No - I just think you are taking a double standard.See, you still ignore the role of Tahfiz; the records are of how the Quranic integrity was maintained, even the alphabetical additions (swad to seen etc) are recorded and explained.
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
several things vote against the integrity of the quran:
1) the very reason calif Uthman had to make an “official” version, was that several factions in the muslim armies had diff verses
2) a hadith from Ayesha, say that a goat eat some of the quran compiled earlier than c. Uthamn’s
3) many reciters died at the “Battle of Yamama”
a. http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/compilation of the quran.html
b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Akraba
4) infamous “satanic verses” were removed
a. Sura an-Najm (Star) 53:19-22
5) many hadiths verify the events
6) the fact that it goes from largest suras to shortest screams the fact it was edited, without doubt
a. you just have to listen
b. it’s a mish-mash otherwise
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Not factual. Please provide citations and be ready to prove them.
Provide the citation or omit this point.
True, however many is relative. It did not say all or even most. Trying to imply contradictions does not help your cause. Many of the sahabah who where hafiz al quran (look it up if you don't know what it means) were still alive.
Again prove it through citations from historical scholars. The word of one fool isn't enough to qualify this as fact.
53:19. Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza,
20. And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
21. What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female?
22. Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!
23. These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!
The pagan Arabs attributed al-Lat al Uzza and Manat as the daughters of God (astaghfirallah). Because the Pagan Arabs disliked having daughters and preferred sons, God asks them why they would attribute daughters to Him.
It later confirms that these were inventions of their own.
Disregarding the 23rd verse which concludes this entire argument is an attempt to play on people's ignorance.
Provide citations.
The Quran was organized by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in this order to be memorized this way. There is no doubt it is the word of God (swt) for Muslims.
Do you have any knowledge of Arabic to jump to this conclusion? A translation of the Quran is still not the Quran, it is only a translation (to best of the translator's ability), therefore it does not have the same style and depth as the original Arabic. Muslims still learn to recite the Quran in its original Arabic, though not all may understand the full meaning. This is why, along with translations, commentary is needed. I recommend the English commentary of Abdullah Yusuf Ali or an english translation of the commentary of Maulana Maududi (rahmat allah alayhuma).
Without proficiency of the Arabic language, the Quran you are reading is only a translation and not referred to as the Quran.
Also, the Quran is meant to be sung and recited, and each verse contains many topics which fit together beautifully if you read it to seek guidance.
If you read the translation of the Quran to obtain something which you can use to imply a contradiction, you will find it is rather impossible.
Hi Michael,
Hows it going? do i have to really answer these questions?? Cant Sam, Diamond Hearts or ghost answer them?
its not that i dont want to, its just like i cant be buggered, as i have loads of work on....
But then again if you really want me to i will as i am flattered you value my opinuion so highly. Either that or i am an easy target.
Ok give me a few hours or so, get abck to me if i forget to answer them..
~~~~~~~~~~
Take it ez
zak
Oh Oh
No rush
Provide citations.
Because as I understand no one in the World knows what day, when nor by whom did the Qur'an you have in your hands come to be.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
After the last pilgrimage, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) recited this final verse:
50:3 This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.
This verse effectively ended the revelation. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself dictated the order of the Quran to be memorized this way. The Quran was written down by his scribe Hazrat Zaid bin Thabit before the death of the Prophet and entrusted to his wife Hazrat Hafsa (peace be upon them). Hence, the Quran was compiled during the lifetime of the Prophet. For more information, read the Chapter of the Quran in Sahih Bukhari.
You are confusing the compiling of the Quran with the copying of the Quran. The Quran was mass copied by the Khalifataan Umar and Uthman (radhi allahu anhuma)
All the Quran in existence today are the exact same. You will not find any discrepancies in any Quran from Maghrib to Indonesia, they are the same. This is a confirmation of the Quran that it cannot be changed.
Not to interject here but I was just thinking, this thread is about the morality. Which is subjective. The question I have is about killing and about whether or not Mohammad ever personally killed a person or commanded a person be killed. That certainly IMHO does NOT say anything at all about whether or not it is right or wrong to kill. Which is why I asked about the validity of the most famous of Historians on this topic at this time period.
Hence forth, regardless of the validity of the story, because such only sdie tracks from the main point - I will try orientate my questions about the morality expressed in the story. So we can agree the story my or may not be true and just talk about the morality found in the story.
Thanks DH and Sam regarding the History of the Qur'an. I am happy to pose some questions, but perhaps that would be better in another thread.
Also, I am interesting in this whole notion of a Golden Age and whether or not to consider one a Christendom Golden Age because it happened on a backdrop of Christianity or Islamic Golden Age, Shamanistic/Chinese Golden Age ... etc.. etc... in another thread if anyone is interested.
Hence forth, regardless of the validity of the story, because such only sdie tracks from the main point - I will try orientate my questions about the morality expressed in the story. So we can agree the story my or may not be true and just talk about the morality found in the story.
Thanks DH and Sam regarding the History of the Qur'an. I am happy to pose some questions, but perhaps that would be better in another thread.
Also, I am interesting in this whole notion of a Golden Age and whether or not to consider one a Christendom Golden Age because it happened on a backdrop of Christianity or Islamic Golden Age, Shamanistic/Chinese Golden Age ... etc.. etc... in another thread if anyone is interested.
One day Buhkari seems citable; another day not. Please illustrate why this is the case.
Today they are the same, but not then. It is patently ridiculous to assert that the Quran "cannot be changed", as if it were some physical law or something. It is only a book; and as the evidence shows, it has been changed.
As I draw my arguments directly from the Quran and the hadiths, I suppose it might indeed be said that they are ignorant. You make a lot of noise about fabrications, DH, but have yet to prove them. How does it stack up morally that you would have a man put to death for apostacy and I would not?
Any taqiyya for your claims?
The religion that believes in the oneness of God and accepts Mohammed as a Prophet. In its simplest terms, that is all it is.
Is that when I am picking an choosing the tradition which suits my views, regardless of supporting citations?
Now you are a Quranic and Fiqh scholar as well?
Considering only morons listen to such, the comparison is rather apt. You know, I just realised it is the same argument IAC used for defending non-Darwinist evolution.
Oh, I think I agree more and more that only morons propose such arguments. My argument, of course, isn't yours. Or are you rather comparing the Ayatollah to a moron? That seems apt.
I forget: did IAC defend non-Darwinian evolution on the basis that unless you were a non-Darwinist you couldn't possibly understand the argument? That does actually sound similar to his perspective, and another notable ex-member of sciforums noted for his refutation of conventional science on the basis that no one could understand his theory; it was his alone, to understand and hold. His very own. His precious.
Of course, some people just call it argument to authority. I'm not sure you've actually got your own logical fallacy here.
I forget: did IAC defend non-Darwinian evolution on the basis that unless you were a non-Darwinist you couldn't possibly understand the argument? That does actually sound similar to his perspective, and another notable ex-member of sciforums noted for his refutation of conventional science on the basis that no one could understand his theory; it was his alone, to understand and hold. His very own. His precious.
Of course, some people just call it argument to authority. I'm not sure you've actually got your own logical fallacy here.
You can post ad nauseum fallacies if you like, but a lack of knowledge shines through your posts. Ignorance may be bliss, but it does make you appear a proper nut.:shrug:
You'd not get a single Muslim educated in the Quran or fiqh to support your interpretations; but if you're representing the morons then thats fine.