Yeah, ya got me…I have no idea where Muslims like Zaki get this stuff from.
.
Yeah. Maybe there is no valid response to that point.
When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect. The Quraishi dialect is the most proper Arabic dialect that properly uses the Arabic words without altering their sound.
After the death of our beloved Prophet, Islam started to expand in the Middle East region. Not only the People of the entire region didn’t have the same dialect, but also they had different languages. The languages that were spoken in the region at that time were Arabic (with its 7 dialects), Persian, Assyrian, Hebrew and some Greek. All of these languages are quite different from each others. You would need a translator to translate almost 100% of the conversation if you were to pick two languages and have two people converse with them, each person with one language.
If the Noble Quran is recited in a different dialect than the Quraishi one, and if one tries to write down what he is reciting, he could and would end up with different words in spelling and in some cases in meaning as well than the original copy of the Noble Quran.
Then you agree that Uthman was chasing down corrupt copies of the Koran, which means you agree the Koran did get corrupted. It’s simply a matter of whether the “correct” one was kept.
just a question nine_two,
you still don’t understand
I’m not trying to convince you, but that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. You say he destroyed versions of the koran because they said different things, that would be what “corrupt” means. Additionally you’re completely ignoring Byzantine_Wolf’s point that your prophet ordered the Koran to be made in several dialects.
Picked the one he was most familiar with I would assume.
You really don’t want my answer to this, and I’m not going to clean it up to the point that I’m not going to have to go to confession for saying it.
If we go by what you said, the version of the Koran available in their local dialect. I don’t see how this is relevant. It neither proves the corruption or incorruption of the book.
I didn’t say he changed the text. He destroyed differing copies. I thought we already had common agreement on that. The argument is over why.
Answered by my response to your last question.
Again, I never said he changed anything himself. He just destroyed copies that differed from what he deemed to be the “official” version. Two different concepts.
Irrelevent.
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that he systematically destroyed all differing (or ‘corrupt’) versions of the Koran? You can’t have it both ways.
Even if that was at issue it is completely irrelevant.
Fix the grammar and spelling in that statement and I might deign to answer you.
All that I understand. This still doesn’t answer a few questions regarding the Koran’s textual history:
You are wrong in saying “no evidence” and right in saying “almost every companion,” because men like Abdullah ibn Masud, whom I quoted earlier as one of the most trusted by Mohammad to memorize and recite the Koran, did not approve of it (and was supposedly executed for it).
Islam spread to many areas. The Muslims who were not Arabs, couldn’t read the Qur’an as it should have been read. They changed the meanings of the verses, and many variant readings sprung out, because the people were ignorant of Arabic. Old Arabic was written as lines, and now one can distinguish such and such alphabets easily by marks. But this was not the case in older times. That’s why, the Caliph Uthman immediately told a committee of scribes to write the Qur’an in the dialect of the Quraysh, because that was how the Qur’an was revealed. When the scribes had prepared many copies from the one which Abu Bakr (ra) had compiled, each copy was sent to each city under Muslim rule. Other copies which were not from Uthman were burned. Then, from the standard copies, more copies were made and this time there were also teachers of the people to teach them how to recite the Qur’an.
i really hope if someone can help you and make you understand
i can’t understand the problem with that , and what do you mean by normal arabic , what “normal arabic” supposed to mean or proof ?
no , there is no differes in grammatical , it’s just in the sound of dialect
actually i approve that arabic language as a science of writing was in development , what is the problem with that ?
i can be certain that the copy brinted by othman was the correct one for many reasons :
what ? abduallah ibn thabit executed ? ( can i have some details plze )
Abdullah Ibn Mas`ud was a very close companion of the Prophet (pbuh). When Uthman (ra) ordered all personal and other codices to be destroyed other than the standard, Ibn Mas’ud (ra) refused to hand over his copy.
There were many textual variances of the Qur’an, or variant readings. These variant readings didn’t concern the content of Surahs and the Qur’an, but they were differences in spellings, nouns, etc.
I was making reference to a post Zaki made earlier.
Variants in spelling and phrases. These are still variants found in the recitation and passing down of the Koran. I’ll get to that at the end of my post.
I hope this is written in jest. I offered them in my post on the first page, and made reference to them a few posts ago. Don’t start going planten on me, elwill, and pretending you don’t notice my arguments or my references to them.
I have no idea what this means. I made reference to variants that existed among the companions of the prophet. You’re talking about the arabic language. I do not see the connection.
I’m sure it did. Nevertheless, there still existed variants, which I showed before, especially among men who were the most trusted to memorize the Koran. Some of these variants never entered Uthman’s Koran.
That depends on what you define as “corrupted.” Again, I’ll get to that at the end of my post.
That is circular reasoning. Unless the companions were Christ, they were still flawed men.
According to Shia sources, yes. The Sunni say he handed his copies over willingly - the Shia say he was beaten to death.
Is that part (which I put in bold) a quote? If so, please cite it.
I am not necessarily making the allegation that Uthman purposefully changed anything. What I am pointing out is that what Uthman gave us was nothing more than one textual tradition of the Koran, when others existed. I also put forward that there existed outside of what Uthman collected textual traditions, some of which still exist to this day and are evident in certain recitation traditions. Either the Koran Uthman canonized was not exactly the Koran that Mohammad gave, or bin Ka’b and bin Masud were all heretics who added things to the Koran.
Thank you for admitting this!! You have now, by Muslim standards, admitted that there were corruptions within the Koran. Why do I argue this? Because Muslims allege this very same thing against the Bible. They allege that because of textual variants the Bible was corrupted. This is the standard Muslims present. Even when Christians present that the variants are often “differences in spellings, nouns, etc.,” Muslims still allege that they are signs of corruption, and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted. And yet now that we’ve come to the Koran, with full admittance that there are similar variants, we are supposed to just shrug them off. This is inconsistency in its purest form.
Though sounds ridiculous, it’s seemed that this had been the common practice of muslims. So ironic…seems islam has taught muslim to judge everybody by his or her appearance or the surface only…
in the time of mohammed (pbuh) and his companions , and among muslims in arabia . the quran were recited in 7 dialect which were known to muslims in arabiaI was making reference to a post Zaki made earlier.
Variants in spelling and phrases. These are still variants found in the recitation and passing down of the Koran. I’ll get to that at the end of my post.
I hope this is written in jest. I offered them in my post on the first page, and made reference to them a few posts ago. Don’t start going planten on me, elwill, and pretending you don’t notice my arguments or my references to them.
I have no idea what this means. I made reference to variants that existed among the companions of the prophet. You’re talking about the arabic language. I do not see the connection.
I’m sure it did. Nevertheless, there still existed variants, which I showed before, especially among men who were the most trusted to memorize the Koran. Some of these variants never entered Uthman’s Koran.
That depends on what you define as “corrupted.” Again, I’ll get to that at the end of my post.
That is circular reasoning. Unless the companions were Christ, they were still flawed men.
According to Shia sources, yes. The Sunni say he handed his copies over willingly - the Shia say he was beaten to death.
Is that part (which I put in bold) a quote? If so, please cite it.
I am not necessarily making the allegation that Uthman purposefully changed anything. What I am pointing out is that what Uthman gave us was nothing more than one textual tradition of the Koran, when others existed. I also put forward that there existed outside of what Uthman collected textual traditions, some of which still exist to this day and are evident in certain recitation traditions. Either the Koran Uthman canonized was not exactly the Koran that Mohammad gave, or bin Ka’b and bin Masud were all heretics who added things to the Koran.
I also, on the side, point out that from Muslim sources there is evidence of the possibility of corruption of the Koran, whereas nothing supports this in Christian history outside of conjecture backed by nothing but more conjecture. This is inconsistency, which, again, I’ll get to at the end.
Thank you for admitting this!! You have now, by Muslim standards, admitted that there were corruptions within the Koran. Why do I argue this? Because Muslims allege this very same thing against the Bible. They allege that because of textual variants the Bible was corrupted. This is the standard Muslims present. Even when Christians present that the variants are often “differences in spellings, nouns, etc.,” Muslims still allege that they are signs of corruption, and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted. And yet now that we’ve come to the Koran, with full admittance that there are similar variants, we are supposed to just shrug them off. This is inconsistency in its purest form.
The fact of the matter is that we can either be consistent in our textual examination, or we can be two-faced. Again, if Muslims wish to be equals with Christians in debate and admit that both holy books have a textual history, discussions between the two sides would become more and more balanced. However, if Muslims want to continue to bash Christian scripture because of nonconsequential textual variants while arguing that the Koran is 100% the same in all manuscripts when scholarly history shows otherwise…then suddenly switch gears and admit there are textual variants in the Koran but that they are nonconsequential textual variants…well, nothing is going to get accomplished.
I have shown variances. I have even cited sources. I have explained and demonstrated what I meant by variances. Everyone reading this thread can see that. You seem to either have completely missed the point of my argumentation, or (again, like planten) you are ignoring it to avoid responding to the heart of the argument. I sincerely hope it is not the latter, because I would dislike seeing a good Muslim poster on CAF falling back on such dishonest tactics. In either case, to make the statement, “I asked to show me variants, but I guess you have no knowledge of the subject” when that person has in fact demonstrated and cited evidence for such variants openly and in the same thread is a sign of disrespect for the subject matter and the person this accusation is being said to.as for the variants of texts , i discribed that before
the variants not in the containing nor in the meaning and not in anything but text
as for it will be easy for arabs to pronounce them correctly although their are differes in text , but for non arabs they will find it complex and may pronounce it incorrectly
An example of different spellings in Surah Al Baqarah:
2: 19 He reads** kulla ma in place of kullama**
if you try to proof that quran is corrupted in this way , and if you think that these variance means that different version of quran were exist , then it’s okey with me to say whatever you want about the corruptence of quran
that’s why i ask you to show me the variances , you actually have no knowledge about the nature of variences you are talking about
This is what a Muslim apologist told about the Qu’ran and the Bible: “The Qu’ran is the word of God, so it cannot have errors in it. The Bible is not the word of God, so it can have errors in it. If the Qu’ran has any errors, it is not because it is corrupted but because it’s a poor translation of the Qu’ran. The Qu’ran is verbatium of God, uncreated and eternal, not the written words you read.”
