D
De_Maria
Guest
Since the original Quran was burnt, how can Muslims prove that the current version contains Mohammed’s words?
- Status
E
exoflare
Guest
Put simply, they can’t.
K
Kadaveri
Guest
There is no ‘original’. The Qur’an is an oral recitation, not a book, it was only written down for documentary purposes.
And we know it’s the word of God (not Muhammad) because dozens of people memorised it completely by the time Muhammad (pbuh) died, and there are now somewhere in the region of 10 million people who know it all by heart. Muslims recite Suras from it at least 10 times a day and the whole thing is recited at least once every Ramadan; also whenever someone (say, an Imam) is reciting the Qur’an and makes a mistake or gets stuck, the people behind will correct him.
So the chances of it being forgotten are next to none.
And we know it’s the word of God (not Muhammad) because dozens of people memorised it completely by the time Muhammad (pbuh) died, and there are now somewhere in the region of 10 million people who know it all by heart. Muslims recite Suras from it at least 10 times a day and the whole thing is recited at least once every Ramadan; also whenever someone (say, an Imam) is reciting the Qur’an and makes a mistake or gets stuck, the people behind will correct him.
So the chances of it being forgotten are next to none.
B
Booklover
Guest
D
dolphinlove
Guest
I think we know human memories can be flawed.
So how do they know they are 100% right?
I know you said ‘dozens’, but im sure people in those dozens would have forgotten, therefore that leaves a chance for corruption doesnt it?
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
Then is the Iliad and Odessey of Homer the word of God? That was originally orally transmitted and then only later written down as well?
Another example of muslim logic…
B
Booklover
Guest
Exactly! Human memory being what it is, they cannot be sure that nothing has been changed.
Vickie
K
Kadaveri
Guest
"Booklover:
Also the Qur’an is something that’s designed to be recited orally, it’s a completely different type of literature to say the Gospels, where improvisation is perfectly possible. The Qur’an isn’t prosaic, it has a very distinction rhythm and rhyme that make it nigh impossible to change any of the words without being instantly recognisable. This is a bad example, but take a rhyme like Twinkle Twinkle. We know that the lyrics of this song haven’t changed at all since it was written in 1806, but do we really need documentary evidence to prove that taking into account the writing’s nature? And the Qur’an is 100 times more eloquent than Twinkle Twinkle.
Also taking into account that Muslims recite the Qur’an a lot and take it very seriously (you won’t find any Muslim who doesn’t know at least some of it by heart), the chances of it being distorted in such a short period of time as the 12 years after the Prophet’s death till the earliest known copies of the Qur’an, by the Prophet’s own companions, is quite a stretch.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Well firstly, they were all consistent. It’s one thing to claim that some of them might have forgotten parts, but it’s something else altogether to claim that they all forgot it in the exact same way, which is what would have to have happened for nobody to have disagreed over it.
Also the Qur’an is something that’s designed to be recited orally, it’s a completely different type of literature to say the Gospels, where improvisation is perfectly possible. The Qur’an isn’t prosaic, it has a very distinction rhythm and rhyme that make it nigh impossible to change any of the words without being instantly recognisable. This is a bad example, but take a rhyme like Twinkle Twinkle. We know that the lyrics of this song haven’t changed at all since it was written in 1806, but do we really need documentary evidence to prove that taking into account the writing’s nature? And the Qur’an is 100 times more eloquent than Twinkle Twinkle.
Also taking into account that Muslims recite the Qur’an a lot and take it very seriously (you won’t find any Muslim who doesn’t know at least some of it by heart), the chances of it being distorted in such a short period of time as the 12 years after the Prophet’s death till the earliest known copies of the Qur’an, by the Prophet’s own companions, is quite a stretch.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
What really happened is that the verses were memorized by many people and some written down while Muhammed was alive. But no one person had the whole thing (at least the same version) memorized or written down. Once Muhammed died several versions were floating around because it was orally transmitted and errors were introduced…remeber the game telephone when you were a kid? Same thing happened.
Sooooo the 3rd Caliph sent word out for people to send him their compies of the verses of the koran. He then compiled or codified them into the koran and BURNT the disagreeing copies. So we have no record of what existed before this point so we have no proof the the present day koran was not midified by the Calif.
Supposedly there is a copy of the koran that dates before the great burning in Yemen, but the Yemenese authorities will not allow anyone to study it. I wonder why?
B
Booklover
Guest
You can never separate the Quran from Muhammad since he’s the one who brought it to you and claimed that it’s the word of God! The problem you have is figuring out whether he told the truth or not!
Vickie
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Kadaveri,
When Muhammad died - nobody memorized the entire Quran. This is proven in the hadiths. You need to read how Zayd ibn Thabit compiled the Quran. People remembered a few verses - but not many. Most of the Quran was written on scraps of bone, leather, parchment etc.
The major scribes compiled their own versions - but none was complete. Zayd ibn Thabit asked people to tell him the verses - if 2 people remember a verse he would put it in - meaning nobody knew for sure that 100% of the Quran was included. Sometimes, he broke his own rule and added verses where only 1 person remembered it.
The hadiths allude to missing verses and some surahs being longer than they are now.
All the evidence proves the Quran is not complete. It was the compilation of one man - Zayd ibn Thabit.
When Muhammad died - nobody memorized the entire Quran. This is proven in the hadiths. You need to read how Zayd ibn Thabit compiled the Quran. People remembered a few verses - but not many. Most of the Quran was written on scraps of bone, leather, parchment etc.
The major scribes compiled their own versions - but none was complete. Zayd ibn Thabit asked people to tell him the verses - if 2 people remember a verse he would put it in - meaning nobody knew for sure that 100% of the Quran was included. Sometimes, he broke his own rule and added verses where only 1 person remembered it.
The hadiths allude to missing verses and some surahs being longer than they are now.
All the evidence proves the Quran is not complete. It was the compilation of one man - Zayd ibn Thabit.
L
lukewarm
Guest
I gottta hand it to Islam the memororization of the Qu’ran is very impressive. It may not be word for word what Muhammed said but it is much more reliable than the Bible copies we have, which are copies of the copies of the copies of the originals at best.
No sense in trashing the Qu’ran’s reliability when it’s obviously in better standing than the Bible and/or Torah translations.
Imagine people memorizing the entire New Testament word for word by heart? That would be impressive.
No sense in trashing the Qu’ran’s reliability when it’s obviously in better standing than the Bible and/or Torah translations.
Imagine people memorizing the entire New Testament word for word by heart? That would be impressive.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Except that the Quran is far smaller than the NT, and highly repetitive.
L
lukewarm
Guest
I don’t if it’s far smaller, and the largest part of the New Testament are the four different accounts of the Gospels which repeate much of the same information. So I don’t think that is a good defense.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
With the bible we have multiple copies from differnet times so we can see the changes in the text (or lack thereof) as time went on. Hand copying was a pretty reliable method. People would pay big money for a copy of a book back then so the scibes would have to get it right. Most errors in the copies are transcription errors like reversing letters. There was no large change in the content of the bible and this can be shown via the copies and early fragments we still have today.
We only have one koran so it is a snap shoot in time. We have no way to know if this version of the koran is the same as what muhammed created because we have no earlier copies to compare it against. It is like me burning all the bibles in the world accept one that I have altered and doctored. 100 years from now you could not prove that my version of the bible is not the original.
L
lukewarm
Guest
There’s an entire science built around this called textual criticism, I have read many books on the matter and I can assure the leading experts in the field completely disagree with you. Read misquoting Jesus for starters, Bart Ehrman is one of the most knowledgable experts in the field, and he completely disagrees with you.
Hand copying was terribly unreliable, especially when different Churches scribes would change certain texts to fit their unique belief system.
K
Kadaveri
Guest
audioquraan.com/sgquraanwma/Shams.wma
Try listening to this. I’ve just been trying to find an example that without knowing what the words mean people can still understand from hearing the rhythm, rhyme and melody why changing the words of the Qur’an isn’t possible, it wouldn’t fit.
Try listening to this. I’ve just been trying to find an example that without knowing what the words mean people can still understand from hearing the rhythm, rhyme and melody why changing the words of the Qur’an isn’t possible, it wouldn’t fit.
J
JFonseka
Guest
Well for us Christians wasn’t it oral tradition that first passed the words down and then some 50 years later written down?
K
Kadaveri
Guest
Oral tradition, not oral recitation.
G
George_Waters
Guest
I have read ad nausem that since so many people have memorized the Quran it must be the word of God. You want to talk about fallacies there it is! Regardless of all other factors the bottom line is that there is no evidence what-so-ever that the Quran is divine except that it and Muslims say it is and this is based on the testimony of one man with no witnesses.
- Status