Somewhere in this reply, I give a link to "answer" your "compilation" question, if you want to pursue that particular line, best to ask them.
Originally posted by KSoze
The originals were lost POSSIBLY sometime before?
Are the Dead sea Scrolls corrupt? There isn't anything in there supporting The Qu'ran version of biblical events. I really hope you tell me the
qu'ran says they were corrupted before 150-300 BC. For your own sakes.
The Qur'an refers to the Bible corruption at 003.078 which means:
"And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when
it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly. "
A few other places too, but why would a date of corruption help, not like you'd see that as proof? The Bible is being corrupted even now.
I thought the DSS (fragments
of non-Biblical scripture and the OT, not NT which is where the "Trinity" came from) had many differences to the
OT Bible, where does it say otherwise?
"Copying errors, misunderstandings, redactions, insertions (glosses), and biblical commentaries, among other effects, have all served to modify
these texts over time. These changes are of undoubted interest to scholars whose research focuses the evolution of such biblical texts prior to the
time they were edited into their final forms in the modern Christian and Jewish Canons."
I find it very disturbing that you, a muslim, do not even know how the
Qu'ran was verified, by whom, or what methods were used. It does not take a historian to research it. You cannot explain it therefore you do not
understand it. Your putting your eternal salvation into this. It is in your best interest to know these things. Its very important stuff! You say that
given evidence one explaination is more likely. However, you have forgot to even look into the most critical of evidence...How the Qu'ran came to
I asked anyone if the original sources were availible. I received no answer. It would only be in the islams best interest if they were availible. If
they are not, there's probably a good reason for it. Most likely because political and human agenda crept into your qu'ran.
Well, I find it disturbing you won't even try to fully understand something that makes such a great claim (only a post ago you were biasing yourself
to the Bible, this is no fair test), that could affect you forever. Anyway...
I don't need to go in depth by knowing it's compilation history because I believe it is a superior belief to any other written religion (including
atheism) even without
knowing its compilation history. Still it's interesting, so I will look into it. I have proved to myself the Qur'an is
the truth because it's the most likely explanation of the universe. If you read and understood what I said about theory and evidence before, you
might appreciate my view.
How the Qur'an came to be? How did anything come to be, you selectively take things for granted too, whether you believe it or not. It doesn't
really matter how, except that it is here.
Why must you know the original source before you accept something. You don't when you see a car, when you see a textbook, or even a video of it being
made. With your mindset, even if I gave you the original source from Muhammad you still wouldn't believe, instead asking for more proof he really
said it. If an Angel appeared infront of you, you still wouldn't believe - with this mindset of yours (but your fear at that point may beat your
People only believe what is easiest, but Islam is a hard way to live - you have to give up many freedoms. This is why the previous Messages were hated
and destroyed by those men who had power; they didn't want God deciding, they wanted to make up their own rules, giving them full control of the
"sheep." Must be a good reason why so many give up freedom willingly!
Anyways, I've researched enough of this to realize that the qu'ran you have is not god-breathed; it is not the most likely explanation. It is a
compilation work. There were many hands involved and this is evident by the incoherency of its pages.
Incoherency to you, as you don't fully understand the verses, that's all. Do you understand General Relativity? You can't reject it by trying to
understand it with a half-hearted attempt thus giving up. Anyway, it's your choice.
Where are you sourcing this "brief history" from?
A very brief history:
There are various traditions of the compilation of the qu'ran. The compilation of Abu Bakr and that of Uthman. There are others as well. Today, it is
ASSUMED that the Uthman text is correct but they give no substantial reasons for discarding the Bakr text. This Uthman text was compiled atleast 20
yrs AFTER muhammed.
This amazes me...You muslims criticize the christians because they have late evidence; yet your own is Late...The same criteria you have used to judge
the christians can be used against you.
There is a huge difference between recited and translated/interpreted ( en.wikipedia.org...
) evidence. Anyway, I explained that
The Qur'an was written down in fragments during Muhammad's life, he recited it to people and encouraged people to write it down more than memorize
it. Obviously some writers make mistakes but the final compilation was done to compare the many received copies and discard ones phrases that didn't
agree with the majority. So why are you shocked that some versions get discarded?
If Uthman or any caliph was to actually change parts then I would expect other non-official groups who had their own versions or memorizations would
have made a big deal about it.
Here is an explanation of your Uthman-Bakr question from a "scholar," not some answering-islam or me; read it as it's interesting:
Uthman just changed the style to fit a pronunciation.
Here's some nice scans of early scripts:
Memorization also played a role in the compilation of the qu'ran. It is very possible that the memorization abilities of the early muslims is an
exaggeration. Memorizing over a hundred verses perfectly is a difficult task. Is it possible they forgot something, is it possible human error and
influence reigned? In addition, we know that traditions vary when they are passed down orally. That is what muslims assert happened to the gospels,
What is the first mention of Muhammed in literature that we have? How many years AFTER his death is this source dated to?
The "early Muslims" are in some way more forgetful? Sounds like you been reading answering-islam. You have tried memorizing? Might be "easy"
considering back then you could get a reward for it.
Even if hundreds memorize something from an original and large source, the chances of even two people getting the same
word wrong are still
incredibly minute. The more words in the memorization the less chance of the same-word error. This is important to note, because it means a
"democratic" compilation of what is recalled will have a good chance of matching the original. And the memorization method was just to back up the
These are the types of questions muslims attack the christian, judaism evidence with, its only fair you treat your own beliefs the same way.
In summary, a variety of sources were used along with selective data acquiring. There were numerous variants of the text in the first three centuries
of Islam. The details are availible for anyone that wants to search for it; I'm not writing a book.
Muslims don't (and shouldn't) need to "attack" Christians with the Bible, the Trinity is good enough! How can I treat the Qur'an the same way
when there is only one version; (I don't speak Arabic but) I read that the difference you had read about between those two "versions" purely
affects pronunciation not meaning. Thinking that this one version is corrupt is simply a matter of which version of which history you believe.
In addition, There is more evidence that parts of the quran have been lost. If parts have been lost then it's plausible that it has been added to as
well. Here ya go:
As-Suyuti, a commentator of the Koran quotes Ibn Khattab as saying:
"Let no one of you say that he has aquired the entire quran , for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost and thus let him
say. 'I have aquired of it what is availible."
-all of this coming from a MUSLIM
Was he Muslim? Plenty of "Muslims" must say this and much worse. I really like how you seem to agree with this one random source which Google only
comes up for anti-Islamic sites, but so desperate not to believe the Qur'an. Make your own book saying it too - maybe in 100 years someone will quote
Mithras your so called evidence of Islam isn't evidence at all: 1)The qu'ran-I've shown how shaky its foundations are 2) the hadiths contradict the
qu'ran and only make islam look bad; it is dated VERY LATE 3) wiping out civilizations-so what, Caesar wiped out tons of people.
Anything you see is evidence. The Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, Feynman's Lectures on Physics, the Qur'an - whether the foundations are shaky doesn't
actually matter, because you can't disprove it that way, what matters is does the Message "feel" correct. That is proof - nothing more than a
feeling something fits, for whatever subject you consider (except pure mathematics, a creation of man). The knowledge of the origins are just an extra
comfort (and they are) for Muslims.
Mithra, we as humans must believe in some things, but its not necessary for any of us to believe one religion has all the answers.
Islam doesn't give the grand Truth in detail, still lots to find out, it just gives the right set of ethics to help us. You said yourself you must
believe in something (this is very true, the need is based in fear), but you cannot just conjure stuff up or change/mix religions to fit yourself.
[edit on 29-6-2004 by mithras]