Islam: Hafiz or Hafiza

[Mount_Carmel]

Mount Carmel: Can you give us some specifics?

Also, does anyone know if there are people who have memorized the Bible, similar to what muslims have done with the Quran? Or memorized anything similar to the size of the Quran.

How about a trawl through the following:

www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

I feel sure that some folks have made it their task to memorise entire books, and not necessarily religious ones. There are also people who can quote prodigious lengths of the apparently never ending series of numbers that make up Pi.

 

[paziego]

There was a Muslim apologist - Ahmed Deedat - who seemed to have memorised much of the bible. He definitely memorised the entire NT, which is about the same length as the Koran.

 

[paziego]

How about a trawl through the following:

www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

I feel sure that some folks have made it their task to memorise entire books, and not necessarily religious ones. There are also people who can quote prodigious lengths of the apparently never ending series of numbers that make up Pi.

I have read the answering-islam article, but the variations which it talks about trivial, and a natural consequence of the early texts being written without diacritics. [And the author of the article gets confused in ‘appendix 2’ about dashes, which a diacritics, and dots, which are integral to the letters. The dots were always in the text; the diacritics weren’t]

Look at it this way: we have four gospels which tell slightly different stories and contain certain inconsistencies, but they talk about an event which is in itself real.

Same with the Koran. There are several readings, which differ in very small detail, but are all rooted in the same base text. The text without diacritics is like the events which inspired the Gospels, and the variant readings are like variant accounts of that event.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

I have read the answering-islam article, but the variations which it talks about trivial, and a natural consequence of the early texts being written without diacritics. [And the author of the article gets confused in ‘appendix 2’ about dashes, which a diacritics, and dots, which are integral to the letters. The dots were always in the text; the diacritics weren’t]

Look at it this way: we have four gospels which tell slightly different stories and contain certain inconsistencies, but they talk about an event which is in itself real.

Same with the Koran. There are several readings, which differ in very small detail, but are all rooted in the same base text. The text without diacritics is like the events which inspired the Gospels, and the variant readings are like variant accounts of that event.

We are also speaking of the claims that all Qur’ans are the literal and eternally unaltered or modified or adulterated in any way, word {singular} of God.

Veracity of Islamic claims in the light of archaeology and academic study leave their traditional perspective very problematic and controversial.

isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/quran-archaeology.html

 

[hasantas]

hasantas - If you look at the Qur’an you will not ‘see’ that it comes from ‘Allah’, you may of course choose to ‘believe’ that it is the case,

The reality is that even Muslim Islamic scholars have to admit there are great differences in quotes and numbers of Suras in the four earliest known Qur’ans. There are also overwritten passages and phrases. The earliest texts were not in Arabic, as that came later, and there appears to have been some mistranslation. So it seems that ‘Allah’ makes mistakes, much like we humans, might I be so bold as to suggest?

The earliest text was not in Arabic! Then perhaps the original text was in English!

Ofcourse there are some different writing in Arabic as dialect but that does not change meanning. And there are 7 main reading(Qira’at). All Qiraat are same in meanning.

The Arabic was without dots and dashs. These were established in Quran for non-Arabics to read correctly. Even some Arabs might read Quran differently. So that punctuations marks were added later.

Some suras may have more than one name. And there have been some remarks near the verses but later those were taken out to not confuse with verses. Verses may be numbered in different ways but the text never change.

Allah does not make mistake but human do easily! To reject something and using name of Allah(God) for that in a ironic way is not fair. When we use name of God we must be carefull. You might not be so bold in that issue. Muslims never use such statements for God or Jesus.

So at least we know all story in deatils about Quran but for Bible we cannot say that.

 

[paziego]

Hmmm. It is certainly doubtful that Mecca was as large and influential as traditionally suggested, although the article downplays the commercial viability of the region too much. It seems to completely ignore the kingdom of Yemen, which would have provided much more opportunities for overland commerce in the peninsula.

It is also noteworthy that the kingdom of Yemen was Jewish, and had been persecuting Christians and Zoroastrians, as well as fighting with Christian Ethiopia. It was feared by Byzantium and Persia that their Arab mercenaries could be turned against them by propaganda from the kingdom of Yemen that stressed the common heritage of Jews and Arabs - especially since Byzantium and Persia had large Jewish communities within their borders, which they viewed as a fifth column.

Unfortunately I don’t have it to hand now, but there is a book I read a couple of years ago called ‘in the shadow of the sword’, by Tom Holland. He described how before even the time of Muhammad there had been fears of the Jews turning the Arab mercenaries against their employers. If it was a long standing fear, it is not unreasonable to think that the writer of the Doctrina Iacobi and Armenian chronicle (mentioned in the article) were just a repetition of these fears and stereotypes in an attempt to ‘securitize’ the situation. The Doctrina Iacobi is definitely not a piece of objective historical reporting, and is very anti-Jewish. I don’t know enough about the Armenian chronicle to comment.

 

[hasantas]

We are also speaking of the claims that all Qur’ans are the literal and eternally unaltered or modified or adulterated in any way, word {singular} of God.

Veracity of Islamic claims in the light of archaeology and academic study leave their traditional perspective very problematic and controversial.

isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/quran-archaeology.html

Quran do not say that Mecca is the largest of the cities but instead it said Mecca is the mother of the cities. Adam and Eve were about Mecca and built Kaaba. Mecca was not so large and crowded. When prophet Abraham took Ishmael and His mother Hagar to Mecca there were not a city even Kaaba. Kaaba was collapsed by time.

In Hadiths(Islamic history) it is mentioned pilgrims had uset to come Mecca and some fairs were established during pilgrimage. People and tribes who were in and around Mecca arranged karavans. And also after AD 400 the Indian and Yemen commodities trade rout was through Hedjaz(Arabian locality).

The first direction for prayer(Qibla) was Jerusalem. About 1,5 year After Hegira Qibla was changed. I hear in some where the Qiblas of Mosque are wrong for abut 45 degree angle or more. So is Qibla not direction of Mecca? Allah mention all directions belong to Allah. for about 45 dgree angle wrong in Qibla is acceptable for prayer. If someone cannot define the Qibla then he can head where he want.

So with details issues nobody can attack Islam because it is useless and meanless.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Written Arabic did not appear until some 150 years after Muhammad’s death - even then it was not in the form of current Arabic. The earliest Quranic manuscripts discovered in the Sana’a mosque in Yemen not only differ from the standard version, but disagree amongst themselves

‘Western’ academics and those involved in preservation of ancient and important texts are dismayed at the rather casual way that the Sana Qur’an and parchments are being kept. There are no fire precautions in place or atmospheric safeguards. Surly if Yemen can’t afford to install them, then the more oil rich Islamic countries such as Saudi could afford to fund them? With the current civil and religious unrest in the region, surly they should be whisked away to a safer place? But then, where in the dar al-Islam is there really a safe place for written evidence of Qur’anic differences?

I feel sure that there are many places in the ‘West’ where they would be more carefully looked after, and also be more open to serious study and academic inquisitorial rigour.

 

[paziego]

Seriously? The Sana’a Koran you are talking about itself has been dated from within the first 150 years of Mohammed’s death. Written Arabic existed before his lifetime.

It doesn’t matter if the text is at variance. Islamic historians are fully aware of variant versions. Why do you think a standard version was produced?
The Sana’a text dates from before the Uthmanic one was in full circulation. Given these were the days before printing, that is perfectly normal.

Just because there are Gnostic Gospels as old as the Synoptic ones doesn’t mean the NT was modified or changed. It only means there was a process whereby a competent authority decided on what didn’t belong in the “inspired” category. (Yet there is still disagreement between the canonised Gospels)

Uthman was in a position to verify the authenticity of passages, given that he was surrounded by people, including Mohammed’s widow, who would have known. How successful this process was, or whether Uthman had personal motives to make changes, is of course another matter. That would be a legitimate area in which to question the integrity of the text.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Candidly I have not any proof for that Gospels were corrupted. But the case of Quran and Bible is very apart. If you look at Quran you will see that all speechs are directly from Allah. Prophet Muhammed did not say in that way: God said that He is the creator of everything but instead it is said “I am the creator of everything” in Quran etc. So prophet Muhammed was merely a mediator. And Quran was being written just during revelation came. Later the verses were compiled in a book.

In Bible writers of Gospels wrote what they saw(Mathew and John) from Jesus or what they heard from others about Jesus. It is like that “Jesus went there and said this etc”. Islam does not verify Jesus to be Son of God. Even let’s assume Jesus to be God. Yet the Gospels are not to be directly speechs of Jesus. Gospels were written for about 60-90 years after Jesus. Writers wrote what they remembered so there should be very changes in revelation. Also we have not the originals Gospels in their originals languages. There had used to be more than 4 Gospels but later these numbers was reduced to 4(Mathew, Mark, Luke, John).

hasantas-

Did Mohammed ever teach that the Torah and the Gospels were corrupted?

Does the Quran teach that the Torah and the Gospels are corrupted?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Candidly I have not any proof for that Gospels were corrupted. But the case of Quran and Bible is very apart. If you look at Quran you will see that all speechs are directly from Allah. Prophet Muhammed did not say in that way: God said that He is the creator of everything but instead it is said “I am the creator of everything” in Quran etc. So prophet Muhammed was merely a mediator. And Quran was being written just during revelation came. Later the verses were compiled in a book.

Much later. The Quran was collected from scraps of parchments, palm-leaf stalks, thin stones and from men who knew it by heart.

From men who knew it by heart? Would you concede the same memorization to early Christians who knew the gospels and the epistles by heart?

In about 650 CE, the third Caliph Uthman ibn Affan (d. 656CE) began noticing slight differences in pronunciation of the Quran as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian peninsula into Persia, the Levant, and North Africa. In order to preserve the sanctity of the text, he ordered a committee headed by Zayd to use Abu Bakr’s copy and prepare a standard copy of the Quran. Thus, within 20 years of Muhammad’s death, the Quran was committed to written form.

So, you see, hasantas…discrepancies or possible “corruptions” appeared very early on in the history of the Quran, and while the text was written down within 20 years of the death of Mohammed, it was 43 years from the beginning of his revelations.

The Gospels and epistles (especially a passage found in Corinthians) dates to within five years of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In Bible writers of Gospels wrote what they saw(Mathew and John) from Jesus or what they heard from others about Jesus. It is like that “Jesus went there and said this etc”.

In some passages, yes. But in other passages, Jesus (who is God) said this:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, not only does Jesus claim to be God in the gospels, but the gospels record God speaking in the same first person manner that you ascribe to Allah in the Quran.

Islam does not verify Jesus to be Son of God. Even let’s assume Jesus to be God. Yet the Gospels are not to be directly speechs of Jesus.

Clearly, you have never read any of the gospels for Jesus’ famous “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5-8 is a direct “speech” of Jesus, and there are MANY, MANY other examples.

Gospels were written for about 60-90 years after Jesus.

Nope. Consider this: no book of the NT mentions the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem which is known to have occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus prophesied its destruction, the writers would sure have mentioned this calamitous event if it had already come to pass. John’s gospel does not mention it because his gospel is more theological than historical in nature, but none of the synoptic gospels or the Book of Acts mentions this incredibly important event. Consequently, it is likely that all of the gospels were written before AD 70 (except John).

Matthew wrote in Aramaic first and later in Greek, and some of his gospel is based on a work (now lost) which was written much earlier. The LAST of the Gospels, that of John, was completed around 60 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, so your dating is much too late.

Writers wrote what they remembered so there should be very changes in revelation. Also we have not the originals Gospels in their originals languages. There had used to be more than 4 Gospels but later these numbers was reduced to 4(Mathew, Mark, Luke, John).

After extolling the virtues of the hafiz, why would we believe that Christians who memorized their scriptures would allow changes you think occurred?

And yes, we have the NT in Greek - the language in which it was written.

 

[hasantas]

hasantas-

Does the Quran teach that the Torah and the Gospels are corrupted?

44-Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.

45-And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

46-And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

47-And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

48- And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

(5:Al-Maidah)

If you notice Allah awaken that some does not obey/judge what Allah informed in Torah and Bible. That means some parts of previous revelations could be changed for self benefits. That part of verse explain the corruption:

“…Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations…”

 

[hasantas]

Nope. Consider this: no book of the NT mentions the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem which is known to have occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus prophesied its destruction, the writers would sure have mentioned this calamitous event if it had already come to pass. John’s gospel does not mention it because his gospel is more theological than historical in nature, but none of the synoptic gospels or the Book of Acts mentions this incredibly important event. Consequently, it is likely that all of the gospels were written before AD 70 (except John).

Matthew wrote in Aramaic first and later in Greek, and some of his gospel is based on a work (now lost) which was written much earlier. The LAST of the Gospels, that of John, was completed around 60 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, so your dating is much too late.

After extolling the virtues of the hafiz, why would we believe that Christians who memorized their scriptures would allow changes you think occurred?

And yes, we have the NT in Greek - the language in which it was written.

(11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. Matthew

1:6 And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; Mark)

(15:46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. Mark
27:60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.Matthew

19:41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. John)

(10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Matthew

6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: Mark)

The diffrences between Gospels show that the Gospels writter wrote in the way of their apprehension, knowledge, observation etc. So Gospels hold some subjective and personal comments. These are not exactly words which came out from mouth of Jesus. That corruption occured very initially. The original Bible was the disciplines of Jesus but these principles were written with comments of writers.

There is no original Gospels in Aramaic which is the original form.

Quran was not saved only by Hafisz but every verse of Quran was written initially. Later these verses were compiled.

Jesus did not get Bible written but Gospels were written later. So these next text might be memorised but those are not what Jesus taught exactly.

We know there used to be many different Gospels. These numbers were reduced through councils. Even hand lettering of Gospels which were not controled by councis are different.

We do not deny Bible but we have many rightful reasons to think that Bible was changed (at least with comments which were added to verses)

 

[gmcbroom]

Hasantas, I don’t doubt that you are sincere in following your faith. But doesn’t it bother you that reading these forums shows a different version of christianity than what is written in the koran? Be now you should know for christians the trinity is father, son, and Holy Spirit. Not father, Mary, and jesus. For Christians the holy bible is the word of God in the words of men. So differences are minute. The Koran is the

 

[Randy_Carson]

44-Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.

45-And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

46-And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

47-And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

48- And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

(5:Al-Maidah)

If you notice Allah awaken that some does not obey/judge what Allah informed in Torah and Bible. That means some parts of previous revelations could be changed for self benefits. That part of verse explain the corruption:

“…Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations…”

What?

If people do not follow the Torah or the Gospel, how does that make the Torah and the Gospel corrupt? The people may be corrupt, but the books are not.

If someone does not follow the Quran, does that make the Quran corrupt?

Did Mohammed ever teach that the texts of the books (not the people) were corrupted?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

paziego - Whatever it may be, the Qur’an is not the unadulterated unedited exact copy of the supposed Tablets of Allah that have existed in Heaven forever {so it is claimed].

It has become clear that the Qur’an is not a record of the exact words revealed by God. Instead, the palimpsest, known as ‘DAM 0 1-27.1,’ demonstrates clearly that the holy book of Muslims has gone through stages of historical developments.

The Ka’aba is clearly an after thought in Arab Muslim texts. The description of place in the early texts does not mention a specific place, but it is not the arid place that Mecca was at the time. The description more fits places further north that are more fertile.

For the first 150 years or so most mosque qiblas were not aligned with Mecca, but more often with Petra. Arabic is a development of Nabatean.

 

[mamlukman]

Once again I see some of the same people here–a party!

Two points. First, Islam is much more a religion of externals than Christianity is. So it should come as no surprise that reciting the Qur’an–precisely, with precise timing and accent–is valued and honored. There are national and international competitions involving reciting the Qur’an. Watch the Saudi Arabian movie (yes, a contradiction in terms) “Wadja” – the girl gets money to buy a bicycle by winning a Qur’an reciting contest at school.

In Christianity, we would never have a school contest in memorizing and reciting the Bible. We would ask students to write an essay about the Bible–what did it mean to them, how did it affect their lives, etc. We are concerned with the meaning, not the words themselves. But of course this goes back to our (esp. Catholic) interpretation of scripture: yes, it’s inspired, but it’s the general sense that’s important, not each individual word or sentence. We don’t care if John’s version of the Passion is different from Mark’s in details–the overall message is the same. We care about the message; Muslims care about the details.

Likewise, Christians would memorize prayers, but it doesn’t matter to us if those prayers are in Latin, French, English, Spanish, or Arabic. Muslim prayers must be in Arabic. Would it matter if a recited Christian prayer was in an individual rhythm or accent? No. Would it matter to a Muslim? Yes.

Second, Christians and Muslims see the Bible and the Qur’an in entirely different ways. Wilfred Cantwell Smith once pointed out that the best analogy was that Jesus is to Christians as the Qur’an is to Muslims. To Muslims (not all, but most), the Qur’an is uncreated. It is the Word of God, just as we think of Jesus as the Word of God (see the first chapter of John). Each word of the Qur’an is dictated by God to Muhammad, and the Qur’an has been handed down unchanged to the present day. Christians (and of course there is a difference here between Catholics and more fundamentalist Protestants) believe that the Bible is inspired, but each author brings his own cultural and personal background to the writing. We would look at a story and ask, “What does that teach us?” (for example, the Prodigal Son teaches us forgiveness). A Muslim contemplating a similar story is much more concerned with the details–how many pigs were there? How old was the son? Precisely how long was he gone? How big was the fatted calf? Etc. We don’t care about any of this–it’s just colorful background. Muslims care.

Now, having said that, it is perfectly clear to non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) that the Qur’an HAS changed over time. An excellent summary of all this is here:

answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/index.html

There is also a very good article in the 1999 Atlantic Magazine, “What Is the Koran?”

‪theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/?single_page=true‬‬‬‬

It’s about the 1972 discovery of parts of 7th-8th century Qur’an manuscripts in Yemen. Yemen has been keeping the manuscripts restricted, as you would expect, but it allowed two German scholars to work on them and photograph them. One has edited a book, “The Hidden Origins of Islam,” Gerd R Puin, 2009. There is another set of photographic records of early Qur’an manuscripts in Berlin that has not been worked on as far as I know.

Beyond this, there is the work of Christoph Luxenberg (a pseudonym so he won’t get killed–look him up in Wikipedia), another German scholar who has been developing a theory in the last 10 years that Muhammad is–wait for it–really Jesus! Because of course the word “muhammad” is really just an adjective meaning “praiseworthy,” and the first Muslims were in fact a Christian sect who only developed a separate identity over centuries. So “Muhammad” was really an adjective describing Jesus, not a proper name. This is not as far fetched as you might think. Coins and inscriptions on buildings support this idea, as do the relatively late dates of histories, surviving Qur’ans, etc.

Muslims of course deny all of this and simply assert “The Qur’an has been unchanged for all eternity.” Why? The Qur’an says so. End of argument. Investigation would be blasphemy, and we all know how that ends. So don’t expect much Muslim scholarship on the subject any time soon.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In Christianity, we would never have a school contest in memorizing and reciting the Bible.

Actually, memorizing Bible verses to win a contest in Sunday School is a big deal in many Protestant Churches.

Frankly, I wish more Catholics had scripture memorized.