Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

Originally posted by Sahabi
Peace be with you babloyi. Thank you for your patience in my response

No worries. You seem to be a popular guy .

Originally posted by Sahabi
Yes, but someone must collect, record, store, and allocate the funds.

So in your community's mosque, it was you?

Originally posted by Sahabi
Pearls Corals (Al-Lu'lu'wal-Marjan) is a compilation all of individual hadith that are shared in both Sahih al-Bukhari and also Sahih Muslim. If an individual hadith is sourced in both Bukhari and Muslim, then it is included in Pearls and Corals.


I was lead to hand-copy this book, because as a Sunni Muslim, this is a book of "super sahih" hadith, and I was highly passionate about internalizing the most authentic sources

My mistake. I was confusing it with another book by a Sufi author. Again, for my own curiousity, did you transcribe the arabic as well? Did you use a specific calligraphic style, or was it just the usual neat arabic hand-writing?

Originally posted by Sahabi
No. I did not only research/study Salafi literature.

Why not? What was the purpose behind your study of this other literature from later times?

Originally posted by Sahabi
That is no problem if you do not want to accept Shi'a sources. When I was still a Muslim, I read Shia literature to learn about the religion, but I did not follow it. Oh well, my Shi'a sources are rare anyway.

I'd say a rather pivotal story point in your narrative depended on it.

Originally posted by Sahabi
If it was meant to be scribed, then surely Muhammad would have ordered entire compilations created. And if Zaid had scribed so much of the Qur'an, he would not have had to scour Arabia gathering verses for Abu Bakr's Qur'an.

Errrr....Zaid was Muhammad's personal scribe (among other things). It was his TASK down the verses revealed to Muhammad (as well as the letters he sent). And there is nothing wrong with being thorough, he was only a human after all.

Originally posted by Sahabi
The diacritic marks were not added for or in consideration of non-Arab speakers. They were added because at the time of Muhammad, the Arabic writing script was still maturing, and it did not fully represent the language. The diacritical marks were developed as the Arabic script developed out of a "defective script" into a proper script.

I do not know where you get your information, but I had learnt that the marks were initially proposed and implemented by Persian scribes, who did not have the same oral skills as the native arab speakers.

Originally posted by Sahabi
The examples of Kufic represented in the oldest Qur'ans is blatantly illustrative of the 8th century styles. A plethora of Islamic and non-Islamic scholars/researchers have dated these manuscripts to the 8th Century, not me.

I'm sorry, it is nowhere as "blatant" as you say. The only reason I've seen that is used to show the Samarkand codex was dated so late was that it was written in the Kufic script.

Originally posted by Sahabi
The paleographic scholars involved with the Samarkand Qur'an date it to the end of the 8th century.

Which paleographic scholars? John Gilchrist, despite his vast array of knowledge (mostly in Christianity), was not a paleographic scholar, and those who date the Samarkand Codex (using the "Kufic came later argument) base their work off them. And as I said, coins and inscriptions on gravestones and the inscription on the mosque at the Dome of the Rock (from within 20-60 years of Muhammad's death) show it was in use then, and as I said earlier, there is also much scholarship that shows that the kufic script was quite prevalent by the time the Quran was completed, and certainly did not simply begin at the founding of Kufah (from which it takes its name today), as you say. Also, perhaps just for your own information, the script used in Makkah and the script used in Medinah were different.

With regards to the Kufic script, this link might interest you: www.islamic-awareness.org...
If you do not care for the content and words the guy may be saying ("after all, he's just trying to defend his faith!"), feel free to skip to section 5, that gives examples of "proto-kufic" or kufic before it reached its perfection in the 7th century, and compare it to the text of the Samarkand codex (keeping in mind allowances for difficulty of etching, and wear and tear of rocks in the open vs preserved books, of course).

Originally posted by Sahabi
If you read the entire hadith, Umar's mention of the missing stoning verse was a desperate act to clear his conscious. By his words, it is apparent that this missing verse really bothered him a lot.

Was it Sahih? Do you say so simply due to its inclusion in Sahih al-Bukhari? Because simply being in that collection doesn't automatically mean it is sahih (you yourself, when copying the Pearls and Coral book, penned only the "Super-Sahih hadith", derived from it, for example).
Anyhow, if it is true, it still doesn't really show that the Quran was "corrupted" in any way. Umar was, while being a Sahabi, and among the Rashidun Caliphs (at least according to Sunnis), a fairly strict and serious man. It would make sense for him to do as he did, given his personality.

Originally posted by Sahabi
If you are ok with the concept of abrogation (cancel / replace), how do you feel about Muhammad abrogating "no compulsion in religion" and "peace" teachings with the Verses of the Sword (Qur'an, Chapter 9)? As mentioned in this post of the op, which is a declaration to fully separate all non-believers from Islam for open hostilities.

But that is a completely different matter. The "abrogation" you mentioned before was one where the text was removed from the Quran, what I consider "hukm wa'l-tilawa", but some of my muslim brethren might consider "tilawa duna al-hukm".
As I said before, this alleged abrogation of "No compulsion in religion" came about in the medieval times, when "Mansukh! Mansukh!" was the call of the day, and most Islamic scholars today totally disagree with the vast majority of the abrogations alleged from this time. You quoted Tafsir ibn Kathir to prove your point, but this is why I questioned you about it- It isn't part of the Salafi timeframe. Undoubtedly, it is an invaluable resource for those who want to study the Quran, but one shouldn't be under any allusions at all as to its infallibility- It was a product of its time, and one which I don't give a whole lot of authority, considering, as you know, my emphasis on sources. One wouldn't, for example, feel the need to read, or even trust Irenaeus on what was written in the Bible, although one might study his work for historical understanding.

reply to post by old_god


When I speak about Istikbar I think you will get what I mean.

Istikbar is a state of mind which can lead to some unshakable stance regarding to the truth.

If I am going to construct software, I won't do it randomly and a chaotic manner (unless you're a C or Perl programmer), I will follow tried and tested Patterns & Practices, principles that have been developed over time to ensure the software I build adheres to a particular standard and meets the requirements set out.

But who can build on some shakable foundation and except it to be indestructible ? Unless some one who has seen his building has found has fallen but refuses to believe in.

And you see , how choosing being we are. When something is clear , we still can refuse to believe it.

Anyway , 9:108

افمن اسس بنيانه علي تقوي من الله ورضوان خير ام من اسس بنيانه علي شفا جرف هار فانهار به في نار جهنم والله لا يهدي القوم الظالمين

and god bless Javadi Amoli who taught beautiful truth about that.

They built their building on شفا جرف.You can not do much about this , I can't do much either. It is heir will and their destiny.

Maybe it is their destiny to see their building fall.

And the Hikmat is for us to learn how some leaders who act as they will , not as god commands , make people mislead after centuries.

And the brilliant point is that they think they are thinking skeptically.

I wish it was real skeptical. Because real skeptic are promised to success. 29-69 :

وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَعَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

But how do the bigots act ?? Just following the mind frame.

Good Ship people , but it only suits them.

All I see is العلم هو حجاب الاکبر.

Maybe if Iblis didn't have the knowledge that Adam was created from smelly mud , he could bow to him. But his knowledge kept him.(an example)

reply to post by Sahabi

That is no problem if you do not want to accept Shi'a sources. When I was still a Muslim, I read Shia literature to learn about the religion, but I did not follow it. Oh well, my Shi'a sources are rare anyway. Reject what you like

That means you are the compass , then you see if the agenda in the hadith is aligned with your agenda. Then you decide whether it's good to use it or not.

Am I hearing it wrong or the words speak another language ?

In the end , you say you used it as it's not important to you;

That is self alignment and that is Istikbar. The heart disease of Eblis.

The more we rile the mixture , the more it smells.

A book that might interest some people:

Satan's Tragedy and Redemption: Iblis in Sufi Psychology (Numen Book Series)

www.amazon.com...

Very hard to find now and costly but well worth a read, esoteric knowledge so not for everyone.

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by Sahabi

 

That is no problem if you do not want to accept Shi'a sources. When I was still a Muslim, I read Shia literature to learn about the religion, but I did not follow it. Oh well, my Shi'a sources are rare anyway. Reject what you like

That means you are the compass , then you see if the agenda in the hadith is aligned with your agenda. Then you decide whether it's good to use it or not.

Am I hearing it wrong or the words speak another language ?

In the end , you say you used it as it's not important to you;

That is self alignment and that is Istikbar. The heart disease of Eblis.

The more we rile the mixture , the more it smells.

edit on 24-8-2013 by mideast because: (no reason given)

I believe he was telling you you need to find your own truths. If you choose to dismiss writings that is a decision you must make. Hes telling you to choose your own path but your to busy trying to attack to see that. You immediately belittled his sources and for that matter the religion he spent a great deal of time studying. If he decided to reject it and is telling you why try listening it may help you on your journey through life.

reply to post by dragonridr


I am not familiar with one's truth. I just know that truth is truth , it is there . Some people uncover it and some hide it. And no matter how professionally it is uncovered , it will be revealed in the judgement day.

+ that post and other posts cost deep studying oneself , but I don't want to prove to ATS people that how I studied them.

Because maybe some days later some one bomb them or assassinate the people.

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I am not familiar with one's truth. I just know that truth is truth , it is there . Some people uncover it and some hide it. And no matter how professionally it is uncovered , it will be revealed in the judgement day.

+ that post and other posts cost deep studying oneself , but I don't want to prove to ATS people that how I studied them.

Because maybe some days later some one bomb them or assassinate the people.

Going to be honest im not following you last lines kinda scary though are you implying teachings you had will cause people to become suicide bombers??

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I am not familiar with one's truth. I just know that truth is truth , it is there . Some people uncover it and some hide it. And no matter how professionally it is uncovered , it will be revealed in the judgement day.

+ that post and other posts cost deep studying oneself , but I don't want to prove to ATS people that how I studied them.

Because maybe some days later some one bomb them or assassinate the people.

Going to be honest im not following you last lines kinda scary though are you implying teachings you had will cause people to become suicide bombers??

No , I mean that key figures have been assassinated for years in Iran. If we make it clear who uncovers the truth for us , they plan to kill him.

simple.

Originally posted by mideast

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I am not familiar with one's truth. I just know that truth is truth , it is there . Some people uncover it and some hide it. And no matter how professionally it is uncovered , it will be revealed in the judgement day.

+ that post and other posts cost deep studying oneself , but I don't want to prove to ATS people that how I studied them.

Because maybe some days later some one bomb them or assassinate the people.

Going to be honest im not following you last lines kinda scary though are you implying teachings you had will cause people to become suicide bombers??

No , I mean that key figures have been assassinated for years in Iran. If we make it clear who uncovers the truth for us , they plan to kill him.

simple.

Ah understood have a friend from Iran i let me say nothing lasts for ever and someday this to will pass. I wont say any more buti hope you understood. As-salamu alaykum

No need to go through so much trouble just to prove the Qu'ran is corrupt, the Qu'ran isn't that matters. What matters is an integral understanding of yourself. One should never be preoccupied with searching for external corruption because obviously, external corruption is a reflection from within. The "minds" of the governments are corrupt and their corruption is portrayed through externally corrupt documents. To deny that you aren't corrupt is hypocritical. We all know that nobody is perfect, we should strive for perfection from within and only thus, when reaching perfection and we understand what "corruption" trully is. It's pointless seeking contradictions and falsity in "corrupt" documents. How can the corrupt (mind) criticise the corrupt? From this we can see that judgements are hypocritical and absurd. Think about this and apply it.

I think the thread is dead. The op is not interested to debate his claim anymore or has just given up as there was enough counter-points shown that refute the claim.

Qur'an is incorruptible Speech of Allah.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
No need to go through so much trouble just to prove the Qu'ran is corrupt, the Qu'ran isn't that matters. What matters is an integral understanding of yourself. One should never be preoccupied with searching for external corruption because obviously, external corruption is a reflection from within. The "minds" of the governments are corrupt and their corruption is portrayed through externally corrupt documents. To deny that you aren't corrupt is hypocritical. We all know that nobody is perfect, we should strive for perfection from within and only thus, when reaching perfection and we understand what "corruption" trully is. It's pointless seeking contradictions and falsity in "corrupt" documents. How can the corrupt (mind) criticise the corrupt? From this we can see that judgements are hypocritical and absurd. Think about this and apply it.

Couldn't have said it better, thank you for the short but sweet post, this sums up everything in life very well - we are too lost in the detail, distracted by our divisions, differences and prejudices that we don't realise on the surface, we are more alike than we are different and we have more of the same desires than personal agendas.

Great thread, nice to see some of the old ATS style back in play, everyone provided great input from all sides. We need more of this etiquette on ATS to bring back the better days of ATS folks.

Peace and good health everyone.

Originally posted by logical7
I think the thread is dead. The op is not interested to debate his claim anymore or has just given up as there was enough counter-points shown that refute the claim.

Qur'an is incorruptible Speech of Allah.

The OP focused on the specific, literal material and missed the not so obvious spiritual and divine nature of the message.

There are lessons to be learnt from everything in life and wisdom surfaces when we acknowledge that we know very little or nothing at all.

I read something in the Qur'an (English translation) a long time ago and it compelled me to observe and witness the marvel of our universe, "In it there are signs for men of learning". Very profound statement asking the reader to look for and observe the divine nature of what is within them and around them, when you do this you start to see cause and affect, the nature of the universe working together as part of a very subtle plan for a higher purpose.

It's not biased or prejudicial, its open and accepting for all of creation, all of us - the Creator is not ignorant of its Creation, everything has a purpose and it takes the journey to understand that and achieve it.

Religion is merely a platform to express our spiritual nature and reach out to life to form a bond through acceptance and understanding (not through the fulfilment of the ego which results in hatred, self service and an unsympathetic heart), this is real evolution, growing, accepting, adapting and becoming subservient to our fellow souls.

I found many qualities in Islam that resonated with the above, concerning a human being, his role as a person being unselfish and sympathetic, empathic to our fellow people and beings (by living up to the principles of what is a Muslim and a Human Being).

What I have found here on ATS is an indication of our direction with regards to our spiritual evolution and I believe as we are asking more questions of ourselves and the world we live in, we are becoming aware of something greater and how we could achieve that (collectively) if we start to let go of the shackles of the material world we live in.

We have become subservient to the creation we created, lazy and distant, that we have lost our ability to feel on all levels (instead resorting to extreme responses) and as such we are unsympathetic and cold to our own souls (The self that is divine, the part of you that you acknowledge is righteous, valorous, human) and to our fellow people of this world. Neglecting our family values we have lost the ability to even do things like parent properly because we lack the stimuli that comes from being in a multi-generational community (where we would learn and absorb 'traditions' and the knowledge that comes from such things).

We could change this world, one person at a time if we started to change our lives in such a way that it's not just a betterment of the self, but we constantly ask the question of ourselves:

How can I be of service to others, how can I benefit from them and them from me?

When you start to think like that you start harmonise with the world around you and as people say, "Good Luck" follows. Its probably more like "positive intentions and actions drawing other positive results to the person (you/me/us)".

Many have said there is something very wrong with the world and I believe there is, all this negativity will eventually manifest into a singular point, history tells us that and I believe that point, whatever form it appears in is very near.

Those that have made it this far well done, you had the patience to carry on reading and that's the one thing we lack right now, patience and it's the reason why the world is in such a sick state. We can be masters of our own destiny only if we want to believe that and then go about making the small changes which will one day have a big affect.

Well that's my rambling over, the words of this old codger might inspire someone and that's my aim in life, to inspire at least one person so they fulfil and exceed their potential (God Willing).

Good day and great health folks!

Interesting, such a long thread.
I wont say much in here, i will just give a question to anyone who willing to do more research, and a small clue too.

Question : How many verses in Quran?, and what is the marking between verses/what is the sign when a verse start and when it stop?
Another one, is bismillahi rahmaannir raheem is a verse or not. If it is a verse, how many of it that count as verse, is it only one or all the head of surah?

reply to post by babloyi


Assalaamu alaikum baoyi.

I must say, I truly appreciate this exchange. You are the one and only con-debater of this thread who has not been presumptuous, slanderous, insulting, or rude to me.

There are millions of Muslims in the world, with many varying sects and schools of thought. It is your choice to accept which sources, which edicts, and which teachings to follow, that is your choice. However, there are groups, sects, scholars, and ideologies of Islam, who do indeed follow the sources of the op. If you, on personal grounds, do not acknowledge certain sources, that does not discount the millions of Muslims that do.

Did you notice that every Muslim debater in this thread opposed different points, based on their specific sectarian beliefs? As a Sunni accepted the Bukhari, but did not accept the Shia Hadith. The Shia Muslim didn't even want to hear any Sunni sources. The Sufi was all about inner enlightened wisdom instead of historic accuracy.

We have crossed into the domain of sectarian issues.



Regarding Zaid:

Yes, I understand he was Muhammad's personal scribe. I mention so in the op. However, there are four people specifically mentioned by Muhammad to learn the recitation of the Qur'an from. I focused on Ubay and Ibn Mas'ud because Prophet Muhmammad specifically stated to learn the recitation from them. And then we see that Ubay and Ibn Mas'ud have different Qur'an recitations than Uthman. Even the oldest Qur'an manuscripts, Sana'a Qur'an, illustrates the conflict of change, via the scriptio superior versus the scriptio inferior.



How can one easily state: abrogation, regarding verse omission from the Qur'an, but then cringe to acknowledge abrogating peace?

If you do not want to follow the "abrogation" concept for the dissolution of peace and no compulsion in religion,... all we must do is look at the chronologic time-frame each verse was revealed. The violent, intolerant verses were revealed after the peaceful teachings.



It appears as though you want to try to hold a Salafi image of me, but as I stated in the op, I am no longer a Muslim nor Salafi. When I was a Salaf, I followed the religion strictly according to the fundemental practices of the as-Salaf as-Salih. But I always read other sources. Always. How could I ever say I disagree with the Shi'a if I didn't even know what they believe? How could I say I disagree with the Sufi if I never knew what they believe? Just because I followed fundemental Islam does not mean I had on blinders.

Although more controversial, the narrative in the op is a heck of a lot more honest and unbiased than a "Salaf" narrative, or a "Sunni" narrative, or a "Shi'a" narrative. To make a clear and happy picture of the Qur'an and Islam, we would have to write different narratives catering to each specific sect, ideology, and school of thought.



I'll reply to your other points when time permits me again. Thank you for you mature and respectful debate ethics.

Assalaamu alaikum.

reply to post by Sahabi

Walaikum Salaam, S!

Originally posted by Sahabi
There are millions of Muslims in the world, with many varying sects and schools of thought. It is your choice to accept which sources, which edicts, and which teachings to follow, that is your choice. However, there are groups, sects, scholars, and ideologies of Islam, who do indeed follow the sources of the op. If you, on personal grounds, do not acknowledge certain sources, that does not discount the millions of Muslims that do.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. My rejection of certain sources or acceptance of others is one matter. However, my point was that you used sources that disagree with each other. In some cases, one disagrees with one point you made on a different topic, and the source you have for that topic disagrees with a point you made on a third topic (or the first). It isn't so much about sectarian disagreement or refusal of sources, but that picking and mixing really isn't a plausible strategy.
If you trust one source enough to use it to present your case, and yet in another place it disagrees with another source you used to present a different point in your case, which one is right? Or will you simply accept the bits that line up with your narrative and disregard the rest?

Originally posted by Sahabi
If you do not want to follow the "abrogation" concept for the dissolution of peace and no compulsion in religion,... all we must do is look at the chronologic time-frame each verse was revealed. The violent, intolerant verses were revealed after the peaceful teachings.

I believe we covered this when you were wearing a different name . "No compulsion in religion" is a Medinite verse.
And you are applying the same techniques as those medieval scholars did when they where throwing the word "Abrogation!" left and right. I'm sorry, that isn't how it works. If that were so, we could say "Don't drink blood, eat pigs, incorrectly killed animals, don't be scared of those who hate you for your religion, and be good, and the rest of the Quran doesn't matter, because it was abrogated". Those medieval scholars claimed there were hundreds of verses in the Quran that were abrogated (in the sense that they were cancelled out by other verses). I don't accept that, the original muslims don't accept that, and most modern scholars of Islam don't accept that, so I find it odd that you're putting that to me .

reply to post by babloyi


So how do you reconcile the contradiction in the Koran? Heres what i mean Christians for example handle it By saying Christ created a new covenant throwing out the old testament since a lot contradicts Jesus teachings.Well the Koran has the same problem mostly because it used the Torah same as the bible. Then there is the two different times in Mohammads life at first he was trying to be a holy man preaching peace and love. But as circumstances changed he found himself having to condone violence. So how do you decide what to follow and what to ignore? Dont take this as an attack its not you just seem honest and id figure you would actually think about it and im curious how people handle the contradictions.

reply to post by dragonridr

What contradiction? Islam is not Christianity. Some situations allow for fighting.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

What contradiction? Islam is not Christianity. Some situations allow for fighting.

So you dont see any contradictions between different parts of the Koran. So like when Mohammad changed the rules for him for example?

reply to post by dragonridr

Changed the rules?
As the muslim community evolved during Muhammad's mission, so did the rules on them. They initially prayed towards Jerusalem, in line with it being a continuation of Abraham's religion. Then one day DURING the prayer, they changed direction to the Ka'aba, symbolising that while they were part of Abraham's religion, they were also their own people.
This is not a contradiction. At the end we got the Quran, with the (chronologically) final verse being "...Today I have perfected/completed your religion...".

A contradiction would be when there are two opposite statements pertaining to the same situation, where one was not historically abrogated (the example of alcohol is given, where at the beginning it was disliked, but permitted only out of any spare spending you had except when you were praying, and then later it was banned totally).