G
Ghosty
Guest
hawk: He wasn’t implying it was a date. The “by” refers back to “prove”.
- Status
H
hawk
Guest
hawk: He wasn’t implying it was a date. The “by” refers back to “prove”.
baaaaaaaaaa…baaaaaaaaaaa
I am a little sheepish.
H
hawk
Guest
Reuben J:
It does not talk about Jews and Christians falsifying their own scripture, but actually falsifying their own understanding of the Quran.
I think its apparent once you have read it, that the verse 2:79 does not refer to Jews and Christians falsifying their scripture.
This seems to imply Biblical corruption until we look at its original context:
Code:
"Can you (O men of faith) still earnestly desire that they (the Jews) will believe in you? And verily a party (fariq) among them hear the Word of God, then they pervert it knowingly after they have understood it. And when they meet the believers they say, ‘We believe,’ but when they meet each other in private they say, ‘Why do you tell them what God has revealed to you (in the Torah), that they may engage you in argument about it before their God? What do you not understand?’ Do they not know that God knows what they conceal and what they make public? Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. THEY BUT GUESS." S. 2:75-78I think its apparent once you have read it, that the verse 2:79 does not refer to Jews and Christians falsifying their scripture.
E
Emad
Guest
Rueben Blue
Emad black
The best person to explain the Quran are the scholars of the Quran. Here is the explanation of Ibn Kathir, one of the most famous scholars of the past who explained the Quran.
Here is what he said: "This is another category of people among the Jews who called to misguidance with falsehood and lies about Allah, thriving on unjustly amassing people’s property.
You also presented a list of verses to back the proposition of the Bible being corrupted. Thanks for them. Again from a Christian perspective, these verses quoted are not conclusive at all to say that the Bible is actually corrupted. For me to concede that the Bible is really corrupted, you got to be more specific than that.
I am not asking you to believe that the Bible is corrupted. I am asking you to accept the fact that Muslims believe it is corrupted.
But there are verses also that ask to refer to the people of the Book or that they are judged by the standard of their Book implying the Book to be believed. As I mentioned earlier on, look like I’m treading on unknown territory and it’s not my intention to argue with you on the Quran.
The Quran is telling the people of the book that if they studied and followed their books correctly they would find that it calls them to believe in the Quran. For example "029.047
And thus (it is) that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these (pagan Arabs): and none but Unbelievers reject our signs. " This verse doesn’t mean that all of the people of the book will believe in the Quran, but it means, those knowledgable rabbis and scholars among them who learned it and recited it properly, such as `Abdullah bin Salam, Salman Al-Farisi and others like them.
Your article also named a number of scholars and said that they claimed that the Bible was not corrupt. I would still like to see their exact quotes.
When one reads the Quran he can’t take a verse or two and thats it. He must look at all of the verses that speak about a certain issue, and how the Prophet peace be upon him and his companions understood it. The way they understood it is the correct way and meaning of it.
I am also here with the same intention as yourself, not to convert anyone but to defend my faith and the truth as I see it.
Emad black
The best person to explain the Quran are the scholars of the Quran. Here is the explanation of Ibn Kathir, one of the most famous scholars of the past who explained the Quran.
Here is what he said: "This is another category of people among the Jews who called to misguidance with falsehood and lies about Allah, thriving on unjustly amassing people’s property.
Waylun (woe)' carries meanings of destruction and perishing, and it is a well-known word in the Arabic language. Az-Zuhri said that Ubadydullah bin Abdullah narrated that Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur’an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,’ so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn’t the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.’’ This Hadith was also collected by Al-Bukhari. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "The little amount here means this life and all that it contains.’’You also presented a list of verses to back the proposition of the Bible being corrupted. Thanks for them. Again from a Christian perspective, these verses quoted are not conclusive at all to say that the Bible is actually corrupted. For me to concede that the Bible is really corrupted, you got to be more specific than that.
I am not asking you to believe that the Bible is corrupted. I am asking you to accept the fact that Muslims believe it is corrupted.
But there are verses also that ask to refer to the people of the Book or that they are judged by the standard of their Book implying the Book to be believed. As I mentioned earlier on, look like I’m treading on unknown territory and it’s not my intention to argue with you on the Quran.
The Quran is telling the people of the book that if they studied and followed their books correctly they would find that it calls them to believe in the Quran. For example "029.047
And thus (it is) that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these (pagan Arabs): and none but Unbelievers reject our signs. " This verse doesn’t mean that all of the people of the book will believe in the Quran, but it means, those knowledgable rabbis and scholars among them who learned it and recited it properly, such as `Abdullah bin Salam, Salman Al-Farisi and others like them.
Your article also named a number of scholars and said that they claimed that the Bible was not corrupt. I would still like to see their exact quotes.
When one reads the Quran he can’t take a verse or two and thats it. He must look at all of the verses that speak about a certain issue, and how the Prophet peace be upon him and his companions understood it. The way they understood it is the correct way and meaning of it.
I am also here with the same intention as yourself, not to convert anyone but to defend my faith and the truth as I see it.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
hawk said:
Thanks Hawk.
He he
I know it refers to the verse, the wording which I ‘bold’ in quoting him. Only the verse reffered (002:079) does not say anything about the present Bible being corrupted. I decline to give him my own understanding of it because of lack of knowledge and because I thought if I differ it might offend him. The Muslims tend to be quite sensitive on the interpretation of the Quran by non-Muslims. But if I have to, in order to defend the argument which I stood by that the Quran never says anything about our Bible being corrupted, I will give my two cents with regards to my undertsanding of that verse.You have replied to that nicely though.
God bless you.
Reuben
.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
My whole argument is that the Quran does not says that the Bible is corrupted. Even for the interpretations that you show me, there is none that say categorically that the Bible is corrupted.
Of course, Emad, I accepted that many Muslims believe that the Bible is corrputed. That’s why it is debated here in this forum with Muslims like you.
As for the Muslim scholars who believe otherwise, I can’t give to you the exact sayings now. I need to go to the library to do that.I had given you their names though. However, this is secondary as far as the subject that the Bible is corrupted is concerned. If you back it with the Quran, it needs to explicitly say so.
So far you’re asking me to believe your view and the scholars’ who suscribe to this teaching, by telling me to look at the Quran as a whole. This has become even more subjective.
As for people believing in the Quran after studying it properly, it is just that. That applies to the Bible too. I know a few Muslims students personally who become Christians after reading the Bible and attending Christian prayer meetings.
I appreciate your response.
BTW hope your headache getting better. You are not obligated to response to all my posts, but if you want to, you can still take your time.
Peace.
God bless you.
Reuben
E
Emad
Guest
In The Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
Rueben Blue
Emad black
Hello Rueben.
My whole argument is that the Quran does not says that the Bible is corrupted. Even for the interpretations that you show me, there is none that say categorically that the Bible is corrupted.
Here are a couple of more verses. I hope these make it clearer:
005.013
But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.
005.015
O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, -
This link should answer your questions, please search it some more it has many more articles about the Bible:
islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=2776
islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=90176
Rueben Blue
Emad black
Hello Rueben.
My whole argument is that the Quran does not says that the Bible is corrupted. Even for the interpretations that you show me, there is none that say categorically that the Bible is corrupted.
Here are a couple of more verses. I hope these make it clearer:
005.013
But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.
005.015
O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, -
This link should answer your questions, please search it some more it has many more articles about the Bible:
islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=2776
islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=90176
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Reuben J:
As for Christians who will believe in the Quran after studying the Bible properly, I really don’t know what to say, Emad.
What I can tell you, I been seriously trying to live the teaching of the Gospel for the last 14 years, and it seems to indicate just the opposite!
Correction to the above as that does not respond to you post.
As for Christians who will believe in the Quran after studying the Bible properly, I really don’t know what to say, Emad.
What I can tell you, I been seriously trying to live the teaching of the Gospel for the last 14 years, and it seems to indicate just the opposite!
E
Emad
Guest
Reuben J:
I am sorry but what does this have to do with the topic at hand? I may be missing something, if so please point it out to me.Correction to the above as that does not respond to you post.
As for Christians who will believe in the Quran after studying the Bible properly, I really don’t know what to say, Emad.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thanks for showing the above verses. Yes these verses make it clearer that there were people of the book who had altered the books for their own deceitful purpose. But notice there were still few good ones (**barring few ** 005:013).
**(Indeed Allah took the covenant from the Children of Israel and We appointed twelve leaders among them.) These twelve people were leaders who gave the pledge to Allah to listen and obey Allah, His Messenger and His Book on behalf of their tribes.
Muhammad bin Ishaq and Ibn `Abbas said that this occurred when Musa went to fight the mighty enemy (in Palestine), and Allah commanded him to choose a leader from every tribe.
(So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them…) Allah states, because of their breaking the promise that We took from them, We cursed them, deviated them away from the truth, and expelled them from guidance,
وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبَهُمْ قَاسِيَةً]
(and made their hearts grow hard…) and they do not heed any word of advice that they hear, because of the hardness of their hearts.
يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ]
(They change the words from their (right) places…) Since their comprehension became corrupt, they behaved treacherously with Allah’s Ayat, altering His Book from its apparent meanings which He sent down, and distorting its indications. They attributed to Allah what He did not say, and we seek refuge with Allah from such behavior. **
But there were few good ones as explained by Ibn Khatir for verse 005:019 ‘Evil had filled the earth by then, and tyranny and ignorance had touched all the servants, except a few of those who remained loyal to the true teachings of previous Prophets, such as some Jewish rabbis, Christian priests and Sabian monks’.
These people certainly keep books as they were fierce keepers of the Holy Scriptures. And certainly archeological evidence attests to this. Modern day Quram findings perhaps give us some ideas of how meticulously they preserved scriptural manuscripts.
Now what about the present Bible? Are they the remnant of the mentioned corrupted texts or the ones preserved by the rabbis, priests and monks mentioned? Which one is it?
I still find it is not conclusive that the Quran endorses the Bible is corrupted.
The disobedient Jews and Christians the Quran mentions in Surah 5 might have parallels in the Old Testament Bible where the Israelites Kings and followers turned against God, and later during Christianity era, the heretics. But out of this darkness, God continued to send His prophets to bring His word and truth. Yes, some of them they ostracized and even killed for speaking against their evil ways. But their works remained.
But the Quran is explicit in saying that God’s Word is to be protected and preserved. Are you saying to me, that no preserved book is available today?
I think this is where lies our difference. I believe the true Scripture have been preserved until today together with the adulterated ones – for the darnel must grow together with the wheat and the separation to be done at harvest time.
Peace.
Reuben.
1 of 2
R
r.gonzales
Guest
Reuben J:
from my earlier post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=795444&postcount=39
r.gonzales:
and i’m sure that if you check the explanations of the rest of the verses i quoted, you’ll find the same.
rueben,
from my earlier post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=795444&postcount=39
here are the explanations of verses 6:34 in arabic, if you’re able to read it:
and i’m sure that if you check the explanations of the rest of the verses i quoted, you’ll find the same.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I went through the sites you gave me. They were quite long and I took time to study them – the commentaries by Shahul Hameed and Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi.
Here I am humbled to dissent against the two Islamic scholars. From a Christian perspective I am more readily to agree with Dr. Siddiqi, but I find his understanding of the Bible is flawed.
Quote “Your missionary visitor told you that the Bible has not changed. You ask him, which Bible is not changed? Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, Latin Bible, English Bible, Jewish Bible, Catholics’ Bible, Protestants’ Bible, Eastern Orthodox Church’s Bible, which Bible is he talking about? All these Bibles individually and collectively have been changed and some are still being changed.”
He seems to imply somehow the Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, etc, are different bibles, which is not true. They are just translations in the vernacular languages and scholars can always refer to the original language which is Hebrew and Greek for clarification. The actual words and phrases in the translations, yes, they do differ, but they can’t escape the authenticity of the originals.
The statement **“and some (bibles) are still being changed” ** is utter nonsense. He is right though, if he means the bibles of the cults and the sects, which are outside Christianity.
As for Mr. Shahul Hameed, I must exercise utmost precaution in listening to his explanation. What he says seem to be mainly for Muslims’ consumption with slant towards maligning the Christian Bible.
I don’t know whether it’s intentional or ignorance, but his knowledge of the Bible and Jesus is totally wrong. Any Christian would pick the errors easily.
Quote **“The “original” extant copies of the gospels are in Greek, a western language. Now there are four gospels, supposed to have been written by four of the disciples of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Was Jesus quoting, from these Greek books, written many years after his disappearance when he was addressing his people? Certainly not! He was quoting from the Book he received from God, which was the original Bible in the language of his own people. The argument that God revealed his Bible to Jesus in Greek is like saying that God revealed the Qur’an to Muhammad in English!
These four books called the Gospels are placed at the beginning of some 27 books, bound together into one volume, called The New Testament. Out of these 27 books, thirteen were written by a man called St. Paul. This Paul was not a disciple of Jesus, nor has Jesus met him, as he himself testifies. Modern Christians are ardent followers of St. Paul, even in cases where Paul clearly contradicts Jesus!
The Islamic request to Christians is just this: Please follow Jesus, don’t follow Paul, who preaches a different gospel!”**
For one, Jesus never had a Book or written a Book, or given a Book. (This is one of the reasons why Christians find problem with the Quran for espousing the above). The quotations he quoted were from the Jewish Scripture, and that Scripture at least has been preserved since his days till today.
Inadvertently if the Quran accepts Jesus quotations of the Jewish Scripture as genuine, then it’s evident enough that the Bible is uncorrupted till today.
The fact that the Gospel is written in Greek does not in anyway change its message but Muslims make a great deal out of this. Greek is used being the lingua franca at that time.
The exhortation to the Christians **“: Please follow Jesus, don’t follow Paul, who preaches a different gospel!” ** is laughable.
Even disregarding the spiritual side of Paul (whom the Muslims make a hated detractor), he was with the original apostles. Paul, BTW, was called by the risen Jesus on his way to Damascus while being a terrible persecutor of the followers of Jesus. In that miracle, he was blinded and then healed.Christians would object vehemently to be called follower of Paul.
There is no near equivalent of the New Testament in the Quran. But you will get some ideas if I ask Muslims to believe the Quran but ignore the Hadith.
For this matter, it destroys his (Mr. Shahul Hameed) credibility in addressing the alleged corruption of the Bible.
I can understand if Muslims believe that the Bible is corrupted by listening to explanation like this. But I’m sure the Christians will not be swayed.
Peace.
Reuben.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thanks r.gonzales,
I’ll go through them again, but I’m rather slow in this.
Peace.
Reuben.
E
Emad
Guest
Rueben let me make this clear: I am not trying to prove the Bible is flawed. I am trying to prove that Muslims believe the Bible is not the book that we believe Jesus peace be upon him had.
You said “For one, Jesus never had a Book or written a Book, or given a Book.”
We believe he did have a book. However I think we both agree that regardless if he had one or not, the Bible that exists today is defenitely not from his time. Therefore we reject it. I am not here to defend what anyone claims that the Bible is false. All I am trying to prove is that we believe that it is false, I am sure a Muslim who is more knowledgable in the Bible than me can argue about this, but I know my limits. The verses I quoted from the Quran and the explanation of Ibn Kathir should suffice to prove that we believe the original book Jesus peace be upon him had is not in existence today.
You said “For one, Jesus never had a Book or written a Book, or given a Book.”
We believe he did have a book. However I think we both agree that regardless if he had one or not, the Bible that exists today is defenitely not from his time. Therefore we reject it. I am not here to defend what anyone claims that the Bible is false. All I am trying to prove is that we believe that it is false, I am sure a Muslim who is more knowledgable in the Bible than me can argue about this, but I know my limits. The verses I quoted from the Quran and the explanation of Ibn Kathir should suffice to prove that we believe the original book Jesus peace be upon him had is not in existence today.
H
hawk
Guest
Actually the manuscripts that exist of the gospels can be dated to 15-20 years after the death of christ.
It is the Quran that does not have manuscripts, which is natural since
After Zayd ibn Thabit had prepared the entire Qur’an and bound it in the form of a book, all other materials collected from different companions, for the purpose of checking and rechecking, were all burnt. Now this volume was handed over to the caliph. After Abu Bakr’s death it remained with Umar, the second caliph. After the death of Caliph Umar it remained in the custody of Hafsa, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet.
Can even one muslim explain to me, why go through the extraordinary procedure of burning every copy, of an essentially identical book.
Where is the logic in this, unless they were trying to hide something.
Dont beleive muslims that say the Quran is unchanged.
The truth is we cannot know, since the Caliph had absolute power, to contest his absolute power meant death.
If anyone raised objections to the burning of the Quran, they would be put to death.
And finally the Quran also says that no person should revolt against a muslim government.
All this means that we cannot know the authenticity of this Quran.
I agree with this statement, unfortunately we cannot believe the Quran, since it could be a fabrication of Caliph Um’r.
E
Emad
Guest
In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
hawk blue
Emad black
Can even one muslim explain to me, why go through the extraordinary procedure of burning every copy, of an essentially identical book.
Where is the logic in this, unless they were trying to hide something.
Dont beleive muslims that say the Quran is unchanged.
I will be more than happy to explain this to you. The Quran was revealed in 7 dialects and all of them are authentic and correct. The Prophet peace be upon him aproved them all. However when it came to writing The Prophet peace be upon him or Abu Bakr (I can’t remember which one now off the top of my head) said that if you have difference of opinion in writing, then write it in the dialect of Quraish because that is the original language it was revealed in. During the time of Uthman the companions were spreading all over the world and many non-Arab Muslims were entering Islam. Therefore they all companions got together agreed to have the Quran written in the dialect of Quraish in order to make things easier on the people and avoid confusion. Then they destroyed all the other Qurans that were written in diferent dialects.
Keep in mind that these dialects are still alive today and recited in many parts of the different world, however most Muslims recite the Quran in the dialect of Quraish.
The truth is we cannot know,
You ask a question than you answer it yourself according to your whims and desires.
since the Caliph had absolute power, to contest his absolute power meant death.
If anyone raised objections to the burning of the Quran, they would be put to death.
And finally the Quran also says that no person should revolt against a muslim government.
Do you have evidence for this? In fact there are numerous incidents when the Khalif was corrected by the weakest of people in the society. Here are 2 examples for now:
hawk blue
Emad black
Can even one muslim explain to me, why go through the extraordinary procedure of burning every copy, of an essentially identical book.
Where is the logic in this, unless they were trying to hide something.
Dont beleive muslims that say the Quran is unchanged.
I will be more than happy to explain this to you. The Quran was revealed in 7 dialects and all of them are authentic and correct. The Prophet peace be upon him aproved them all. However when it came to writing The Prophet peace be upon him or Abu Bakr (I can’t remember which one now off the top of my head) said that if you have difference of opinion in writing, then write it in the dialect of Quraish because that is the original language it was revealed in. During the time of Uthman the companions were spreading all over the world and many non-Arab Muslims were entering Islam. Therefore they all companions got together agreed to have the Quran written in the dialect of Quraish in order to make things easier on the people and avoid confusion. Then they destroyed all the other Qurans that were written in diferent dialects.
Keep in mind that these dialects are still alive today and recited in many parts of the different world, however most Muslims recite the Quran in the dialect of Quraish.
The truth is we cannot know,
You ask a question than you answer it yourself according to your whims and desires.
since the Caliph had absolute power, to contest his absolute power meant death.
If anyone raised objections to the burning of the Quran, they would be put to death.
And finally the Quran also says that no person should revolt against a muslim government.
Do you have evidence for this? In fact there are numerous incidents when the Khalif was corrected by the weakest of people in the society. Here are 2 examples for now:
- As soon as Abu Bakr (the 1st Khalifa) was elected as Khalifa he gave a speech and said “Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His messenger”
- Umar the second Khalifa was giving a speech one day and he said to the people “I urge you if you see any qrong in me please correct it” one man stood up and said “Don’t worry if we see any crookedness in you we will correct it with our swords”
H
hawk
Guest
I am glad you clarified, that all the variant intonations are still known.
So we know that the burning of the Qurans had absolutely nothing to do with variant dialects and intonations, since some are still used.
I urge you to show me some proof that tell us that it was only variant dialects.
Hadrat Ali, the only true caliph, talks about entire chapters missing.
I have recited the Quran, and have heard chinese recitations.
Dont try to fool me with this nonsense about dialects, you can fool the american converts to islam. I am not one of them, but one of you.
Shall we discuss the saqeefa?
I was never shia.
Oh yes, I dont deny that, except that there at the time of the prophet this mass memorization wasnt present.
Remember that when Zayid bin Thabit was given the task of compilation, he had to snatch the verses from the breasts of many men. We do not know what this means, except that there werent thousands of people with the Quran totally memorised.
You mean to say the sahabas themselves did not have the Quran memorised that they had to consult other people?
What about all the
Riqa‘a—Thin leather piece
Likhaf—Thin slates of white stone
Katf—The round bone of the shoulder of the camel
'Asib—The wide part of the root of the date branch.
Used to write the Quran, where are they?
And why burn the Quran? Even if there were variant dialects surely people can understand and through consensus use a dialect of their choosing.
What happened to the partner that destroyed the Arthur Andersen files?
Its called destroying evidence.
I am sorry I cannot trust someone who has to burn all the proof.
Nor was there people , even among the sahaba who had the entire Quran memorised.
This only happened after Zayed had compiled the entire Quran.
I am afraid the entire episode remains suspicious.
E
Emad
Guest
In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
hawk blue
Emad balck
Hadrat Ali, the only true caliph, talks about entire chapters missing.
Please show me this saying with the chain of narration and tell me in which book it is compiled in.
I have recited the Quran, and have heard chinese recitations.
Dont try to fool me with this nonsense about dialects, you can fool the american converts to islam. I am not one of them, but one of you.
There is no such thing as Chinese recitations and you are more than welcome to be one of us, our doors are always open.
Shall we discuss the saqeefa?
I was never shia.
No, show me a verse or hadith that say that the Khalifa is to obeyed when he goes against the teachings of Islam.
Remember that when Zayid bin Thabit was given the task of compilation, he had to snatch the verses from the breasts of many men. We do not know what this means, except that there werent thousands of people with the Quran totally memorised.
You mean to say the sahabas themselves did not have the Quran memorised that they had to consult other people?
What about all the
Riqa‘a—Thin leather piece
Likhaf—Thin slates of white stone
Katf—The round bone of the shoulder of the camel
'Asib—The wide part of the root of the date branch.
Used to write the Quran, where are they?
There weren’t thousands of companions who had it memorised, but there were hundreds. The Quran was also written on objects such as those you mentioned above and they used them to compare them with the peoples memories.
Reasons for burning:
The Christian missionaries have been openly making the allegation that Uthman (ra) ordered all copies of the Qur’an to be burnt because of the varying content. This is not true. We quote Dr. Ahmad Shafaat on this issue:
Now suppose that there were at any time any variations in the Qur’an other than those caused by scribal errors or failure of memory or due to some minor differences in script. That is, suppose that some individuals or groups deliberately held onto a text of the Qur’an that they knew was different from the one followed by others and that was closer to the original text than the one we possess. How could it then happen that from century to century and from country to country we find the same text of the Qur’an? It is said that 'Uthman, the third leader succeeding the Prophet, ordered people to burn all the texts of the Qur’an which were different from a certain text. But is it conceivable that people will submit to this order even if they thought 'Uthman’s text was not the authentic text? Westerners may have the tendency to think that Muslim rulers must have always been tyrant dictators who could force the people to do anything. This is certainly not true of the early leaders of Muslims. But even if we assume that people lived in terror of their leaders, it was logistically impossible for 'Uthman to control every home. People could easily hide their various copies of the Qur’an and secretly pass them on to their descendants and through them on to us. It is self-evident and is also required by the teachings of the Qur’an that every Muslim should do his utmost to prevent the alteration or suppression of the word of God. For in passages where there are no variations alleged the Qur’an had condemned earlier nations for altering or fabricating the “divine” scripture. Thus in one such passage we read:
And woe unto those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say, “This is from God,” that they may in this way obtain a small gain. Woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto them for what they gain thereby! (2:79).
continued…
hawk blue
Emad balck
Hadrat Ali, the only true caliph, talks about entire chapters missing.
Please show me this saying with the chain of narration and tell me in which book it is compiled in.
I have recited the Quran, and have heard chinese recitations.
Dont try to fool me with this nonsense about dialects, you can fool the american converts to islam. I am not one of them, but one of you.
There is no such thing as Chinese recitations and you are more than welcome to be one of us, our doors are always open.
Shall we discuss the saqeefa?
I was never shia.
No, show me a verse or hadith that say that the Khalifa is to obeyed when he goes against the teachings of Islam.
Remember that when Zayid bin Thabit was given the task of compilation, he had to snatch the verses from the breasts of many men. We do not know what this means, except that there werent thousands of people with the Quran totally memorised.
You mean to say the sahabas themselves did not have the Quran memorised that they had to consult other people?
What about all the
Riqa‘a—Thin leather piece
Likhaf—Thin slates of white stone
Katf—The round bone of the shoulder of the camel
'Asib—The wide part of the root of the date branch.
Used to write the Quran, where are they?
There weren’t thousands of companions who had it memorised, but there were hundreds. The Quran was also written on objects such as those you mentioned above and they used them to compare them with the peoples memories.
Reasons for burning:
The Christian missionaries have been openly making the allegation that Uthman (ra) ordered all copies of the Qur’an to be burnt because of the varying content. This is not true. We quote Dr. Ahmad Shafaat on this issue:
Now suppose that there were at any time any variations in the Qur’an other than those caused by scribal errors or failure of memory or due to some minor differences in script. That is, suppose that some individuals or groups deliberately held onto a text of the Qur’an that they knew was different from the one followed by others and that was closer to the original text than the one we possess. How could it then happen that from century to century and from country to country we find the same text of the Qur’an? It is said that 'Uthman, the third leader succeeding the Prophet, ordered people to burn all the texts of the Qur’an which were different from a certain text. But is it conceivable that people will submit to this order even if they thought 'Uthman’s text was not the authentic text? Westerners may have the tendency to think that Muslim rulers must have always been tyrant dictators who could force the people to do anything. This is certainly not true of the early leaders of Muslims. But even if we assume that people lived in terror of their leaders, it was logistically impossible for 'Uthman to control every home. People could easily hide their various copies of the Qur’an and secretly pass them on to their descendants and through them on to us. It is self-evident and is also required by the teachings of the Qur’an that every Muslim should do his utmost to prevent the alteration or suppression of the word of God. For in passages where there are no variations alleged the Qur’an had condemned earlier nations for altering or fabricating the “divine” scripture. Thus in one such passage we read:
And woe unto those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say, “This is from God,” that they may in this way obtain a small gain. Woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto them for what they gain thereby! (2:79).
continued…
E
Emad
Guest
In the following passage condemns even hiding any part of the revelation, much less altering it:
[God says:] Those who hide what We have revealed of the clear matters and of the guidance, after We have made it clear for the people, are accursed of God and accursed of those who (are entitled to) curse - except such of them as repent and amend and make manifest the truth. These it is to whom I turn in forgiveness. And I am the forgiving, the merciful (2:159-160).
Many early Muslims are expected to live up to the obligation implied in these verses even if it meant loosing their lives. For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by 'Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims. But we hear of no such resistance.
And what about the text that 'Uthman promulgated? How did he arrive at that text? On the basis of what text did the first two leaders, Abu Bakr and 'Umar governed the Muslim lands before him ? What text people had been using in their daily prayers in Medina, the city of the Prophet, which consisted almost entirely of Muslims, most having seen and heard the Prophet? What text was used throughout the land during sermons before the Friday congregational prayers? How could 'Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor? It is also important to keep in mind that the vast Muslim world was not homogeneous. There was as much diversity of opinion as one expects from any group of people. There were even conflicts, some of them armed. 'Uthman himself had opposition from some groups, one of which actually martyred him. Had the text he promulgated been less than 100% reliable his opponents would have made it an issue and accused him of changing the word of God. But the fact is that these opponents accused him of many things but we do not have any tradition, certainly not an early reliable one, in which they accuse him of changing the word of God.
It is indeed possible that 'Uthman did promulgate one particular text and ordered others to be burnt. For differences in script and copying errors during a period of fast conversion might have resulted in many manuscripts with errors. If these manuscripts were then used to make further copies, the errors would have multiplied. The best solution was that certain authenticated copies be sent to various centers of the Muslim world and all others destroyed. The very fact that the text whose copies were sent by 'Uthman was accepted throughout the Muslim world, by both his friends and foes, and the fact that no other text has ever been put forward as an alternative to the existing text proves that the text sent by 'Uthman was the authentic one.
In addition to the multiplying number of copying errors, there was probably another reason for promulgating a standard text. Earlier we noticed two peculiarities of the Arabic language: differences in script and absence of the vowel. These also could have resulted in confusion. Steps taken by 'Uthman effectively solved the problem caused by the first peculiarity: the differences in script. His solution to the second peculiarity – the absence of vowels – was to send a Qari along with the copy of the Qur’an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet. This was clearly not a satisfactory solution. Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters that were in some words looked the same. (Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, 2000, “Journal of the Muslim Research Institute”, Canada)
[God says:] Those who hide what We have revealed of the clear matters and of the guidance, after We have made it clear for the people, are accursed of God and accursed of those who (are entitled to) curse - except such of them as repent and amend and make manifest the truth. These it is to whom I turn in forgiveness. And I am the forgiving, the merciful (2:159-160).
Many early Muslims are expected to live up to the obligation implied in these verses even if it meant loosing their lives. For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by 'Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims. But we hear of no such resistance.
And what about the text that 'Uthman promulgated? How did he arrive at that text? On the basis of what text did the first two leaders, Abu Bakr and 'Umar governed the Muslim lands before him ? What text people had been using in their daily prayers in Medina, the city of the Prophet, which consisted almost entirely of Muslims, most having seen and heard the Prophet? What text was used throughout the land during sermons before the Friday congregational prayers? How could 'Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor? It is also important to keep in mind that the vast Muslim world was not homogeneous. There was as much diversity of opinion as one expects from any group of people. There were even conflicts, some of them armed. 'Uthman himself had opposition from some groups, one of which actually martyred him. Had the text he promulgated been less than 100% reliable his opponents would have made it an issue and accused him of changing the word of God. But the fact is that these opponents accused him of many things but we do not have any tradition, certainly not an early reliable one, in which they accuse him of changing the word of God.
It is indeed possible that 'Uthman did promulgate one particular text and ordered others to be burnt. For differences in script and copying errors during a period of fast conversion might have resulted in many manuscripts with errors. If these manuscripts were then used to make further copies, the errors would have multiplied. The best solution was that certain authenticated copies be sent to various centers of the Muslim world and all others destroyed. The very fact that the text whose copies were sent by 'Uthman was accepted throughout the Muslim world, by both his friends and foes, and the fact that no other text has ever been put forward as an alternative to the existing text proves that the text sent by 'Uthman was the authentic one.
In addition to the multiplying number of copying errors, there was probably another reason for promulgating a standard text. Earlier we noticed two peculiarities of the Arabic language: differences in script and absence of the vowel. These also could have resulted in confusion. Steps taken by 'Uthman effectively solved the problem caused by the first peculiarity: the differences in script. His solution to the second peculiarity – the absence of vowels – was to send a Qari along with the copy of the Qur’an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet. This was clearly not a satisfactory solution. Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters that were in some words looked the same. (Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, 2000, “Journal of the Muslim Research Institute”, Canada)
H
hawk
Guest
Thank you for the long and not very informative post.
I know different, the bottom line is…
A’isha adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,
’Ibn Umar al–Khattab explicitly admits,
The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says,
I think muslims in the world today are willing to say all the sahabas are liars, since all their narrations are fabrications.
But most interesting, and this is what tells you most about the compilation of your beloved Quran.
“The Itqan” by Suyuti (part 1, page 168),
“During the collection of the Qur’an, people used to come to Zayd Ibn Thabit (with the verses they memorized). He shunned recording any verse unless two witnesses attested to it. The last verse of chapter of Repentance was found only with Khuzayma Ibn Thabit. Zayd said, ‘Record it because the apostle of God made the testimony of Khuzayma equal to the testimony of two men.’ ’Umar came with the verse of the stoning but it was not recorded because he was the only witness to it.”
I know different, the bottom line is…
A’isha adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,
Code:
"During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).
Code:
"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available"’ (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72).
Code:
"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’But most interesting, and this is what tells you most about the compilation of your beloved Quran.
“The Itqan” by Suyuti (part 1, page 168),
“During the collection of the Qur’an, people used to come to Zayd Ibn Thabit (with the verses they memorized). He shunned recording any verse unless two witnesses attested to it. The last verse of chapter of Repentance was found only with Khuzayma Ibn Thabit. Zayd said, ‘Record it because the apostle of God made the testimony of Khuzayma equal to the testimony of two men.’ ’Umar came with the verse of the stoning but it was not recorded because he was the only witness to it.”
- Status