779f165.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > I was teached Quran has not been changed.. But the researches has
> proved
> the reverse:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfectquran/notrevealed.htm#top
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
> >
> >
Observer
> I don't see how to elaborate it further.
No problem..I understand your point now.
> The available records all
> show that the prophet dictated to his secretaries who made written
> records. It was after all, an important matter.
Yes...it seems even the Prophet(saw) thought that
it would be better than have it preserved by memory
alone...and this actually nullifies assertions to the superiority
of transmission by memory.
So in this sense too,it makes Uthman's(ra) destruction
of the textual records ordered by the Prophet(saw) himself
quite unsual despite claims otherwise.
> Sunni's say
> otherwise, despite the very hadith that they are reliant on
> contradicting their position.
LOL...I have to agree....
Sometimes its really funny when they get
confused when the sources of Hadiths actually
have those that contradict the very claims they are
making through another Hadith...
Hamid should take note of this if does not
want to sound silly.
Observer
"Over it is 19" <overi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48758a8.01061...@posting.google.com...
> Excerpt from http://www.19.org/english/
>
> "We have a mathematically coded book: The Final Testament. It is a
> book with built-in physical evidence that it is God's message to us;
> it is mathematically composed far beyond human capability.
Hehe...sorry...the methods used for the analysis does
not seem to be mathematically consistent anyway...
BTW there are several "allowed" version of the
Qur'an...which one did you do your analysis?
Counting the Arabic letters is not sound as different
Qur'an version "spells" the words slightly different....LOL
munyas
The book does exist! The actual book that dates back from the time of
Uthman, RA, one of the very first followers, can be found in museums.
Actually three such copies of the Quran exist. Anyone can compare the
recitation of the Quran by a man born blind to that copy of the Quran.
You will find absolutely no descrepency. Not even a dot has changed.
Observer
"kala" <kala...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:3f410dba.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > Yeah...what about all those ancient Qur'anic artifacts.
> > Why is it the Islamic Governments never publish their
> > contents?
> > Are they not the same with the present ones?
> Damn, Muslim will not do that.
Hehe....some Muslims...my friend...some....
Observer
> I would like to paste the disclaimer of a translation of Quran below.
>
> ---
> Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most
definitely
> contain errors (e.g. see our online list of corrections).
Ok...so you admit translations have its limitations..
How about INTERPRETATIONS of the Qur'an
by the Islamic scholars...are they all PERFECT?....
Observer
> Quran.
Ok...so good...there are people who can memorize
the Qur'an....But what exactly can they do for the
Muslims and how exactly is their skills relevant when
anyone can haver access to the many printed Qur'an
anyway?
Does memorizing the Qur'an make them saintly?
Or perhaps knowledgeable in managing Islamic
matters?
Hehe...the Talibans were from a Qur'anic school
in Pakistan.....Have they solved the Afghans poverty?
munyas
> When the Jews had their monopoly on monotheism, they could
> not accept an Arab as a prophet.
Every religion in every part of the world maintain a belief about a
supreme being _ the Creator who is above all.
God is only one; no equal, no mate , no son!
That was taught to all the people in every nook and corner of this
world. The One and Only God is Merciful; He would not hide the truth
from any of his created beings.
Both hindus and Christians started with the same belief. Degeneration
and corruption led to polytheism. The One and Only One God degenerated
into 'trinity' with the Christians, and 'trimurti' with the Hindus.
The bible (NT) says:
"We know that an idol is nothing at all in this world and THERE IS NO
GOD
BUT ONE" 1 Corinthians 8:4
That is the exact translation of 'La Ilaha Ill Allah', the call heard
from each and every mosque through out the world five times a day.
One wonders how did the Christians get from there to 'trinity', a word
not mentioned in the bible even once.
efkent
of the Qur'an. A knowledgeable Qur'an Chanter is a thing of Beauty to hear.
The Qur'an is written in Arabic, and as Arabic is a living language, over a
Billion persons can read it in Arabic.
But the Bible being in true form written in Latin and Latin being a dead
language, few can read it in its original form. And even taking the
Guttenburg Bible, few can read it in its original German as that German is
no longer spoken or written.
And your statement that you will never see Qur'an on the cover of a
translated Qur'an is false. My translated Qur'an is called the Qur'an. I use
it to learn Arabic. As the Arabic text sits aside of the English reading.
Rasi Keto <rasi...@bbz.you> wrote in message
news:3b2de...@news.tm.net.my...
Hiscoming
spout out. Memorising does not make any message reliable. If you memorise
rubbish, you will recite rubbish, vice versa. Written message is more
reliable than oral one which is prone to emotions and other factors.
Many dramatists have memorised many scripts for play acting. Up till now,
when you ask a muslim to show you one person that memorised their book, they
always say he is far away.
"Observer" <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote in message
news:3b2e6c6e$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
Hiscoming
say any book has not been translated. Whether written translation or oral
translation. Written translation is more reliable than oral translation.
Think and deliver yourself from Imam's deception. Some of you are not even
allowed to read your muslim book and when you read it, you are not allowed
to ask question to understand it.
The only training given to you is to attack the Jews and the Christians.
"John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b2e2...@news.tm.net.my...
Hiscoming
"efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
news:tisudje...@corp.supernews.com...
efkent
telepathy on poor old Moses. Think maybe so? The ball is in your court.
Hiscoming <fait...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8RyX6.49$nf2....@news.dircon.co.uk...
efkent
as not to lose the sayings or Shuras of Muhammad, the verbal recitations
were written down and proof read by a close companion of Muhammad and this
became the correct Qur'an. Its ridiculous to make a statement that there was
a Shura left out and that makes the Qur'an corrupt. What nonsense. There is
no such thing as a revised Qur'an.
Observer <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote in message
news:3b2db1e2$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
>
> "Hamid AzizPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote in
message
> news:stgX6.109961$ML4.7...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> > (b) There is no evidence that there is anything in the present Quran
which
> > was not originally revealed.
>
> Hehe...that don't mean that it contains ALL that was
> revealed nor does it imply that the earlier Qur'an
> is the same as what it is now.
>
> > (c) The same ideas were repeated many times as we can also see from the
> > present Quran. Therefore, the loss of a verse does not matter.
>
> Haha....that its safe to delete some?...
> So you admit there are "losses"...in the Qur'an?
> So whats with the claim that Qur'an has not changed?
>
> BTW...it seems Hamid only wants to answer
> questions from non Muslims....and friendly Muslims only...
> LOL
>
> > (d) The Quran says that if something is forgotten then it will be
replaced
> > by its equivalent.
>
> Yes...and that there were ayats not replaced does not
> add weight to this claim.
>
>
> > (e) If there is a record that something was in the Quran and is not now
> > there, then this record itself proves that the idea is preserved.
>
> But that does not mean these record should be held in the same
> levbel as the Qur'an.The claim that whatever is left out is abrogated
> is then false as there is still insistence that stoning is compulsory when
> there is no verse about it left.
>
> Why is it Muslims should be killed because of a reported Hadith which
> NOT supported in the Qur'an?Isn't one of the biggest test of authenticity
> of Hadiths is the comparison of supporting ayats in the Qur'an and not
> vice versa?
> But if these questions are too difficult,you may try to look
> aas if you never see them,as usual....LOL
>
> > (f) The Quran was preserved in the memory of those who memorised it.
>
> Which does not prove anything about their ability to
> retain 100% of anything,quantity or quality.
> The claim that oral memory is superior to textual recordings
> is illogical.
>
> >The
> > meaning and significance of it can be regarded as still being preserved
in
> > the Community or in that part of it which is entrusted with the
> preservation
> > and propogation of Islam.
>
> How can you know that if you do not even know what was initially
> revealed nor have any records of it?That you now claim ALL ideas
> were preserved arbitrarily without proof by comparison is laughable.
> Indeed it might well be preserved as you say,but who can tell?
>
> Only those "entrusted" ones?....LOL
>
> > (g) According to a Hadith the Quran was sent in 7 modes. Everyone of
these
> > is valid.
>
> And where are these modes now?.....
> And how do you know they all convey the same meanings,
> nuances...etc....again without the ability to compare all of
> them?
>
> > (h) The hostile critics have a vested interest in presenting things
> through
> > "distorting glasses". There is nothing unusual about this.
>
> Nope...they've just stated FACTS which is easily read
> from Islamic sources itself including works by Muslim,Bukhari,
> Sayuti.....So are these "quoted" works WRONG?....LOL
>
> Deal with the facts...not the conclusions....thats the issue.
> Did the events mentioned by the critics occured?
> Were they fabrication?
> Thats the question.
> Stop behaving like an IDIOT.
> You're giving Muslims a bad name.
>
>
>
efkent
came about. There were schools just for this purpose. And correct sequence
had to be learned as today correct spelling and grammar has to be learned.
Hiscoming <fait...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BhaX6.37$%9.3...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> This is just deception handed down to muslims. How can human memory be the
> most reliable storage facility than the written document. What of if you
> memorise corrupt message? does that mean your memorising of the message
make
> it reliable? And a lot of lies about this memorising claim?
>
> "Observer" <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote in message
> news:3b2d0de6$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
> >
> > "Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:ca7pitc2bg90mras1...@4ax.com...
> > > Worse than that. The written records, which were dictated to the
>
>
>
JPB
the Bible, there's the NIV translation, there's the NASB translation, there's
the NIRV translation for junior readers. Just because the word 'translation'
does not appear on the cover do not make them more than translations. It is
common to use a phrase from a different translation to explain better the
original Hebrew or Greek phrase.
There're printers who put the Hebrew or Greek text together with the
translations. There're those who put the different translations together. If
you have an online bible cd, you can do a study using different translations and
Strong's numbers identifying the translations to the exact Greek or Hebrew text.
There, I've stuck to what I know.
John Smith
You are refering to a Qur'an that has the original writing of Qur'an (the
full book) and the the translation aside. It can be regarded as the Qur'an.
But a translation without the original arabic writing cannot be regarded as
the Qur'an.
"efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
news:tisudje...@corp.supernews.com...
deecups
at all in all these hundred years of years? Every language through hundreds
and thosands of years changes in pronunciation and meaning. No wonder the
Arabic world is so backward.
efkent <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
news:tisudje...@corp.supernews.com...
<<<SNIP>>>
deecups
efkent <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
news:tith392...@corp.supernews.com...
deecups
translation of the spoken word into the written form. And since there is
only "one form" (not really true) speaks volumes about the singlemindedness
of the editors. Anything that the editors did not agree with were just
discarded.
Works of fiction have only one form and there are no alternatives. All other
forms written in other other languages are just translations. For example
Shakespeare's final version of say Hamlet is the same now as when it was
first "revealed" to him. To understand its beauty one has to read it in its
original and not any translation. This is even more true of the Canterbury
Tales. Any translation of Canterbury Tales into any other Languges is not
Canterbury Tales but Translation of The Canterbury Tales. To appreciate
Canterbury Tales one must read it only in its original form.
JPB <jpass...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B2ECD67...@hotmail.com...
<<<SNIP>>>>
deecups
editions nor corrections were allowed. There was a ruthless Government to
enforce this.
efkent <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
news:titierg...@corp.supernews.com...
deecups
this make it any less true? And if a story came from the mouth of a Arab
liar, is the story more true?
Robert Knowles <knowl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:7ToX6.82539$aA5.4...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
>
> "John Smith" <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
> news:3b2c3...@news.tm.net.my...
> >
> Many Old Testament stories come from the Babylonian story
> of Gilgamesh, they are not original.
>
John Smith
Islam also acknowleged that Jew is a selected group of people and have been
given what other races have not received, and acknowleged that Jew is the
best race in the world. This is stated in the Qur'an few times and it is the
compliment to the Jew. Islam also acknowledge that there is once an original
bible, and other original book of revelation but has been corrupted. The
believe; Islam, is not new, it is the same as the original previous
revelations. The believe that is one god, the creator of the universe.
"Robert Knowles" <knowl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:F_oX6.82542$aA5.4...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
> When the Jews had their monopoly on monotheism, they could
> not accept an Arab as a prophet.
>
> So Arabs invented their own monotheism which shuns the Jews.
>
> Now, you both spend your days arguing and killing each other
> over past mistakes and think you are seeking the truth.
>
> May your past always be with you.
>
>
>
>
deecups
could recite the whole Bible!
The problem is many Muslims spend their whole life trying to memorize the
Koran and let the world slip by. No wonder Muslim countries are backward.
The more Muslim it is, the more backward.
Robert Knowles <knowl...@home.com> wrote in message
news:CvoX6.82536$aA5.4...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
munyas
> CORRECTION!!!> news:3b2daa90$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
> >
> > "munyas" <zub...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:92cf3f6e.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > The following are cold hard facts, and not hyperbole. They are
> > > irrefutable!
> >
> > subject.
Please consider this:
The Quran became the law of the land in Arabia while the prophet was
alive. Within 12 years, the Islamic State became one of the super
powers with the Quran as its constitution and the source of Law.
A few decades after that it became the only super power of the world.
The Quran has been in the limelight ever since it was revealed.
This world has not seen a single day when the Quran was not the
constitution of one or the other country of the world. If there ever
were those who wished to alter its text, they never had their chance!
That makes the authenticity of the Quran beyond reproach!
deecups
significance of what is memorized.
John Smith <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b2e2...@news.tm.net.my...
> Then you would be very suprise if there is blind people that can memorize
> Quran. He/she is blind from the day he/she was born but that has not
hinder
> them to memorize the whole Quran. Yet they are only an ordinary person,
not
> a super genius and only taught the Quran indirectly. You can read any of
the
> passage in the Quran and he or she can continue from where you stop.
>
>
> "Robert Knowles" <knowl...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:CvoX6.82536$aA5.4...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
> >
> > "munyas" <zub...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:92cf3f6e.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > The following are cold hard facts, and not hyperbole. They are
> > > irrefutable!
> > >
munyas
> This has nothing to do with faith, but lies. It is what you put in, you
> spout out. Memorising does not make any message reliable. If you memorise
> rubbish, you will recite rubbish, vice versa. Written message is more
> reliable than oral one which is prone to emotions and other factors.
> Many dramatists have memorised many scripts for play acting. Up till now,
> when you ask a muslim to show you one person that memorised their book, they
> always say he is far away.
The point is that the authenticity of the Quran is beyond reproach!
The Quran is preserved by three distinct and definite methods. (1) It
was written down right as it was revealed. (2) It was committed to
memory in its entirety by hundreds. (3) Uninterrupted annual public
recitation of the Quran from memory in front of large audiences.
The copy of the Quran from the reign of Uthman, RA, can still be found
in museums.
Millions can recite the entire Quran from memory.
Each year in the ninth month of the Islamic calender, the entire Quran
is recited from memory at tens of thousands of places across the
globe.
The efficacy of the three methods is proven by the fact that there is
one and only one version of the Quran.
Visit any mosque during the month of Ramadhan. You will witness the
miracle first hand!
>
Moebius Avatar
Religion: Zoroasthrian.
Which is the first religion in the world which acclaimed on faith on One Supreme
Being.
The Jewish who were brought to Babylonia as slaves then liberate by Great King
Sargon II of Persia,
soon learned this religion and adopted on their religion later on.
Observer
> The Quran is preserved by three distinct and definite methods. (1) It
> was written down right as it was revealed.
Of which Uthman(ra) has destroyed all the early text....
>(2) It was committed to
> memory in its entirety by hundreds.
Of which Uthman(ra) ordered that only the Quraish version
is to be taken whilst ignoring the recitation of the most learned
of the reciters...
(3) Uninterrupted annual public
> recitation of the Quran from memory in front of large audiences.
Which is not proof of accuracy if the Qur'an has been edited
during Uthamniah(ra) times...
> The copy of the Quran from the reign of Uthman, RA, can still be found
> in museums.
Hehe...why is it this have not been widely available to
Muslims for inspection and scrutiny?
Also since Uthman(ra) destroyed all the earlier copies.how do we
know his version is accurate?
> Millions can recite the entire Quran from memory.
Which again is not proof of its accuracy.
> Each year in the ninth month of the Islamic calender, the entire Quran
> is recited from memory at tens of thousands of places across the
> globe.
Of which 90% do not know what they are reciting.
> The efficacy of the three methods is proven by the fact that there is
> one and only one version of the Quran.
Hehe...what stupidity...there are a few version of the Qur'an
allowed and they have slight textual and reading differences.
> Visit any mosque during the month of Ramadhan. You will witness the
> miracle first hand!
Hehe...that the mosques has now become a "goldmine"
for the mullah wannabes to exploit unknowing Muslims.
Why don't you explain the teaching of "How to control
Jinns" rather than a proper reading of Ibn Sinnah works.
Observer
> alive. Within 12 years, the Islamic State became one of the super
> powers with the Quran as its constitution and the source of Law.
Which is not proof that the present Qur'an is intact.
> A few decades after that it became the only super power of the world.
> The Quran has been in the limelight ever since it was revealed.
So?
> This world has not seen a single day when the Quran was not the
> constitution of one or the other country of the world. If there ever
> were those who wished to alter its text, they never had their chance!
So...the Muslims were in control during Hitler's
time?....LOL
Also you fail to address the destruction of the original
text on which the verses were written down in the
presence of the Prophet(saw) during Uthmaniah(ra)
times.Hows that?
Why must the original text be destroyed if the Uthman's
version is an exact replica of them?
Do one burn the Monalisa,when a copy has been made?
LOL
> That makes the authenticity of the Quran beyond reproach!
Of course...again you fail to address the questions..
Observer
"deecups" <dee...@yowho.com> wrote in message
news:9gmtdh$lb9$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
> When the Koran was first written down it had been edited. No subsequent
> editions nor corrections were allowed. There was a ruthless Government to
> enforce this.
Well it seems that the then gov't was doing it.
And it apparently led to the Caliph being killed.
> efkent <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
> news:titierg...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Just what are you people trying to prove. Shortly after Muhammad death,
so
> > as not to lose the sayings or Shuras of Muhammad, the verbal recitations
> > were written down and proof read by a close companion of Muhammad and
this
> > became the correct Qur'an.
Haha....that Uthman(ra) later chose to disregard many of
the most proficient reciters you fail to address.He also chose
not to preserve the seven of the allowed versions of the Qur'an.
That he aslo chose to destroy any earlier text that were written in the
presence of the Prophet(saw).
That Umar(ra) and others lamented that some verses they used
to recite and were taught by the Prophet(saw) were not in the
compiled version including the stoning verse.
If you do not know...then go and READ up first...
Read up YOUR Islamic text books and verify what I
said above.These events are well documented in Islamic
books like Muslim,Bukhari,Sayuti...etc
It seems you do not even read your own Islamic scholars'
works.
Observer
> By the way the "original" Koran is nothing more than a translation. A
> translation of the spoken word into the written form.
Hehe..I do not think that definition of the
word translation is what the author has in
mind.
Main Entry: trans損a暗ion
Pronunciation: tran(t)s-'lA-sh&n, tranz-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act, process, or instance of translating : as a : a rendering from
one language into another; also : the product of such a rendering
Observer
"efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
> The human was memorizing complex happenings long before the written book
> came about.
Of which the evidence to this does not support
your assertions...There are numerous written
documents dating from pre-Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Obviously men thought it would be prudent to
WRITE than to memorise events.
Even the Prophet(saw) thought it prudent to have
scribes write the Qur'an down as it was revealed.
So what have you got to say?
> There were schools just for this purpose
Yup...like the ones that produse the Talibans...LOL
> And correct sequence
> had to be learned as today correct spelling and grammar has to be learned.
Nonsense....There was a blind Malay boy reported
to have memorized the Qur'an.I doubt if he can understand
what he memorized.
Observer
"efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
> Just what are you people trying to prove.
The truth.
>Shortly after Muhammad death, so
> as not to lose the sayings or Shuras of Muhammad, the verbal recitations
> were written down and proof read by a close companion of Muhammad and this
> became the correct Qur'an.
Go and read your Islamic text books on how the
Qur'an was "preserved" during Uthmanic(ra) times.
Over it is 19
I've stated that all the answers to any questions have been answered
in several OFFICIAL Islamic websites.
As for the 'VERSION' you're talking about, there is no VERSIONs to
begin with, unlike the Bible. The VERSIONs you're referring to are
just translations in different languages for the purpose of
understanding the meaning of the ONE VERSION. It is that ONE VERSION
that is used for prayers etc. Yes, I know. You're going to debate
about these VERSIONS once you read this post but I'm not going to
entertain you. It's been asked and it's been answered. This is a
merry-go-round. There will be no end to it.
Like I've said before, some christians scholars dispute the code while
some other christians scholars accepts it. You belong in the former.
In conclusion, why bother asking? The answers are found in the
internet. If you regard yourself as SMART, by all means employ your
intelligence in seeking the answers to your questions the RIGHT WAY.
Posting to the newsgroup is ok but since you are cross posting, your
motive for debating is questionable.
Signing off for the last time.
> Counting the Arabic letters is not sound as different
> Qur'an version "spells" the words slightly different....LOL
Over it is 19
was referring to the original poster.
Observer
"Over it is 19" <overi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48758a8.01061...@posting.google.com...
> As for the 'VERSION' you're talking about, there is no VERSIONs to
> begin with, unlike the Bible. The VERSIONs you're referring to are
> just translations in different languages for the purpose of
> understanding the meaning of the ONE VERSION.
Haha...and how would you know whehter there are
no differences if you do not speak all the different
dialects....LOL
> It is that ONE VERSION
> that is used for prayers etc.
That was not the practice in the Prophet's (saw) times...
LOL
>Yes, I know. You're going to debate
> about these VERSIONS once you read this post but I'm not going to
> entertain you.
Hehe...because you don't know what you;re talking
about...LOL
>It's been asked and it's been answered.
Hehe...when...?
>This is a
> merry-go-round. There will be no end to it.
Of course....how do you know there's one
version?...because you say so....contrary to evidences
around you...
> Posting to the newsgroup is ok but since you are cross posting, your
> motive for debating is questionable.
Haha...I crossed post in reply to the original poster....LOL
efkent
knowing that it would become a dead language in a short time.
deecups <dee...@yowho.com> wrote in message
news:9gms2n$rgb$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
Robert Knowles
news:<CvoX6.82536$aA5.4...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com>...
> > > irrefutable!
> > >
> > > Millions of people memorize the entire text of the Quran. The practice
> > > of memorization began with the prophet, SAW. Other scriptures are not
> > > even in the running. Has even a single person memorized any other
> > > scripture?
> >
> > How easy would the memorization be without the book,
> > but purely oral?
>
> Uthman, RA, one of the very first followers, can be found in museums.
And before that?
How long after Mohammed's death was the first
Quran written? Wasn't the Quran compiled from
all the written scraps and verbal versions that were
available at the time and then the originals destroyed?
> Actually three such copies of the Quran exist. Anyone can compare the
> recitation of the Quran by a man born blind to that copy of the Quran.
> You will find absolutely no descrepency. Not even a dot has changed.
I don't doubt that after the final version was written that it has been
memorized or copied correctly.
Hiscoming
them to say.
"Observer" <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote in message
news:3b2f0a30$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
efkent
orignal form. And many Muslin's do just that. They learn Arabic. This even
happens here in Cincinnati. That is why the Arabic language is still
spreading.
John Smith <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b2ef...@news.tm.net.my...
efkent
The Bishop <var...@laughingsnake.com> wrote in message
news:9snuit8uqabqq0846...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:17:26 -0500, "efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote:
>
> >Was he Bi-Lingual? And if that was the case why did God choose Hebrew
> >knowing that it would become a dead language in a short time.
>
>
> God made alot of mistakes.... and this is not the first one, another
> one of those is he let loose a dick head promoting land mines in sg.
efkent
is on succession of the Prophet.
Shi'ite Muslims claim that the Prophet had always intended Ali to be his
successor after his death, and had declared it at the gathering of Ghadir
Khum, but while Ali was involved in burying him, the Prophet's close friend
Abu Bakr (farther of the Prophet's wife Aisha, between whom there was Ali
was some bad feeling) took control. (Sunnis interpret the speech at Ghadir
Khum as being nothing more than an acknowledgment of Ali's merit, and not a
nomination for succession.)
Ever since the caliphate passed to Mu'awiya and other Ummayyads after him,
who were not direct descendants of the Prophet, the Shi'ites have agitated
to replace them with a true descendant on the throne of a united Islamic
Empire.
mogan <moga...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:93a58f88.01061...@posting.google.com...
> Quran has its problem, that is life. There is no perfection in
> anything on Earth.
> It meant to be that way. There two major groups in Islam. The Sunni
> and Shiahs, both have different following of Quran, why it that.
> If Quran is same then there shouldn't be any misunderstanding leading
> to diversion.
>
>
> "KZ" <K...@hotmail.nospam.please.> wrote in message
news:<n1xW6.30922$0e3.29...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>...
> > Mas mas , Ini Forum Reformasi. bukan forum agama.
> > coba di repeat. R E F O R M A S I.
> >
> >
> > "Prof Orkburp" <o...@lopop.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:tif9819...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> > > no the quran has not changed, its still a pile of shit.
> > > "Slicer" <49...@telkom.net> wrote in message
> > > news:1dd0adba.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > > The Koran was written nearly 600 years after the Prophet Mohammed
> > > > death.
> > > > He could neither read or write.
> > > >
> > > > So how could the content of the Koran, remain untouched or unaltered
> > > > for 600 years after being passed around orally for six centuries.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
> > > > > The Qur'an never changes. Only groups interpret it to their own
> > reasoning.
> > > > > The Qur'an was written in Arabic, and any person that is learned
in
> > Arabic
> > > > > can read it in its original form. It has never been revised as has
the
> > > > > Bible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mustafa <entr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:9779f165.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > I was teached Quran has not been changed.. But the researches
has
> > proved
> > the reverse:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfectquran/notrevealed.htm#top
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
> > >
> > >
efkent
Christians to fuss over the Qur'an when they can't even come to a consensus
on their own Bible. Most of this nonsense is just sour grapes over a
religion they neither know nor like. And that will certainly blind any
person from reaching the truth. Its called pear prejudices.
Observer <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote in message
news:3b2f0fa6$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
deecups
efkent <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
news:tiunkd3...@corp.supernews.com...
deecups
the orders of Mohd himself!! And elswhere in te Koran there is advice to
kill Jews!
John Smith <ask...@first.se> wrote in message
news:3b2ef...@news.tm.net.my...
deecups
Moebius Avatar <Moebius...@pathwaytodarkness.com> wrote in message
news:3B2F0646...@pathwaytodarkness.com...
karl marx
>
whatever they are uttering is the truth?
JPB
when
all over this thread it's the muslims who kept bringing in the bible to
try and
defend their Quran. You obviously do not know enough about the bible to
make
that kind of comparisons. At least practise what you preach. Don't
fuss over
the bible, just defend your own Quran.
Observer
"efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
> Neither the Sunni nor the Shi'ites differ on the Qur'an.
Hehe...not according to the Shi'ites....LOL
Look if tyou want to try to pull a fast one
at least try to look authentic....
Observer
"efkent" <efkent@fusenet> wrote in message
> As you weren't present, you will never know.
Hehe...obviously you weren't there either....
but how come you talk like you knew....LOL
>I find it senseless for
> Christians to fuss over the Qur'an when they can't even come to a
consensus
> on their own Bible.
What Christianity got to do with the Qur'an?
The question was:
Did Uthman(ra) destroy all the early textual records?
Did the sahabahs disagree on the contents of his compilation
at some point or another?...
>Most of this nonsense is just sour grapes over a
> religion they neither know nor like.
It seems you do not know either....
>And that will certainly blind any
> person from reaching the truth. Its called pear prejudices.
Hehe...that the facts were from reported Hadiths
from Muslim and Bukhari which most Muslims
themsleves used to base their argument upon
escapes your attention...
So who'e wearing blinkers...
Observer
"JPB" <jpass...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B304B26...@hotmail.com...
> Funny that you should be insinuating that Christians fuss over the Quran
> when
> all over this thread it's the muslims who kept bringing in the bible to
> try and
> defend their Quran.
Hehe...please requalify your statement to
"SOME Muslims".....LOL.
Somebody
and let others keep to theirs
i have enough headache trying to keep hiding from my god
"Observer" <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote in message
news:3b3059c4$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...