Koran a FAKE

Originally posted by undo

This doesn't invalidate God, it just means local interpretation went off course from the original meanings.

Also, have you read the data on the Divine Council ?

It is far more likely that evil has corrupted good, the drift as you see it would be to take over as GOD. This is what the anti-christ will do in the end, proclaim himself god.

GOD is, was, and always will be the same. It is the fakers that want his glory...........not local drift of good to evil.........evil is trying to trick you into thinking he is good........

Muslims believe the bible was corrupted by Jews and Chrsitians, in reality it is the koran that is corrupting mankind..........

reply to post by heliosprime


I'm saying it's best to discuss without arrogance or bias. That is how we can get closer to obtaining truth.

Regardless of wether or not you're right, your approach is terrible.

Originally posted by Kyuubi
reply to post by heliosprime

 

I'm saying it's best to discuss without arrogance or bias. That is how we can get closer to obtaining truth.

Regardless of wether or not you're right, your approach is terrible.

Why thank you, thats very nice of you to say. (author tears up)

Truth need no PC "soft" approach. Sometimes a good slap is what it takes to get someones attention. Especially when no one is paying attention in the first place.

reply to post by heliosprime



you were online a while back but did not reply to my 2 posts.

Your reply would be greatly appreciated.

reply to post by heliosprime


Ive been told by a friend of mine a BAPTIST preacher that the KORAN & the BIBLE "old testanment " are word for word up to a certian point .
I can't remember at what point the KORAN differ's from the Christian BIBLE but it's ironic they match each other in the beginnings.

Originally posted by AshleyD
This is so typical. There are more historical references to Jesus than many figures in antiquity,

There are no contemporary historical references to Jesus at all.
All we have is later comments about Christian BELIEFS.

None of the so-called "evidence" for Jesus stands up to scrutiny :


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.



more....


Iasion

...more


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.



Iasion

Originally posted by AshleyD
All we want to know is when the Koran was written, spliced together, and if it was before or after Mohammad's death. Also, what are the documentary sources or internal texts that confirm this conclusion.

Here is what I found :

The history of the Quran's formation shows it is anything but perfect -
1. The Quran was not finalised until well after Mohamed's death
2. Much was lost at Yamama
3. Variant Qurans existed in the early days
4. The variants were different to modern Qurans
5. Abu Bakr collected his version from scraps and memories
6. Abu Bakr's version faded early from importance
7. Uthmann chose Abu Bakr's version for political expediency
8. Utmann et al made changes to the new version
9. Muslims criticised Uthmann for destroying the Quran
10. Muslims crticised the new version as missing passages
11. Later changes were made to the Quran
12. Variant readings of the Quran exist to this day

This all goes to show the Quran is a book made by people who chose between different versions, added to it, changed it, left out parts etc. etc.

Details follow :


Quran not written down or finalised during Mohamed's lifetime

The Quran was not collected in writing in Mohamed's time :

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed. Then Abu Bakr said : "... you should search for the Qur'an and collect it ". By Allah! ... Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?"... (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477).

A great part of the Quran was only recited shortly before Mohamed's death :

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah sent down his Divine Inspiration to His Apostle (saw) continuously and abundantly during the period preceding his death till He took him unto Him. That was the period of the greatest part of revelation, and Allah's Apostle (saw) died after that. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.474).


This shows that the Quran was not collected or written down, or finalised before Mohamed's death - the Quran only formed years after Mohamed.


Some of the Quran was lost to posterity :

Many passages were lost at the battle of Yamama :

Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23).

This loss of some of the Quran inspired Abu Bakr to begin collecting it.


Other Qurans existed in the early days

The variant Quran of Salim existed before Yamama and before Abu Bakr's (Zaid's) version (Salim was killed in the battle) :

It is reported ... from Ibn Buraidah who said: "The first of those to collect the Qur'an into a book was Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.135).

(This contradicts the claim that Abu Bakr collected the first Quran.)


Abdullah ibn Masud was considered the foremost authority on the Quran by Mohamed - his Quran was used in Kufa in Iraq.

The Quran of Abu Bakr (first Caliph) passed to Umar (2nd Caliph) then to Hafsah (daughter of Umar and "wife of the prophet"). Hafsah became a recluse and kept the Abu Bakr Quran hidden away. During this period there is no evidence that this version was considered more important or accurate than other versions such as Abdullah ibn Masud's or Salim's - on the contrary, it was left unpublicsed and kept away from public view.

The Quran of Ubayy ibn Ka'b was favoured in Syria.


The Quran was collected from scattered memory and written materials

Following the losses at Yamama, Abu Bakr is generally considered the first to collect the Quran :

It is reported ... from Ali who said: "May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, the foremost of men to be rewarded with the collection of the manuscripts, for he was the first to collect (the text) between (two) covers". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.5)


Abu Bakr entrusted the collection of the Quran to Zaid bin Thabit :

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed. Then Abu Bakr said : "... you should search for the Qur'an and collect it ". By Allah! ... Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?"... (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477).


Zaid had to collect his version of the Quran from many scattered and different sources :

So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, ...

Significantly, some passages were recovered from only ONE source :
...till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).


more...

...more


Disputes about different versions of the Qurans lead to the first official version

About 20 years after Mohamed, an expedition under Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, made up of fighters from various regions, lead to disputes about different versions of the Quran.

Uthmann (3rd Caliph) then selected one version and had the rest DESTROYED :

Hudhaifa was afraid of their differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

The reason for one Quran being chosen over the others was to prevent dissension - the version chosen was Abu Bakr's which had been hidden away for some years while other versions flourished. This shows one version was chosen for political expediency, not because it was the best version.


Abdullah ibn Mas'ud resisted this decree as his Quran was considered most authentic :

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid ibn Thabit had embraced Islam". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.17).

"I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah?" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.15)

Early Muslims criticised Uthmann for "obliterating the Book of Allah" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.36). At-Tabari wrote (1.6.2952) that Uthman was criticised : "The Qur'an was in many books, and you have now discredited them all but one"


It is clear that Uthmann had the new version changed in places :

Narrated Anas (ra): 'Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts (of the Qur'an). 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, "If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur'an, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their language". So they acted accordingly. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.466).

This is not just changes in dialect pronunciation, as vowel points were not yet used - it means actual changes to the wording.


Those 2 verses found with ONLY Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari were apparently added to the Quran as a result of Khuzaima's initiative, under the later direction of of Uthmann:

Khuzaimah ibn Thabit said: "I see you have overlooked (two) verses and have not written them". They said "And which are they?" He replied "I had it directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) (Surah 9, ayah 128): 'There has come to you a messenger from yourselves. It grieves him that you should perish, he is very concerned about you : to the believers he is kind and merciful', to the end of the surah". Uthman said "I bear witness that these verses are from Allah". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.11).

It seems Zaid initially left out these verses, and then added them when Khuzaima reminded him of them and Uthmann agreed they should be added.


Zaid admits to another passage being added at this later stage :

Zaid said 'I missed a verse from al-Ahzab (Surah 33) when we transcribed the mushaf (the written text of the Qur'an under Uthman's supervision). I used to hear the messenger of Allah (saw) reciting it. We searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: "From among the believers are men who are faithful in their covenant with Allah" (33.23). So we inserted it in the (relevant) surah in the text. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.138).

This all goes to show how chance and human errors and opinions contributed to the late formation of the Quran.


Textual problems with Utmann's recension :

One of the standardised Suras (2.238) was disputed in early times :

Abu Yunus, freedman of Aishah, Mother of Believers, reported: Aishah ordered me to transcribe the Holy Qur'an and asked me to let her know when I should arrive at the verse Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin (2.238). When I arrived at the verse I informed her and she ordered: Write it in this way, Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa salaatiil 'asri wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin. She added that she had heard it so from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.64).

Here, Aishah stated that the prophet had added the phrase "and the afternoon prayer", but this phrase is lost from the standard Quran. (Hafsah also had her scribe add this phrase.)

This variation is also recorded by Abdullah :

It is reported by Abdullah on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abdul Malik who reported from Yazid (etc.) ... It is written in the codex of Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet (saw): "Observe your prayers, especially the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.87).

The variation is also recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Umm Salama and ibn Abbas.

This is thus SIX early attestions that a passage is MISSING from the Quran of today.


more...

...more


The Quran of today is not complete :

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).

Pasages have been lost or removed from the Quran :

We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". ( Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501).


About a century after Uthmann, al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven consonantal corrections to the Quran :

Altogether al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text. ... In al-Baqarah (Surah 2.259) it originally read Lam yatasanna waandhur, but it was altered to Lam yatasannah ... In al-Ma'ida (Surah 5.48) it read Shari ya'atan wa minhaajaan but it was altered to shir 'atawwa minhaajaan. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.117).


Variant Qurans still in use

There are many DIFFERENT Qurans in use today - this is due to the lack of vowel points in early Arabic, meaning a written word can be read in varying ways. There were several early "Readers", and the way the book was recited by a Reader was recorded by various "Transmitters" - given several "transmissions" of the text.

The following list shows the commonly accepted versions (Reader -> Transmitter) and where they are used :

The Seven :

1. Nafi -> Warsh (Algeria, Morocco, parts of Tunisia, West Africa and Sudan)
Nafi -> Qalun (Libya, Tunisia, parts of Qatar).

2. Ibn Kathir -> al-Bazzi
Ibn Kathir -> Qunbul

3. Abu `Amr al-'Ala' -> al-Duri (parts of Sudan and West Africa)
Abu `Amr al-'Ala' -> al-Suri

4. Ibn `Amir -> Hisham (Parts of Yemen)
Ibn `Amir -> Ibn Dhakwan (Parts of Yemen)

5. Hamzah -> Khalaf
Hamzah -> Khallad

6. al-Qisa'i -> al-Duri
al-Qisa'i -> Abu'l-Harith

7. Abu Bakr `Asim -> Hafs (general use)
Abu Bakr `Asim -> Ibn `Ayyash (general use)


The Three :

8. Abu Ja'far -> Ibn Warden
Abu Ja'far -> Ibn Jamaz

9. Ya`qub al-Hashimi -> Ruways
Ya`qub al-Hashimi -> Rawh

10. Khalaf al-Bazzar -> Ishaq
Khalaf al-Bazzar -> Idris al-Haddad


Iasion

Originally posted by heliosprime
The bible has more than one set of original texts dating back thousands of years.

We do NOT have ANY originals of ANY Bible books.

What we have is many late manuscripts which all differ at least slightly.

Just like the Koran.


I.

Originally posted by barmshadow84
Ive been told by a friend of mine a BAPTIST preacher that the KORAN & the BIBLE "old testanment " are word for word up to a certian point .

Really?
Did you actually check?

Originally posted by barmshadow84
I can't remember at what point the KORAN differ's from the Christian BIBLE but it's ironic they match each other in the beginnings.

So,
you didn't check at all?

If and when you evfer do bother to check this (it took me less than 1 minute) you will find it is completely false.


I.

Iasion

Soooooooo, do muslims believe Jesus was a prophet or do they think he never existed? Which is it?

[edit on 8-2-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Iasion
Soooooooo, do muslims believe Jesus was a prophet or do they think he never existed? Which is it?
[edit on 8-2-2008 by undo]

Odd question.

The majority of muslims believe Jesus was a prophet.

Some believe he was a myth.


Iasion

Originally posted by undo
Iasion

Soooooooo, do muslims believe Jesus was a prophet or do they think he never existed? Which is it?

[edit on 8-2-2008 by undo]

Muslims believe in all the prophets, Moses, Abraham, Jesus etc. There have been many.