If the Koran was passed by word of mouth how can it be accurate?

I've been told that by so many people but wasn't it passed by word of mouth? I read an English "translation" which was said NOT to be the Holy word but just a rendering of it. It must be written in Arabic? It seems that Islam has gone to great lengths to keep the Most Holy of books accurate but how can that be if it was passed on by word of mouth? I confused and would like someone to tell me how this could be?

I'd also like to know WHY there are different sects of Islam.... why are there #es and Wahabbies, excuse my spelling and Kurds and also Sunni's? What's the difference and why should there be? I'm so full of questions and honestly mean NO disrespect but would like to understand why a religion with 1 holy book would have so MANY differences? If there is only one book passed down through the ages why has the belief fragmented so much?

There are many different social groups that interpret bible differently too, I certainly hope the topic is not to mock Quran.
I am not a student of that book but what i know is that the time of Muhammad the followers of Quran were illiterate there for for some time after Muhammad's death words of god were spoken or written in basics and only few decades later it was compiled in somewhat we can see now.

reply to post by Grendel39


also look at some of the apocrypha like the books of adam and some others that was passed from moses unto his children who they supposedly wrote those books from his understanding of what took place

wether i feel those books are genuine or not they are a very interesting read on how crafty satan was against adam and the many times he kept deceiving him, its kinda like look how many times we have been deceived throughout the years

in my opinion all the characters who were of equivalance to christ wether before or after i believe are of his doing to deceive us, of course my opinion and for a different thread altogether

great reads though

a little off topicish, sorry

reply to post by Grendel39

The Kurds are not a sect of Islam, they are an iranian speaking ethnic group from the middle east.

The Quran was not only passed by word-of-mouth, and not all the people in Muhammad's time were illiterate (Muhammad was, though). Muhammad would recite, and the followers would note it down and/or memorise it.

I don't think there are any major sects in Islam that have disagreements over 'their version of the Quran'. They all follow the same book. As far as Sunni's and Shi'as go, the division was political (over who was supposed to succeed Muhammad as the Caliph of Islam). Wahhabism is an conservative Sunni Islamic school of thought, and not really a 'sect' that is warring against other sects (although some of it's practices have been criticised by other Muslim groups).

[edit on 25-7-2008 by babloyi]

Even the "Bible" OT documents were passed orially to the jews through their being captives in bablot.

First off, then wasn't now. People could memorise stuff because there wasn't all that much going on.

However there are many ways of seeing this. There is no right nor wrong.

Truth is there is no easy way to take knowledge of spiritual things from history. There's alot of elements at work.

This is why most religions have at least half a dozzen points WRONG!

Originally posted by Incarnated
First off, then wasn't now. People could memorise stuff because there wasn't all that much going on.

Yeah, and they were often memorized as chants or songs, which made it a little easier. I bet you can recite "Mary Had a Little Lamb" pretty accurately without having to go look it up in a book.

The Koran isn't a very good example of that, though. A lot of it is fragmentary and incomprehensible precisely because it was an accumulation of tiny bits of written fragments in an era when not too many people could write well. Had it been only memorized passages, it might be more accurate.

I found this Documentary about the Quran made by Antony Thomas to a very educational and unbiased. It will answer all your questions and more. If you are in the UK you can watch for free on 4 on Demand, for every where else theres youtube below.




youtube.com...






[edit on 25-7-2008 by bramski]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by bramski]

I'm Ok with most of the explanations regarding the Koran but I wonder why I usually hear from my Islamic friends that The Koran hasn't been corrupted by translation as the Bible has been. I was NOT trying to demean the Koran in any way, I just wanted some clarification.

I'm still confused why a #e would fight against a Sunni. Is it like Reformists against Catholics in Ireland, (I'm Irish Catholic BTW), or something more fundamental? What about these Kurdish people can anyone explain why they are so hated amongst the population of Iraq and Turkey?

Just wondering but I appreciate everyones replys

reply to post by bramski


Thank you Bramski, I'll check that out on Youtube

reply to post by babloyi


Could you be MORE specific about what the Kurds DO believe?

reply to post by Grendel39


The 2 main groups are the Sunni and the Shi'a,and the Sunni's are by far the largest.

The 1st division started after the death of Muhammad.
The Sunni believe that Abu Bakr was Muhammad's rightful successor as he was chosen by the method decreed in the Qur'an.
Shi'a believe that Muhammad divinely ordained his cousin and son-in-law Ali in accordance with the command of God to be the next caliph,making Ali and his direct descendants Muhammad's successors.

All other sects are usually subdivisions of these 2.

Originally posted by Grendel39
reply to post by babloyi

 

Could you be MORE specific about what the Kurds DO believe?

They believe whatever they want to believe, same as any other group of people in the world. The majority is muslim, some are jewish, and some still follow their ancient Yazadi religion. I'm not sure how a discussion on kurds entered into a topic on the Quran, it's like saying "Christians are divided into Catholic, Protestant and American".


Your muslims friends say that the Quran has not been corrupted by translation because it is still in arabic, the original language that it was written. The Bible, on the other hand, is not available in the original language (aramaic or ancient hebrew).

Where do you get the Quran hasn't been translated? I read it in 1963 and it was in the english language then. If you love God you need to read the messages he gave to the different peoples, at different times. I don't just mean the literature of the major religions, all indigenous people have their own messages from God. It was given in a manner they could understand and in a language that attached them to the Creator. Every man is your brother, we all came into the world in the same way. We will not be judged by which religion we believed in, we will be judged by if the Creator recognizes us. This life is all we have to make ourselves known to Him.

reply to post by debris765nju

I didn't say it hasn't been translated, I said that it is still in it's original language.

Qur'an translations

Translations into other languages are necessarily the work of humans and so, according to Muslims, no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original. Since these translations necessarily subtly change the meaning, they are often called "interpretations." For instance, Pickthall called his translation The Meaning of the Glorious Koran rather than simply The Koran.

As for the rest of your post:

Surah 14 Verse 4
And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his people, that he might make the message clear for them.

Surah 22 Verse 67
And for every people there is a messenger. And when their messenger comes as a witness to them on the Day of Judgment, it will be judged between them fairly, and they will not be wronged.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by Grendel39

are you talking about christianity?

Wahhabi comes from the reformist Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab in the 1700´s who align with the Saudi family and started to fight the Othman Empire. Wahhabi thought to bring back Islam to it´s basic and the sunnah.

Under the same time the Brittish tried to invade what is called Kuwait, but they didn´t succes. In the end they, Brittish and Wahhabi with Saudi cooperate and the freemasonry, west spread propaganda to the arab world that Islam belong to the arabs, not the turks, othman who actually rulers came from Turkmenien.

This is what we still see today, the ties between Brittish, USA and the Saudi family in Saudi Arabia. But the Saudi have actually fall away from the basic of Islam, 1. they named their country after a familyname! 2. They are kings who give over the power to their children! 3. They are close tied to the enemy of Islam! 4. What they call Sharia (gods law) is only for the people and not the rulers. And there are many many more examples.

Intresting is that the wahhabi movement, or salafia (another title) now more and more buying themself in to Europe by founding the mosq´s, islamic schools ect.

reply to post by babloyi
[mo

Translations into other languages are necessarily the work of humans and so, according to Muslims, no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original. Since these translations necessarily subtly change the meaning, they are often called "interpretations." For instance, Pickthall called his translation The Meaning of the Glorious Koran rather than simply The Koran.

re]

In response to your comment, the original recording was also in human hands and it also was limited to the vagarities and nuances of those who first recorded it. I was unaware that the arabic language had a sacred character and that it could not be accurately translated by the people who created the concept, why? Why must anything be necessarily subtly change the meaning. I read the Koran, along with the Ramayama , confuscious. Your two scriptural quotes sound exactly like my personal quotes, so it is very likely i garnered some of my beliefs from the Koran. If there are nuances that westerners don't understand, put in an addendemexplaining how that nuance changed the original meaning which caused it to have a differrent effect. That would be good for everyone, like everyone removing a sharp tack from their shoe, instant relief What is the meaning of your signature?

reply to post by debris765nju

Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in arabic, so recording it in arabic was not a problem.

As for adding details to translations to make it clear how it was in arabic, it's not so easy as it seems. A word would obviously have main, explicit meaning, and perhaps only that is translated, and the second meaning escapes the translator. A word-by-word direct translation along with all multiple meanings, etc. would be very difficult to write, and not exactly be an easy read.

Just a small example (one of the smaller Surahs)

Bismi Allah urrahman arraheem
[In Name of] [The God] [The Beneficient] [The Merciful] (Assume ultimate superlative form of Beneficient and Merciful)
YUSUFALI: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.


1. Qul huwa Allahu ahad
[Say] [He is] [The God] [The One] (Assume ultimate superlative form of One)
YUSUFALI: Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
PICKTHAL: Say: He is Allah, the One!
SHAKIR: Say: He, Allah, is One.


2. Allahu assamad
[The God] [The Sammad] (Can be translated as Alpha and Omega, Root Cause of all causes, self-sufficient etc)
YUSUFALI: Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
PICKTHAL: Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
SHAKIR: Allah is He on Whom all depend.


3. Lam yalid walam yoolad
[Not] [birth to] [and not] [birthed]
YUSUFALI: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
PICKTHAL: He begetteth not nor was begotten.
SHAKIR: He begets not, nor is He begotten.


4. Walam yaku lahu kufuwan ahad
[And not/none] [is] [with him] [comparable] [The One]
YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.
PICKTHAL: And there is none comparable unto Him.
SHAKIR: And none is like Him.


The Quran (in Arabic) is considered to be the direct words of God to man (unlike how Christians believe that God inspired man to write the Bible), so by default, 'translating' it into another language renders it changed forever. Besides, that would mess up the poetry .

About my signature, the first line is a quote from a fictitious character in a setting I'm too embarrassed to say out loud (search it if you want to degrade me ), the second is something I said myself after spending so much time in this forum (double ), and the 3rd is there so that I'm saved from having to manually say it every time.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by Grendel39

A similar argument could be put forward as regards Christianity. Is it not true that Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans and the Orthodox, all ultimately abide with the teachings of the Bible?

Here is a pretty well done documentary on The Prophet Muhammad & Islam that those of you still not clear on things might find useful.

Google Video Link