Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

reply to post by dragonridr


I have a good idea of what the Holy Spirit is according to the Bible. That is actually what I was trying to get to when I said "According to the Bible he who is of spirit is spiritually inclined and he who is of flesh is materialistically inclined (keep this in mind). " and when I said "So chronologically, either Jesus (pbuh) was mistaken (which I doubt), or you are mistaking the definition of spirit within the Bible as some sort of ghost or spook. It is not a ghost or spook everytime it is mentioned in the Bible. " Maybe my English is bad, like I said, I am still learning.

Even so, it still does not explain why Jesus (pbuh) would tell his Disciples that the Holy Spirit wont come until he leaves. Also, John's revelations give no new information that Jesus had not already told his Disciples. John simply talks about what Jesus told his Disciples nothing new. Again, I could be wrong and perhaps you can correct me if I am.

You ask if someone is willing to lie to me would I believe anything they say without checking for myself? My answer is no, that would be foolish of me. But lieing is one thing and being mistaken is another. If a robber or a thief tells you not to steal, would you take his advice? Or would you simply brush him off because he is a robber or a thief. Ahmed Deedat raised some very good questions which made me wonder. Threads like this raise very good questions which also makes me wonder. Me being here and addressing Ahmed Deedat in a civilized manner is me partly "checking for myself." I did not say he was right, I simply asked what your opinion was and initially you responded with an offensive tone.

The reason I came back to ATS after 4 years of slumber is because I see so many claims being made against the Qur'an with refrences to hadiths and some mistranslations from the Qur'an itself. What gets me going is that like you said, people believe that nonsense without an ounce of their own research.

I'll give you an example, the whole 72 virgin thing. The word "Houri" in ancient or classical arabic had more than one meaning. If im not mistaken it had 3 different meanings. One of them being "pure being" another being a certain fruit, and lastly a virgin. As for the number 72, it's not even there (just a complete lie). The Qur'an tells us we will be ressurected in a form not known to us. Meaning something beyond any shape, color, size, feeling, or thing we can think of. If that's the case than where do people get the idea that "Houri" means Virgin and not Pure being? The whole killing the infidel, dogs being haram or illegal, Aisha's age, hatred towards homosexuals, beating your wife, and etc. All fall under the same example, mistranslations, intentionally, and sometimes unintentionally.

I agree all religions may be flawed but the truth is still there. That's why we're here on ATS discussing it. Going to run some errands now, will be back. Thank you for your time

reply to post by racasan

The narration goes as;

عن عائشة قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الكبير عشرا ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها

Reported 'Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

1- Authenticity of the narration:

Whenever we have a narration we ought to see whether it is authentic or not? The narration infact has some problems.

The particular chain given in Sunan Ibn Majah finds one of the narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq narrating it using the word عن ('an) which is rather an ambiguous way of narration and renders the narration weak when used by a narrator known for practicing Tadlis [practice of subtly missing a link] and Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is indeed such a narrator. Thus through particular chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah the narration is weak and unauthentic due the above mentioned defect though it has other issues as well as mentioned in the lines to follow. This is clarified by Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.

In Musnad Ahmad the same narration is given through the same chain but the narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from 'Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. Due to the fact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaud has classified it as Da’if (weak) in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359

This is Sunni critique and judgement of this hadith as this is a hadith from a Sunni book.... not every ahadith there is, is accepted as being any type of true account. Many many factors are taking into consideration with the reading of any hadith. It is why there is a science devoted to ahadith. No one just accepts any ahadith they read as being true, no matter what book they come from except for the most ignorant or those who want to throw trash into other peoples faces in front of those who do not have any knowledge of the science of hadith.

Anyone with knowledge of the sciences of ahadith can sit in this thread and prove false every single ahadith you all used to 'back up' your points. This sort of picking and choosing ahadith that simply sounds bad is only to make you pat yourselves on the back and throw trash on people with no cause or reason other than you wanted to sit and pat yourselves on the back....

I would love to sit and refute each ahadith but I do work 6 days a week, my daughter is dying of cancer and I just dont really have the time.... it would be best for people to find out the real truth on their own, but I dont suppose that will happen either.... If anyone were to take this to a Muslim (ie: not an extremist) website they would quickly find out the truth of this thread however.

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by EricD

 

Eric,

Hi, from my limited knowledge the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is not referred to as the spirit.

That title is for "Jesus, Son of Mary". Jesus is often referred to in Islam as the "Spirit of God".

If that is so, then we have a direct contradiction in the Quran itself concerning Isa (Jesus). Because that would make him the Son of God because God was in Him and he was the Son of Mariam (Mary), and having no earthly father, God would then be His Father.

right. you mean God is not really father of Jesus as we are father of our children. this is good.
but some Christians even do not consider Jesus a prophet but they call him God or one shape of God. this is not logical. then what was Moses and other prophets !
moreover Allah is one of God's name. it has Aramaic roots. and Aramaic was the language of Jesus. so you can search and see how Jesus would call God. it has no relation to moon !
there is only one God in this world. and monotheistic religions are speaking of one God. however Jews believe that the only God has not sent Jesus and Christians believe that the only God has not sent Muhammad.

reply to post by mekhanics


1) Please refrain from name calling. Referring to another posters thoughts as idiocy is juvenile and wins you no 'points'.

2) Posting that his points have been refuted but not actually refuting them is useless.

3) It appears that your links to Sawma and Luxemberg are dead. It might be a problem on my end. Can you please take a look and check?

4) Why are you assuming that he did not post similar thoughts in an Islamic forum? Assuming that he has not (which is what we are doing), why would his lack of posting there invalidate his posting here?

5) Prof. Sharon was saying that from the perspective of Muslims, all the prophets were Muslims. He is not saying that this is what he believes and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. As a matter of fact, the man seems to be a rabid anti-Islamicist.

Eric

reply to post by OpinionatedB


ok but
this guy says

This Hadeeth was reported by Ibn Maajah and others and Shaykh Al-Albaani classified it as Hasan [good].

www.islamweb.net...

he thinks its good

or

this guy says

According to a strong tradition (found in Sunan ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, Hadith no. 1934), Aisha also recalled the verse that prescribed the death penalty for adulterers. It was written on a palm leaf that was in her home following Muhammad's death. Unfortunately, a goat or sheep wandered into the house and ate the leaf (along with others) before it could be collected and merged into the other hodgepodge of writings that became the Qur'an.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

he thinks it’s strong

So good and strong – me, I just think it’s funny and I'm on the side of the atheist goat

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by EricD

 

Eric,

Hi, from my limited knowledge the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is not referred to as the spirit.

That title is for "Jesus, Son of Mary". Jesus is often referred to in Islam as the "Spirit of God".

If that is so, then we have a direct contradiction in the Quran itself concerning Isa (Jesus). Because that would make him the Son of God because God was in Him and he was the Son of Mariam (Mary), and having no earthly father, God would then be His Father.

right. you mean God is not really father of Jesus as we are father of our children. this is good.
but some Christians even do not consider Jesus a prophet but they call him God or one shape of God. this is not logical. then what was Moses and other prophets !
moreover Allah is one of God's name. it has Aramaic roots. and Aramaic was the language of Jesus. so you can search and see how Jesus would call God. it has no relation to moon !
there is only one God in this world. and monotheistic religions are speaking of one God. however Jews believe that the only God has not sent Jesus and Christians believe that the only God has not sent Muhammad.

Actually this is incorrect Jesus taught and read in a synagogue. There fore in order to read the Torah he would understand Hebrew.With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls we see the sages were very fluent in Hebrew as well showing the parables in the Rabbinic literature were delivered in Hebrew. To further prove this point lets look at one of his disciples.

Acts 21:40 But Paul said, "I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people." When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,

So what does this tell us well since he was addressing the people and says he spoke Hebrew it would be awfully stupid to talk to a crowd who cant understand you. So this must mean that the general populous understood and spoke Hebrew. Which when you think about it is not surprising at all they didnt have schools so where did people learn to read and write of course the synagogues taught by who Rabbis.Now could he speak Aramaic probably also Greek as well and would have had to use them all at some point. But when speaking to Jews or teaching he would do what every other rabbi did and speak Hebrew. The reason this whole Aramaic thing started is really because the Christians didnt like the idea that Jesus was a Jew. I wont say Christianity has a hatred for Jews exactly but they blamed them for the crucifixion.And because of this tried to separate Jesus from the Jewish people but this is just contrary to history.

Now one more point no christian considers Jesus a prophet they consider Abraham and Moses a Prophet but not Jesus. Any Christian religion has to believe that he was the son of god thats why there called Christians.Now where you get this from is certain sects of Christianity dont believe he was god but the son of god. Where Roman Catholics for example believe in the trinity the father, the son and the holly ghost being one person.I personally believe this was just a very lazy way roman catholic priests answered the questions to there parishioners. Mostly because you could give that answer move on quickly or spend 30 minutes discussing passages.

Now your other part where to begin ok in the Torah the Jews were promised a savior that would free them and return there lands to them. Well jesus didnt do that so to a jew he didnt fit the criteria of there savior there still waiting his arrival. now Christians are waiting for the return of Jesus there argument is he was the Jewish savior they just dont know it yet and when he returns he will complete the prophecy in the Torah. so to say that Christians dont believe Mohammad was sent by god is silly they are waiting for the return of Christ and well thats not Mohammad. As far as a christian is concerned we are all sent by god and created by god to sing his praises.

You know it never really occurred to me how little Muslims know about the bible but ive meet lots of Christians that have an understanding of the pillars of Islam for example. So it occurs to me Islam doesnt like you learning about other religions so most Muslims dont they know only what others tell them.
Adding a PS to this im not a christian so if thefe is one out there and i have something. Wrong feel free to correct me

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by EricD

 

Eric,

Hi, from my limited knowledge the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is not referred to as the spirit.

That title is for "Jesus, Son of Mary". Jesus is often referred to in Islam as the "Spirit of God".

If that is so, then we have a direct contradiction in the Quran itself concerning Isa (Jesus). Because that would make him the Son of God because God was in Him and he was the Son of Mariam (Mary), and having no earthly father, God would then be His Father.

right. you mean God is not really father of Jesus as we are father of our children. this is good.
but some Christians even do not consider Jesus a prophet but they call him God or one shape of God. this is not logical. then what was Moses and other prophets !
moreover Allah is one of God's name. it has Aramaic roots. and Aramaic was the language of Jesus. so you can search and see how Jesus would call God. it has no relation to moon !
there is only one God in this world. and monotheistic religions are speaking of one God. however Jews believe that the only God has not sent Jesus and Christians believe that the only God has not sent Muhammad.

What I mean is that Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus is the Son of God and God is the Father of Jesus. And history tells the story of how the moon god allah was adopted as the chief god of Islam until having more than one god was rejected for allah alone.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Sahabi

 

Al Quran an Natiq is incorruptible.

How very rude-- and whoever gave your post here stars should have their star privileges revoked.

Did your mother never teach you manners-- to be polite and not interrupt people when they're speaking? OP clearly put in A LOT of work here, but you have to be rude, and butt-in your opinion on OP's posts before OP is even done speaking? Shame on you. I see this often, when people take the time and effort to make long posts. It's not their fault ATS has a (really, really stupid) 5000-character post limit. And this is one of my biggest posting peeves around here.


Learn some manners!

Really excellent thread, OP. I can tell you put a lot of thought and work into this. I applaud you for your efforts, and I hope some mod(s) gave you "actual" applause for your efforts. Well deserved.

I read through all your initial posts, and found it very interesting. This is a subject I've always been very curious, but ignorant about. One of those subjects where it's difficult to find unbiased information-- as usually the most knowledgeable people have reason for bias as well...


I will admit, though that all the unfamiliar Arabic names and terms did make it a little hard to follow, for my ignorant western brain.


I have to say I'm also curious to learn more about ways in which the meaning of the original text versus the modern accepted version might contradict itself. The fact that there are conflicting versions, alone, doesn't bode well for the "book is divine and incorruptible" belief-- but I would think discrepancies in actual meaning would be even more glaring and important.

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by EricD

 

Eric,

Hi, from my limited knowledge the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is not referred to as the spirit.

That title is for "Jesus, Son of Mary". Jesus is often referred to in Islam as the "Spirit of God".

If that is so, then we have a direct contradiction in the Quran itself concerning Isa (Jesus). Because that would make him the Son of God because God was in Him and he was the Son of Mariam (Mary), and having no earthly father, God would then be His Father.

right. you mean God is not really father of Jesus as we are father of our children. this is good.
but some Christians even do not consider Jesus a prophet but they call him God or one shape of God. this is not logical. then what was Moses and other prophets !
moreover Allah is one of God's name. it has Aramaic roots. and Aramaic was the language of Jesus. so you can search and see how Jesus would call God. it has no relation to moon !
there is only one God in this world. and monotheistic religions are speaking of one God. however Jews believe that the only God has not sent Jesus and Christians believe that the only God has not sent Muhammad.

What I mean is that Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus is the Son of God and God is the Father of Jesus. And history tells the story of how the moon god allah was adopted as the chief god of Islam until having more than one god was rejected for allah alone.

Allah was not the moon god this was started by Christians who just didnt understand the similarities not speaking Arabic. And im sure one oor Muslim friends will correct me if i get this wrong not being a native speaker.

Ok lets talk about the moon goddess yes i said goddess she was a female. So the confusion comes in here in Arabic لله‎ AL (THE) ʾilāh (meaning deity just masculine form) , She was known as Allāt AL (the) lāt ( deity feminine form) She was one of the 3 gods in mecca at the time of Mohammad. In fact i remeber Mohammad actually has one of her temples destroyed. And even had her statues removed from mosques but id have to look up the details.

Now they will sound similar but the moon goddess and Allah are not the same person at least to my understanding of history.

reply to post by racasan



Your first link calls it hasan (good) by two people, one of those two were the authors of the compilation that narration is from. The link you linked me to one the first link also goes into great detail as to why it is not a verse from the Quran which is lost and why it is not a proof of alteration of the Quran...

Your own source called your bluff in other words by saying that that hadith does not say what you are trying to say.....

Not getting into the second link at all since the second link is not an Islamic sight but one which promotes the hatred of Islam... Main page states that the website is concerning "The politically incorrect truth about Islam, one really messed up religion" No point in getting into that since that is where you are getting all this incorrect information from in the first place...

reply to post by dragonridr


Also, even Christians and Jews who are native speakers of Arabic call God "Allah"... Look at the Arabic Bible and you will see that clearly...

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Also, even Christians and Jews who are native speakers of Arabic call God "Allah"... Look at the Arabic Bible and you will see that clearly...

True there are also multiple names for Allah as well you see it throughout the Koran my personal favorite is Al-Qadir.
Just think if your going to have a god might as well say hes all powerful !

reply to post by logical7


Hello there again.

Please tell me exactly what I said false about Uthman. Also, I did not say Uthman was responsible for the destruction of Hafsa's Qur'an. I said that Marwan did it.

1. Hafsa's Qur'an was not identical to Uthman's, proven when Uthman said; "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." (Sahih al-Bukhari 6.510). This is also proof that Uthman destroyed the Seven Ahruf (Variant Modes) that Muhammad approved of. The seven ahruf ARE NOT the same as the Seven Qira'at (school of recitation).


2. Hafsa's Qur'an was not identical to Uthman's Qur'an, proven when Marwan destroyed it and then said; "'I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios." (Hafsa's Qur'an).


And just as a reminder, Hafsa's Qur'an was the original Qur'an that Abu Bakr (Muhammad's first successor) had compiled.




Conclusions:

• Uthman destroyed the 'Seven Ahruf' (variant modes) that were approved by Muhammad, by standardizing the Quraysh dialect.

• The original Qur'an possessed by Abu Bakr, Umar, and Hafsa was different than Uthman's later compilation. Marwan destroyed this Qur'an after Hafsa'a death because of the differences.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by racasan

 

Your first link calls it hasan (good) by two people, one of those two were the authors of the compilation that narration is from. The link you linked me to one the first link also goes into great detail as to why it is not a verse from the Quran which is lost and why it is not a proof of alteration of the Quran...

Your own source called your bluff in other words by saying that that hadith does not say what you are trying to say.....

Not getting into the second link at all since the second link is not an Islamic sight but one which promotes the hatred of Islam... Main page states that the website is concerning "The politically incorrect truth about Islam, one really messed up religion" No point in getting into that since that is where you are getting all this incorrect information from in the first place...

Ok slow down a minute now i havnt really read any Hadiths more skimmed some so you twocan help me if im understanding this we have a hadith which states its missing but an imam said it was no big deal. One of you please explain why im lost.

reply to post by Sahabi


you are again moulding the story to fit your conclusion.
Uthman r.a. saying that in case of any difference give preference to Quraysh way does not necessary mean that there were differences.

Marwan destroying Hafsa's r.a copy does not mean that it was different. The other partial copies that were destroyed may have been very correct yet they were destroyed because a standard copy was available which everyone agreed to.

Also listen to the wordings of Marwan, he does not say that it was different. He said that he fears that later people may claim that it was different. just as you are claiming now. I dont understand his logic fully. But using this as a proof is just very weak and desparate attempt to prove the claim.

You also did not reply to the statement i made that if Uthman's copy was not the same, wouldn't his enemies propogate it with all means available to rouse people against him?

In one of the later battle the soldiers put the pages of Qur'an on spear points to stop the fight. Nobody however claimed that the other side had a different/altered Qur'an.

Wouldnt this claim be an ultimate justification used if anybody even doubted?

There are 7 different ways to "recite" Quran.
Many are still known and taught. It is a complete different science of recitation.

The things you are mentioning are all known to the scholars and are being taught. Didnt you get taught all of this. At least the basics of Uloom al Quran(science of Quran)?
The very fact that these are present in the writing of scholars is enough to vouch for the honesty of the companions and later scholars.

Check Uloom al Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer.
He mentions the variation that were found in the copies of some companions. They were personal copies, some even wrote hadiths in between the Qur'anic verses but they knew it as it was their personal notes. Even the order of chapters is different.
Saying that the Quran they had was original or the order they had was correct is just foolish.
They all agreed on the codex compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit ra.
Zaid was personally instructed by the Prophet about the order of chapters and he was present when the Prophet recited the whole Quran to Jibrael a.s.

Using differences in the personal notes of companions as a proof to your claim is also wrong and just shows that you want to prove your claim by hook or crook.

Also there are known abrogated verses that were not included in the Qur'an as they were for a specific time and it all was done when the Prophet was alive. Nobody dared change anything after he was gone as you can see in a hadith that you yourself mentioned that Abu Bakr and Zaid were even hesistant to do something that the Prophet hadnt done or commanded.
If you read the biographies of these men, you'l know how refined character and honesty they had.

Another Hadith you mentioned showed that Uthman agreed to standardise the Qur'an when a companion feared that muslims would end up like christians who ended up having varient texts and alterations.

Any other claim you want to make?

reply to post by dragonridr


Hi dragonridr

Basically there is this Hadith that appears in a number of books

Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, Hadith # 1934)

1.'The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept
under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (SAWW.) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.

(Sunan Ibne Majah, Volume 2, Page 39, Published Karachi)
----------
2. When the verses “Rajm”[Stoning] and ayah “Rezah Kabir” descended, they were written on a piece of paper and kept under my pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad a goat ate the piece of paper while we were mourning.
----------
Hadhrath Ayesha also testified to a ‘missing’ verse on stoning.“When the verses “Rajm”[Stoning] and ayah “Rezah Kabir” descended, they were written on a piece of paper and kept under my pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad (S) a goat ate the piece of paper while we were mourning.- Sunan Ibne Majah, Volume 2, Page 39, Published Karachi.

or

In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235 and 236), Ibn Hazm says plainly,

"The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A'isha in a (Qur'anic) copy. When Muhammad died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it."

A'isha herself declared that and she knew exactly what she possessed. Also, Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book, "al-Kash-shaf" by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact in page 518 of part 3. He says that the ones who related this incident and said that a domesticated animal ate the verses were reliable persons among them
'Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A'isha herself.

This same story has been mentioned also by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq who heard it from 'Abdulla who himself heard it from A'isha.

Professor Mustafa indicates that this does not negate that the abrogation of these verses may have occurred before the domesticated animal ate them.

Why then did 'Umar want to record the verse of the stoning in the Qur'an if its recitation was abrogated? And why did people used to read the verses of the breast-feeding?

And, if Muhammad died while these verses were still recited who abrogated them? Did the domesticated animal abrogate them?

It is evident that this really did occur according to the witness of the companions, Muslim scholars, and A'isha herself.(answering-islam.org.uk... v12.html)

Why Allah failed to protect his revelation from goats ?"

This is also reported by Ibn Majah and Ahmad bin Hanbal.

Ibn Majah has narrated another hadith from 'Aishah which explicitly says that the two verses were lost after the death of the Prophet. She is reported to say: 'The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269: Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626: Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) p. 310 which has been misprinted as 210-: As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. p. 13.

Alternative reference to the same hadith: Sunan Ibn Maaja, Book of Nikah, Hadith # 1934

www.islamicity.com...

the verse is some appalling rubbish about breast feeding >adults< and stoning people to death and from what I can work out it should have gone in the quran

Hadhrath Ayesha also testified to a ‘missing’ verse on stoning.

But a goat ate it (and possibly some other verses)

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by Sahabi

 

you are again moulding the story to fit your conclusion.
Uthman r.a. saying that in case of any difference give preference to Quraysh way does not necessary mean that there were differences.

Ok this makes no sense if he was told to preference one over the other logic tells us at the very least the wording was different and left room for interpretation.

Marwan destroying Hafsa's r.a copy does not mean that it was different. The other partial copies that were destroyed may have been very correct yet they were destroyed because a standard copy was available which everyone agreed to.

This kinda makes sense the only pause i would have would be is religions dont destroy things they dont want you see they hide them look at the vatican for example. But i guess at the time they really were not an organized religion. So kinda makes sense.

Also listen to the wordings of Marwan, he does not say that it was different. He said that he fears that later people may claim that it was different. just as you are claiming now. I dont understand his logic fully. But using this as a proof is just very weak and desparate attempt to prove the claim.

Well again saying people would think there were diffrences obviously means there were differences he just probably looked at them as grammatical errors.

You also did not reply to the statement i made that if Uthman's copy was not the same, wouldn't his enemies propogate it with all means available to rouse people against him?

In one of the later battle the soldiers put the pages of Qur'an on spear points to stop the fight. Nobody however claimed that the other side had a different/altered Qur'an.

Wouldnt this claim be an ultimate justification used if anybody even doubted?

Ah the battle of siffin it was interesting actually i all ways suspected there were two different versions of the Koran heres why. When Mu'awiya tells his soldiers to put 500 Korans on spears they do it. I never understood this part his soldiers were willing to risk the wrath of Allah. This is why i suspected there were different versions and his soldiers really didnt mind it because they didnt believe it was there Koran. Some how he got his soldiers to believe that wasnt the Koran just not sure how.
Wouldnt this claim be an ultimate justification used if anybody even doubted?

There are 7 different ways to "recite" Quran.
Many are still known and taught. It is a complete different science of recitation.

The things you are mentioning are all known to the scholars and are being taught. Didnt you get taught all of this. At least the basics of Uloom al Quran(science of Quran)?
The very fact that these are present in the writing of scholars is enough to vouch for the honesty of the companions and later scholars.

Well id have to say this is true except for the part about destroying versions because thats censorship.

Check Uloom al Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer.
He mentions the variation that were found in the copies of some companions. They were personal copies, some even wrote hadiths in between the Qur'anic verses but they knew it as it was their personal notes. Even the order of chapters is different.
Saying that the Quran they had was original or the order they had was correct is just foolish.
They all agreed on the codex compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit ra.
Zaid was personally instructed by the Prophet about the order of chapters and he was present when the Prophet recited the whole Quran to Jibrael a.s.
Using differences in the personal notes of companions as a proof to your claim is also wrong and just shows that you want to prove your claim by hook or crook.

Have to say i agree you cant take an individuals interpretation and compare it to another and expect them to be the same.

Also there are known abrogated verses that were not included in the Qur'an as they were for a specific time and it all was done when the Prophet was alive. Nobody dared change anything after he was gone as you can see in a hadith that you yourself mentioned that Abu Bakr and Zaid were even hesistant to do something that the Prophet hadnt done or commanded.
If you read the biographies of these men, you'l know how refined character and honesty they had.

with the power struggle that occurred at Mohammad death im not so sure on this one. After all this was the split between Sunni and Shia and each accuse the other of lying.

reply to post by logical7



( ** You are wrong, and so is everyone else that keeps bringing up the point about "7 Recitation" ** )




REGRDING: "7 Recitations (Qira'at)"


The hadith about "seven variations" uses incorrect english translations. The word is not "dialect", or "recitation", or "qira'at". The Arabic word used if "Ahruf".

Muhammad said there were seven "Ahruf" (singular: "harf") of the Qur'an. "Ahruf" is NOT the same thing as "Qira'at"!!!

• "Ahruf" is debatable, but is popularly known as "different variant modes".

• "Qira'at" is the word for "recitation / reading"

* Muhammad approved of 7 "Ahruf", not 7 "Qira'at". BIG DIFFERENCE!



Today the 7 "Ahruf" of Muhammad are unknown because Uthman standardized the Quraysh dialect and burned all of the Qur'ans.

Today there are 7 "Qira'at", which are the mainstream "recitations" (Qira'at),.... NOT "Ahruf"



In this hadith, (Sahih al-Bukhari 6.514), there is an argument about recitation between Umar ibn al-Khattab and Hisham bin Hakim. This Hadith is very important because it proves a very important aspect about "Ahruf",..... Umar and Hisham were both Meccans and both belonged to the tribe of Quraysh. This proves that "Ahruf" is not a difference of dialect or region because they spoke the same dialect and were from the same region!



Muhammad died in the year 11 Hijra of the Islamic calendar. Six of the seven "qurra" (reciters) of the mainstream schools of Recitation were born AFTER the death of Muhammad.



Conclusion:

The Seven Recitations (Qira'at) were established AFTER the death of Muhammad, and are not the same as the Seven Ahruf that Muhammad approved of.

reply to post by Sahabi

( ** You are wrong, and so is everyone else that keeps bringing up the point about "7 Recitation" ** )

Am I? you wish writing in bold made you right.
Here is a sahih hadith from the link you mentioned Bukhari 6. 513

513 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas Allah's

Apostle said,
"Gabriel recited the
Qur'an to me in one
way. Then I requested
him (to read it in
another way), and continued asking him
to recite it in other
ways, and he recited it
in several ways till he
ultimately recited it in
seven different ways."

so the reciters in 7 ways were born after the Prophet? hmm.. TELL ME ALL ABOUT IT PLEASE..