• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Koran v. Bible

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I always enjoy Shabir Ally's dialogs with others... usually they are on Muslim-Christian focused comparison.

Here is on one the topic of the Bible vs Quran.

[youtube]ZKfRsd2qcek[/youtube]
The Quran Vs The Bible-Shabir Ally Vs Anis Shorrosh - YouTube
Hello Sage tree. I agree with you Shabir is the best Muslim debater they have. He is civil respectfull and very competant. I have seen that debate and every other ones he has had that I could find. Anis Shorrosh is also very knowledgeable but he is also a little flakey and has some personal issues I believe. I would recommend any of Dr James White v/s Shabir's debates you can find they are good. Dr White always points out the only fault Shabir has. He uses redactionist anti-revelatory scholars that also reject the Quran, against the Bible.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
Only replying on the important parts

This is certainly not in your favor. It is well documented that many of the people who had individually memorized certain parts of the Quran died before writing them down in the war to fill the power vacuum left when Muhammad died.
This is not entirely true, yes there were people dying in battles but more then 70% of the people who memorized the Quran survived this is recorded in the
same hadiths your using that said people died in battle.

I could stop right here as this issue is devastating and the Bible does not have this problem but that isn't very interesting.
There isn't even any suggestion that Christians were good at memorizing nor did they check for any authenticity as Muslims did nor do we have any real sugesstion who passed down what. For example Matthew using a Q-source and this Q-source would be oral-sayings.. Well where, from who and where did he hear these things.. we just don't know.

In 633AD approx. 700 of these people who had memorized the Quran were killed in battle.
This was so obviously devastating to retention of the revelation that they quickly in 634AD recorded everything that anyone who was left and reliable could remember. This is the Hafsah codex.
700 isn't a great number since the numbers were rising in huge numbers and you forget the notion that Mohammed(saws) had more then 20,000 followers at a early age.
But yes there were people who thought it should be compiled into a single book and so they did after hes death. I see no disagreement here.

The early Muslims knew that losses in battle had resulted in the loss of some of what was memorized. That is why they decided to attempt to make sure it did not happen again. They wrote down all the revelations they had left and formed these schools you mention. Even that did not make sure that everyone had the same material that is why the Islamic army was on the verge of breaking up into factions based on different interpretations and readings. So Uthman made a Quran that he decided was official and burned the rest. There is no way to make the early history of the Quran reliable. It was a mes
This is not true you have to take some Islamic history lessons.
First of all there was still over 70% left that knew the Quran entirly, Abu Bakr, Umar and most of hes close companions were still alive.
Secondly you did not read what i have said is that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama'. all knew the Quran and they all accepted the version of Uthman..
Thirdly the army was not in verge of breaking into fractions if you mean the issue between Shia's and Sunnis it has nothing to do with the preservantion of the Quran but political ideas.

Oral memorizations is an impressive human accomplishment.
2. It isn't necessarily divine in anyway as all kinds of secular things much longer than the Quran have been memorized by many.
Did i say that memorizing something is mircalously? Nope.

3. Oral tradition is the absolute worst possible way to accurately pass along information accurately and isn't normally allowed at all in legal matters and almost always dismissed in historical studies.
If that is the case then we can dissmiss the Bible or anything, memoraztions is used to remember something and to pass down. In the time of Uthman there were no people who recicted different kind of Qurans they only used different dialects. This is why i told you to look into the 7modes of islam.

4. The early transmission of the Quran is unreliable at best.
Lol so are you?

5. Unlike the Bible the oral claims were recorded during historical times and can be verified against history and it is not always accurate. The Bible's oral period was before recorded history and therefore can't be verified.
Huh serious?

6. There currently exist inconsistent Qurans and oral traditions as there have always been concerning the Quran and claims that it is perfect are soundly rejected by most of the non Islamic scholars and even many Islamic ones.
Could you clarify?

7. A large portion of non Islamic scholars find nothing remarkable about the Quran's literary style.
Changing subjects again?

What was man made from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]
R0bin not this again please read the verses before you copy something... Just once?

They are all right man is made from a blood clot, water and of clay/dust/earth according to the Quran its not one against the other, wherein the thicknend fluid (sperm) is speaking about how men creates men. Read it accutarly. None of these verses say Men is created from Clot and nothing else or created from water and nothing else.

I am not going to reply on your other subject like the crusi''Fiction" you can't refrain yourself from opening new ones can you? We are already discussing two different subjects please stay on one.. if that is possible?

Since you like debates i recommoned this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w89_aFFwltg&feature=relmfu

The Christian speaker uses the same arguments as you do about the preservation please watch it.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Only replying on the important parts
That is fine.


This is not entirely true, yes there were people dying in battles but more then 70% of the people who memorized the Quran survived this is recorded in the
same hadiths your using that said people died in battle.
That may very well be the case but it is recorded that some of the "30%" were men that knew revelations that no one else did. I would have to find the sources for that again but it is very likely that some of Muhammad's revelations died with those men. What there is no doubt about is that there is no way to know for sure.

There isn't even any suggestion that Christians were good at memorizing nor did they check for any authenticity as Muslims did nor do we have any real suggestion who passed down what. For example Matthew using a Q-source and this Q-source would be oral-sayings.. Well where, from who and where did he hear these things.. we just don't know.
That is not the issue. Christian doctrine was not passed down through oral traditions. It was written by the eyewitnesses during the life time of hundreds of witnesses. Only the first 5 books of the OT was transmitted by oral methods until it was later recorded. Q-source is a theory that is based on similarities and has absolutely no actual evidence. It is far more likely that since they were writing about the same events it is simply coincidence they are similar. I do not see how they could not be. In fact I think q-source theory is slowly dieing away.


700 isn't a great number since the numbers were rising in huge numbers and you forget the notion that Mohammed(saws) had more then 20,000 followers at a early age.
But yes there were people who thought it should be compiled into a single book and so they did after hes death. I see no disagreement here.
The size of the number isn't the issue. If it was only ten who had unique revelation memorized then it is devastating. That is widely believed to be the case. Because I am fair and try to be honest I have read several sources that say that the Quran was at least partially written during Muhammads lifetime. They are by far the minority but if you could prove this it would make a very messy situation much more reliable for the Quran but I doubt that was the case.

This is not true you have to take some Islamic history lessons.
First of all there was still over 70% left that knew the Quran entirely, Abu Bakr, Umar and most of hes close companions were still alive.
That is not what I have found in even some Islamic sources.

Secondly you did not read what i have said is that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama'. all knew the Quran and they all accepted the version of Uthman..
Thirdly the army was not in verge of breaking into fractions if you mean the issue between Shia's and Sunnis it has nothing to do with the preservation of the Quran but political ideas.
Again that is not what the sources I found said. They even list quotes from some of the readers you mention where they say they disagree with each other. As far as the army I do not believe it was Sunni and Shia factions at that time. It never developed into official sides it was simply a lot of grumbling about many issues of many types. I will reread my sources and clarify this soon.

Did i say that memorizing something is miraculously? Nope.
Then what does this statement you made mean? "It is a miracle of the Quran that a Hafiz is able to memorize all of these verses in order"


If that is the case then we can dismiss the Bible or anything, memorizations is used to remember something and to pass down. In the time of Uthman there were no people who recited different kind of Quran they only used different dialects. This is why i told you to look into the 7modes of Islam.
Memorization is used to pass down things and so are texts and oral tradition is by far the most unreliable method. As I said it is so notoriously unreliable that it isn't allowed in our courts normally. The NT is all texts. There is no need to destroy different dialects. What I have found and what makes sense to me is Uthman was tired of the disagreements and conflicting interpretations and so he made an "official" version and burned the rest including the original version Muhammad's wife had kept. I will give much mor information and sources when I have time.

Lol so are you?
You can not claim that oral tradition is a reliable means of transmitting knowledge. No respected historian or legal expert in human history would disagree. You may choose to believe it is and that is your right but that is a faith claim not an academic one. I as I said am consistent and point out the Bible has the same issues with it's first five books. I accept them on faith and because there isn't anything known to prove any of them wrong but I could never claim to know for sure they are accurate. That is the same with the Quran but only one of us admits it. Who's view is biased here?

Huh serious?
I will give an example. The Bible claims that Noah built an ark. I have no proof that is true but being that it happened in prehistoric times and nothing was written to show it wrong I am free to believe it on faith. The Quran claims that Jesus was not crucified nor killed but this case is different because that event happened in in recorded historical times and has written contemporary accounts that show that is a false claim. That is the difference.


Could you clarify?
There are in use today several versions of the Quran and they are not identical. Can you clarify what you need clarified?

Changing subjects again?
What? The Quran claims it. Most non Muslims think that is ridiculous. How is that off topic?

R0bin not this again please read the verses before you copy something... Just once?
When you gave me all those Bible "contradictions" a while back I knew that many had very simple solutions and were based on very very bad interpretations but I made no sarcastic comments about you posting them, I patiently explained them. Why can't you do the same? You say I should read the verses again and then claim that they say the same things I said they did below.

They are all right man is made from a blood clot, water and of clay/dust/earth according to the Quran its not one against the other, wherein the thickened fluid (sperm) is speaking about how men creates men. Read it acutely. None of these verses say Men is created from Clot and nothing else or created from water and nothing else.
I will just pick one. How in the world can it be accurately claimed that man is made from a clot of blood?



I am not going to reply on your other subject like the crusi''Fiction" you can't refrain yourself from opening new ones can you? We are already discussing two different subjects please stay on one.. if that is possible?
I can't help it. There are things that Muslim's must accept that just baffle me that I can't help wanting to know why. That is one of the top ones and I do not blame you for not trying to straighten it out.



Since you like debates i recommend this one:

[youtube]w89_aFFwltg[/youtube]
Muslim Christian Debate | Is the Quran Perfectly Preserved? | Zawadi vs Qureshi Part 1 - YouTube

The Christian speaker uses the same arguments as you do about the preservation please watch it.
I will try to do so.
 

DeviChaaya

Jai Ambe Gauri
Premium Member
In fact, the Holy Quran is the only religious Scripture that is memorized by its followers.

Simply not true. The Vedas are memorised by thousands of Vedic priests and recited flawlessly during ceremonies every day.

Please return to your regularly scheduled debate.
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
Hello Sage tree. I agree with you Shabir is the best Muslim debater they have. He is civil respectfull and very competant. I have seen that debate and every other ones he has had that I could find. Anis Shorrosh is also very knowledgeable but he is also a little flakey and has some personal issues I believe. I would recommend any of Dr James White v/s Shabir's debates you can find they are good. Dr White always points out the only fault Shabir has.

Thanks for your take. I am familiar with the DJW debates as well. :)

He uses redactionist anti-revelatory scholars that also reject the Quran, against the Bible.

Would you give me 5 sentences about what you mean here?

:namaste
SageTree
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
Simply not true. The Vedas are memorised by thousands of Vedic priests and recited flawlessly during ceremonies every day.

Please return to your regularly scheduled debate.

What i meant to say is memorized by such a large group with all respect to the Vedic priests.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
That may very well be the case but it is recorded that some of the "30%" were men that knew revelations that no one else did. I would have to find the sources for that again but it is very likely that some of Muhammad's revelations died with those men. What there is no doubt about is that there is no way to know for sure.
There is no such record please provide it to me. Even if such record exist it would contradict with the records that thes close companions remembered the whole Quran who were the in comitee that Uthman created.

That is not the issue. Christian doctrine was not passed down through oral traditions. It was written by the eyewitnesses during the life time of hundreds of witnesses. Only the first 5 books of the OT was transmitted by oral methods until it was later recorded. Q-source is a theory that is based on similarities and has absolutely no actual evidence. It is far more likely that since they were writing about the same events it is simply coincidence they are similar. I do not see how they could not be. In fact I think q-source theory is slowly dieing away.
The Q-source is defaintly not dying the Unknown author of Matthew himself recorded that he used the works of Mark and several other sources.

The size of the number isn't the issue. If it was only ten who had unique revelation memorized then it is devastating. That is widely believed to be the case. Because I am fair and try to be honest I have read several sources that say that the Quran was at least partially written during Muhammads lifetime. They are by far the minority but if you could prove this it would make a very messy situation much more reliable for the Quran but I doubt that was the case.
Some false statements here is there any source or record that only a handfull knew the Quran? No there isn't there are records however that say that the prophet(saws) heard group people out recicte the Quran infront of him and if they made a mistake he personally would correct them.

That is not what I have found in even some Islamic sources.
I am pretty sure you actually never read any islamic source in the first place.

Again that is not what the sources I found said. They even list quotes from some of the readers you mention where they say they disagree with each other. As far as the army I do not believe it was Sunni and Shia factions at that time. It never developed into official sides it was simply a lot of grumbling about many issues of many types. I will reread my sources and clarify this soon.
Give me any record that says someone disagreed with Uthman's Quran it may even be a invidual who was not a companion i can garantue you, you will find none. Heck even the enemies of Uthman agreed on the Quran that Uthman standirdes and so did the comitee of companions. The inviduals in the army were debating who's mode(hafs) was better what has nothing to do with preservation itself.

Memorization is used to pass down things and so are texts and oral tradition is by far the most unreliable method. As I said it is so notoriously unreliable that it isn't allowed in our courts normally. The NT is all texts. There is no need to destroy different dialects. What I have found and what makes sense to me is Uthman was tired of the disagreements and conflicting interpretations and so he made an "official" version and burned the rest including the original version Muhammad's wife had kept. I will give much mor information and sources when I have time.
Lol this statement will have no evidence and contradicts with Uthman's statement and all the companions even with that of Aisha herself. Uthman copied Aisha's and Abu Bakr's Quran with there agreement and the agreement of the comitee.

You can not claim that oral tradition is a reliable means of transmitting knowledge. No respected historian or legal expert in human history would disagree. You may choose to believe it is and that is your right but that is a faith claim not an academic one. I as I said am consistent and point out the Bible has the same issues with it's first five books. I accept them on faith and because there isn't anything known to prove any of them wrong but I could never claim to know for sure they are accurate. That is the same with the Quran but only one of us admits it. Who's view is biased here?
Well the memorization is something important you can't simple dissmiss it, it would perserve the text and the text would perserve the memorizing.

I will give an example. The Bible claims that Noah built an ark. I have no proof that is true but being that it happened in prehistoric times and nothing was written to show it wrong I am free to believe it on faith. The Quran claims that Jesus was not crucified nor killed but this case is different because that event happened in in recorded historical times and has written contemporary accounts that show that is a false claim. That is the difference.
We will discuss this later on.

There are in use today several versions of the Quran and they are not identical. Can you clarify what you need clarified?
Again you have not done your homework as i asked you to do so, remember the 7modes?

What? The Quran claims it. Most non Muslims think that is ridiculous. How is that off topic?
Well i can say that Muslim scholars and historians even Non-Muslim arabic speakers did find it miraclously.

When you gave me all those Bible "contradictions" a while back I knew that many had very simple solutions and were based on very very bad interpretations but I made no sarcastic comments about you posting them, I patiently explained them. Why can't you do the same? You say I should read the verses again and then claim that they say the same things I said they did below.
No you didn't you said that one verse says A while the other one says B and that is the contradiction atleast this is how i understood you.

I will just pick one. How in the world can it be accurately claimed that man is made from a clot of blood?
Isn't this the case?

I can't help it. There are things that Muslim's must accept that just baffle me that I can't help wanting to know why. That is one of the top ones and I do not blame you for not trying to straighten it out.
It has nothing to do with me not explaning it has to do with sticking to the subject? I can throw over 300 things i have problems with in one page would that be honest? Or does that simply means i am trying to change the subject?

I will try to do so.
Please do so, you will get some more background on the subject and you will find many answers on your questions.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Would you give me 5 sentences about what you mean here?


SageTree
As I am sure you know there are many types of scholars. One modern ultra liberal group denies revelation and the supernatural. They basically decide that God can't have revealed anything and miracles are impossible before hand and that is the governing dynamic or lens through which they look at scripture. The most common complaint against Muslim debaters is that they use those sources to evaluate the Bible even though those same sources condemn the Quran. As far as I can tell that is Shabir's only fault and James points it out in every debate. James calls them redactionists and it means editor. They edit (in effect) what they are evaluating.
 

Konjim

Member
The Koran does not perfectly represent the original, Muslim scholars are unable to take the stance that the Bible is corrupted, and the Koran in not more theologically unified then the Bible.

For these reasons, the accusation that the Bible has been corrupted and standards that set the Koran higher must be ignored when comparing both books. They have to be treated minimally as equals in terms of historical accuracy and authenticity.

Koran and Bible both belongs to Different Religious so we need not to compare both, because Each Religious has his own faith
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Koran and Bible both belongs to Different Religious so we need not to compare both, because Each Religious has his own faith
I agree they are not the same religion, however the Quran is claimed to be from the same God as the Bible. It is all together fitting and proper they be compared and contrasted as nothing less than the soul is at stake. It is called comparitive religion. I know of no subject more deserving of scrutiny than religion nor no holy book that should be as carefully studied and critiqued as the Quran. The Bible has been and found very reliable, the same can't be said for it's competitors.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
The Q-source is defiantly not dying the Unknown author of Matthew himself recorded that he used the works of Mark and several other sources.
This post will take two to respond to. I will divide them up by subject if possible. Q and the even worse Gospel of Thomas are no longer prevalent in debate at least. There exists no actual Q source. It is an argument from silence.

The writings of the ancient church give not the slightest hint that such a source ever existed.
Among the early church fathers there is not even a rumor of a lost canonical gospel. The
earliest information about the gospels of Matthew and Mark is furnished by Papias (ca. AD
110), who states that Matthew compiled t¦ lÒgia (the oracles) in a Hebrew dialect. In
Papias’ comment concerning Mark, t¦ lÒgia are parallel with t¦ ØpÕ Cristoà ½ lecqšnta
½ pracqšta ("the things either said or practiced by Christ"). This parallelism rules out an
interpretation of t¦ lÒgia in connection with Matthew as words or "sayings" alone. Until the
19th century Papias’ statement about t¦ lÒgia was rightly taken to refer to Matthew’s
gospel. Long ago Theodor Zahn pointed out that t¦ lÒgia would have been an unlikely title for
a book.
12 Nor, he continued, is there a trace of evidence that such a book, as distinct from
Matthew’s gospel, ever existed. Far less is there a hint that Matthew (or any of the other
gospels) was produced by the use of written sources. And there is not the slightest textual
evidence that some lost gospel "Q" existed, although it is claimed today that Q was so
widespread that Matthew and Luke (and maybe even Mark) got hold of copies of it
independently.
Paul never mentions Q, although he could hardly have been ignorant of it if it had such
virulent influence and championed a faith so contrary to his own. He could not have known
the four gospels, but there is no reason why he should not have known Q if it really existed in
the decades prior to their appearance.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/q_linnemann.pdf
The only thing keeping Q alive is it is convenient for some people.
That site is very good.

Some false statements here is there any source or record that only a handful knew the Quran? No there isn't there are records however that say that the prophet(saws) heard group people out recite the Quran in front of him and if they made a mistake he personally would correct them.
How can a Quran exist as we think of it if there are no written texts. There was simply a bunch of things he said were revealed to him. It is highly suspicious that if God had given Muhammad revelations that the same God would not also know that he would die before these revelations existed in a reliable textual form. I am sure many people knew great amounts of what Muhammad told them to remember. It is also unlikely that anyone knew it all. I would like to know where you get the idea that many did knew it all. Every thing I find about Islamic tradition suggests it is unreliable and there is nothing outside of tradition that suggests anyone knew it all. Historically it is an unknowable issue but may be believed on faith I guess.

According to Patricia Crone, a Danish researcher in this field of source criticism, we know little about the original material, as the traditions have been reshaped by a progression of storytellers over a period of a century and a half (Crone 1980:3). These storytellers were called Kussas. It is believed that they compiled their stories using the model of the Biblical legends which were quite popular in and around the Byzantine world at that time, as well as stories of Iranian origin. From their stories there grew up a literature which belonged to the historical novel rather than to history (Levi Della Vida 1934:441).
"Is the Qur'an the Word of God?" - Part 1
Believing things that are based on something besides very early reliable texts is a matter of faith not evidence.

I am pretty sure you actually never read any Islamic source in the first place.
The Islamic source "K. al Masahif" reports differences so serious as to cause one Muslim group to call another group heretics:

During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif]

Give me any record that says someone disagreed with Uthman's Quran it may even be a invidual who was not a companion i can garantue you, you will find none. Heck even the enemies of Uthman agreed on the Quran that Uthman standards and so did the comitee of companions. The individuals in the army were debating who's mode (hafs) was better what has nothing to do with preservation itself.
That made no sense. You say find any one, then say it must be a companion, then say there is none.

The 2nd most trusted Hadith is called Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows: [Search on the referenced site to find the number "510" if you want to verify the written literature].
"Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an
During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif]
"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).
Is the Qur'an Pure? Book Burning in Early Islam

Lol this statement will have no evidence and contradicts with Uthman's statement and all the companions even with that of Aisha herself. Uthman copied Aisha's and Abu Bakr's Quran with there agreement and the agreement of the comitee.
You are right that Uthman himself did not destroy her original version but it was done none the less as soon as she died.
So the original Qur’an of 634 CE was created during the political reign of Abu Bakr. This original Qur’an came to be known as the Hafsah codex (about 10 years later when Hafsah began to maintain it). However, this most important original manuscript of the Qur’an was destroyed by Muslim leaders in 667 CE. (Hafsah was one of Muhammad's wives. She maintained the original Qur'an until her death in 667 CE. Muslim leaders wanted to destroy the original Qur'an before Hafsah died. But she refused to hand over the codex for burning. She was successful until her death [Refer to Al-Masahif 24] It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?").
Is the Qur'an Pure? Book Burning in Early Islam
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
There is no such record please provide it to me. Even if such record exist it would contradict with the records that this close companions remembered the whole Quran who were the in committee that Uthman created.
Let me rephrase my claim. There are no historical sources that show that anyone knew the entire Quran correctly. It is a historical black hole. I will admit that my original statement was innaccurate. I found many claims to suggest that parts of the Quran were lost in the battle but I did not find anything that would prove that a few people might not have remembered everything Muhammad taught them.
"Is the Qur'an the Word of God?" - Part 2
 
In response, there are many Muslim scholars who contend that the continual presence of a number of men who had memorized the Qur'an in its entirety maintained its credibility. These men were called Hafiz. They were the repositories of the Qur'an to whom later compilers could refer if any questions arose (Glasse 1991:143,230).
Today we have quite a number of Hafiz living within the Middle East and Asia (there is even one studying at SOAS). We know whether they have memorized the Qur'an correctly, as we can refer to the written text in our hands and ascertain if what they relate follows it. What did earlier compilers refer to in order to ascertain the correctness of the Hafiz of their day? Where are their documents?
Essentially we come back to the same problem that we discussed in the previous section. The early Hafiz' must have had documents from which to memorize, as the credibility for any Hafiz is derived from the resemblance of his recitation to the document he claims to know; not the other way around. Did these documents ever exist? If they simply memorized that which they heard from other individuals as a sort of oral tradition then their recitations become even more suspect since oral tradition, particularly religious oral tradition, is by its very nature prone to exaggeration, embellishment and consequently, corruption.
What then should we do with the internal problems which we find in the Qu'ran? How are we to explain the structural and literary problems, as well as the spurious accounts and scientific peculiarities which have found their way into its pages? These difficulties do seem to point away from a divine authorship and point towards a more plausible scenario, that the Qur'an is nothing more than a collection of disparate sources borrowed from surrounding pieces of literature, folk tales, or oral traditions 'making the rounds' at that time, and accidently grafted in by unsuspecting later compilers.
Because of the doubtful dating of the Qur'an, the fact that there is no substantial documentation prior to 750 A.D., and the disparate sources from which it derives, as well as its specific Arab application, it behooves us not to use it as a source in ascertaining its own authenticity. Essentially we are left with very little early Islamic material from which we may delineate any authority for the Qur'an, or for the origins of Islam.
Where then must we go to find the true origins of Islam if both the traditions and the Qur'an are suspect?
"Is the Qur'an the Word of God?" - Part 2
When defending the Bible I am not allowed nor should I be to use it as proof for it's self. In other words the Bible is not true because it says it is true. It is evaluated by every test we can use (the historical method, archeological corroberation, markers of testimonial reliability, principle of emberassment.....early, accurate, written texts).

That being said.
1. The reality of whether anyone knew the entire Quran can't be established by history.
2. It is only indicated by their statements which is circular reasoning. I am not 10 ft tall because I say I am.


3. I could not find anything historical to corroberate the claims that they knew it all.
  • If there is no independant written text there is no way to compare what they said.
  • The only thing I can find is Islamic tradition and that appears to be unreliable. It certainly is not, nor is it claimed to be inffalable.
  • Oral tradition is the absolute worst basis to guarantee accuracy. It may be believed on faith but is not a matter of evidence.
  • All we have leads to more questions.
The Bible has exactly the same problem with it's first five books and I have never claimed to know they are accurate.



Well the memorization is something important you can't simple dismiss it, it would preserve the text and the text would preserve the memorizing.
If we have a tradition or historical claim that we want to evaluate the absolutely worse case scenario is that it existed in only oral form for a significant period of time. F0uad you are too smart not to understand that oral tradition is notoriously unreliable. If you wish to ignore that on faith, then that is your right but no historical scholar would agree that oral traditions are normally even remotely accurate.
We will discuss this later on.
We will see. For some reason I can't ever get an answer to this.
Again you have not done your homework as i asked you to do so, remember the 7modes?
Calling them modes or dialects does not help. The Quran is claimed to be a perfect representation of what is written on tablets in heaven. The use of different words or phrasing makes that claim false even if the phrasings mean the same things. The problem is when you claim perfection you have claimed a standard that leaves no wiggle room. The Qurans used today have differences and can't all be what is written in heaven.
Well i can say that Muslim scholars and historians even Non-Muslim Arabic speakers did find it miraculously.
Just guessing I would say that that less than 10% of non Muslim scholars think there is anything literally great about the Quran. The other 90% think it is a literary mess. It jumps all over the place and isn't chronological. Even if it was a superb literary text there is nothing miraculous about it. There are works that are very much superior to it literally like Shakespeare, Homer, or a thousand others. I have always been confused by this claim. What in teh world is it about the literary merits of the Quran you think is so remarkable?
Pfander elaborates by comparing the Qur'an with the Bible. He states, "When we read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, many scholars hold that the eloquence of Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and many of the Psalms, for instance, is greater than that of any part of the Qur'an. Hardly anyone but a Muslim would deny this, and probably no Muslim who knew both Arabic and Hebrew well would be able to deny it." (Pfander 1835:266)
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/part2.htm
I do not claim the Bible is or was meant to be a literary masterpiece but I do not find it any less impressive than the Quran, in fact it's apocolyptic language use is the most ominous and profound language I have ever heard and itis even used in coutless secular movies and songs.

No you didn't you said that one verse says A while the other one says B and that is the contradiction at least this is how i understood you.
I am not sure what you mean here. I meant I answered your question without saying anything about what you read or didn't read. As far a contradictions go there are scientific, internal, and historic contradictions.
Isn't this the case?
No. I looked for it and there is nothing about the creation of a fetus that involves clotted blood.
It has nothing to do with me not explaining it has to do with sticking to the subject? I can throw over 300 things i have problems with in one page would that be honest? Or does that simply means i am trying to change the subject?
It simply means that something you mentioned reminded me of something I can't ever get an answer for. If I in fact post 300 or 200 or even ten off topic things then you might have a point. If I post one or two that are in my mind related to the discussion you don't.
Please do so, you will get some more background on the subject and you will find many answers on your questions.
I would get more out a very simple list of transmission that is the "official" for the Quran if you can make one. I mean simple.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
Ill just stay on one-topic and reply on the more important things if you don't mind. But if you are willing to discuss the Q-source we can do that later on.

How can a Quran exist as we think of it if there are no written texts. There was simply a bunch of things he said were revealed to him. It is highly suspicious that if God had given Muhammad revelations that the same God would not also know that he would die before these revelations existed in a reliable textual form. I am sure many people knew great amounts of what Muhammad told them to remember. It is also unlikely that anyone knew it all. I would like to know where you get the idea that many did knew it all. Every thing I find about Islamic tradition suggests it is unreliable and there is nothing outside of tradition that suggests anyone knew it all. Historically it is an unknowable issue but may be believed on faith I guess.
It is recorded that all these companies that i mentioned by name knew the whole Quran and many others. Also i never said that it only was memorized but that records also show that thew wrote everything down on different kind of material. The people in that time were well known to write down things and memorize small details we have so many details and so many work that it would you need more then one-life time to just read everything.

According to Patricia Crone, a Danish researcher in this field of source criticism, we know little about the original material, as the traditions have been reshaped by a progression of storytellers over a period of a century and a half (Crone 1980:3). These storytellers were called Kussas. It is believed that they compiled their stories using the model of the Biblical legends which were quite popular in and around the Byzantine world at that time, as well as stories of Iranian origin. From their stories there grew up a literature which belonged to the historical novel rather than to history (Levi Della Vida 1934:441).
Lol what?

The Islamic source "K. al Masahif" reports differences so serious as to cause one Muslim group to call another group heretics:

During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif]
Again you did not do your homework about the 7modes there are 7modes that you can recite the Quran, some people were ignorant regarding this issue since Mohammed(saws) said that all modes are acceptable. The only ''group'' i could find actually debating this according to hadiths was inside the army.


That made no sense. You say find any one, then say it must be a companion, then say there is none.
I said give me anyone who believed untill he or she died that they didn't acceped Uthman's Quran. Something to point out the comittee of Uthman(who was a companion) exited only of close companions of the prophet(saws) and they all accepted it.

The 2nd most trusted Hadith is called Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows: [Search on the referenced site to find the number "510" if you want to verify the written literature].
"Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an
During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif]
"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).
Is the Qur'an Pure? Book Burning in Early Islam
Again the 7modes please stop repeating your arguments over and over untill you take my advice to do your homework about the 7modes.

Zaid also had a Quran that was not different from Uthman's its called the Kufan Codex wherein's Uthman is called Hafsah they sometimes use different modes. Zaid didn't disagree with Uthman's Quran but actually agrees and he was one of the closest to Mohammed(saws) even Ubayy B. Ka'ab had hes Quran in a different mode if i am correct.

So you accept the fact that there were early writings and scriptures at the time of the companions?

You are right that Uthman himself did not destroy her original version but it was done none the less as soon as she died.
So the original Qur’an of 634 CE was created during the political reign of Abu Bakr. This original Qur’an came to be known as the Hafsah codex (about 10 years later when Hafsah began to maintain it). However, this most important original manuscript of the Qur’an was destroyed by Muslim leaders in 667 CE. (Hafsah was one of Muhammad's wives. She maintained the original Qur'an until her death in 667 CE. Muslim leaders wanted to destroy the original Qur'an before Hafsah died. But she refused to hand over the codex for burning. She was successful until her death [Refer to Al-Masahif 24] It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?").
Is the Qur'an Pure? Book Burning in Early Islam
This is a fake hadith according Bukhari and many other Islamic scholars in the time, the Isnad is weak and is forged.

Did al-Hajjaj Change The Qu'ran?

Let me rephrase my claim. There are no historical sources that show that anyone knew the entire Quran correctly. It is a historical black hole. I will admit that my original statement was innaccurate. I found many claims to suggest that parts of the Quran were lost in the battle but I did not find anything that would prove that a few people might not have remembered everything Muhammad taught them.
If you don't count the Hadith as historical sources well ok then you maybe got a point. However logic says otherwhise and i can use the memorzation as one example or that every invidual agreed with Uthman's Quran that he copied from Abu Bakr's.

When defending the Bible I am not allowed nor should I be to use it as proof for it's self. In other words the Bible is not true because it says it is true. It is evaluated by every test we can use (the historical method, archeological corroberation, markers of testimonial reliability, principle of emberassment.....early, accurate, written texts).

That being said.
1. The reality of whether anyone knew the entire Quran can't be established by history.
2. It is only indicated by their statements which is circular reasoning. I am not 10 ft tall because I say I am.
First of preservation has nothing to do with its teachings.
Secondly i never made such argument or statement that the Quran is true because it says so, nor did i ever use any refrences from the Quran.
Thirdly the Hafiz were well recorded there have even been biograpies about different companions and i actually mentioned a couple of names already.
If you don't see Hadith as a historical sources then why keep using them.. that just makes no sense to me at all.

I could not find anything historical to corroberate the claims that they knew it all.
What do you mean by historical? Hadiths or scripture?

If there is no independant written text there is no way to compare what they said.
Clarify?

The only thing I can find is Islamic tradition and that appears to be unreliable. It certainly is not, nor is it claimed to be inffalable.
Oral tradition is the absolute worst basis to guarantee accuracy. It may be believed on faith but is not a matter of evidence.
I used the memorazation argument to come to the point that one betters the other. For example if 10,000 People knew the Quran after Mohammed's death entirely and some one would write the Quran differently they would notice, if someone recicted the Quran wrongly they would notice because of scripture and writings.

All we have leads to more questions.
The Bible has exactly the same problem with it's first five books and I have never claimed to know they are accurate.
Ok so who historical wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke and John? Please provide Historical evidence and not sayings of some Church Fathers.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
If we have a tradition or historical claim that we want to evaluate the absolutely worse case scenario is that it existed in only oral form for a significant period of time. F0uad you are too smart not to understand that oral tradition is notoriously unreliable. If you wish to ignore that on faith, then that is your right but no historical scholar would agree that oral traditions are normally even remotely accurate.
Well there were already things written down in Mohammed's(saws) time when he was alive so no there was not only memorisation. The thing you have a problem is that the book was fully compiled in a single book15/10years after Mohammed's(saws) death but forgetting the point that it was already written down in hes live-time.

We will see. For some reason I can't ever get an answer to this
Well if your patience, sincer and honest maybe you will. I don't want to have 3 to 4 topics while we are engaged in this kind of detailed subject. Nor do i want to take 1hour to explain everything.

Calling them modes or dialects does not help. The Quran is claimed to be a perfect representation of what is written on tablets in heaven. The use of different words or phrasing makes that claim false even if the phrasings mean the same things. The problem is when you claim perfection you have claimed a standard that leaves no wiggle room. The Qurans used today have differences and can't all be what is written in heaven.
Not true at all did i not ask you to read more into the 7modes?

Just a quick respond on your false statements here:
1. A dialect doesn't changes meanings or words.
2. The Quran means a recitation and all of them are accaptable by the prophet mohammed(saws) and its recorded that he was revealed the Quran in 7modes not just one.
3. So if my pronunciation is a little different from a other it means that i am changing god's word? No and even if that is case it would contradict with the notion that all 7 were revealed.

I do not claim the Bible is or was meant to be a literary masterpiece but I do not find it any less impressive than the Quran, in fact it's apocolyptic language use is the most ominous and profound language I have ever heard and itis even used in coutless secular movies and songs.
What you qouted earlier (what i didnt paste here) made no sense and wasn't even a reply on what i have said. Are you talking about the Quran or the Bible about the language used by seculars?


No. I looked for it and there is nothing about the creation of a fetus that involves clotted blood.
Well first one has to learn the definitions of alaqah it can mean:

a) “Hanging/Suspended” – corresponds to the embryo “hanging” or being “suspended via the connecting stalk.”

b) “Suckling Blood” – refers to the embryo obtaining “nutrients through contact with the maternal blood vessels.”

c) “Leech/worm like substance” – refers to the closing of the “cranial and caudal end of the neural tube, also known as neurulation” which gives the embryo an appearance of a leech/ worm.

d) “Blood-clot” – refers to “the development of the primary cardiovascular system.

It depends on which one you use i think C is used. However since we are debating the preservation lets try to keep focusing on that? Debating scienctifcal accuracy of a religious scripture is not relevant atm i think. I can name over more then 30 in the bible, as you know its widely attacked for that specific reason so lets not go there.

It simply means that something you mentioned reminded me of something I can't ever get an answer for. If I in fact post 300 or 200 or even ten off topic things then you might have a point. If I post one or two that are in my mind related to the discussion you don't.
Ok ask me again i can't visit the previous page right now. I hoped we could just focus on one subject but i will try to answer this one to.

I would get more out a very simple list of transmission that is the "official" for the Quran if you can make one. I mean simple.
You mean something like a argument? Well ok in my eyes the Quran would be fully preserved if the Companions all agreed on one single Quran and who all memorized it. The Companions are seen as trustwhorty in our eyes as i think you see the apostles of Jesus(pbuh) being reliable.
 

seeking4truth

Active Member
We live at a time when we rely on written records and do not trust human memory but for many centuries oral history was the norm. In places where writting materials were not easily available memory was the most reliable method od recording facts. This is true in many different parts of the world. The Holy Quran was compiled from the memories of many who had preserved the whole of it by heart. Written records when avsailable were only a back up.

Today there are still many many people in many different parts of the world who do know the whole of the Quran by heart. How much greater would the desire and ability be for those companions of Muhammad to record the sacred teachings they saw revealed before their own eyes. They had no doubts and saw the truth of it daily in thier lives.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
We live at a time when we rely on written records and do not trust human memory but for many centuries oral history was the norm. In places where writing materials were not easily available memory was the most reliable method of recording facts. This is true in many different parts of the world. The Holy Quran was compiled from the memories of many who had preserved the whole of it by heart. Written records when available were only a backup.
You are thinking as a person of faith, I and any other non Muslim wants written texts from that time to compare oral traditions with, without them it is a complete question mark. If I "said" I was 9 feet tall how could you know if I was lieing or not unless you could check what I said against something more reliable than my word. If ten people repeat I am 9 feet tall it will not make it any more true but it might make it more accepted. When someone from the outside looks at it he can only do so at least at first as a historical claim and then if found reliable examine it through faith. Historians almost never accept oral claims. They only accept a portion of written claims. It is more complicated than this. In one culture at one time it may have been primarily oral in another at the same time it was written. During Muhammad's time there is much to suggest that important information was normally written down. Arabia and Muhammad’s culture were a trading culture. That made written records mandatory. Even a almost a thousand years earlier the Bible was written in textual form. None of this is important. The issue that no matter what the reason oral tradition is the very worst way to transmit historical knowledge. It is the next step up from nothing and infinitely less reliable than good textual traditions. I doubt if you could find a single respected historian who would say any different. Oral tradition can't be checked against an "objective" standard, it is invariably susceptible to evolution over time and never known to be perfectly accurate in a single historical case. Not only that but in this case we have an oral tradition based on one man's opinions. That is as bad as it gets historically. The Gospels have multiple independent written testimonies written in contemporary time with the events and it is still rightfully challenged. It is infinitely worse for the Quran. Hitler said "tell" a big enough lie long enough and it will become the truth.


Today there are still many many people in many different parts of the world who do know the whole of the Quran by heart. How much greater would the desire and ability be for those companions of Muhammad to record the sacred teachings they saw revealed before their own eyes. They had no doubts and saw the truth of it daily in their lives.
Of course that is true. They are made to do it in most cases as children. As I pointed out to F0uad these techniques are exactly the same as what is used in brain washing efforts by the military. You get people at a young age and force repeated and mandatory recitation of anything and it will soon be believed in absolutely. What the actual truth is I could not say for sure it is just very suspicious looking at it from the outside. What is a fact is that even though that is a remarkable accomplishment it has nothing to do with whether what they memorize was ever true or reliable. A true religion requires no compulsion.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
R0bin he most funny part is that you do not even know that the Gospels mostly contain Oral Sayings.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
R0bin he most funny part is that you do not even know that the Gospels mostly contain Oral Sayings.
There is no oral tradition in the context we are speaking of for the gospels (the Bible does not mean recite). Here is where this ridiculous idea comes from. The same terrible German scholars that advanced your beloved q-source, and the even worse Gospel of Thomas have perpetuated this gem of a theory as well.

Rudolf Bultmann. The oral model developed by the form critics drew heavily on contemporary theory of folkloric transmission of oral material, and partly as a result of this form criticism posited that the Jesus tradition was transmitted informally, added to freely, and was uncontrolled. However, "Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying Bultmann's Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
It appears they said well we know the Jews have had oral traditions before and we for what ever reason have decided this must be the case here. If you keep reading at that site it mentions another person who supports this oral tradition idea and he arrived at it the same way. He said early rabbinic traditions were oral so these later non rabbinic traditions must be. What kind of scholarship is that? The only other one they mention is kind of funny. He actually studied illiterate middle eastern villages and their oral traditions and just decided the Bible must be the same. Again what kind of reasoning is this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
With regards to Bailey's studies, Maurice Casey writes that they cannot be applied to 1st century Jews as they were about a different culture at a different time.

That was all the info they had concerning any theory of oral tradition.

The events were recorded by eyewitnesses to Christ from memory or as the Bible says the holy spirit was sent specifically to remind them of the events they recorded. I could not ask a historian to believe that the holy spirit did this or that but as someone who believes God has revealed himself in the Bible then you should not have a problem with it. In fact the gospel writers themselves talk of writings that even predate their own books.
According to Luke "Many people have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among [them]." ,not to mention other "many accounts" that were in circulation at this time.
Luke then says: "For this reason, since I myself having carefully investigated everything from the beginning…" Since it has already been proven that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, its pretty easy to see how he could have "investigated everything from the beginning."
Luke concludes his preface by saying, "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Quite simply, this means that Luke not only was aware of the other Gospels that were in existence during the time of his writing, but that he is acknowledging that Theophilus has read those other accounts. Theophilus knows the story already. Luke was merely confirming what he already knew. My point is, authors don’t usually investigate and interview eyewitness in order to create a fictional story.
http://knowitstrue.com/did-the-apostles-make-it-all-up/
Let me compare the two.
In Islam.
1. Muhammad gets many revelations at various times. No one can verify he is getting them or what is going on. We know he exhibited very strange behavior during these but I will be generous and say it is inconclusive.
2. He demonstrates none of the proofs of divine revelations. He gives almost nothing worthy of the title prophecy. He does not fulfill any prophecy (he is not in the Bible). He does no miracles and even says he can't do any. The one exception is the Quran and it is no miracle to any outsider.
3. He then tells some people these things. Many of them are about things that happened hundreds or over a thousand years before Muhammad and disagree with the contemporary Biblical accounts. For many others he is the sole witness. In other words if he was lying or mistaken we will never know.
4. When Muhammad died in 632 CE, the Qur’an had not been recorded and collected into a book. Instead, Muslims memorized large portions of the Qur'an. This was especially true of people who knew Muhammad in person. The Qur’an means to recite. It is possible that some of the verses had been recorded on bones, rocks, or hides before Muhammad died. Regardless, it didn’t take long for the early Muslims to decide that they needed to have the Qur’an collected into a book.
The original Qur’an was completed by 634 CE. It is important to understand that a political process is what produced the Qur’an. In 633 CE, a military battle caused 700 Muslims to be killed. A close friend of Muhammad (named Salim) that could recite a large portion of the Qur’an was killed. What would happen if all the close followers of Muhammad were killed? Early Muslims wanted to maintain the purity of the Qur’an as Muhammad had spoken it.
So the original Qur’an of 634 CE was created during the political reign of Abu Bakr. This original Qur’an came to be known as the Hafsah codex (about 10 years later when Hafsah began to maintain it). However, this most important original manuscript of the Qur’an was destroyed by Muslim leaders in 667 CE. (Hafsah was one of Muhammad's wives. She maintained the original Qur'an until her death in 667 CE. Muslim leaders wanted to destroy the original Qur'an before Hafsah died. But she refused to hand over the codex for burning. "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?").
Since the original Qur’an was not accepted, what happened to cause such a drastic change that required the original Qur’an to be destroyed?
http://www.harvardhouse.com/quran_purity.htm
5. There was much argument and accusations over who believed what or what reader was rights among the army and others. so Uthman made a single version and burned the rest. There is no reason to burn anything that does not contradict. If you change nothing else there is no threat, but that isn't really the point. The points is everything looking back stops at Uthman. There exists very very little written material from this period.
6. The Quran bears word for word or virtually word for word stories from known heretical texts, gnostic texts, pre existing Arabian myths. Like the infancy gospel, or protovelum of James etc.... Encyclopedia Britannica comments: "The gospel was known to him chiefly through apocryphal and heretical sources" (15:648).
7. I can keep going about very limited copying and non independence of the early texts but this is getting too long. Continued below:


 
Top