PDA

View Full Version : Interesting find - Christians please comment



aadil77
09-19-2010, 01:46 PM
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
aadil77
09-19-2010, 07:39 PM
bump.............
Reply

Salahudeen
09-19-2010, 10:05 PM
jazakallah khair very interesting. Christianity is based upon the interpretation of Paul and his interpretation is based upon visions?
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
09-19-2010, 10:30 PM
Aslaamu`Alaaykum bro

Well as far as im aware most christians usually dont rely on the Gospel of Barnabas(the book i believe theyre talking about in the vid) even though its the earliest text,and since it confirms Jesus pbuh isnt God.
I also read that Barnabas was a deciple that lived,walked, ate etc(i dont have refs, i recall reading it from the bible christians read today) with Jesus (pbuh), whereas the other authors Mark,Matthew,Luke and John were not, they didnt live/walk,etc with him.

However, if you listen carefully the guy(narrator) does mention that the virgin birth isnt mentioned in the book, So in conclusion christians follow only a "few" of Jesus Pbuh "real" teachings.

sorry i just had to comment

And Allaah knows best!

Wa`Alaaykum Salaam

Edit: I guess i did mention "I believe" its the Gospel of Barnabas because it sounded similar and ive never heard of the Didache or i didnt listen properly but because it confirms Jesus isnt God i thought it spoke of Gospel of Barnabas. However, it also confirms that Jesus isnt God, and that its one of the early sources. but i may be wrong, feel free to disagree! :D
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
PouringRain
09-20-2010, 04:25 AM
Aadil, you asked for Christians to comment..... I'll bite. :p I must confess, I am quite ill tonight and have been for two nights now, and I feel especially guilty for not having responded yet to Hiroshi in another thread, when I have already had my response to him since Friday morning, just awaiting my time to sit and write it out.


Originally Posted by мυѕℓιмαн 4 ℓιfє
Aslaamu`Alaaykum bro

Well as far as im aware most christians usually dont rely on the Gospel of Barnabas(the book i believe theyre talking about in the vid)
The book mentioned in the video is actually the Didache. But don't feel too bad for having missed that in the video. :) I have difficulty maintaining attention to auditory input from videos as well, and most gets tuned out, which is why I normally do not watch any videos at all.

Originally Posted by мυѕℓιмαн 4 ℓιfє
However, if you listen carefully the guy(narrator) does mention that the virgin birth isnt mentioned in the book, So in conclusion christians follow only a "few" of Jesus Pbuh "real" teachings.

sorry i just had to comment

And Allaah knows best!

Wa`Alaaykum Salaam
The virgin birth is one thing that is not completely agreed upon by Christians in the first place. If one examines the original in Isaish, the Hebrew word does not have to mean a virgin (one who has never had sexual intercourse), but could also have other meanings such as a young girl, or even one who conceives at first intercourse. So, the virgin birth is not something that is bedrock of the Christian faith in the first place. (There are many Christians who would strongly disagree with me though. :) )


Back to the video.... I have not read the Didache, so I can not comment on what it may or may not contain. The video suggests that in the early church there was not a single consensus on many beliefs-- and that is as true then as it is today. I would agree with the video that "the church" suppressed anything that deviated from a set of beliefs that they wanted to promote. And my final comment on the deity of Jesus... I disagree with the editorialized comment by the narrator that without the belief in the deity of Jesus then there would be no Christianity. There are and always have been Christians who do not believe in the deity of Jesus. (Just as there are and always have been non-trinitarian Christians as well.) I would say that the vast majority of Christians subscribe to the belief in the deity of Jesus, and those would say that without it there is no Christianity. But this is not true for ALL Christians. There are those who do not subscribe to that belief, and who have not ceased to be a Christian because of their belief. The basic definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ (and his teachings).

But... things such as the virginity of Mary or the deity of Christ, etc. leads to a larger problem that I won't go into here as it is a bit off-topic. It is a problem that can affect individuals of all religions.

Anyhow, those are my comments on the video.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
09-20-2010, 09:37 AM
Originally Posted by PouringRain


The virgin birth is one thing that is not completely agreed upon by Christians in the first place. If one examines the original in Isaish, the Hebrew word does not have to mean a virgin (one who has never had sexual intercourse), but could also have other meanings such as a young girl, or even one who conceives at first intercourse. So, the virgin birth is not something that is bedrock of the Christian faith in the first place. (There are many Christians who would strongly disagree with me though. :) )
Aaah really, i thought that was one of the "main" cores of Christianity, to believe in the Virgin Birth :-\

However, the "Didache" doesnt seem to fully confirm the whole Islaamic belief, if it doesnt even support the virgin birth!
Reply

tango92
09-20-2010, 03:15 PM
why do christians deliberatley ignore the way of life of jesus and follow paul instead?
clearly, even if you read the red letter bible, you wont get any of this.

was jesus decieving his disciples when he told them to worship "the father in heaven" and did not even attach any form of goodness to himself?
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-20-2010, 05:09 PM
I don't know why the YouTube Video is titled "An Old Bible Found in Palestine Confirms the Quran"? What is shown in the video is NOT a Bible. It is an important Christian book that many suspect actually was written before the documents that became collated and known as the New Testament, but it is not a Bible. To call it an old Bible is false reporting. It also does not confirm the Quran. It was principally a book of worship and ethical instruction used by the early church. There was a time when, though we knew about its existence, that no copies could be located. Then, in 1873, a copy was found.

The early church did keep it and use it among a collection of writings, most of which where eventually incorporated into the canon of scripture. But others, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabas (not to be confused with the alleged Gospel of Barnabas) were not canonized. Remember to make something a part of the canon was to say that is was a rule for faith and practice. And despite the value of it for informing the church with regard to patterns of worship, the church didn't want to say that only the pattern which was expressed by the Didache was valid and even more significantly there were questions about its authorship. Though tradition claimed it to be the teaching of Jesus' disciples, much as the book of Acts was a historical record of their activity, the church was never confident enough of that tradition to declare the Didache on par with the rest of scripture. That in no way diminishes its present historical value for us in the church, and since you have shown interest in it, and it is a relatively small document, I post it in its entirety for you to read for yourself:

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
Commonly Called the Didache
THE TEXT

The Lord's Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:
1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.
2Now, this is the way of life: "First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself." And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them.
3What these maxims teach is this: "Bless those who curse you," and "pray for your enemies." Moreover, fast "for those who persecute you." For "what credit is it to you if you love those who love you? Is that not the way the heathen act?" But "you must love those who hate you," and then you will make no enemies.  
4"Abstain from carnal passions." If someone strikes you "on the right cheek, turn to him the other too, and you will be perfect." If someone "forces you to go one mile with him, go along with him for two"; if someone robs you "of your overcoat, give him your suit as well." If someone deprives you of "your property, do not ask for it back." (You could not get it back anyway!)  
5"Give to everybody who begs from you, and ask for no return." For the Father wants his own gifts to be universally shared. Happy is the man who gives as the commandment bids him, for he is guiltless! But alas for the man who receives! If he receives because he is in need, he will be guiltless. But if he is not in need he will have to stand trial why he received and for what purpose. He will be thrown into prison and have his action investigated; and "he will not get out until he has paid back the last cent."
6 Indeed, there is a further saying that relates to this: "Let your donation sweat in your hands until you know to whom to give it."

2 The second commandment of the Teaching:  
2"Do not murder; do not commit adultery"; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; "do not steal"; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant. "Do not covet your neighbor's property;  
3do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness;" do not slander; do not bear grudges.
4Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is "a deadly snare."
5Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action.  
6 Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor.  
7 Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.

3 My child, flee from all wickedness and from everything of that sort.  
2Do not be irritable, for anger leads to murder. Do not be jealous or contentious or impetuous, for all this breeds murder.
3My child, do not be lustful, for lust leads to fornication. Do not use foul language or leer, for all this breeds adultery.
4My child, do not be a diviner, for that leads to idolatry. Do not be an enchanter or an astrologer or a magician. Moreover, have no wish to observe or heed such practices, for all this breeds idolatry.
5My child, do not be a liar, for lying leads to theft. Do not be avaricious or vain, for all this breeds thievery.
6My child, do not be a grumbler, for grumbling leads to blasphemy. Do not be stubborn or evil-minded, for all this breeds blasphemy.
7But be humble since "the humble will inherit the earth."
8 Be patient, merciful, harmless, quiet, and good; and always "have respect for the teaching" you have been given. Do not put on airs or give yourself up to presumptuousness. Do not associate with the high and mighty; but be with the upright and humble. Accept whatever happens to you as good, in the realization that nothing occurs apart from God.

4 My child, day and night "you should remember him who preaches God's word to you," and honor him as you would the Lord. For where the Lord's nature is discussed, there the Lord is.  
2Every day you should seek the company of saints to enjoy their refreshing conversation.  
3You must not start a schism, but reconcile those at strife. "Your judgments must be fair." You must not play favorites when reproving transgressions.  
4You must not be of two minds about your decision.
5Do not be one who holds his hand out to take, but shuts it when it comes to giving.  
6If your labor has brought you earnings, pay a ransom for your sins.  
7Do not hesitate to give and do not give with a bad grace; for you will discover who He is that pays you back a reward with a good grace.  
8Do not turn your back on the needy, but share everything with your brother and call nothing your own. For if you have what is eternal in common, how much more should you have what is transient!
9Do not neglect your responsibility to your son or your daughter, but from their youth you shall teach them to revere God.  
10Do not be harsh in giving orders to your slaves and slave girls. They hope in the same God as you, and the result may be that they cease to revere the God over you both. For when he comes to call us, he will not respect our station, but will call those whom the Spirit has made ready.  
11You slaves, for your part, must obey your masters with reverence and fear, as if they represented God.
12You must hate all hypocrisy and everything which fails to please the Lord.  
13You must not forsake "the Lord's commandments," but "observe" the ones you have been given, "neither adding nor subtracting anything."
14At the church meeting you must confess your sins, and not approach prayer with a bad conscience. That is the way of life.

5 But the way of death is this: First of all, it is wicked and thoroughly blasphemous: murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, sorceries, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, duplicity, deceit, arrogance, malice, stubbornness, greediness, filthy talk, jealousy, audacity, haughtiness, boastfulness.
2Those who persecute good people, who hate truth, who love lies, who are ignorant of the reward of uprightness, who do not "abide by goodness" or justice, and are on the alert not for goodness but for evil: gentleness and patience are remote from them. "They love vanity," "look for profit," have no pity for the poor, do not exert themselves for the oppressed, ignore their Maker, "murder children," corrupt God's image, turn their backs on the needy, oppress the afflicted, defend the rich, unjustly condemn the poor, and are thoroughly wicked. My children, may you be saved from all this!


6 See "that no one leads you astray" from this way of the teaching, since such a one's teaching is godless.
2If you can bear the Lord's full yoke, you will be perfect. But if you cannot, then do what you can.
3Now about food: undertake what you can. But keep strictly away from what is offered to idols, for that implies worshiping dead gods.

7 Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then "baptize" in running water, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
2If you do not have running water, baptize in some other.  
3If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
4Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

8 Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.
2You must not pray like the hypocrites, but "pray as follows" as the Lord bid us in his gospel:
"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name; your Kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven; give us today our bread for the morrow; and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but save us from the evil one, for yours is the power and the glory forever."
3You should pray in this way three times a day.


9 Now about the Eucharist: This is how to give thanks:  
2First in connection with the cup:
"We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever."
3Then in connection with the piece [broken off the loaf]:
"We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever.
4"As this piece [of bread] was scattered over the hills and then was brought together and made one, so let your Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into your Kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever."
5You must not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord's name. For in reference to this the Lord said, "Do not give what is sacred to dogs."

10 After you have finished your meal, say grace in this way:
2"We thank you, holy Father, for your sacred name which you have lodged in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever.
3"Almighty Master, 'you have created everything' for the sake of your name, and have given men food and drink to enjoy that they may thank you. But to us you have given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Jesus, your child.
4"Above all, we thank you that you are mighty. To you be glory forever.
5"Remember, Lord, your Church, to save it from all evil and to make it perfect by your love. Make it holy, 'and gather' it 'together from the four winds' into your Kingdom which you have made ready for it. For yours is the power and the glory forever."
6"Let Grace come and let this world pass away."
"Hosanna to the God of David!"
"If anyone is holy, let him come. If not, let him repent."
"Our Lord, come!"
"Amen."
7In the case of prophets, however, you should let them give thanks in their own way.

11 Now, you should welcome anyone who comes your way and teaches you all we have been saying.  
2 But if the teacher proves himself a renegade and by teaching otherwise contradicts all this, pay no attention to him. But if his teaching furthers the Lord's righteousness and knowledge, welcome him as the Lord.
3Now about the apostles and prophets: Act in line with the gospel precept.
4Welcome every apostle on arriving, as if he were the Lord.  
5But he must not stay beyond one day. In case of necessity, however, the next day too. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet.  
6On departing, an apostle must not accept anything save sufficient food to carry him till his next lodging. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.
7While a prophet is making ecstatic utterances, you must not test or examine him. For "every sin will be forgiven," but this sin "will not be forgiven."  
8However, not everybody making ecstatic utterances is a prophet, but only if he behaves like the Lord. It is by their conduct that the false prophet and the [true] prophet can be distinguished.  
9For instance, if a prophet marks out a table in the Spirit, he must not eat from it. If he does, he is a false prophet.  
10Again, every prophet who teaches the truth but fails to practice what he preaches is a false prophet.  
11But every attested and genuine prophet who acts with a view to symbolizing the mystery of the Church, and does not teach you to do all he does, must not be judged by you. His judgment rests with God. For the ancient prophets too acted in this way.  
12But if someone says in the Spirit, "Give me money, or something else," you must not heed him. However, if he tells you to give for others in need, no one must condemn him.

12 Everyone "who comes" to you "in the name of the Lord" must be welcomed. Afterward, when you have tested him, you will find out about him, for you have insight into right and wrong.  
2If it is a traveler who arrives, help him all you can. But he must not stay with you more than two days, or, if necessary, three.  
3If he wants to settle with you and is an artisan, he must work for his living.  
4If, however, he has no trade, use your judgment in taking steps for him to live with you as a Christian without being idle.  
5If he refuses to do this, he is trading on Christ. You must be on your guard against such people.

13 Every genuine prophet who wants to settle with you "has a right to his support."  
2Similarly, a genuine teacher himself, just like a "workman, has a right to his support."
3Hence take all the first fruits of vintage and harvest, and of cattle and sheep, and give these first fruits to the prophets. For they are your high priests.  
4If, however, you have no prophet, give them to the poor.  
5If you make bread, take the first fruits and give in accordance with the precept.  
6Similarly, when you open a jar of wine or oil, take the first fruits and give them to the prophets.  
7Indeed, of money, clothes, and of all your possessions, take such first fruits as you think right, and give in accordance with the precept.

14 On every Lord's Day—his special day —come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.  
2Anyone at variance with his neighbor must not join you, until they are reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled.  
3For it was of this sacrifice that the Lord said, "Always and everywhere offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is marveled at by the nations."

15 You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried. For their ministry to you is identical with that of the prophets and teachers.  
2You must not, therefore, despise them, for along with the prophets and teachers they enjoy a place of honor among you.
3Furthermore, do not reprove each other angrily, but quietly, as you find it in the gospel. Moreover, if anyone has wronged his neighbor, nobody must speak to him, and he must not hear a word from you, until he repents.  
4Say your prayers, give your charity, and do everything just as you find it in the gospel of our Lord.

16 "Watch" over your life: do not let "your lamps" go out, and do not keep "your loins ungirded"; but "be ready," for "you do not know the hour when our Lord is coming."  
2Meet together frequently in your search for what is good for your souls, since "a lifetime of faith will be of no advantage" to you unless you prove perfect at the very last.  
3For in the final days multitudes of false prophets and seducers will appear.  
4Sheep will turn into wolves, and love into hatred. For with the increase of iniquity men will hate, persecute, and betray each other. And then the world deceiver will appear in the guise of God's Son. He will work "signs and wonders" and the earth will fall into his hands and he will commit outrages such as have never occurred before.  
5Then mankind will come to the fiery trial "and many will fall away" and perish, "but those who persevere" in their faith "will be saved" by the Curse himself.*
6Then "there will appear the signs" of the Truth: first the sign of stretched-out [hands] in heaven,** then the sign of "a trumpet's blast," and thirdly the resurrection of the dead, though not of all the dead,  
7but as it has been said: "The Lord will come and all his saints with him. Then the world will see the Lord coming on the clouds of the sky."

* - An obscure reference, but possibly meaning the Christ who suffered the death of one accursed (Gal. 3:13; Barn. 7:9). Cf. two other titles for the Christ: Grace (ch. 10:6) and Truth (v. 6).
** - Another obscure reference, possibly to the belief that the Christ would appear on a glorified cross. Cf Barn. 12:2–4.


(source -- "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Commonly Called the Didache" in Early Christian Fathers, by Cyril C. Richardson, available for reading on Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-20-2010, 05:10 PM
**edit**
Sorry, double post.
Reply

tango92
09-20-2010, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
even more significantly there were questions about its authorship
.

yet you have no problem accepting a bible which also has questionable authorship. oh well is an everyday thing now, christian hipocrisy.....
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-20-2010, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
.

yet you have no problem accepting a bible which also has questionable authorship. oh well is an everyday thing now, christian hipocrisy.....
I have no problem accepting the Bible. Had I been part of the Council of Trent I probably would have moved to have the Didache included, and not the 2nd and 3rd letters of John -- not because of authorship, of that I am confident, but because I'm not sure of their value for faith and practice. And as far as your assertion of questionable authorship, two points:
1) I agree that there is much of the Bible for whom we will never know the author. Judges was written by an unknown prophet. Who wrote Chronicles? How much of Isaiah was written by the prophet himself, and how much by his disciples? Even in the NT Hebrews has an unknown author. Other books are known. I don't find the arguments of those who dispute the authorship of Paul's letters valid. And those none of the gospels have their authorship attested within the text itself, I am satisfied with the external testimony that identifies them to us as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
2) I personally don't have to know the author to find that a book speaks to me about God. I have met none of these authors. It is enough for me that generations before me have found that God spoke to them through these texts.
Reply

tango92
09-20-2010, 06:40 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I have no problem accepting the Bible. Had I been part of the Council of Trent I probably would have moved to have the Didache included, and not the 2nd and 3rd letters of John -- not because of authorship, of that I am confident, but because I'm not sure of their value for faith and practice. And as far as your assertion of questionable authorship, two points:
1) I agree that there is much of the Bible for whom we will never know the author. Judges was written by an unknown prophet. Who wrote Chronicles? How much of Isaiah was written by the prophet himself, and how much by his disciples? Even in the NT Hebrews has an unknown author. Other books are known. I don't find the arguments of those who dispute the authorship of Paul's letters valid. And those none of the gospels have their authorship attested within the text itself, I am satisfied with the external testimony that identifies them to us as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
2) I personally don't have to know the author to find that a book speaks to me about God. I have met none of these authors. It is enough for me that generations before me have found that God spoke to them through these texts.
blind faith. in other words. can you really follow anything for whom God has sent no authority? the quran also has plenty of value for faith and worship, why not accept it?

many works throughout humanity have guided people to god, all have their differences. Will god accept you follow whatever your heart wishes?

i believe many christians hold this view that god personally guides and acts through them, rather arrogant. especially as none have seen miracles.
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-20-2010, 06:53 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
especially as none have seen miracles.
Where did you come up with that? There is not a church I have been in where people haven't testified to miracles they themselves have experienced. Some probably aren't, but others seem to be fully credible. I have seen holes in hearts healed, bones in legs grow. My own father was declared dead last year, but is alive today and healthier than he had been for the last couple of years. And some things that can in a sense be explained as coincidence or exceptional skill seem no less miraculous that God might bring them about in the way that he did. Surely in a previous age, these things would have been called miracles. So, I disagree that none have seen miracles. Plenty have, if only they would open their eyes to what God is doing everyday.


Originally Posted by tango92
blind faith. in other words.
Perhaps. It certainly is faith, though I don't think it is blind I go in with my eyes open to what I know and what I accept on faith. You wouldn't call your faith in the mircale of the Qur'an "blind faith" would you. Yet it certainly is faith, for neither you nor anyone else was present when Muhammad supposedly received the Qur'an. And even if you had been, would you have been able to hear the recitation? And if you had, how would you have known the identity of the speaker, that message the speaker delivered was actually from God, or that the speaker delivered it accurately and faithfully? At some point there is an element of faith in each of our traditions.
Reply

tango92
09-20-2010, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Where did you come up with that? There is not a church I have been in where people haven't testified to miracles they themselves have experienced. Some probably aren't, but others seem to be fully credible. I have seen holes in hearts healed, bones in legs grow. My own father was declared dead last year, but is alive today and healthier than he had been for the last couple of years. And some things that can in a sense be explained as coincidence or exceptional skill seem no less miraculous that God might bring them about in the way that he did. Surely in a previous age, these things would have been called miracles. So, I disagree that none have seen miracles. Plenty have, if only they would open their eyes to what God is doing everyday.
if that is the case every person on earth will have experienced a miracle at some point in their lives. therefore we cannot consider such things testimony of gods approval of a person or of their religion. isnt childbirth in that sense a miracle? 2 microscopic entities forming a being, wasnt hitler born this way?

a true miracle is something which does not occur within the confines of nature. an example is a vrigin birth, or giving life to the (long time) dead which is something God gave to Jesus pbuh authorising him as a prophet and rightly guided. can christians show any such thing today?

and be4 u ask the quran is the miracle of the muslims but that is a different thread...
Reply

PouringRain
09-20-2010, 07:04 PM
Originally Posted by мυѕℓιмαн 4 ℓιfє

Aaah really, i thought that was one of the "main" cores of Christianity, to believe in the Virgin Birth :-\
For the most part it is. I probably did not explain very well what I was trying to say. The account in the gospels tells of a virgin named Mary (who has never known a man) and she conceives Jesus through supernatural means by way of God's spirit. So, on one hand, the concept of a virgin conception is certainly there within Christianity. The OT citation comes from Isaiah, where it is told that a "virgin" will conceive and bring forth a child. In Isaiah, the word for "virgin" can also mean other things, and does not necessarily mean a woman who has never known a man. For this reason, it is not essential that she be a virgin as we understand the word to mean. While Christians, for the most part, understand the account in the NT to mean a virgin as someone who is untouched by a man, this interpretation is not something that is set in stone and immovable. God can accomplish his plans by any means he chooses and in not limited to playing by the rules of our limited understandings and limited linguistic expressions.

In short, the vast majority of Christians subscribe to the virgin conception (as we understand the word virgin to mean), but if it were not found to be true then the Christian faith would not fall apart, because it is not built upon that understanding (and alternate explanations are plausible given differences in interpretation of words contained in scripture). This is why I say it is not a bedrock of the faith.... because without it and the faith still stands. (Although there are those who will disagree with me.)
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-20-2010, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
a true miracle is something which does not occur within the confines of nature. an example is a vrigin birth, or giving life to the (long time) dead which is something God gave to Jesus pbuh authorising him as a prophet and rightly guided. can christians show any such thing today?
I told you. I have seen holes in a child's heart (not an infant, a 10-year old) heal themselves and the legs of an adult that were two inches different have the shorter one grow two inches longer. Both without any medical assistance. These things do not happen within the confines of nature. But THE miracle which we Christians have, ought to be obvious to you -- the Resurrection.



BTW, though you didn't ask, I don't think that God confines his miracles to only Christians or as a means of identifying his prophets.
Reply

tango92
09-20-2010, 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker


BTW, though you didn't ask, I don't think that God confines his miracles to only Christians or as a means of identifying his prophets.
then surely god has left no real way to identify the truth.
Reply

Hugo
09-20-2010, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
blind faith. in other words. can you really follow anything for whom God has sent no authority? the quran also has plenty of value for faith and worship, why not accept it?
Your premise assumes God exits so logically it cannot be shown to be true or false. However, can you list what you would regard as authorities and amongst those authorities are there any material ones?
Reply

tango92
09-20-2010, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Your premise assumes God exits so logically it cannot be shown to be true or false. However, can you list what you would regard as authorities and amongst those authorities are there any material ones?
God gives authority by miracles
Reply

Hugo
09-20-2010, 08:32 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
God gives authority by miracles
Well I know that the Bible quotes many miracles and they have to be seen as that. The trouble is that there is a logical fallacy here and its a very simple one. Suppose I say that a particular person's odd behaviour is due to demon possession. Well indeed that might be the true explanation but there is no way I can show it to be true or false and it is obvious there may be many other perfectly reasonable explanations of the odd behaviours. The same applies if you claim a miracle, there is no way you can prove that it was from god or not. In medical science for examples, it is known that about 1% of people with just get better for no medical reason.

The other issues of course is that if you see something unusual you don't automatically see them as miracles do you. The point is that whatever test you invent for check if its a miracles must apply to any supposed event one cannot pick and choose. So if you say the Qu'ran is a miracle and tell me how I can test it then the same tests can be applied to any book .
Reply

Grace Seeker
09-20-2010, 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
then surely god has left no real way to identify the truth.
Originally Posted by tango92
God gives authority by miracles
That's an interesting conclusion. Not one I would have arrived at, but you do help me to understand Islamic thinking better. I won't argue with you, I just appreciate the insight you have provided.
Reply

Hugo
09-21-2010, 04:59 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
then surely god has left no real way to identify the truth.
This is an interesting idea and one establishes the truth by collecting 'facts' hopefully in a scientific manner and in that sense I mean they can be checked and re-checked. However, when it comes to let's call them spiritual truths it is unlikely there are material artefact we can use. So I might simple ask when you apply the truth in your life does it work - is your life better, are you more loving and tolerant, are you more disposed to helping others etc. Just a thought
Reply

tango92
09-21-2010, 05:11 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That's an interesting conclusion. Not one I would have arrived at, but you do help me to understand Islamic thinking better. I won't argue with you, I just appreciate the insight you have provided.
hmm that was just my personal opinion, i stress you do not judge all muslims from my own viewpoint

many (if not the majority) of muslims simply hear the message and revert
Reply

tango92
09-21-2010, 05:47 PM
i cba to quote, so this is a reply to both grace seeker and hugo

i withdraw my previous statement of saying God has left no real way to identify the truth, it was said in haste

this thread is far too off-topic now, which was probably mostly my fault. i hope we can continue this discussion in a future thread after ive had time to think.....
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
09-21-2010, 05:49 PM
cba=Cant be asked . . . . .
Reply

hasan2
10-27-2010, 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
then surely god has left no real way to identify the truth.
This is how true believers know the Truth, and thus "identify" the Truth ...

“But now I (Jesus) go away to Him (Father God) who sent Me …
It is to your advantage that I go away;
for if I do not go away, the Helper (the Holy Spirit) will not come to you;
but if I depart, I will send Him to you.“ (John 16:5--7)

“And I will pray (to) the Father, and He will give you another Helper,
that He may abide with you forever -- the Spirit of truth …
… you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you (as the Holy Spirit).
… And We (God) will come to him (the believer) and make Our home with him.
… But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things
that I said to you.” (John 14:16--26)
The Greek word here for "another" is "allos" meaning "another of the same kind".
Reply

Ramadhan
10-29-2010, 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by hasan2
“And I will pray (to) the Father, and He will give you another Helper,
Originally Posted by hasan2
He will teach you all things,
So, according to these verses, the last "helper" is prophet Muhammad SAW.

Thanks for affirming.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-29-2010, 12:18 PM
double post.
deleted
Reply

Trumble
10-29-2010, 01:52 PM
You must be reading different verses to me, as they say nothing of the sort. The entity concerned is clearly not a human being.

BTW according to the Oxford Greek dictionary, not to mention a couple of online ones referring specifically to Koine (NT) Greek, the meaning of ἄλλος is no more than just 'another' or 'other'. I'm struggling to think of an instance of when the English 'another' could mean anything other than "another of the same kind" anyway; surely to be 'another', a second entity has to be of the same kind of thing as the first? I'm no Greek scholar though - perhaps there is something contextual that suggests a particular emphasis of meaning.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-29-2010, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
You must be reading different verses to me, as they say nothing of the sort. The entity concerned is clearly not a human being
Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm struggling to think of an instance of when the English 'another' could mean anything other than "another of the same kind" anyway
Jesus pbuh was a human being wasn't he?
so another helper must also have been a human being , right?

Originally Posted by hasan2
He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things
that I said to you.”
And prophet Muhammad SAW confirmed jesus pbuh and the injeel conveyed by Jesus pbuh, so this "another" helper must have been prophet Muhammad SAW.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-29-2010, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
You must be reading different verses to me, as they say nothing of the sort. The entity concerned is clearly not a human being
Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm struggling to think of an instance of when the English 'another' could mean anything other than "another of the same kind" anyway
Jesus pbuh was a human being wasn't he?
so another helper must also have been a human being , right?

Originally Posted by hasan2
He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things
that I said to you.”
And prophet Muhammad SAW confirmed jesus pbuh and the injeel conveyed by Jesus pbuh, so this "another" helper must have been prophet Muhammad SAW.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-29-2010, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
You must be reading different verses to me, as they say nothing of the sort. The entity concerned is clearly not a human being.

BTW according to the Oxford Greek dictionary, not to mention a couple of online ones referring specifically to Koine (NT) Greek, the meaning of ἄλλος is no more than just 'another' or 'other'. I'm struggling to think of an instance of when the English 'another' could mean anything other than "another of the same kind" anyway; surely to be 'another', a second entity has to be of the same kind of thing as the first? I'm no Greek scholar though - perhaps there is something contextual that suggests a particular emphasis of meaning.

Trumble, though you're right on the above, there is more to it than just what the word allos means. Take a look at ALL the things that we are told are going to be true with regard to this HELPER.

14:17 "The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him."
(I can see how a Muslim might think this is true of Muhammad.)
14:17 "But you know him..."
(As this is spoken to the disciples, there was no way for them to know Muhammad who would not be born for another 600 years.)
14:17 "...for he lives with you and will be in you."
(I've heard no Muslim ever assert that Muhammad lives with us and in us.)
14:26 "But the Counselor [or "Helper" if you prefer that translation], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name..."
(Muhammad is not sent in Jesus' name. Prophets are not sent in the name of other propehts, but in Allah's name. Also, if Muhammad were to be sent in "the FATHER'S name", would it not imply that Allah is a Father and has a son? That would be shirk.)
14:26 "...will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
(I can see how a Muslim would think this is true of Muhammad.)
16:7 "Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."
(Is Muhammad sent by Jesus? I thought he was sent by Allah. This can only be true if Jesus is Allah. For Christians there is not contradiction between 14:26 and 16:7 because of our understanding of the Trinity. Somehow I don't expect Muslims to accept this to be describing either the sending of Muhammad nor the nature of the relationship between Jesus and Allah. But if it doesn't, then it can't be describing Muhammad as the Helper either.)
16:8 "When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment..."
(I can see how Muslims would think this is true of Muhammad."
16:9 "... in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me [i.e., Jesus]"
(I have a much harder time seeing how any Muslim would think that Muhammad came to call people to believe in Jesus, in his message perhaps, but to believe in Jesus personally seems a bit of a stretch.)
16:10 "...in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer"
(As long as Muslims don't mind Muhammad being connected to an understanding of Allah as "the Father", I don't suppose there is anything unIslamic about Muhammad convicting people with regard to righteousness.)
16:11 "...and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned."
(I can see how Muslims would think this is true of Muhammad.)
16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."
(I can see how Muslims would think this is true of Muhammad.)
16:13 "He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."
(I can see how Muslims would think this is true of Muhammad.)
16:14 "He will bring glory to me."
(I cannot conceive of any Muslim suggesting that Muhammad came to bring glory to anyone but Allah. Unless Muslims are willing to confess Jesus and Allah as one, I would suggest that Muhammad is NOT the Helper.)
16:15 "the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
(The Christian understanding of this verse is that the Spirit interprets and applies the character of Jesus to the disciples and by so doing makes him central to their thinking. The Spirit makes God a reality to people. Though Muhammad makes Allah a reality to people, it hardly seems that he does so in the same way that the Spirit is described as doing so in this verse.)
Taken as a whole, the Helper (in my opinion the Holy Spirit) serves to confirm what Jesus has shared with his disciples. He does not add anything new to the teachings of Jesus. His mission is to enable people to see the validity of what Jesus taught and to help them appropriate Jesus' message as their own. All this might be understood by Muslims to be true of Muhammad, for they would assert that Jesus and Muhammad had the same message. But the Holy Spirit does one thing more that Muhammad cannot do, the Spirit becomes a source of divine power living within the individual to assist them to live as Jesus lived. The Sunnah of the Prophet might be a model of how to live the life of Islam, but it does not actually empower you or internally assist you in the same way that the Helper does. In other words, Muhammad (p) does fit some things, but he doesn't fit them all, so he must be excluded from being the Helper that Jesus is referencing. Given that, the question of the exact meaning of the word allos becomes moot.
Reply

Trumble
10-29-2010, 10:01 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Jesus pbuh was a human being wasn't he?
so another helper must also have been a human being , right?
Wrong. There is no logical, syntactic or semantic reason to favour a particular characteristic over any other. To be 'another helper', an entity needs only be a helper. No other common property is needed, be it type of entity, species, eye colour or shoe size. Your argument could equally well be applied to "Jesus had a small birthmark on his nose so another helper must also have a small birthmark on his nose"!
Reply

Ramadhan
10-30-2010, 09:47 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Wrong. There is no logical, syntactic or semantic reason to favour a particular characteristic over any other. To be 'another helper', an entity needs only be a helper. No other common property is needed, be it type of entity, species, eye colour or shoe size. Your argument could equally well be applied to "Jesus had a small birthmark on his nose so another helper must also have a small birthmark on his nose"!
Can you tell me how prophet Muhammad does not fit the description in those verses?

Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
Reply

Predator
11-02-2010, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
16:14 "He will bring glory to me." [INDENT](I cannot conceive of any Muslim suggesting that Muhammad came to bring glory to anyone but Allah. Unless Muslims are willing to confess Jesus and Allah as one, I would suggest that Muhammad is NOT the Helper.)
Glorify also means to honor someone So, How does Muhammad honor Jesus ?

By affirming that he was indeed a legitimate Son of Mary and that he is company of the righteous and that their religion is one

"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 652 :
Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah's Apostle said, "Both in this world and in the Hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one


Volume 4, Book 55, Number 644 :
Narrated by 'Ubada
The Prophet said, "If anyone testifies that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle, and that Jesus is Allah's Slave and His Apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit created by Him, and that Paradise is true, and Hell is true, Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he had done even if those deeds were few." (Junada, the sub-narrator said, " 'Ubada added, 'Such a person can enter Paradise through any of its eight gates he likes.")

And this honor was required as Bible and Talmud had belittled Jesus in their scriptures


The Jewish Satanic Talmud writes

Sanhedrin, 67a ~ Jesus is referred to as the illegitimate son of Pandira, a Roman soldier.
Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus’ mother was a *****

Pandira is a Roman soldier alleged by the jews to have raped Mary to produce her illegitimate offsping { May God forbid}May He forgive us for even reproucing such blasphemies.)

Sanhedrin, 107b. ~ Seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel
Sanhedrin 43a ~ Says Jesus practiced sorcery.

And The christians also reduced God to level of a human being by saying God begot son when God cannot create "Uncreated Gods"

And they said : Most Gracious has begotten a son!

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
[89] Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
[90] As if the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin.
[91] That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
[92] For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son
[93] Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.Quran 19.88..93 ( Surat Maryam , verses 88 .. 93)


And also Bible exposes Jesus as not a righteous person

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/is...a_great_person_
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-02-2010, 09:02 PM
I would like to remind everyone that the passage in John is ultimately irrelevant to Muslims since it is not one of our own texts and was not al-Injeel. And all the Koran says is that at some point Jesus (P) mentioned that someone named Ahmad would come after him. It doesn't even say whether this statement had ever been written down anywhere before.
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-02-2010, 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by GraceSeeker
I personally don't have to know the author to find that a book speaks to me about God. I have met none of these authors. It is enough for me that generations before me have found that God spoke to them through these texts.
And when it is said to them, Follow what Allah has revealed, they say: Nay! we follow what we found our fathers upon. What! and though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way? (Koran 2:170, Shakir)
Reply

Hugo
11-02-2010, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I would like to remind everyone that the passage in John is ultimately irrelevant to Muslims since it is not one of our own texts and was not al-Injeel. And all the Koran says is that at some point Jesus (P) mentioned that someone named Ahmad would come after him. It doesn't even say whether this statement had ever been written down anywhere before.
Just a point for clarity here - how do you know it is not al-Injeel?
Reply

serena77
11-02-2010, 11:03 PM
just a side note... i didnt get to watch the video..
but MOST mainstream ... valid christian religions... DO believe that Jesus was the son of Mary who was a virgin.

another side note... i always thought it neat that the same angel went to mary as who went to Mohammed (pbuh ) w/ the Koran.

I don't think that makes anything invalid I just think its beautiful... ( here's serena being aspy again ) virgin birth for christians - Koran for muslims... both something that had never existed before.
Salaam
to all
Serena
Reply

Ramadhan
11-03-2010, 02:23 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Just a point for clarity here - how do you know it is not al-Injeel?
al injeel was revealed to Jesus a.s., and not to some unknown person in the 2nd century, whom later day christians named "john"
Reply

Hugo
11-03-2010, 06:24 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
al injeel was revealed to Jesus a.s., and not to some unknown person in the 2nd century, whom later day christians named "john"
I see, so where can I go to see what was revealed to Jesus, where can it be found?
Reply

Ramadhan
11-03-2010, 06:42 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I see, so where can I go to see what was revealed to Jesus, where can it be found?
Your question is answered by these questions:

1. Did Jesus a.s. write down the injeel?
2. Did Jesus a.s. ask his disciples to write down the injeel?
3. Did Jesus a.s. ask his disciples to memorise the injeel?
4. Were there strong and reliable oral traditions that preserve the injeel?
Reply

Woodrow
11-03-2010, 07:15 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I see, so where can I go to see what was revealed to Jesus, where can it be found?
You most likely have to return to the time Jesus(as) was still walking the earth and teaching it to those who would listen. Although it is possible (Possible not likely tho) someplace the Injeel still exists, it is doubtful there would be any indisputable evidence to verify it is the Injeel and in it's original form.

The founders of what became called Christianity, seem to have done a thorough purge of any writings that disagreed with the teachings of what was to become modern Christianity. Jesus(as) was not a Christian and there were no Christians at the time he walked upon this earth.
Reply

Hugo
11-03-2010, 08:16 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Your question is answered by these questions:

1. Did Jesus a.s. write down the injeel?
2. Did Jesus a.s. ask his disciples to write down the injeel?
3. Did Jesus a.s. ask his disciples to memorise the injeel?
4. Were there strong and reliable oral traditions that preserve the injeel?
Is this a rather complicated way of saying the injeel do not now exist?
Reply

Ramadhan
11-03-2010, 08:28 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Is this a rather complicated way of saying the injeel do not now exist?
I don't know.
What do you think?
Do you think it's hidden somewhere in impenetrable vault?
Reply

Hugo
11-03-2010, 08:36 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
You most likely have to return to the time Jesus(as) was still walking the earth and teaching it to those who would listen. Although it is possible (Possible not likely tho) someplace the Injeel still exists, it is doubtful there would be any indisputable evidence to verify it is the Injeel and in it's original form. The founders of what became called Christianity, seem to have done a thorough purge of any writings that disagreed with the teachings of what was to become modern Christianity. Jesus(as) was not a Christian and there were no Christians at the time he walked upon this earth.
Well it seems that only Muslims believe in the injeel though they have never as far as is known seen them; not a logical position is it? The founder of Christianity was Jesus and given there exist some 20,000 ancient manuscripts including the NT as well as the apocryphal writings it is hard to see what has been suppressed so again you seem to be basing your arguments on documents that have been 'purged' so Muslims do appear to have a propensity to rely on documents that are not and as far as we know never were available to anyone.
Reply

Hugo
11-03-2010, 08:44 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I don't know. What do you think? Do you think it's hidden somewhere in impenetrable vault?
Well one might say the Injeel are the 4 Canonical gospels - if you cannot accept that then of course I cannot prove that the Injeel you trust in did not exist (do you understand why one cannot prove that something never existed) but the onus is on you to provide evidence otherwise your belief has no foundation. There are Biblical books named in the OT that are now lost but although one can believe they existed one cannot base any kind of truth on whist they may or may nit have contained
Reply

Woodrow
11-03-2010, 08:57 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well it seems that only Muslims believe in the injeel though they have never as far as is known seen them; not a logical position is it? The founder of Christianity was Jesus and given there exist some 20,000 ancient manuscripts including the NT as well as the apocryphal writings it is hard to see what has been suppressed so again you seem to be basing your arguments on documents that have been 'purged' so Muslims do appear to have a propensity to rely on documents that are not and as far as we know never were available to anyone.
Do you agree that Jesus(as) preached the word of God?

Do You agree there is no written compilation of the words Jesus(as) preached? ( I do admit that the words quoted in the Gospels may be from the Injeel, but there is no provable verification they are. If those can be proven as the actual words spoken by Jesus(as) then those would be at least fragments of the Injeel)

Do you agree that a complete works containing the words Jesus(as) preached would/should have a name or title?

Basically that is what we believe the Injeel is and why no copy exists.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-03-2010, 09:11 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well one might say the Injeel are the 4 Canonical gospel
Is that what you believe?
That the 4 canonical gospels is the Injeel?
Is one of those gospels titled "The Gospel according to Jesus (as)"?

Originally Posted by Hugo
if you cannot accept that then of course I cannot prove that the Injeel you trust in did not exist
It's ok hugo, I did not ask you to prove whether the Injeel exists or not.
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-03-2010, 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Just a point for clarity here - how do you know it is not al-Injeel?
I have four different articles on that at my site. The link is in my signature.
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-03-2010, 04:13 PM
Ron Hassan (or maybe it was Moiz Amjad) wrote that in all likelihood al-Injeel was the now lost Gospel of the Nazarenes. Nobody really knows, but it seems to make a lot of sense given that this is what the seventh-century Christians that the Koran appears to refer to "al-Injeel" were using. (The Bible, you see, had not yet been translated into Arabic.)
Reply

Hugo
11-04-2010, 08:29 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Do you agree that Jesus(as) preached the word of God? Do You agree there is no written compilation of the words Jesus(as) preached? ( I do admit that the words quoted in the Gospels may be from the Injeel, but there is no provable verification they are. If those can be proven as the actual words spoken by Jesus(as) then those would be at least fragments of the Injeel) GDo you agree that a complete works containing the words Jesus(as) preached would/should have a name or title? Basically that is what we believe the Injeel is and why no copy exists.
I regard Jesus as the living word of God and the canonical gospels recount the teaching of Jesus and the do have titles called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The point is that if you have no copies of the injeel then they cannot be used to arrive at doctrine or show that the canonical gospels are corrupted indeed they cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever since as far as I understand it all you have is a title for supposedly lost words
Reply

Woodrow
11-04-2010, 05:39 PM
I regard Jesus as the living word of God and the canonical gospels recount the teaching of Jesus and the do have titles called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The point is that if you have no copies of the injeel then they cannot be used to arrive at doctrine or show that the canonical gospels are corrupted indeed they cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever since as far as I understand it all you have is a title for supposedly lost words

Good point. Also the reason we peobably will never understand each other fully or come to any agreement in regards to our beliefs.

My version of what you just posted looks like this:

I do not regard Jesus as the living word of God and the canonical gospels recount the the writing of questionable authors of titles called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The point is we have no copies of the injeel and we should not expect non-Muslim to arrive at agreement or show that the canonical gospels are corrupted indeed they cannot be used for any purpose except to explain the reason why some points of Christianity do agree with Islam
Understandably you and I can not agree on this as we both have seperate accepted sources and what is accepted by one is not accepted by the other.
Reply

Woodrow
11-05-2010, 01:18 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar



And prophet Muhammad SAW confirmed jesus pbuh and the injeel conveyed by Jesus pbuh, so this "another" helper must have been prophet Muhammad SAW.
Ameen, that is the truth.
Reply

Rabi Mansur
11-05-2010, 01:31 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Ron Hassan (or maybe it was Moiz Amjad) wrote that in all likelihood al-Injeel was the now lost Gospel of the Nazarenes. Nobody really knows, but it seems to make a lot of sense given that this is what the seventh-century Christians that the Koran appears to refer to "al-Injeel" were using. (The Bible, you see, had not yet been translated into Arabic.)
:sl:
That is an interesting possibility. I've wondered if Al-Injeel is actually the sayings gospel, i.e., Q that scholars have tried to extrapolate as the authentic words of Jesus pbuh. If it is Q then it would contain the essence of his message in his own words at some point in time without the taint of all the extraneous material added in by the unknown authors of the gospels.

If you ever read what most scholars have concluded is the Q sayings gospel it doesn't say anything about the trinity, or him being God or a lot of the other baggage that Christians hold on to now. It is just the pure message that he delivered.
:wa:
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-05-2010, 05:03 AM
Originally Posted by serena77
another side note... i always thought it neat that the same angel went to mary as who went to Mohammed (pbuh ) w/ the Koran.
Well, yes and no. Christians says that the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary. Muslims say that the angel Gabriel who spoke to Muhammad is the Holy Spirit. Christians cannot accept declaring the Holy Spirit to be nothing more than a created messenger. Muslims cannot accept declaring the Holy Spirit to be anything more than a created messenger.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-05-2010, 05:08 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Do you agree that a complete works containing the words Jesus(as) preached would/should have a name or title?
Actually, no, I do not agree. That is exactly one (not the only one) of my problems with this concept of the injeel as it is understood in Islam today.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-05-2010, 05:26 AM
Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur
If you ever read what most scholars have concluded is the Q sayings gospel it doesn't say anything about the trinity, or him being God or a lot of the other baggage that Christians hold on to now. It is just the pure message that he delivered.
:wa:
This depends on which scholars you read and how they interpret what was or was not Q material. Some speak of more than one Q-source even. Those that do this include material in Q that do have Jesus speaking of himself as God. Others say that these are later additions to Q. And just as Muslims continue to talk about an injeel that no one can actually read, so it is many "learned" scholars continue to talk about a Q-source document that no one can read. What I find both of them to have in common is the trait of being so clearly understood by those who accept what they have not read and cannot read in order to have authority to deny what generations have known and read ever since the first century.

Given that Q is assumed by those who adhere to its hypothesis to be one part of the source material for Matthew, Mark, and Luke, if it is the injeel of which Muslims speak, then just as you might claim it would show a Jesus who does not speak of the Trinity, there also would be absolutely no evidence (outside of Islamic writings) that Jesus ever made mention of Muhammad.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-05-2010, 06:24 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Ron Hassan (or maybe it was Moiz Amjad) wrote that in all likelihood al-Injeel was the now lost Gospel of the Nazarenes. Nobody really knows, but it seems to make a lot of sense given that this is what the seventh-century Christians that the Koran appears to refer to "al-Injeel" were using. (The Bible, you see, had not yet been translated into Arabic.)
Have you read it? Let me share parts of it with you, and you tell me if you're willing to accept it as true:
Lection 82
1. THEN released he Barabbas unto them, and when he had scourged Iesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Iesus to the common hall and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
2. And they stripped him and put on him a purple robe. And when they had plaited a crown of thorns they put it upon his head and a reed in his right hand, and they bowed the knee before him and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
3. Then came Iesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
4. When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. And Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him and crucify him, for I find no fault in him.
5. And they spit upon him, and took the reed and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
6. And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the county, and on him they laid the cross that he might bear it after Iesus. And there followed him a great company of people and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
7. But Jesus, turning unto them, said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold the days are coming in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
8. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For it they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry.
9. And there were also two other malefactors led with him to be put to death. And when they were come unto a place called Calvary, and Golgotha, that is to say a place of a skull, there they crucified him; and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and other on the left.
10. And it was the third hour when they crucified him, and they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall, and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. And Jesus said, Abba Amma, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
11. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his raiment and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his vesture. Now the vesture was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be.
12. That the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. And sitting down they watched him there.
13. And a superscription was also written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This is the King of the Jews.
14. This title then read many of the Jews, for the place where Iesus was crucified was nigh to the city, and it was written in Hebrew and Greek and Latin. then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews, but that, he said, I am the King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written, I have written.
15. And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be the Christ, save thy self and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds, but this man hath done nothing amiss.
16. And he said unto Iesus, Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Iesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.
17. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging heir heads and saying, Thou that wouldst destroy the temple, and build it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross.
18. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, while the scribes and elders said, He saved a lamb, himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross and we will believe him. He trusted in God, let Him deliver him now, if He will have him, for he said, I am the Son of God.
19. The usurers and the dealers in beasts and birds also cast the like things into his teeth, saying, Thou who drivest from the temple the traders in oxen and sheep and doves, art thyself but a sheep that is sacrificed.
20. Now from the Sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the Ninth hour, and some standing around, lighted their torches, for the darkness was very great. And about the Sixth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, lame sabachthani? that, is to say, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me ?
21. Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias; others said, He calleth on the Sun. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
22. Now there stood by the cross of Iesus his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
23. When Iesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! And he said to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her into his own home.
24. After this, Iesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I am athirst. And from a vessel they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it upon hyssop and put it to his mouth.
25. And Iesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Abba Amma, into Thy hand I commend my spirit.
26. When Iesus had therefore received the vinegar, he cried aloud, It is finished; and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. And it was the ninth hour.
27. And behold there was great thunder and lightning, and the partition wall of the Holy place, from which hung the veil, fell down, and was rent in twain, and the earth did quake, and the rocks also were rent.
28. Now when the centurion and they that were with him watching Iesus, saw the earthquake and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was a Son of God.
29. And many women were there, which followed from Galilee, ministering unto them, and among them were Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children and they lamented, saying, The light of the world is hid from our eyes, the Lord our Love is crucified.
30. Then the Jews, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath, for that was a Paschal Sabbath, besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
31. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the two who were crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his heart and forthwith came there out blood and water.
32. And he that saw it bare record and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled—A bone of him shall not be broken, and again—In the midst of the week the Messiah shall be cut off.

(source: http://www.thenazareneway.com/legend...ost_gospel.htm )
I have no problem with this being the al-Injeel that Muslims want to claim is the true gospel of Jesus if you don't.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-05-2010, 07:59 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I have no problem with this being the al-Injeel that Muslims want to claim is the true gospel of Jesus if you don't.
Al Injeel would be "the gospel ACCORDING TO Jesus (as)",
and NOT "the gospel ABOUT Jesus (as)"



It is interesting to note that, according to your statement above, you would actually accept the fact that the injeel as related in the Qur'an did exist (I bolded and underlined your statement) if it conforms with your belief.
who knew that a christian pastor may actually accept that the qur'an ays the truth?

mindblowing.

Just as a contrast, you would never bend the conviction of a muslim that the Qur'an is 100% true.
Reply

Hugo
11-05-2010, 08:36 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Understandably you and I can not agree on this as we both have seperate accepted sources and what is accepted by one is not accepted by the other.
Yes it is true we are not able to agree but I have a huge manuscript base so I can feel confident about the Gospels but you have none and only a single witness to what you have. What I find strange is that Muslims seem ready to accept say the Gospel of Barnabus or eleswhere someone suggested the Gospel of the Nazareans was the injeel yet it only exists in tiny fragments all of which can only be found in other writings - why is this do you think?
Reply

Ramadhan
11-05-2010, 08:59 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Yes it is true we are not able to agree but I have a huge manuscript base so I can feel confident about the Gospels but you have none and only a single witness to what you have. What I find strange is that Muslims seem ready to accept say the Gospel of Barnabus or eleswhere someone suggested the Gospel of the Nazareans was the injeel yet it only exists in tiny fragments all of which can only be found in other writings - why is this do you think?
Tell me Hugo,

this so called "huge manuscript base" of yours, was at least one of them written by Jesus (as)?
or written by his disciples?
or when jesus (as) was alive?
or when his disciples were alive?

Also, I am sure others have explained to you in details with great length and proof and evidence how the qur'an was revealed and preserved in many other threads.
and yet, here again you are spewing filth and lies.

I don't even know why you are here.

Do you not have decency if not sincerity?
(should I remind you that you have been banned before? or did you just "forget" about that just as you "forget" about many aspects of Islam which have been explained to you again and again)
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-05-2010, 02:23 PM
naidamar, what he's told me is that the "argues so as to learn about new points of view" or some such malarkey, even when he doesn't really believe in what he's arguing for. And what I've told you is that you'd do well to stop dignifying him with responses.
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-05-2010, 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Have you read it? Let me share parts of it with you, and you tell me if you're willing to accept it as true:


I have no problem with this being the al-Injeel that Muslims want to claim is the true gospel of Jesus if you don't.
1. I never said that it was al-Injeel. I said that's the best guess we have. I might have even been wrong about it being the best guess.
2. If I can't trust the biased Christian translators of the Bible not to inject their biases into the translation to support their doctrines (and we could go on all day with examples of that), why should I trust these obviously Christian translators?
3. Is the quotation of al-Injeel from Koran 48:29 in that Gospel anywhere?
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-05-2010, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
...there also would be absolutely no evidence (outside of Islamic writings) that Jesus ever made mention of Muhammad.
Once again, the Koran never even said whether or not that prophecy was written down anywhere, let alone in any extant Gospel. It just says he told some people that at some point. With his lips.
Reply

Woodrow
11-05-2010, 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Yes it is true we are not able to agree but I have a huge manuscript base so I can feel confident about the Gospels but you have none and only a single witness to what you have. What I find strange is that Muslims seem ready to accept say the Gospel of Barnabus or eleswhere someone suggested the Gospel of the Nazareans was the injeel yet it only exists in tiny fragments all of which can only be found in other writings - why is this do you think?
In accordance with your last sentence:
why is this do you think?
Just my opinion and what I personally think.

We do know that the truth to mankind was revealed to all people of all nations. There have been numerous Prophets(PBUT) nearly all were ignored and forgotten about. But we do believe they existed. We do know at least 4 books have been revealed to mankind the Tauret, Zaboor, Injeel and Qur'an. the Qur'an is not a new revelation, it is a summation of all that was revealed in the past and not given for a single people of a specific time, but for all people of all times. We do have some degree of expectations that parts of the truth still exist in the remnants of the past. We do often feel that if we find something in any past writing that does not disagree from the Qur'an it could very well be from the old revelations. For this reason when we see Books such as the Gospel of Barnabas and fragments of the Gospel of the Nazarene, we do have a feeling it is from the Injeel although unprovable as such.

As far as us not having numerous documentations and rely on the revelation from one source, I disagree with that. Just my opinion there were and continue to be numerous Hafiz (people who have memorized the Qur'an) dating back to the time of Muhammad(PBUH) this oral record has remained constant and a Hafiz from any country will recite the same thing as a Hafiz from any other country. The Hafiz are sort of like a recording constantly being recopied onto new disks.

While the original oral source is from what Muhammad spoke we do believe that is sufficient and we have numerous recordings from the past that what we read in the Qur'an today, is exactly what came from the mouth ofMuhammad(PBUH) But Muhammad was not the source, he was the instrument used to convey the message given by Allaah(swt). The only issue is if the Qur'an is the genuine words of Allaah(swt) or the work of a human. For many reasons those of us who accept Islam are convinced it came from Allaah(swt).

I can only know why I personally am convinced, to do so would be another topic and probably lengthy, so for the moment I will simply say I am convinced the Qur'an is the actual word of Allaah(swt).
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-05-2010, 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
1. I never said that it was al-Injeel. I said that's the best guess we have. I might have even been wrong about it being the best guess.
I understand. I'm just sharing with you what I found when I searched under the title of the work you provided. I'm not even saying that it is the same work to which you were referring. These "lost" gospels often seem to be known by different names depending on who is reporting on them.

2. If I can't trust the biased Christian translators of the Bible not to inject their biases into the translation to support their doctrines (and we could go on all day with examples of that), why should I trust these obviously Christian translators?
Perhaps you would feel like you can't; I can understand that as well. But, if so, then I would suggest that at least the same level of skepticism should also be maintained with regard to those reports which, without providing any translation at all, purport to tell you that the work contains material that is in keeping with Islamic theology.

3. Is the quotation of al-Injeel from Koran 48:29 in that Gospel anywhere?
I didn't see anything like that. But it didn't have a way to search the document. I provided a link above if you want to check it out for yourself. As I said, it may be a completely different document by the same or similar name to that which your referred to. Perhaps you could provide us with a link to the document you were referencing, please?
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-05-2010, 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Once again, the Koran never even said whether or not that prophecy was written down anywhere, let alone in any extant Gospel. It just says he told some people that at some point. With his lips.
Right. I get that. And in fact I expect that is more likely true than to do as so many try to do and force a document that they don't otherwise trust to be referring to Muhammad at all. Yet, I run into it over and over again, and even the attempt to do so on the part of Muslims makes no sense to me, let alone the supposed explainations that are provided for it.
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-05-2010, 04:17 PM
Grace Seeker: I was only relaying a seemingly sensible theory by the folks at the main site of Understanding Islam, and they never said anything about any specific text being in accordance with Islamic theology. Indeed, with so very many centuries in which to become corrupt like all the non-"lost" books of the Bible, I don't know if I should even be surprised, and most of the time when historians say they're recovered a specific text what they really mean is that they have uncovered a particular unknown text, that happened to end up in the region and maybe be from roughly the right time period, which they presume to be that one specific text. It's not like they all gave themselves titles within the text, and there have been any number of different lost Gospels going by really the same title.

Here's the sweet and low down: nobody knows for sure what al-Injeel was, nobody really has any way of knowing (at least as yet), and nobody--repeat, nobody, Islamic or non-Islamic--that I have ever seen other than Christian evangelists or others arguing against Islam ever cares at all.
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-05-2010, 04:21 PM
By the way, not all Muslims believe in the Gospel of Barnabas. I myself see many signs in it of poor understanding of Islamic doctrine, contradictions with Islamic doctrine, and anachronism.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-05-2010, 04:30 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
We do have some degree of expectations that parts of the truth still exist in the remnants of the past. We do often feel that if we find something in any past writing that does not disagree from the Qur'an it could very well be from the old revelations. For this reason when we see Books such as the Gospel of Barnabas and fragments of the Gospel of the Nazarene, we do have a feeling it is from the Injeel although unprovable as such.
Woodrow, I get while these books would be attractive to you. For the same reason that Christians get excited when an osuary is found in Israel that appears to have the name James on it. We each think that we have maybe found a link to something of our past. We don't need it to prove our present faith, but still it would be nice to have.

My concern is that shouldn't one then put these "new" discoveries to critical analyses to determine if they really are links to the past or if they are just so many shiney things that attract (perhaps, more correctly, distract) our attention? I don't see that among but a very few of those who reference such finds here.


But as far as us not having numerous documentations and rely on the revelation from one source, I disagree with that. Just my opinion there were and continue to be numerous Hafiz (people who have memorized the Qur'an) dating back to the time of Muhammad(PBUH) this oral record has remained constant and a Hafiz from any country will recite the same thing as a Hafiz from any other country. The Hafiz are sort of like a recording constantly being recopied onto new disks.
Do the Hafiz memorize the Qur'an from listening to other people recite it in a continuous chain of reciters and only from hearing it recited? Or do they also employ reading the written text in the memorization process?


The only issue is if the Qur'an is the genuine words of Allaah(swt) or the work of a human. For many reasons those of us who accept Islam are convinced it came from Allaah(swt).
That certainly is the issue. Personally, I fail to see how the existence of Hafiz would be one of those substantiative reasons. But I'm sure you fail to see how the existence of the early church substantiates my belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-05-2010, 04:35 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Here's the sweet and low down: nobody knows for sure what al-Injeel was, nobody really has any way of knowing (at least as yet),
As far as this statement goes, we agree completely.

and nobody--repeat, nobody, Islamic or non-Islamic--that I have ever seen other than Christian evangelists or others arguing against Islam ever cares at all.
And I will tell you the only reason I care....it is because so often on here I find Muslims trying to tell me that they do know what was in the Injeel.
Reply

Woodrow
11-05-2010, 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Woodrow, I get while these books would be attractive to you. For the same reason that Christians get excited when an osuary is found in Israel that appears to have the name James on it. We each think that we have maybe found a link to something of our past. We don't need it to prove our present faith, but still it would be nice to have.
we are in agreement here

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
My concern is that shouldn't one then put these "new" discoveries to critical analyses to determine if they really are links to the past or if they are just so many shiney things that attract (perhaps, more correctly, distract) our attention? I don't see that among but a very few of those who reference such finds here.
We still agree. Yes we should verify all things no matter how good they sound to us or how much we desire them to be true. But human nature being as it is, it is easy to overlook that we have failed to verify.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Do the Hafiz memorize the Qur'an from listening to other people recite it in a continuous chain of reciters and only from hearing it recited? Or do they also employ reading the written text in the memorization process?
While the written Qur'an can help. It is not possible to learn it as a hafiz from the written alone. It is essential to learn the Qur'an with the proper Tajweed(Pronunciation) which can not be done except from memorizing from oral renditions. In recent times this can be done from recordings,but for the most part it seems the accepted way is through a person who is Hafiz.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That certainly is the issue. Personally, I fail to see how the existence of Hafiz would be one of those substantiative reasons. But I'm sure you fail to see how the existence of the early church substantiates my belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
At least here we can understand why we both fail to see why we each place importance on different things..
Reply

Insaanah
11-05-2010, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
While the written Qur'an can help. It is not possible to learn it as a hafiz from the written alone. It is essential to learn the Qur'an with the proper Tajweed (Pronunciation) which can not be done except from memorizing from oral renditions. In recent times this can be done from recordings,but for the most part it seems the accepted way is through a person who is Hafiz.
And, I would also add to this, regarding tajweed, that those who learn tajweed (correct articulation of letters and pronounciation - there are specific rules for the Qur'an that are not for ordinary Arabic text) and are qualified in tajweed (have a qualification known as an ijaazah), have a known chain going back to Allah. Not everyone who learns tajweed has an ijaazah.

To obtain an ijaazah, you must learn from a teacher who has an ijaazah, their teacher must have had an ijaazah, and so on.

An ijaazah requires reciting the whole complete Qur'an to someone with an ijaazah, with complete tajweed and excellent memorisation. To obtain an ijaazah is a great achievement, and honour from Allah. Upon getting the ijaazah, the haafith (memoriser of Qur'an) who has the ijaazah is now certified and approved to transmit the Qur'an and it's tajweed to others with the big responsibility of transmitting it as the Prophet (peace be upon him) recited it, with every single letter articulated from the correct point in the mouth/throat, and every word pronounced correctly.

For example, there is a 3 part book series called Tajweed Rules of the Qur'an, written by Kareema Carol Czerepinski. In her book, she shows her chain of transmission of tajweed. Each individual in the chain is named. I can't access my copy right now to scan in, and can't remember all the names, but they are listed in it, and it goes roughly like this:

Kareema Carol Czerepinski
Ayman Rushdi Swayd (her teacher, who is a famous tajweed teacher)
Ayman Rushdi Swayd's teacher (but it would have the teacher's name)
etc
etc
...
and so on
till it gets to
Student of one of the companions (it has the name)
One of the companions (it has the name)
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
Angel Gabriel (peace be upon him)
Allah

In the book, the chain rightfully starts with Allah at the top, and everyone else listed down from Him.

Peace.
Reply

Hugo
11-06-2010, 05:56 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Tell me Hugo,
this so called "huge manuscript base" of yours, was at least one of them written by Jesus (as)? or written by his disciples?
or when jesus (as) was alive? or when his disciples were alive? Also, I am sure others have explained to you in details with great length and proof and evidence how the qur'an was revealed and preserved in many other threads.
and yet, here again you are spewing filth and lies.
where exactly have I entered filth or lies - I am here because I want to probe why you believe as you do and why you attack the Bible so often - is that not allowed since I or you just might be wrong so I am after the truth.

You say I don't have a gospel written by Jesus but you don't have a qu'rad written directly by God for it was dictated to Mohammad and he dictated it to others so just like the canonical gospels it is second hand and unless you think the language of God is Arabic then it is really no different than Jesus speaking Aramaic and the gospels in Greek - do you see the comparisons?
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-06-2010, 08:02 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
While the written Qur'an can help. It is not possible to learn it as a hafiz from the written alone. It is essential to learn the Qur'an with the proper Tajweed(Pronunciation) which can not be done except from memorizing from oral renditions. In recent times this can be done from recordings,but for the most part it seems the accepted way is through a person who is Hafiz.
Originally Posted by Insaanah
And, I would also add to this, regarding tajweed, that those who learn tajweed (correct articulation of letters and pronounciation - there are specific rules for the Qur'an that are not for ordinary Arabic text) and are qualified in tajweed (have a qualification known as an ijaazah), have a known chain going back to Allah. Not everyone who learns tajweed has an ijaazah.

To obtain an ijaazah, you must learn from a teacher who has an ijaazah, their teacher must have had an ijaazah, and so on.

An ijaazah requires reciting the whole complete Qur'an to someone with an ijaazah, with complete tajweed and excellent memorisation. To obtain an ijaazah is a great achievement, and honour from Allah. Upon getting the ijaazah, the haafith (memoriser of Qur'an) who has the ijaazah is now certified and approved to transmit the Qur'an and it's tajweed to others with the big responsibility of transmitting it as the Prophet (peace be upon him) recited it, with every single letter articulated from the correct point in the mouth/throat, and every word pronounced correctly.

So, if I understand you correctly, if I was to go to a local mosque and take the Arabic classes teaching one to read the Qur'an there, and after learning how to read it were to go home with my Arabic text and the knowledge I learned with regard how to recite it from class and begin the work of memorizing it, that would not be sufficient to make me Hafiz. Is this what you are saying? I can only be Hafiz if I do my memory work by listening to another recite and then reciting myself?
Reply

Woodrow
11-06-2010, 09:17 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, if I understand you correctly, if I was to go to a local mosque and take the Arabic classes teaching one to read the Qur'an there, and after learning how to read it were to go home with my Arabic text and the knowledge I learned with regard how to recite it from class and begin the work of memorizing it, that would not be sufficient to make me Hafiz. Is this what you are saying? I can only be Hafiz if I do my memory work by listening to another recite and then reciting myself?
If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to have a reasonable concept of what it takes to be Hafiz. The final verification is that you can recite the entire Qur'an from memory and it will be identical to what is recited by any other hafiz. Mispronounce even one letter and you can not be considered hafiz.

There is no obligation for anybody to become hafiz. It has to be from the desire to be one and with the intent of doing so as Praise and thanks to Allaah(swt) With the aid of a tutor most memorize the Qur'an in 30-36 months. The average person seems to be capable of learning one Juz in slightly over a month. The Qur'an is made up of 30 Juz. Some who begin with attempting to become Hafiz stop after memorizing a few Juz. But the majority who begin do succeed in completing it.
Reply

tango92
11-06-2010, 10:11 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to have a reasonable concept of what it takes to be Hafiz. The final verification is that you can recite the entire Qur'an from memory and it will be identical to what is recited by any other hafiz. Mispronounce even one letter and you can not be considered hafiz.

There is no obligation for anybody to become hafiz. It has to be from the desire to be one and with the intent of doing so as Praise and thanks to Allaah(swt) With the aid of a tutor most memorize the Qur'an in 30-36 months. The average person seems to be capable of learning one Juz in slightly over a month. The Qur'an is made up of 30 Juz. Some who begin with attempting to become Hafiz stop after memorizing a few Juz. But the majority who begin do succeed in completing it.
an important consideration is (i think) these estimates apply to modern day hufaaz. ie basically kids who go to school and go to the mosque for Hifz classes. in asia/middle east kids may be in full time education of pure hifz and begin school later. i think these kids finish much quicker than 3 yrs.

a hafiz from my mosque said he finished in 4-5 months. i cant remember exactly. but he was worked very hard, he had beautiful tajweed. i think he said he started at the age of 18.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-07-2010, 12:32 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
You say I don't have a gospel written by Jesus but you don't have a qu'rad written directly by God for it was dictated to Mohammad and he dictated it to others so just like the canonical gospels it is second hand and unless you think the language of God is Arabic then it is really no different than Jesus speaking Aramaic and the gospels in Greek - do you see the comparisons?
The qur'an was memorised and written as soon as each revelation was sent down.
Whether you believe it from God or not is different matter/issue.

Meanwhile, the gospels were not written/memorised during the time of Jesus pbuh or during the life of his disciples.

It is cunning for you to divert the issue, but it is very transparent and everyone here can see it.

Why not apply the same standard and be as critical to your own faith, hugo?

What are you afraid of? that you will find your faith false and Islam is the truth?
Reply

Hugo
11-07-2010, 05:44 AM
[QUOTE=naidamar;1382256]The qur'an was memorised and written as soon as each revelation was sent down.
Whether you believe it from God or not is [\quote]
this cannot be entirely true because it may not have occurred for the early revelations. Also, we know the Qu'ran is an oral tradition because it has such a small vocabulary consistent with what would be normal for everyday speech but how do you account for the fact that although it is said that some 60 scribes were used that not a single record of that work survives and even among those 60 scribes and many others who memorised that not a single error occurred - so what standard are you wanting me to apply other than incredulity - please say and then we can compare. This is important since one of us might just have the truth and I am as keen to know it but ultimately it's the message that matters would you not agree
Reply

Ramadhan
11-07-2010, 10:09 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
this cannot be entirely true because it may not have occurred for the early revelations. Also, we know the Qu'ran is an oral tradition because it has such a small vocabulary consistent with what would be normal for everyday speech but how do you account for the fact that although it is said that some 60 scribes were used that not a single record of that work survives and even among those 60 scribes and many others who memorised that not a single error occurred - so what standard are you wanting me to apply other than incredulity - please say and then we can compare. This is important since one of us might just have the truth and I am as keen to know it but ultimately it's the message that matters would you not agree
Hugo,

I believe you were also involved in previous other threads about Qur'an revelations and preservations.
But yet again, here you are offering your opinions which is not based on anything except your hatred for Islam.

I am going to be patient, and I am going to out here a series of How the Qur'an was revealed and preserved, and maybe this time you actually will read it.



By Dr. Zakir Naik


Question:
There were many versions of the Qur’an all of which were burnt by Usman (r.a.) except for one. Therefore is it not true that the present Qur’an is the one compiled by Usman (r.a.) and not the original revelation of God?


Answer:
One of the most common myths about the Qur’an, is that Usman (r.a.), the third Caliph of Islam authenticated and compiled one Qur’an, from a large set of mutually contradicting copies. The Qur’an, revered as the Word of Allah (swt) by Muslims the world over, is the same Qur’an as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It was authenticated and written under his personal supervision. We will examine the roots of the myth which says that Usman (r.a.) had the Qur’an authenticated.


1. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an

Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (R.A. – Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) – May Allah be pleased with him who would also memorize it. The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh).


2. Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired

The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.

Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.

It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.


3. Qur’an copied on one common material

The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The verses however, were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost.


4. Usman (r.a.) made copies of the Qur’an from the original manuscript

Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third Caliph Usman (r.a.).

Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet (pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centres of Muslims.

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman (r.a.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.


5. Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs

The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.


6. Allah Himself has promised to guard the Qur’an

Allah has promised in the Qur’an :
"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]
Reply

Ramadhan
11-07-2010, 01:12 PM
From http://www.islamic-life.com/other-re...uran-preserved

(there are some arguments from non-muslims below, just in case you want to argue those, Hugo. It may save you -and us- time and energy)


Has Qur'an been Preserved?
[E-mail] [Print] [PDF]
By Muhammad SalmanPublished in Qur'anPublished on Aug. 23, 2008

This article covers the Muslims response and refutation to some of the common false allegations against the preservation of the Qur'an. These are my notes from a debate that I had with an atheist on the topic of preservation of the Qur'an. He mainly argued that Qur'an was not complete during the life of the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam - peace and blessings be upon him), neither it was completely written down or memorized. He also argued that the Qur'an we've today is missing ayaat (verses) and parts. The preservation of the Qur'an has been guaranteed by Allah (God): "Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'an) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)" (1). Imam ibn Jarir at-Tabari (rahimahullah - May Allah have mercy on him) says in the tafsir (exegesis) of this ayah: "Allah is saying, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (Reminder), i.e. the Qur'an, and We will guard the Qur'an against anything false being added to it that is not part of it, or anything that is part of it being taken away, whether that has to do with rulings, hudood punishments or matters having to do with inheritance" (2). The sound minded readers can go through my notes and analyze the truth:
Was Qur'an Incomplete when Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salm) died?
Non-Muslim's Argument

Qur'an was not complete when Muhammad died and was in fragments. Qur'an is incomplete because it was not completely compiled, missing parts or some parts didn't survive. If the sayings of the Qur'an was not organised into a book called the Qur'an, there is no Qur'an.
Muslim Response

This misconception is only raised due to lack of basic knowledge. The attacker thinks that when Muslims today say "Qur'an", they refer to the written mushaf (codex), which is not true as no sound minded Muslim believe in such a thing. According to the correct Islamic 'aqeedah (creed), Sunni Muslim believe that the Qur'an is the Kalam (speech) of Allah and it is not created. In addition, the literal meaning of the word Qur'an is, "the recitation". Therefore, when Muslims say "Qur'an", they're talking about the text not the written copies which contain the text. Now, the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) over the period of 23 years, it was completed while he was alive. Allah Ta'ala says in the Qur'an: "this day have I perfected your deen for you" (3). Therefore, the Qur'anic revelation was completed when Allah’s Messenger (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) was alive. Even if we assume the attacker's position, if the content of a story is complete, how can you claim that the story is incomplete? The following sahih (authentic) ahadith further confirms it:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet was the most generous person, and he used to become more so (generous) particularly in the month of Ramadan because Gabriel used to meet him every night of the month of Ramadan till it elapsed. Allah's Apostle used to recite the Qur'an for him. When Gabriel met him, he used to become more generous than the fast wind in doing good. (4)

Narrated Abu-Huraira: Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur'an with the Prophet once a year, but he repeated it twice with him in the year he died. The Prophet used to stay in I'tikaf for ten days every year (in the month of Ramadan). (5)
Did Companions (radi-allahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad(sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salm) not memorized and write down the whole Qur'an?
Non-Muslim's Argument

No one memorized or wrote down all of Muhammad's teachings. Look at the following hadith: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ...So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, 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... (6). From this hadith, it is clear that the scribes failed to note down all the Muhammad said, hence why the tale talks about his followers failing to create a book and also why the person needed to search for multiple people, multiple writings to even compile it.
Muslim Response

Again, the attacker shows his lack of basic Islamic knowledge and misinterpretation of the hadith. First, let's look at the proofs which refutes his false claims and then we'll look at this hadith within the context. Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid (May Allah preserve him) said:

Everything that was revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was written down in front of him straight away, and some of the Sahaabah had masaahif (written copies of the Qur'an). After the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), the first khaleefah, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) gathered the Qur’aan in written and kept it. Then the third khaleefah, 'Uthmaan ibn 'Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) compiled it in mus-hafs that were based on the mus-haf compiled by Abu Bakr, in addition to what had been memorized. (7)

and in another place he said:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) appointed a group of his companions who were trustworthy and knowledgeable to write down the revelation. They are known in their biographies as those who wrote down the Revelation, such as the four Caliphs, 'Abd-Allaah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'Aas, Mu'aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, Zayd ibn Thaabit and others – may Allaah be pleased with them all.(8)
The whole Qur'an was memorized by many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam)

Let's look at some of the authentic sources which supports what the Shaykh said; Imam Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah - May Allah have mercy on him) records the following hadith in Sahih Al-Buhkhari in chapter, "Who were the Qurra'/hufaz among the companions (radiallahu anhuma - May Allah be pleased with them) of Prophet (peace be upon him)?" Qari'/ hafiz (singular of Qurra'/hufaz) is someone who has memorized the WHOLE QUR’AN!:

Narrated Masriq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b'". (9)

The commenter in the commentary of this hadith says: "These four companions (RA) were the biggest 'ailm (scholar) and the memorizer of the whole Qur'an. There were other qurra' among them but these four knew the most". (10) The phrase, "Knew the most", doesn't refer to the quantity; rather it refers to the strength of their memory. This also proves that companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) perfectly memorized and learned the entire Qur'an. You can't teach others or help them memorize the Qur'an unless you have memorized the entire Qur'an and its 'alim. Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) would never have made such a statement if they were not qualified for it! We further read in 'Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Qur'an: "Some of the companions who memorized the Quran were: 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama". (11) Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) has told us of great virtue of memorzing the Qur'an. Muslims for 14 centuries have been memorizing the Qur'an and passing it down as it came. Hence, it is complete nonsensical of one to say that the companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) didn't memorize the whole Qur'an. There are numerous other overwhelming evidences, which I'm not quoting to keep the response short, that confirm the fact that many of the companions (rahiallahu anhuma) memorized the entire Qur'an and the readers will soon see that the very hadith quoted by the attacker proves him wrong.
Statements of non-Muslim Scholars on memorization of the Qur'an

John Burton says: "The method of transmitting the Quran from one generation to the next by having he young memorize the oral recitation of their elders had mitigated somewhat from the beginning the worst perils of relying solely on written records…" (12) Kenneth Cragg says: "this phenomenon of Quranic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifdh (Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation, never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone". (13)
The whole Qur'an was written down by many Companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam)

Let's look some of the authentic evidences proving the fact that the Qur'an was written down by many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) during his life:

Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the Prophet ?" He replied, "Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. (14)

Narrated Anas bin Malik: When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur'an but four persons: Abu Ad-Darda'. Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring. (15) The commenter in the commentary of this hadith says: "Hadhrat Anas (radhiallahu anho) is saying what he knew. There were other companions (radhiallahu anhuma) besides these four who collected (wrote down) the Qur'an. However, Hadhrat Anas (radhiallahu anho) means the companions who collected (wrote down) the whole Qur'an". (10) Some may argue that the word "collected" could also mean they memorized it or collected knowledge because these ahadith are also recorded in the same chapter as 521. However, the correct translation is that they wrote it down. The Arabic word used here is, Jam'a, and it means literally collecting objects. Therefore, they must have collected Qur'an in written form.

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." (16)

Narrated Al-Bara: There was revealed: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah" (4.95). The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: …" (17)

The entire Quran was however also recorded in writing at the time of revelation from the Prophet's [sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam] dictation, may God praise him, by some of his literate companions, the most prominent of them being Zaid ibn Thabit. (18)

Others among his noble scribes were Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Ibn Mas’ud, Mu’awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan, Khalid ibn Waleed and Zubayr ibn Awwam. (19)
Explanation of the hadith and reasons for collecting the Qur'an from different people

In the refutation of the attacker's claim, I've above shown using the authentic evidences that the entire Qur'an was memorized and written down during the life of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam). Now, the attacker's false claims only arise due to his misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the hadith: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ...So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, 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... (6). However, when we read the complete hadith it tells us the reasons about their decision of collecting the Qur'an. We read in the hadith that many Qurra' (who memorized the whole Qur’an) martyred during the battle of Yamama. Again, the very hadith quoted by the attacker to prove his point contradicts him and it proves my point: many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) memorized the entire Qur’an during his life. The battle of Yamama took place right after Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) passed away, in fact, he (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) sent the army himself and later this army was strengthened with more men by Abou Bakr (radiallahu anho). Hence, the companions (rahiallahu anhuma) decided to make a committe which was responsible of collecting the Qur'an and Zaid was incharge of this task.

Imam ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) says in Fathul Bari: "The material must have been originally written down in the presence of the Prophet; nothing written down later on the basis of memory alone was to be accepted. The material must be confirmed by two witnesses, that is to say, by two trustworthy persons testifying that they themselves had heard the Prophet recite the passage in question". (20) The restrictions placed by the committee are the sole reason for collecting the Qur'an from different people and finding a certain ayah with only one person. In other words, reading the hadith within the context of other evidences, we understand that the phrase in the hadith "other than him" exclude the members of committee as Zaid (radiallahu anho) was collecting the Qur'an from non-members and they needed two trustworthy witnesses to confirm it. Shaykh Muhammad Salih confirms it: "The Sahaabi Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) knew the Qur’aan by heart but he was methodical in his confirmation; he would not agree to write down any verse until two of the Sahaabah testified that they had heard it from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)". (8) Imam ibn Hajr further explains this in Fathul Bari:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) permitted the writing of the Qur'an and prohibited the writing of anything else along with it, so Abu Bakr did not order anything to be written down except what has already been written down, and that is the reason why he (Zayd bin Thaabit) refrained from writing the last verses from Surah al Bara'a until he found it written, for he already knew it and had people who remembered it along with him. Umar said: Who ever received anything regarding the Quran from the Prophet (peace be upon him) then let him bring it. And they used to write it on the manuscripts and boards and date palmed stalks. He said that nothing would be accepted from anyone until two witnesses testify to it. "And this points out that Zayd was not satisfied with only finding it written down until someone testified that he heard it, even though Zayd himself had memorized it, and they used to take this extra precaution in order to be more cautious. And Abu Dawud contained a narration on the authority of Hisham bin Arwa that his father said that Abu Bakr said to Umar and Zayd: Sit down on the door of the Mosque and whoever of two witnesses come to you regarding the Quran then write it down'. The men of this narration are trustworthy despite the chain being broken, and the intended meaning regarding two witnesses was memorization and writing, or it meant that they both testify that what was written down was actually written down under the authority of the Messenger peace be upon him, or it meant that they both testify that it was sent down as Quranic revelation. And it was their way that nothing was written down except that they receive what was written down during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him and not just from memorization. (21)

From above evidences, it is clear that Zaid (radiallahu anho) didn't find the ayaat (verses) written down with anyone except Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho); however, it doesn't mean that no one else knew about these ayaat beside him. Even if we assume the attacker position, then how did Zaid (radiallahu anho) know that he had to look for these ayaat? How did he know that he will find these ayaat from Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho)? How did Zaid (adiallahu anho) confirm that it was part of Sura At-Tauba and Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho) was mentioning those two specific ayaat? Even, if we assume that Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho) told him this then the committee would never have taken this into account because this would nullifies their basic premise for verifying the correct collection of the Qur'an (only one source). To hit the nail to the ground, we read Tafsir ibn Kathir in which Imam ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) summed it all up:

And Ahmad said: Ali bin Bahr said that Ali bin Muhammad bin Salma on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq on the authority of Yahya bin Ebad on the authority of his father Ebad bin Zubayr may Allah be pleased with him said that Al Harith (Zayd) approached bin Khuzaymah with these two verses from the ending of Surah Al Bara'a (Surah 9) 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves' to Abdullah ibn Umar Al Khattab so he said 'Who is with you on this?' He said 'I don't know' and by Allah I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I learned it and memorized it then Umar said: And I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him. (22)

Therefore, it is clear from the above evidences that other than Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho), other companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) indeed knew about these ayaat. A more detailed Muslim response to attacker's claim can be found here.
Is Qur'an Incomplete (missing ayaat/parts)?
Non-Muslim's Argument

Many passages of the Qur'an were lost as it is related by the following narration: "Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor 'Umar nor 'Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an. Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur'an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur'an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other" [-bu Bakr 'Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif"]
Muslim Response

First, it is well known that "al Masahif" by 'Abdullah bin abi Da'ud is full of fabricated narrations. Hence, there's no point of refuting the claim if it is not authentic. It is well known and reported by Islamic scholars that if it weren't for the isnaad (chain of narrators/transmitters), the people would had come up anything they wanted and inculded it in Islam. Thus, I ask the attacker where is the isnaad of this narration? I'm assuming that Zhuri mentioned in the narration is Imam Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn 'Ubaydullah ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (rahimahullah). I say this is a lie attributed to a great Sunni Imam and muhadith (scholar of hadith) as the narrations goes against the well known authentic ahadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari. It has been proved earlier that there were many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam), who memorised and wrote down the entire Qur'an, but we read few names from authentic ahadith (9) (14) (15): 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Ubai bin Ka'b, Abu Ad-Darda', Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.

Among these people, Ubai bin Ka'b (radiallahu anho) and 'Abdullah bin Masud (radiallahu anho) passed away during the caliphate of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho). Mu'adh bin Jabal (radiallahu anho) passed away during the caliphate of 'Umar (radiallahu anho). Zaid bin Thabit (radiallahu anho) and Abu Ad-Darda' (radiallahu anho) passed away during/after the caliphate of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho). Salim (radiallahu anho) was martyred during the battle of Yamama. I could not trace down some info about Abou Zaid (radiallahu anho). Therefore, out of seven people, who are proven from authentic ahadith that they memorised and/or wrote down the entire Qur’an, only one of them was martyred during the battle of Yamama; hence, the report/rumour that is either attributed to Imam Zahri (rahimahullah) or he heard is false and an utter lie.
Non-Muslim's Argument

Quran is incomplete as relayed by the earliest Muslims: "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].
Muslim Response

If we read this report, from Ibn 'Umar (radiallahu anho), in the context and the correct translation of it, we understand that he is talking about understanding of the Qur'an not compilation or completion of the Qur'an as the attacker claims! Dr. G.F. Hadad says:

The words used by Ibn 'Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" above were -- I am quoting from memory -- respectively "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated). The actual meaning of Ibn 'Umar's words is: "Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Qur'an [= its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]". Ibn `Umar was famous for his strictness in refraining from interpreting the Qur'an, even criticizing Ibn 'Abbas's interpretive zeal in the beginning, then accepting its authority. He was not referring to the collection of the Qur'an! But only to the ethics of the exegete, in the same line as Ibn 'Abbas's saying narrated by al-Tabari and cited by al-Suyuti and al-Zarkashi: 'There are ambiguous verses in the Qur'an which no one knows besides Allah. Whoever claims that he knows them, is a liar.' (23)
Non-Muslim's Argument

Different version of the Qur'an were destroyed: Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) 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).
Muslim Response

Qur'an was originally revealed in the dialect of Quraish but later was allowed to recited/read in seven different ways: Narrated '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. (24) Hence, various readings among people from different tribes/nations became obvious and we also make a note of this from the hadith, which the attacker quoted, that they were afraid of disputes raising among people. As a result, 'Utman (radiallahu anho) set a committee to prepare a final copy of the Qur'an from the copy that Abou Bkar (radiallahu anho) left with the wife of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam), Hafsa (radiallahu anha - May Allah be pleased with her). He also ordered to write down the Qur'an in Quraish dialect and burned the other copies to resolve any uncertainty, discrepancies and errors in terms of textual or reading variants. Shaykh Muhammad Salih briefly explains the reasons for uniting upon one recitation:

This Mus-haf (written copy of the Qur’aan) remained in the hands of the caliphs until the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliph ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him). The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) had dispersed to different lands, and they used to recite the Qur’aan according to what they had heard of the seven recitations from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and each of their students used to recite according to what he had heard from his shaykh. If a student heard someone reciting in a manner different from what he knew, he would denounce him and accuse him of making a mistake, and this went on until the Sahaabah feared that there would be fitnah (trouble) between the Taabi’een and successive generations. So they thought that they should unite the people in following one recitation, which was in the dialect of Quraysh in which the Qur’aan had first been revealed, so as to dispel any disputes and resolve the matter. ‘Uthmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) was consulted, and he agreed with this opinion.

Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (4988) from Anas ibn Maalik that Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamaan came to ‘Uthmaan at the time when the people of Shaam (Syria) and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was alarmed by their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’aan, so he said to 'Uthmaan, "O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! Save this nation before they dispute about the Book (Qur’aan) as the Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthmaan sent a message to Hafsah saying, "Send us the manuscript of the Qur’aan so that we may make copies of the Mus-haf and we will return the manuscript to you." (8)

We also read:

The earlier recension (Original copy prepared by Abu Bakr) was to serve as the principal basis of the new one. (25)

Any doubt that might be raised as to the phrasing of a particular passage in the written text was to be dispelled by summoning persons known to have learned the passage in question from the Prophet. 'Uthman himself was to supervise the work of the Council. (26)

It is well known that when the final recension was completed, 'Uthman (radiallahu anho) sent a copy of it to each of the major cities of Makka, Damascus, Kufa, Basra and Madina. The action of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho) to burn the other copies besides the final recension, though obviously drastic, was for the betterment and harmony of the whole community and was unanimously approved by the Companions of the Prophet as Zaid ibn Thabit (radiallahu anho) is reported to have said: "I saw the Companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, 'By God, Uthman has done well! By God, Uthman has done well!". (27)
Non-Muslim's Argument

Editing of the Qur'an is allowed as it is reported in a hadith: 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]
Muslim Response

So, what exactly did they edit? As I showed above that Qur'an was originally revealed in Quraish dialect but later was allowed to be recited/read in seven different dialects. I don't know by which logic using one of the seven dialects is considered editing!
Non-Muslim's Argument

There have been changes to the Qu'ran as Zaid has been reported to 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]
Muslim Response

Again, the attacker mixed up the completion of the Qur'an with compilation of the Qur'an. Does the attacker's source say that they came up with this ayah and added it to the completed Qur'an? All it is saying that when they were compiling the Qur'an under the supervision of 'Uthman (radiallahou anho), one of the companion (radiallahu anho) forgot an ayah but he knew that he (radiallahu anho) heard it from Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam); so, he (radiallahu anho) got it from another companion (radiallahu anho) and added it in where it belonged! Therefore, I don't see how this is changing the Qur'an. The argument of edition of the Qur'an would make sense if they (radiallahu anhuma) created or removed an ayah which was not part of the Qur'an, but there is ZERO evidence for that. I already have showed above that Qur'an was perfectly compiled and the same Qur'an exist today as it has been perfectly passed down for 1400 years.
Non-Muslim's Argument

An example of a missing verse, Verse of Stoning; One of the missing verses is the verse of stoning, where an adulterer would be stoned to death as punishment: "Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle (saw) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book', and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.539]
Muslim Response

This has been already dealt here in details. It is important to note that there are other cases like the rajam (stoning) ayah. Other Islamic sources prove that certain ayaat were revealed but they were later abrogated; hence, not found in the Qur'an. However, the attackers quote the narrations which prove that certain ayaat were revealed but either deliberately misses out the narrations which say that those ayaat were abrogated or misinterpret them. For example, the case of missing part of 2:238, which has been dealt here in details. With this, I would like to conclude that in this article, I've shown many authentic evidences to disapprove and refute the common false allegations made against the authenticity and preservation of the Qur'an. For more information on this topic and Muslims refutations/responses to suspicious arguments raised by Islamic haters, the readers can refer to Qur'anic Variants and Qur'an. Wallahu a'lam (and Allah knows best)!
Reply

Ramadhan
11-07-2010, 01:18 PM
I hope you read the articles above, Hugo, so you won't waste our time and energy by saying the same thing over and over again, which is not true and has been answered many times over.
It is another thing if you just don't want to believe, but please spare us your filth and lies.


Now,

can you apply the same standard to bible (NT)?

Were the gospels written by Jesus (as)?
were the gospels memorised by his disciples?
were there strong and reliable oral tradition that passed on and preserved the gospels?
were the authors of the gospels even known?
were the gospels written during the time of Jesus (as)?
Were the gospels written during jesus' disciples time?

Also, just in case you missed it, Allah has promised in the Qur'an to preserve it:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]


Now let's take a look: the Qur'an recited and memorised by someone in Birmingham, Bandung, Baghdad, Beijing, Buenos Aires and Boston is exactly the same.
And this is after 1,400 years.
had there been a slight variations from the beginning, there would have been countless of qur'an versions, just like...errr... some other scriptures who need to be retranslated and "reimproved" all the time (rings a bell?)

Compare that with state of bible: how many versions? (only god knows), what was the original gospel? (only god knows)

What is your next excuse to deny that Islam is the truth and the Qur'an is the message from God?
Reply

Hugo
11-08-2010, 09:19 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I hope you read the articles above, Hugo, so you won't waste our time and energy by saying the same thing over and over again, which is not true and has been answered many times over.
Thank you for the long notes and I will reply as soon as I can but I have limited facilities at present as I am in the middle of a research trip and cannot get Internet access reliably - my I ask for some clarification, you say two copies of I assume Uthmans recencion exists but your refs are far to vague for me to check - for example the Topkapi has about 1,600 ancient Qu'rans so which one are you actually referring to? if you can be precise it would help with my responses.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-08-2010, 01:25 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Thank you for the long notes and I will reply as soon as I can but I have limited facilities at present as I am in the middle of a research trip and cannot get Internet access reliably - my I ask for some clarification, you say two copies of I assume Uthmans recencion exists but your refs are far to vague for me to check - for example the Topkapi has about 1,600 ancient Qu'rans so which one are you actually referring to? if you can be precise it would help with my responses

Ah I knew it. You are going for "answering-islam" way for you rnext excuse in rejecting the truth.
Are you not going to give me the courtesy and answer my questions first? After all, I did my turn and explained to you at great lengths about qur'an revelations and methods of preservation.

1. Qur'an means "recitation", so to read it is to recite it, and the way to pass it on is to recite it.
2. There were many shahaba (companions, disciples) of the prophet SAW who memorised fully the qur'an
3. even after uthman r.a. commissioned to compile the Qur'an in quraishi dialect the way it was revealed, there were still many living hufaz of the qur'an.
4. if there had been ANY differences, no matter how small, between the hufaz (people who fully memorize the qur'an) themselves and the qur;an text, it would have been manifested and increasingly magnified over and over throughout generations and centuries, resulting in many different versions of the qur'an, both in recitation and text
5. the fact is, today, there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world. the qur'an recited and memorised by a shia in tehran (let's ali khamanei) is EXACTLY the same as the qur'an recited and memorised by a sunni in california (let's say brother rashad)
6. There are currently millions of hufaz in the world, who hold lineage/transmission all the way back to the prophet Muhammad SAW. One of those hufaz is a cousin of mine, she is only 16.
7. In the qur;an, God has promised to guard the Qur'an from corruption and changed, and FACT: the qur'an has stayed the same for 1,400 years while other scriptures have gone into countless editings and changings and rewritings. Do YOU not PONDER this?

Now, it is very apparent from your questioning the authenticity of the qur'an that you are very interested to make sure that scriptures can be traced all the way back to the prophet, let's apply this to the gospels, shall we?

Were the gospels written by Jesus (as)?
were the gospels memorised by his disciples?
were there strong and reliable oral tradition that passed on and preserved the gospels?
were the authors of the gospels even known?
were the gospels written during the time of Jesus (as)?
Were the gospels written during jesus' disciples time?

Shall we keep with the title of this thread?
Reply

Hugo
11-11-2010, 02:51 AM
Naidamar some general comments on your post outlining work by Dr. Zakir Naik

1. Naik's work is well known but it is typically tendentious for he decides what he wants to assert and then cherry picks the evidence to gain his desired conclusion and ignores everything else. In this case he recounts one version of Qu'ranic transmission to the written word without telling you there are several other versions. You might like to read Dr Al Azami's book "The history of the Qu'ranic text" page 89 (I am told a PDF version is on Utube but it seems to be a pirated version)

2. One can see this in the article you posted for he is unable to make any kind of distinction between faith and fact - that the Qu'ran is divinely inspired is a matter of faith not fact as it cannot be verified one way or the other but that Mohammed dictated his supposed revelation to his scribes is a fact if the documents can be produced.

3. He is inconsistent and unhappily Muslims accept what other Muslims write without reading it for themselves as if in this case Dr Naik is infallible. For example*

a. Naik says "The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself." Since the prophet could not read or write it is obvious he could not 'recheck himself'; that is he could not check what was written down.

b. Naik writes "If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked" in one place yet in another he says *"Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes." One or other of these statements us false.

c. Naik continually says there were mistakes made and the prophet continually revised what was written but If you insist on perfection at every stage then one has to wonder why all this correcting and revising was necessary? On a personal note this process of correction and revision as Naik describes is both practical and credible as the only other possibility is total recall by the prophet over 23 years or you appeal the angel re-instructing but of course that cannot be proved or disproved and relies on there being just one witness the prophet and nothing is established on the word of a single witness

4. Finally, we have Abu Bakr making a single copy from the various fragments of which there were many in different forms from*Hafsha though he do es not explain why she had all these fragments or*say how they collected all those fragments or how they could be sure they were authenticated. We then seem to have the absurd and shocking position that a copy was made and the originals as AUTHENTICATED by the prophet himself were destroyed, lost or what - would YOU prefer the original or the copy? We hear so much about Muslim anger when a Qu'ran is burned but here we have the companions doing the same with the original!!

5. I have no idea what Topkapi Qu'ran you affirm is one of the Usman copies and the Tashkent copy is almost certainly not one and in any case it is incomplete and has many repairs and as far as I know scholars have only seen facsimiles of it not the actual codex. But if you have new information let us all have the details **
Reply

Hugo
11-11-2010, 02:55 AM
Naidamar - When we speak if authenticity there are two aspects: the text itself which can be establish by normal scholarly practices and the text being an authentic message from God which cannot be established by any scholarly practice but is a matter if faith. Now to your questions which to avoid having large posts I will answer one at a time.

Were the gospels written by Jesus (as)?
They were not written down by Him if that is what you mean. The mechanism was that Jesus taught his disciples and others for three years and later they recounted his teaching and work. From a textual point if view there exist about 5,400 manuscripts of the NT from a few verses to complete Gospels. In addition there are about 15,000 other sources for the NT in things like commentaries and letters and the NT could be reconstructed from these alone. Most scholars agree that as far as the text of the NT is concerned there are only three passages, Mark 16:9-20 An added ending to the Gospel,*Luke 22:41-45 Jesus prayer in the Garden*and John 7:53-8:11 woman caught in the act of adultery.*These three sections represent the only major textual problems in the Gospels and no important teaching hangs on any one of them unless you have some weird beliefs

Now a comparison. You say the Qu'ran is God's word but the Qu'ran was dictated to Mohammad *and he dictated it to others to write down so one might say that what you have now is third hand - God to the angel, angel to Mohammad, Mohammad to the companions. Secondly, you have no manuscript base because the originals as authenticated by Mohammad are lost or destroyed and this is an unbridgeable gap. Thirdly, you rely on an oral tradition but as Bart Ehrman (beloved of Muslims when he speaks of the Gospels) say oral traditions are not meant to preserve exactly but will vary each time it is recited to suit circumstance, audience etc - if you want to preserve you have to write it down. *
Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 03:18 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Naidamar some general comments on your post outlining work by Dr. Zakir Naik

1. Naik's work is well known but it is typically tendentious for he decides what he wants to assert and then cherry picks the evidence to gain his desired conclusion and ignores everything else. In this case he recounts one version of Qu'ranic transmission to the written word without telling you there are several other versions. You might like to read Dr Al Azami's book "The history of the Qu'ranic text" page 89 (I am told a PDF version is on Utube but it seems to be a pirated version)
ah I was wondering when you'd purge yourself of your favorite word 'tendentious' -- what you have done above is called ad hominem -- are you familiar?
2. One can see this in the article you posted for he is unable to make any kind of distinction between faith and fact - that the Qu'ran is divinely inspired is a matter of faith not fact as it cannot be verified one way or the other but that Mohammed dictated his supposed revelation to his scribes is a fact if the documents can be produced.
Not at all a matter of faith, it is a matter of the document itself.. and many folks have written of this including the former Christian minister Dr. Gary Miller:
[PDF]The Amazing Quran
anyone can put the Quran to the same or different challenges. Your inability to accept that fact is more a personal problem than an actual reality!
3. He is inconsistent and unhappily Muslims accept what other Muslims write without reading it for themselves as if in this case Dr Naik is infallible. For example*
how do you know what Muslims accept and not accept, and do you have something to go on other than your apparent seething hate for anything Islamic?

a. Naik says "The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself." Since the prophet could not read or write it is obvious he could not 'recheck himself'; that is he could not check what was written down.
Hearing it back 17 times every day longer on some days and multiple times during Ramadan as is incumbent on every Muslim since the inception of Islam insures that what was written even if not re-checked by the prophet is exactly what was revealed!
b. Naik writes "If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked" in one place yet in another he says *"Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes." One or other of these statements us false.
see above response!
c. Naik continually says there were mistakes made and the prophet continually revised what was written but If you insist on perfection at every stage then one has to wonder why all this correcting and revising was necessary? On a personal note this process of correction and revision as Naik describes is both practical and credible as the only other possibility is total recall by the prophet over 23 years or you appeal the angel re-instructing but of course that cannot be proved or disproved and relies on there being just one witness the prophet and nothing is established on the word of a single witness
Revision and memorization is what gives us perfection. And indeed necessary without it we'd end up man worshiping heathens like the Christians.
4. Finally, we have Abu Bakr making a single copy from the various fragments of which there were many in different forms from*Hafsha though he do es not explain why she had all these fragments or*say how they collected all those fragments or how they could be sure they were authenticated. We then seem to have the absurd and shocking position that a copy was made and the originals as AUTHENTICATED by the prophet himself were destroyed, lost or what - would YOU prefer the original or the copy? We hear so much about Muslim anger when a Qu'ran is burned but here we have the companions doing the same with the original!!
The decision to have the Quran in non-fragmented forms was because 1- Islam was expanding 2- after the killing of 70 haifth who were sent to teach and were killed in an act of treachery ensured that with the death of the hafith there would be no death to the Quran.. other than that what are your reservations on hafash having fragments, who would you rather have? would person X or person Y elicit the same reaction from you? or just hafsah or simply that you have no argument so you want to fill the lines with your usual? ah here is a good place to stick tendentious
5. I have no idea what Topkapi Qu'ran you affirm is one of the Usman copies and the Tashkent copy is almost certainly not one and in any case it is incomplete and has many repairs and as far as I know scholars have only seen facsimiles of it not the actual codex. But if you have new information let us all have the details **
you should read the book in your possession or do you fear another public expose by my person for you constant and incessant misrepresentations and deliberate dishonesty?

all the best as always!
Reply

Ramadhan
11-11-2010, 06:55 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Naik's work is well known but it is typically tendentious for he decides what he wants to assert and then cherry picks the evidence to gain his desired conclusion and ignores everything else. In this case he recounts one version of Qu'ranic transmission to the written word without telling you there are several other versions. You might like to read Dr Al Azami's book "The history of the Qu'ranic text" page 89 (I am told a PDF version is on Utube but it seems to be a pirated version)
what versions?

I believe you were in previous other threads discussing the "so called" versions of the qur'an, and sister Lily has explained in great lengths along with evidence to refute it.
And now, you are back here espousing it again.

Frankly, despite your insistence that you are here to learn "truth", that could not be further from the truth.

Not only that, You just do not have sincerity at all.


Originally Posted by Hugo
2. One can see this in the article you posted for he is unable to make any kind of distinction between faith and fact - that the Qu'ran is divinely inspired is a matter of faith not fact as it cannot be verified one way or the other but that Mohammed dictated his supposed revelation to his scribes is a fact if the documents can be produced.
From all evidence and facts presented to you over and over in countless other threads, suffice to say that the Qur'an cannot be from other than God SWT.
It is not our job that you decide not to read all of those.

Originally Posted by Hugo
a. Naik says "The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself." Since the prophet could not read or write it is obvious he could not 'recheck himself'; that is he could not check what was written down.
The prophet SAW taught the shahaba to memorise the qur'an. Now, if what was memorised had not been identical with what were written, do you not think there would have been countless different versions qur'an these days?
Remember, rasulullah SWT sent his shahaba to do dakwah in foreign places and this continued after his death. If there had been variations, even an extremely small one, there would have been carried out throughout the centuries. But there was none.

You conveniently failed to address this fact.


Originally Posted by Hugo
Naik continually says there were mistakes made and the prophet continually revised what was written but If you insist on perfection at every stage then one has to wonder why all this correcting and revising was necessary? On a personal note this process of correction and revision as Naik describes is both practical and credible as the only other possibility is total recall by the prophet over 23 years or you appeal the angel re-instructing but of course that cannot be proved or disproved and relies on there being just one witness the prophet and nothing is established on the word of a single witness
Reading the qur'an is not like reading any book: it is by recitation.

Every muslims then and today know that to master tajweed perfectly one needs months if not years of practice, let alone memorisation the whole qur'an with perfect tajweed.
The prophet SAW even needed to revise the whole Qur'an under the supervision of the angel Jibreel twice a year.
That is how he also made sure the shahaba recited the qur'an perfectly and with tarteel.

Originally Posted by Hugo
4. Finally, we have Abu Bakr making a single copy from the various fragments of which there were many in different forms from*Hafsha though he do es not explain why she had all these fragments or*say how they collected all those fragments or how they could be sure they were authenticated. We then seem to have the absurd and shocking position that a copy was made and the originals as AUTHENTICATED by the prophet himself were destroyed, lost or what - would YOU prefer the original or the copy? We hear so much about Muslim anger when a Qu'ran is burned but here we have the companions doing the same with the original!!
You are making up things.
Surely if you read the articles I gave you you would know what was destroyed and why.
Again, had there been any inconcistencies however small between the fragments, the memorisers and the copy, surely it would have been carried and greatly magnified till today. But fact shows: there is none.
Burning the qur'an is one of the prescribed ways of disposing old qur'an.
The matter with terry jones is different. Jones wanted to burn the qur'an out of spite for muslims and Islam.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-11-2010, 08:31 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Were the gospels written by Jesus (as)?
They were not written down by Him if that is what you mean.
NO!!
the gospels were NOT written by Jesus pbuh?
But according to your standards for scriptures, they must be authenticated and had sufficient witnesses and recorded, no?
Isn't your faith shaky now?

Originally Posted by Hugo
From a textual point if view there exist about 5,400 manuscripts of the NT from a few verses to complete Gospels. In addition there are about 15,000 other sources for the NT in things like commentaries and letters and the NT could be reconstructed from these alone.
were those 5,400 manuscripts and 15,000 other sources written during the time of jesus pbuh?
were those 5,400 manuscripts and 15,000 other sources written by his disciples who had direct contact with jesus pbuh?
were those 5,400 manuscripts and 15,000 other sources written during the time of his disciples who had direct contact with jesus pbuh?

If none, then by using the standards that we agree upon and that you were exacting from the quran which we provided, we can dismiss those 5,400 manuscripts and 15,000 other sources as being authentic, no?

So you should relinquish your faith now, right?

Man up, Hugo.

Originally Posted by Hugo
Now a comparison. You say the Qu'ran is God's word but the Qu'ran was dictated to Mohammad *and he dictated it to others to write down so one might say that what you have now is third hand - God to the angel, angel to Mohammad, Mohammad to the companions.
Yes, so?

Originally Posted by Hugo
Secondly, you have no manuscript base because the originals as authenticated by Mohammad are lost or destroyed and this is an unbridgeable gap.
You know you are embellishing facts.
As we have shown you, even if the every single quran text destroyed, the quran still exists, because the main method of preservation and transmission is by recitation and memorisation.

Originally Posted by Hugo
Thirdly, you rely on an oral tradition but as Bart Ehrman (beloved of Muslims when he speaks of the Gospels) say oral traditions are not meant to preserve exactly but will vary each time it is recited to suit circumstance, audience etc - if you want to preserve you have to write it down.
You are digging your own grave.
As I repeatedly said, Had the oral traditions of the quran been like any other oral traditions, that might have been the case; but the fact is that currently there are millions of people memorise the WHOLE qur'an, down the same letters and marks, and hundreds millions others memorise parts of it WTIHOUT ANY DIFFERENCES NO MATTER HOW SMALL points as hard evidence that there had been NO variation and inconsistency starting from the time prophet Muhammad SAW taught to his shahaba until now.

Isn't the fact that the Qur'an is 100% preserved in 1,400 years and the way it is preserved miraculous?
Doesn't this fact make you ponder, Hugo?


Let's see with the gospels and the NT:

The disiciples llearnt from Jesus pbuh, nothing written down, Jesus did not make sure that his disciples remember or memorise everything he said
jesus pbuh left, left no manuscripts and did not make sure that his disciples remember or memorise everything he said. Hence the chinese whispers started
the disciples taught jesus teachings and sayings to others, but there were none manuscripts, no records written down, and again no strong oral traditions and memorisations
Others who'd heard about jesus started form their opinions about what happened
all disciples died
the chinese whispers intensified
some unknown people decided to write books based on what they heard about the disciples, which later titled the gospels according to such and such with made up names based on the names of the disciples
etc
etc.
translations
retranslations
reinterpretations
rereinterpretations
retranslations

oh, meanwhile some guy who had been enemy of jesus whose name was saul claimed that he had met jesus in his dream, and wrote letters based on his "dream", which then formed the NT.

Again, how many bible versions out there today? Only god knows.
The bible is a perfect example of a chinese whispers product
Reply

Ramadhan
11-11-2010, 08:31 AM
double post.

deleted
Reply

Hugo
11-14-2010, 01:39 AM
To Naidamar

As far as I know i have said NOTHING here about versions of the Qu'ran you have invented that idea because you have not read what was written. What I did say is that there are several versions of the STORY of how the Qu,ran eneded up in written form and of this that there is no doubt at all - some say there are as many as 22 different stories and I am surprised you do not know this.
Reply

جوري
11-14-2010, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
some say there are as many as 22 different stories and I am surprised you do not know this.

Who are the 'they' orientalists?
Reply

Hugo
11-14-2010, 01:49 AM
ToNaidamar

I am not making things, simply pointing out that Naik is an unreliable witness and contradicts himself. If you now want to move on an dicuss proofs that th Qu'an is from God then state just one and we can look at it together
Reply

جوري
11-14-2010, 01:53 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
ToNaidamar

I am not making things, simply pointing out that Naik is an unreliable witness and contradicts himself. If you now want to move on an dicuss proofs that th Qu'an is from God then state just one and we can look at it together
'witness' to what? -- you can't seem to get yourself past the ole Argumentum ad hominem... problem is you start threads you can't finish, you can't sustain yourself and you have no desire to read and all the desire to character assassinate!
Reply

Ramadhan
11-14-2010, 01:43 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
As far as I know i have said NOTHING here about versions of the Qu'ran you have invented that idea because you have not read what was written. What I did say is that there are several versions of the STORY of how the Qu,ran eneded up in written form and of this that there is no doubt at all - some say there are as many as 22 different stories and I am surprised you do not know this.
No, i did not know there are 22 "stories" of how the Qur'an ended up in written form.
The orientalists certainly had a lot of time in their hand to invent such stories, arent they?

Meanwhile, you have been always very evasive about the facts:

1. There is only one Qur'an in the World. And This is 1,400 years after revelations. The qur'an recited by every muslim in the world is EXACTLY the same. A shia in tehran recite exactly the same qur'an as a sunni in california. The chains of transmissions from currently more than a billion muslims reciting the qur'an or from currently millions of huffaz (memorisers of the whole qur'an) all to the way to the prophet SAW are recorded and authenticated. Whehther you don't believe that the prophet Muhammad SAW received the Qur'an from Allah SWT thorugh Jibrell is a different matter, but you cannot escape the fact of the broken chain of transmission of the Qur'an.

1. Your NT was written by various authors are unknown (your own bible scholars even admit this), except for saul (who never even met Jesus pbuh) who wrote about things he dreamt. The gospels were written in greek, long after the departure of Jesus pbuh, who surely did not speak greek to his disciples (unless you are one of those nutties who claim otherwise).

There were plenty of my points you did not address, which you show that you know deep in heart you cannot defend bible's authenticity and pedigree against the Qur'an.
Why dont you just admit that you will just have to accept christiniaty as a matter of faith (like glo maybe), no matter how ridiculous and absurd christinity theology is and how shaky and errors-ridden your bible is.
That is more respectable for yo to do so, rather than being a hypocrite all the time and a laughing stock for all the muslim members in this forum.
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 03:58 AM
To Naidama

Your are just ovoiding the points being made.

1. You have no manuscript base and as far as I know the earliest written Qu'ran is at least some 200 years after the death ofMohammed.

2. Dr Azami in his book tells us that thousands, yes, thousands of the companions witnesses the burning of the very fragments that your prophet himself verified - (did they all check Usman's copy against their own or the hundreds of fragments?) so not just any copy of the Qu'ran but the first verified copy which one might have thought as being of inestimable value and is the only sure way to verify it's wording. Let me ask a question, do you know which copy of the qu'ran was used by the printers as surely there must have been an official verified version?

3. Allah did not write down his words, scribes did it at third hand and only ONE witness to that and yet you bang on about about Jesus not writing anything down - standards you say, but you have only convenient ones
Reply

جوري
11-16-2010, 04:09 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
To Naidama

Your are just ovoiding the points being made.

1. You have no manuscript base and as far as I know the earliest written Qu'ran is at least some 200 years after the death ofMohammed.

2. Dr Azami in his book tells us that thousands, yes, thousands of the companions witnesses the burning of the very fragments that your prophet himself verified - (did they all check Usman's copy against their own or the hundreds of fragments?) so not just any copy of the Qu'ran but the first verified copy which one might have thought as being of inestimable value and is the only sure way to verify it's wording. Let me ask a question, do you know which copy of the qu'ran was used by the printers as surely there must have been an official verified version?

3. Allah did not write down his words, scribes did it at third hand and only ONE witness to that and yet you bang on about about Jesus not writing anything down - standards you say, but you have only convenient ones
are you counting that Br. Naidamar doesn't have the book and that I won't tail you and humiliate you as always with direct quotes. You are probably one of the sickest scheming orientalists that have ever come on board with nothing to gain but fooling yourself with your flight of ideas and tangentiality!

Why don't you quote from the book directly without snipping and adding words or are you afraid that not just Muslims but christians as well will see you as the scheming lying Tartuffe that you are?

show us the '22' different stories!
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 04:10 AM
To Naidamar

I think you are missing the point, if I have some 20,000 manuscripts some going right back to ad 35 then I think I am entitled to say that I have an authoratative record of what Jesus did and said and in an earlier post I said that there are only three tiny vereses that are still in question. If you want to dismiss all that evidence that is a matter of enternal concert to you alone and you have almost no right to talk about standards when you have no manuscript base and you expect me to trust in a book that mostly relates what can be found elsewhere and has a single witness to its content on the basis that zislamic oral tradition is quite different to every other one
Reply

جوري
11-16-2010, 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
To Naidamar

I think you are missing the point, if I have some 20,000 manuscripts some going right back to ad 35 then I think I am entitled to say that I have an authoratative record of what Jesus did and said and in an earlier post I said that there are only three tiny vereses that are still in question. If you want to dismiss all that evidence that is a matter of enternal concert to you alone and you have almost no right to talk about standards when you have no manuscript base and you expect me to trust in a book that mostly relates what can be found elsewhere and has a single witness to its content on the basis that zislamic oral tradition is quite different to every other one
how about you start with the language your god spoke before you 'verify' that 'authoritative record'
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 04:17 AM
To Naudamar

You say the Qu'ran has been preserved and that makes it miracle so be extension ANY book that has the same content for let's us say 1400 years must also be a miracle. So if I select say the codex sinacticus then it has not changed for almost 2,000 years so it too must be a miracle or are you going to do your usual trick and say the test only applies to the Qu'ran?
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 04:24 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
how about you start with the language your god spoke before you 'verify' that 'authoritative record'
Good question, it was Aramaic now what language did your God speak; Arabic and not a pure (has many lone words) one at that which was a late arrival on the scene and probably derives from Aramaic - or are you suggesting the language of Allah from all enternity has been 6th centuary Arabic?
Reply

جوري
11-16-2010, 04:27 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
You say the Qu'ran has been preserved and that makes it miracle so be extension ANY book that has the same content for let's us say 1400 years must also be a miracle. So if I select say the codex sinacticus then it has not changed for almost 2,000 years so it too must be a miracle or are you going to do your usual trick and say the test only applies to the Qu'ran?
The codex sinaiticus is about 1600 years old if at all.. do you want to start with the truth before you ensnare others into your web of lies? only one book is the unerring word of God, a book of textual integrity, logical consistency even when revealed as you put 'piecemeal' to flow in syntax, lyricism context, transcendence, a book of miracles and supernatural eloquence, scientific statements ahead of their time a book that engages its reader in every century and every region and is as relevant today as it was when first revealed, a book that continues on its own to draw a large audience even in light and converts in the thousands and all over the world.. Must really kill you to know that in spite of your viscous tirade that it continues to draw folks like the sister in law of Tony Blair.. not only so close to home but so close to a powerful political seat.
Reply

جوري
11-16-2010, 04:28 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Good question, it was Aramaic now what language did your God speak

was your god's alleged unerring word written in Aramaic as he spoke it?.. let's see the first Aramaic bible translated into all other languages!
Reply

Ramadhan
11-16-2010, 04:30 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I think you are missing the point, if I have some 20,000 manuscripts some going right back to ad 35 then I think I am entitled to say that I have an authoratative record of what Jesus did and said and in an earlier post I said that there are only three tiny vereses that are still in question.
You are being disingenuous. your so called thousands of "manuscripts" were the size of what? a stamp?
even bible scholars admit they have no knowledge of who wrote the four gospels and when they were written?
and your so called thousands of manuscripts were written in what language?
and why did you christians even believe 100%in what paul said about jesus pbuh, when he never even met jesus, and when he was an enemy of jesus?


Originally Posted by Hugo
I am entitled to say that I have an authoratative record of what Jesus did and said
the four gospels were originally written in what language?
What language did jesus speak?

Originally Posted by Hugo
If you want to dismiss all that evidence that is a matter of enternal concert to you alone and you have almost no right to talk about standards when you have no manuscript base
why were some gospels who dated earlier than the four "official" gospels dismissed?
and why were the other gospels not trusted when they were written by people who knew jesus pbuh?
are you telling us that they were no selection processes throughout the centuries what were included the bible and what?
why did the council of nicea have to "officiate" trinity? and why was this 350 years after jesus pbuh left?





Originally Posted by Hugo
you have almost no right to talk about standards when you have no manuscript base and you expect me to trust in a book that mostly relates what can be found elsewhere and has a single witness to its content on the basis that zislamic oral tradition is quite different to every other one
LOL.
you have not even adressed and explained to me how is it possible that there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world? This is after 1,400 years, and spread among 1.2 billion of muslims. how is it even possible?

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust?

so, which is more to be trusted?

a book whose chain of transmission is recorded all the way to the prophet?

or

many versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown?
and which has undergone god know how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret according their own desires?
Reply

Ramadhan
11-16-2010, 04:32 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
The codex sinaiticus is about 1600 years old if at all.. do you want to start with the truth before you ensnare others into your web of lies? only one book is the unerring word of God, a book of textual integrity, logical consistency even when revealed as you put 'piecemeal' to flow in syntax, lyricism context, transcendence, a book of miracles and supernatural eloquence, scientific statements ahead of their time a book that engages its reader in every century and every region and is as relevant today as it was when first revealed, a book that continues on its own to draw a large audience even in light and converts in the thousands and all over the world.. Must really kill you to know that in spite of your viscous tirade that it continues to draw folks like the sister in law of Tony Blair.. not only so close to home but so close to a powerful political seat.

I dont even know why Hugo is still allowed in this forum, while he keep spreading lies.

i don't believe he did know know those facts, I believe he purposefully lie to confuse unlearned muslims.
Either that or he has some serious delusion problem.
Reply

جوري
11-16-2010, 04:42 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I dont even know why Hugo is still allowed in this forum, while he keep spreading lies.

i don't believe he did know know those facts, I believe he purposefully lie to confuse unlearned muslims.
Either that or he has some serious delusion problem.
He uses a trusted source which by the way I recommended him believing at the time that he had a genuine desire to gain historical information, but in reality he takes it and twists all the words in, adding, snipping, in fact I wasted a good half an hour correcting his misquotes-- but who can blame him, their entire religion is based on conjectures of lying scribes and invention of mythology by folks not unlike himself, only every attempt they try with the Quran fails them miserably -- Look at what he is doing above alleging that the codex sinaiticus is 2000 yrs old when any simply google search would tell you otherwise.. that is how he goes through life, lying, scheming, tirading, hoping to both deceive people and worse yet himself, for I don't know how a person can go to bed at night, knowing he is living off the money of those whom he despises, keeping their company and lying to everyone including himself.. You know when you lose your morality and have no religion to enforce morality on you, I suppose you can do that sort of thing with a clear conscious.. It seems his god died eating his sins so he is free to sin here to his heart's content.. Hate, lies, deception, hypocrisy .. you name it.. it falls under the 'stealth crusade' I disagree though that he is able to confuse Muslims.. even young children are on to him!

:w:
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 04:51 AM
To Naidama

1. It is absurd to even suggest that the diciples did not recall the teaching of Jesus and we have 4 Gospels, that is several witnesses. Do you know the name of every scribe who copies every Qu'ranic vesre and can verify it?

2. Jesus left no manuscripts but neither did Mohammad as he could not write and the manuscripts you say he did authorizes were burned. The point you miss is that for you as long as one knows the author the content can be ignored - I instead would argue that the greatest surety is found in the message itself as it is impossible to prove anything is from God as that would mean we have to prove he exists to start with

3. There may have been no strong oral tradition but there was a strong literary tradition and even you must agree that the written words is a more secure mode of trasnission if one wants accuracy. If you think that defaming Saul is a form of argument then consider your own position of some guy talking to an angel in a cave - let us not get into that kind of rubbish

4 there are many 1,000s of translation of tbd bible into 1,000 of languages and it is just silly to think these are all versions that have nothing in common. I can read my English bible and I can read my German bible and I see the same stories and the same teaching So what point are you making and is it preferable to have your holy book in 6th centuray Arabic that probably the vast majority of Muslim cannot understand? tbat teaching.
Reply

جوري
11-16-2010, 05:16 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I dont even know why Hugo is still allowed in this forum
Do you remember this thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post1371657

I have decided to forgo unsubscribing from threads instead of re-writing the same replies to his always same objections.. I imagine that is what he does, given his lameness and redundancy. From now on let's just reference him to where he was replied to before.. It will save alot of us time and hopefully webspace.!

Eid Mubarak insha'Allah.. I imagine you off to Eid prayers by now..

:w:
Reply

Ramadhan
11-16-2010, 05:59 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
It is absurd to even suggest that the diciples did not recall the teaching of Jesus and we have 4 Gospels, that is several witnesses. Do you know the name of every scribe who copies every Qu'ranic vesre and can verify it?
Are you suggesting the disciples wrote the gospels?

It seems you, like any other christians, very adept in using words that deflect from the truth and yet try to appear as the truth.

As for the qur'an, the scribes of the qur'an are known (only two options here: either you lie if you read all the articles and explanations by everyone in this forum with regard to the qur'an, or you sincerely don't knwo because you never read what everyone has written),
and

YET AGAIN

you failed to address one particular point:

how is it possible that there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world? This is after 1,400 years, and spread among 1.2 billion of muslims. how is it even possible?

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust?

so, which is more to be trusted?

a book whose chain of transmission is recorded all the way to the prophet?

or

many versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown?
and which has undergone god know how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret according their own desires?



Originally Posted by Hugo
Jesus left no manuscripts but neither did Mohammad
did jesus pbuh's disciples left any mansucripts? NO.
did jesus pbuh's memorise every jesus pbuh's sayings and actions and was there any record and evidence that jesus pbuh sayings and actions were recorded and preserved by either manuscripts or memorisation? NO.
was there record of transmission as in jesus relayed to -disciples- relayed to a - relayed to b- relayed to c - relayed to d - relayed to e - relayed to authors of bible (which were in a different language and scripts altogether than the source)? NOT EVEN.

did prophet Muhammad SAW left manuscripts? YES
did prophet Muhammad SAW taught the shahaba (ie. disciples) the Qur'an and ensured that they memorised it down to the single letter and mark? YES
did prophet Muhammad SAW ask the shahaba to write down the Qur'an in leather, stone, barks? YES
was the whole quran memorise by many disciples? yes
was there strict efforts to preserve the Qur'an from the beginning with memorisation down to this day where millions of people memorise the whole qur'an down tothe single letter and mark? yes.


Originally Posted by Hugo
The point you miss is that for you as long as one knows the author the content can be ignored - I instead would argue that the greatest surety is found in the message itself as it is impossible to prove anything is from God as that would mean we have to prove he exists to start with
LOL. you are getting desperate, arent you?
now, you argue like you are an atheist. LOL again.

As I said, whether you believe that the Qur'an is from God or not is a different issue completely.
But you cannot argue the authenticityof the Qur'an and its pedigree all the way to the prophet Muhammad SAW.

Again, I have not yet you show it is possible that currently there is one EXACT qur'an in the world.

Had there been just a single slight variation of the qur'an during the time of prophet Muhammad SAW or the disciples, CERTAINLY that one single variation would have been multiplied, magnified and carried over to this day.



Originally Posted by Hugo
4 there are many 1,000s of translation of tbd bible into 1,000 of languages and it is just silly to think these are all versions that have nothing in common. I can read my English bible and I can read my German bible and I see the same stories and the same teaching So what point are you making and is it preferable to have your holy book in 6th centuray Arabic that probably the vast majority of Muslim cannot understand? tbat teaching.
Again, you are being disingenous.
I think that is very generous of me not calling you a liar.

Are you sincerely saying that the many bible versions are only due to many languages? and not due to the fact that some bibles contain different number of books than others? and not due to the fact that some have fundamentally different interpretations of the bible? and how many previous bible versions have spawned more bible versions?

either you are severely lacking in your knowledge of bible, or you serious issue with delusion, or you are too embarrassed you explain to us the whole truth.

Ahem.
How many gospels were there originally?
and why were the first gospels not even included in the bible?
Ahem, why was it politics that determined which books included in the bible and which were not?
ahem, why a king who wanted independence from the vatican commissioned a watershed translation of bible?
etc,
etc,
etc


You can continue brying your head in the sand, Hugo.

But do not expect the rest of us to fall for your tricks of twisting words, embellishing and omitting facts.
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 06:05 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I dont even know why Hugo is still allowed in this forum, while he keep spreading lies.
I resent being called a liar so please state the post and the supposed lies or lies that you attribute to me and I will appologise and remove them.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-16-2010, 07:31 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I resent being called a liar so please state the post and the supposed lies or lies that you attribute to me and I will appologise and remove them.
you are too cunning to outright lie, but you do twisting words, embellishing and omitting facts.
you also pretend to not know certain facts, while they have been explained again and again and again to you.

and this is plain for everyone to see, except yourself.
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 09:46 AM
To Naidamar

I am aware of an article by Dr Al Azami on the scribes used by Mohammed, perhaps you can quote a sources that names them. Do these scribes then become the authors? You complain that the Gospels were written down by other than Jesus but are quite happy when it comes to the Qu'ran to accept this fact. Well who is the author of the Qu'ran and did he actually write down the words himself? Anyone can accept that Mohamed checked scribal copies but that is not the same as checking with the author is it?

I think you have to understand why we differ, you accept anything that is written by Muslims and I do not. Muslim accounts always call on Allah as a verification but once you do that you can prove anything because no one can show it to be wrong or even suggest a way to show it is wrong. In exactly the same way I can invoke God and you cannot show it to be wrong.
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 10:04 AM
To Naidamar

Let us suppose there are billion Qu'rans out there then tell me where is the original, that is the printer who first made a copy must have used a manuscript copy so what was it and where is it? I think if you check you will find that the Qu'ran you have is based on the 1924 Cairo edition so again do you know what was used to get that?

I say again that if I pick up copies of the Bible one in English, Welsh, Arabic, German ... Then the message is always the same. If I meet a Spanish Christian and mention say the sermon on the Mount then he knows it as well as I do, he does not say to me he has never heard it. Go and pick say the NIV and the NEB and compare them, then do it in Arabic or any language you like and you will find the message is the same and the stories do not differ. You see the message is what matters.

The point you are missing is that ANY test you suggest for the Qu'ran as to it's trustworthiness or otherwise must be applicable to any book - the thing that makes the Bible special is it's timeless message - go and read the Sermon on the Mount and then you will see what I mean, read Genesis and see God interacting with Abraham.
Reply

Hugo
11-16-2010, 10:40 AM
To Naidamar

You say there is only one Qu'ran but on page 19 of Dr Al Azami's book "the History of the Qu'ranic text" he speaks of obtaing "the most accurate ...in the world. I leave it to you to ponder what that means.

What difference does it make to the message if different languages are used, every text has to be interpreted even the Qu'ran and surely you are not asserting that there has only been one interpretation and it is the correct one?

The NT manuscripts range from a few verses to virtually complete NTs and you can find them in Museums all over the world and of very early date. The earliest are the papyri and these are dated 1st or 2nd century though some parts go back even further. If you wish we can go through the list, including the apocryphal ones as there is no shortage of materials.

There is an agreed Greek text and scholars say that only as little as 1/1000 of it is in doubt and none of that changes doctrine. So the Bible I use and the Bible a German uses are based on the Greek text and apart from language there is no difference in content. If you don't agree then provide examples of translations where say the Sermon on The Mount differs.

Finally, there are both OT and NT apocryphal books where some sections of the Church accept the OT apocryphal books though not the Jews or Protestants. As far as I know no one accepts the NT apocryphal books because they are invariably of late dates and contain such silly stories that they are obviously heretical - one for example has Paul baptising a lion who later in the Roman Arena recognises him and refuses to kill him.

If you know anything about this then let us discuss it
Reply

Ramadhan
11-16-2010, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I am aware of an article by Dr Al Azami on the scribes used by Mohammed, perhaps you can quote a sources that names them. Do these scribes then become the authors?
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post1371657

Originally Posted by Hugo
You complain that the Gospels were written down by other than Jesus but are quite happy when it comes to the Qu'ran to accept this fact
You are getting more desperate.
I think you are realising that you have less and less to cover all the shortcomings of bible.

again, let me ask you:
did jesus pbuh's disciples left any mansucripts? NO.
did jesus pbuh's memorise every jesus pbuh's sayings and actions and was there any record and evidence that jesus pbuh sayings and actions were recorded and preserved by either manuscripts or memorisation? NO.
was there record of transmission as in jesus relayed to -disciples- relayed to a - relayed to b- relayed to c - relayed to d - relayed to e - relayed to authors of bible (which were in a different language and scripts altogether than the source)? NOT EVEN.

did prophet Muhammad SAW left manuscripts? YES
did prophet Muhammad SAW taught the shahaba (ie. disciples) the Qur'an and ensured that they memorised it down to the single letter and mark? YES
did prophet Muhammad SAW ask the shahaba to write down the Qur'an in leather, stone, barks? YES
was the whole quran memorise by many disciples? yes
was there strict efforts to preserve the Qur'an from the beginning with memorisation down to this day where millions of people memorise the whole qur'an down tothe single letter and mark? yes.

How many gospels were there originally?
and why were the first gospels not even included in the bible?
Ahem, why was it politics that determined which books included in the bible and which were not?
ahem, why a king who wanted independence from the vatican commissioned a watershed translation of bible?
etc,
etc,
etc



Originally Posted by Hugo
I think you have to understand why we differ, you accept anything that is written by Muslims and I do not. Muslim accounts always call on Allah as a verification but once you do that you can prove anything because no one can show it to be wrong or even suggest a way to show it is wrong. In exactly the same way I can invoke God and you cannot show it to be wrong.
I find it amusing that you finally came to this point. It's almost like saying ok, you are right without having to say so.

You were the one in the beginning who kept peppering about the authenticity of the Qur'an.

And when all the learned muslims here in this forum gave you every single answers to your question and charge, you retreated.

And then when the table is turned by peppering the same about bible, you are saying, oh let's ask God.

I am LOL-ing.

I am awaiting for your next move to keep evading the truth about your bible.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-16-2010, 11:35 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
You say there is only one Qu'ran but on page 19 of Dr Al Azami's book "the History of the Qu'ranic text" he speaks of obtaing "the most accurate ...in the world. I leave it to you to ponder what that means.
Show me that if there are more than one qur'an in the world. Show me two memorisers of the qur’an who memorise two different qur’an. Otherwise I am calling you a liar for saying there are two different qur’an in the world.
It should be an easy task to do right, if there were indeed two different qur’ans existing?

I am glad actually you are asking all these question. It opens the eyes of non-muslims especially christians who have doubt about their faith.

You should keep asking more questions about Islam and the Qur'an, and Insha Allah our learned members will be able to answers those.
In the meantime, we will expose more and more the “truth” about bible.

Originally Posted by Hugo
What difference does it make to the message if different languages are used, every text has to be interpreted even the Qu'ran and surely you are not asserting that there has only been one interpretation and it is the correct one?
Again, you are being disingenuous.
Other members are too polite to call you what you are, but I am not, because it is who you are.
You are saying the different versions of bible is a matter of translations.\
Let me ask you:
How many books are in the bible used by the catholic church?
How many books are in the KJV bible?
How many books are in the bible used by KJV?
Do you endorse the New World Translation bible? And if not, why?

Also, it seems you are being extremely forgetful:
We have the qur’an.
You don’t have the gospel according to jesus.

Originally Posted by Hugo
The NT manuscripts range from a few verses to virtually complete NTs and you can find them in Museums all over the world and of very early date. The earliest are the papyri and these are dated 1st or 2nd century though some parts go back even further. If you wish we can go through the list, including the apocryphal ones as there is no shortage of materials.
OK, I’m glad you offered, I’ve been expecting it.
Now I’d like to see the manuscripts of the NT in the language spoken by jesus pbuh, from the time of jesus pbuh or the disciples.
Please show us as you have promised to do so.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-16-2010, 11:36 AM
In the meantime, you have not solved the riddle:


how is it possible that there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world? This is after 1,400 years, and spread among 1.2 billion of muslims. how is it even possible?

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust?

so, which is more to be trusted?

a book whose chain of transmission is recorded all the way to the prophet?

or

many versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown?
and which has undergone god know how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret according their own desires?
Reply

aadil77
11-16-2010, 11:42 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
you are too cunning to outright lie, but you do twisting words, embellishing and omitting facts.
you also pretend to not know certain facts, while they have been explained again and again and again to you.
Spot on, if there is one word to describe Hugo its - cunning.
Reply

Muhammad
11-16-2010, 12:20 PM
Dear Hugo,

It seems despite a 34 page long discussion on the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, you are repeating exactly the same points explained and addressed there to other members. That discussion was closed due to certain members showing a complete lack of interest in pursuing the real answers, manifested by blatant overlooking of information and repetition of baseless assertions. The last post in that thread details the other issues encountered. From what I am seeing here, it does not look like much has changed.

1. I have seen you quote Dr Al Azami on several occasions. If you are truly interested in what he has to say, then please tell me what you think about his conclusion at the end of the first half of the book dealing with preservation of the Qur'an (page 260). In that conclusion, Dr Al Azami makes mention of the following, (this is not the exact quote):
Munich University in Germany, at the turn of the current century, embarked on an extensive research project on the reliability of the Qur’an. A large team was involved in obtaining almost all the editions ever published anywhere in the world, including the oldest copy of the Qur’an said to have been used by the third Islamic leader ‘Uthman B. Affan, which was available in the Taskqand library in Uzbekistan. The researchers vetted and tallied the copies with each other and compared them with the oldest one. Their findings were remarkable. The conclusion reached was that no changes ever occured in the Qur’an and the presently available Qur’an is exactly the same as the oldest extant copy.
2.More about preservation of the Qur'an, which may help you with some of your other questions:

Sir William Muir who was a Christin preacher from Oxford University who says,
“The recension of ‘Uthman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, – we might almost say no variations at all, – amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of ‘Uthman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but one Koran has always been current amongst them…. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text.”

William Muir. The Life of Mohammad(1912). Edinburgh. p. xxii-xxiii
Adrian Brockett says regarding the preservation of the Qur’an via both memorisation and writing,
“There can be no denying that some of the formal characteristics of the Qur’an point to the oral side and others to the written side, but neither was as a whole, primary. There is therefore no need to make different categories for vocal and graphic differences between transmissions. Muslims have not. The letter is not a dead skeleton to be refleshed, but is a manifestation of the spirit alive from beginning. The transmission of the Qur’an has always been oral, just as it has been written.”
He also says,
“Thus, if the Qur’an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as are seen in the hadith and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as in the different transmissions of the original document of the constitution of Medina would be found. But neither is the case with the Qur’an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption.”

Andrew Rippin. Approaches of the History of Interpretation of the Qur’an(1988). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 34
Bernard Lewis who was a writer, critic, historian and Orientalist says about the Qur’an,
“From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. “Traditional science”, as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.”

Bernard Lewis. Islam in History(1993). Open Court Publishing. p. 104-105
3.
Originally Posted by Hugo
I say again that if I pick up copies of the Bible one in English, Welsh, Arabic, German ... Then the message is always the same.
There are over 50 different versions of the Bible in English alone, and please remember that these contain different numbers of books. It is not just a case of merely being different translations. There is no agreement amongst Christians as to which books qualify as scripture, such that each of the major doctrinal factions champion their own versions of an "inspired scripture" and one man's scripture is another man's apocrypha. This is a very stark contrast to the consensus over the Qur'an in the Muslim world.

Peace.
Reply

Predator
11-16-2010, 01:46 PM
I say again that if I pick up copies of the Bible one in English, Welsh, Arabic, German ... Then the message is always the same.the message isthe message is always the same. always the same.
Could you explain why The Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees and why he whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":

". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelation 22:18-19)
Reply

جوري
11-16-2010, 02:15 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
the codex sinacticus then it has not changed for almost 2,000 years
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
The codex sinaiticus is about 1600 years old if at all
Originally Posted by Hugo
I resent being called a liar so please state the post and the supposed lies or lies that you attribute to me and I will appologise and remove them.
Here is one lie in the midst of a thousand!
you are not the type to admit to deception.. it is in your very nature that it doesn't even faze you as a sin!

perhaps you should address Muhammad's post before regrouping and lying again!

Originally Posted by Muhammad
Dear Hugo,

It seems despite a 34 page long discussion on the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, you are repeating exactly the same points explained and addressed there to other members. That discussion was closed due to certain members showing a complete lack of interest in pursuing the real answers, manifested by blatant overlooking of information and repetition of baseless assertions. The last post in that thread details the other issues encountered. From what I am seeing here, it does not look like much has changed.

1. I have seen you quote Dr Al Azami on several occasions. If you are truly interested in what he has to say, then please tell me what you think about his conclusion at the end of the first half of the book dealing with preservation of the Qur'an (page 260). In that conclusion, Dr Al Azami makes mention of the following, (this is not the exact quote):
Munich University in Germany, at the turn of the current century, embarked on an extensive research project on the reliability of the Qur’an. A large team was involved in obtaining almost all the editions ever published anywhere in the world, including the oldest copy of the Qur’an said to have been used by the third Islamic leader ‘Uthman B. Affan, which was available in the Taskqand library in Uzbekistan. The researchers vetted and tallied the copies with each other and compared them with the oldest one. Their findings were remarkable. The conclusion reached was that no changes ever occured in the Qur’an and the presently available Qur’an is exactly the same as the oldest extant copy.
2.More about preservation of the Qur'an, which may help you with some of your other questions:

Sir William Muir who was a Christin preacher from Oxford University who says,
“The recension of ‘Uthman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, – we might almost say no variations at all, – amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of ‘Uthman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but one Koran has always been current amongst them…. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text.”

William Muir. The Life of Mohammad(1912). Edinburgh. p. xxii-xxiii
Adrian Brockett says regarding the preservation of the Qur’an via both memorisation and writing,
“There can be no denying that some of the formal characteristics of the Qur’an point to the oral side and others to the written side, but neither was as a whole, primary. There is therefore no need to make different categories for vocal and graphic differences between transmissions. Muslims have not. The letter is not a dead skeleton to be refleshed, but is a manifestation of the spirit alive from beginning. The transmission of the Qur’an has always been oral, just as it has been written.”
He also says,
“Thus, if the Qur’an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as are seen in the hadith and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as in the different transmissions of the original document of the constitution of Medina would be found. But neither is the case with the Qur’an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption.”

Andrew Rippin. Approaches of the History of Interpretation of the Qur’an(1988). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 34
Bernard Lewis who was a writer, critic, historian and Orientalist says about the Qur’an,
“From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. “Traditional science”, as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.”

Bernard Lewis. Islam in History(1993). Open Court Publishing. p. 104-105
3. There are over 50 different versions of the Bible in English alone, and please remember that these contain different numbers of books. It is not just a case of merely being different translations. There is no agreement amongst Christians as to which books qualify as scripture, such that each of the major doctrinal factions champion their own versions of an "inspired scripture" and one man's scripture is another man's apocrypha. This is a very stark contrast to the consensus over the Qur'an in the Muslim world.

Peace.
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-16-2010, 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Airforce
Could you explain why The Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees and why he whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":

". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelation 22:18-19)
I can explain some things, with regard to other assertions I must tell you things are not as you present them.


1) As to why protestant Bibles don't contain what is known as the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanon is because at the time of the protestant reformation those books were not included in the canon of the Tanakh used by Jews. And Luther, in his desire to reform the church of what he saw as corruptions believed that if the Jews did not recognize these books that were prior to the time of Christ as a part of their own scriptures that it did not make sense for Christians to recognize them either. Most subsequent protestant Bible publishers have followed Luther in not recognizing them.

The reason that the Roman Catholic church (and also the Orthodox and a few others) do recognize them is that the early Christian church relied more on the Greek Septuagint than on the Hebrew editions of the Tanakh for what they considered the Old Testament, and the copies of the Septuagint that they had included these books.

As to why the 2nd century BC through 2nd century AD Greek translations of the OT included books that the 11th century AD Jews would later exclude you'll have to ask the Jews. But that's who the recognition of different lists of canonical books came about within Christendom.


2) As to your comment,
why he whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV
I'm not familiar with the RCV. I'm assuming it is short for the Recovery Bible, often abbreviated the RcV Bible, but I don't anything more about it than that. So, I don't condemn it because I am unfamiliar with it. I also wasn't able to find much about it online, but I did see that one Baptist group had this to say about it:
36. Recovery Version of the Bible (RcV)- For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but have eternal life.
With the complete Bible published in 1999, the Recovery Version of the Bible (RcV) is published by Living Stream Ministries, which is the publishing arm of a group know as “The Local Church,” headed by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. A literal translation, the RcV is a revision of the American Standard Version (ASV), which is rooted in the work that was done with the Revised Version (RV), which was a revised version of the King James Version (KJV), which was translated from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.

They didn't say any more or less with regard to the RCV than they did other versions as commonly accepted as the KJV or the RSV. So, based on that, I would say that even if you do find some people condemning the RCV, it isn't the "whole of the Protestant world" that is doing so.



3) Finally, the dire warning found in the book of Revelation is specific to the book of Revelation, and nothing more.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-17-2010, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
) Finally, the dire warning found in the book of Revelation is specific to the book of Revelation, and nothing more.
So, does this mean that you are allowed to add or delete the other books in the bible, because the warning only applies specific to the book of revelation?
That explains the editing of bible thorughout the centuries.

In order to explain the errors and contradictions in the bible, I find christians are getting more and more absurd by the day.
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-17-2010, 12:54 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
So, does this mean that you are allowed to add or delete the other books in the bible, because the warning only applies specific to the book of revelation?
That explains the editing of bible thorughout the centuries.

In order to explain the errors and contradictions in the bible, I find christians are getting more and more absurd by the day.
No, their claims have always been just as absurd as they are now. For instance, the nonsense about Judas Iscariot hanging himself off a cliff (so as to "reconcile" or "harmonize" the varying accounts of the Gospels and Acts) is supposedly extremely ancient. Even as far back as medieval times people were going to such lengths as making up entire landforms that are never mentioned in the text so as to maintain their inerrantism (not that it matters, since the text of Acts says he fell headfirst, the opposite way people fall from when they're being hanged).
Reply

Predator
11-17-2010, 06:52 AM
I'm not familiar with the RCV
By RCV , i meant Roman Catholic version , the one with 73 books


Finally, the dire warning found in the book of Revelation is specific to the book of Revelation, and nothing more.
Why the double standards ? are you saying God doesnt care about other books ?
Then that means your bible should have only the book of revealation and no other and the rest should be thrown out
Reply

Grace Seeker
11-17-2010, 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by Airforce
By RCV , i meant Roman Catholic version , the one with 73 books
OK. Well there isn't an RCV (Roman Catholic version), there are several different translations that are recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. They all do have in common the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books mentioned above. The statement
why he whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV
really isn't accurate as it is only an extreme minority of the protestant world that would "condemn" those particular translations, and no one condemns the 7 books in question themselves only disagrees with them being included in the list of the canon.

As to why there is disagreement, I answered that question in my first post above.


Why the double standards ? are you saying God doesnt care about other books ?
Then that means your bible should have only the book of revealation and no other and the rest should be thrown out
I'm not sure what double standard you are referencing. Each and every book in the library that is the Bible stands independent of every other book. So, when within the text of Revelation it says something about not adding or substracting from "this book", the book that it is referring to is not the entire library of books that are the Bible, but the book of Revelation alone. I don't find that a hard concept, and certainly not a double standard. Perhaps it would be clearer for you if you read it in a different translation:
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

(Revelation 22:18-19, NIV)
Here what you have been reading as "this Book" is translated as "this scroll". Hopefully that makes it easier for you to see the warning internal to the text does not refer to the whole of the Bible, but only the scroll (i.e., book) of Revelation itself.


As to why that same line was not included in other books, I have no idea. The book of Revelation is unique in that no other book of the Bible is as much of a dictated book as it is. That might be the reason, but such an answer would be pure supposition on my part.
Reply

Hugo
11-17-2010, 09:43 PM
ToNaidamair

Confucius once said "Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning is dangerous" so in*what sense am I desperate? I have a NT that has stood for t2,000 years and you denigrate without I suspect having read any of it or knowing the facts about it's history. I also have the OT and that is even older. So I have a host of witnesses so what rational reason can you give me to reject all that in favour of a book where every story other than those on Islamic history are copied from somewhere else with a single witness and no original or early manuscripts of any kind?*

As far as we know Jesus left no manuscripts but I am assured we have his words and action through the voice of many witnesses not just one; it is simply absurd to dismiss 20,000 manuscripts with this nonsense of corruption to such an extent that the message is lost. It is obvious you know very little about the Gospels so if you want to talk about the "first" gospels name them and we can find out what if anything your argument is. Have you ever taken the trouble to read one of them? *Similarly, if you want to speak about the cannon then tell us what you know not just parrot what is written on innumerable Muslim web sites.

You assume you are right, you have the truth, you are certain? But I never want such certainty because it freezes the mind, bringing intolerance and oppression - your call to ban me is a simple example of that. Similarly, you and others often say "we have given you an answer" as if you are infallible and I must accept it as the truth yet when I give an answer it us always false or I am insincere, or a liar or twisting words. *

So if you say In my world everything and anything must be turned over and one does this to fully appreciate what someone else is saying because only then can one honestly know your own position - this is not about winning as you seem to think but sharing and at least appreciating another point if view.

Let me test you by asking three questions, firstly, there were hundreds of Qu'ran fragments and 1,000s of companions with their own copies or partial copies so do you believe there was not a single mistake between the lot? Secondly, I often feel about Christianity that it all sounds a bit improbable, I have doubts. Do you ever feel the same about Islam? Lastly, please name theses "first" gospels and let us see where that takes us. *
Reply

Hugo
11-17-2010, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
No, their claims have always been just as absurd as they are now. For instance, the nonsense about Judas Iscariot hanging himself off a cliff (so as to "reconcile" or "harmonize" the varying accounts of the Gospels and Acts) is supposedly extremely ancient. Even as far back as medieval times people were going to such lengths as making up entire landforms that are never mentioned in the text so as to maintain their inerrantism (not that it matters, since the text of Acts says he fell headfirst, the opposite way people fall from when they're being hanged).
Of course people invent stories and Islam is not immune is it, consider the various sects and the thousands upon thousands of Hadith that were created and later not accepted. But as usual in your thinking you can only look one way.
Reply

GuestFellow
11-17-2010, 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Of course people invent stories and Islam is not immune is it, consider the various sects and the thousands upon thousands of Hadith that were created and later not accepted. But as usual in your thinking you can only look one way.
The Qur'an has never changed. Yes, there have been several false Hadiths, however Muslims scholars have developed techniques in order to determine whether a Hadith is false.
Reply

جوري
11-17-2010, 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
absurd to dismiss 20,000 manuscripts with this nonsense of corruption


here are some About 86,800 results (0.22 seconds) on 'Loch ness monster facts'
http://www.google.com/search?source=...h+ness+monster

So absurd to dismiss them after all it is 60,000+ more than the 'facts' about Jesus..

when it comes to 'learning' and 'thinking' you are light years behind those with legitimate congenital disorder...
Is that, that you are unable to learn and think or just simply don't want to?

Naidamar doesn't call to have you banned alone is it unanimous amongst us that you are a completely worthless 'contributor' who borders more on trollish than anything else. It is unfortunate that the mods don't take that into consideration when they know full well the 'fruits of your labor', your inane platitudes and recycled drivel!

you are also a liar because you have been caught in lies, and the lies have been introduced to you even outside of the confines of what pertains to Islam and you have repeatedly dodged acknowledging them. You are also completely unlearned in areas you eagerly pose yourself as a scholar again outside of Islam where you are absolutely not fit to comment. I do remind you that two statistics questions still await your answer on the thread you so wanted to partake in and on the first opportunity solicited me to see if some money can be made out of it through publishing. Sadly even a kind service to humanity you have no desire to offer without seeking something out of it!

we'll be waiting for you to address Br. Muhammad's posts before you query members of other 'concerns'!
all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-17-2010, 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Of course people invent stories and Islam is not immune is it, consider the various sects and the thousands upon thousands of Hadith that were created and later not accepted. But as usual in your thinking you can only look one way.
Once again I am not taking your bait. Now if someone else--anyone other than you--wants to bring the same point and allegation to me then God willing I'll be happy to respond to them. But not you.

EDIT: After reading post #128 I really must reiterate my suggestion that you become a speechwriter for politicians. You seem not only fit for the position but born for it.
Reply

Hugo
11-18-2010, 12:16 AM
To lily

I note you quote from Mohammad's post but not my reply and if you had bothered to do that you would see he mistakes what Dr Al Azami said as a conclusion so who Is dissembling here?
Reply

Hugo
11-18-2010, 12:21 AM
Originally Posted by ProfessorSunday
The Qur'an has never changed. Yes, there have been several false Hadiths, however Muslims scholars have developed techniques in order to determine whether a Hadith is false.
Fine, but you miss the point. When Muslim's dismiss something as false or heretical it's fine when others do it is not so you are able only to look one way and assume without foundation the Biblical scholars have no techniques at their disposal. Of course all scholars don't agree but that is the same for Muslims as well
Reply

Hugo
11-18-2010, 12:25 AM
The dates of the writing of books in the NT are agreed by most scholars to between AD60 and 90 although only a few small fragments now are available. One has to remember that the idea of a book or codex was hardly known.

The earliest recorded NT writings are on papyrus and they contain much but not all of the NT. For example p67 or P.Barcelona contains a few chapters of Matthew dared AD125-150. Later when books were common the writings were collected together and we have many very early codexes - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus from the 4th century, they could hardly be much earlier as the Codex had not long been invented.

With this material it is possible to construct the original and as I have said in earlier posts only a tiny fraction is still in doubt. Of course there are variant readings but none of them touch on central doctrines and the idea often put about by Muslims that say the above two codexes are entirely different is totally false. To see this one has to recall that a given word might be spelled differently from one copy to another and if that occurred 1,000 times it would count as a variant reading 1000 times and no rational person is going to get upset about that just as the companions of the prophet corrected or agreed on certain spellings - see Al -Azami's book page 90.

There are also a largish collection of extra canonical books thigh most are fragmentary. Examples are the Gospel of Thomas, The Apocryphon of James, Gospel of the Egyptians and so on. Most scholars agree these all of late date being originally written in mid second century so not reliable witnesses. Frankly, if one regards the canonical Gospels as unsafe you would have to be crackers to trust instead the extra canonical ones.

If you want to read more see J C Crossan's book "the historical Jesus" where he proposes earlier dates and that of J, P, Meier's book "A Marginal Jew" and you will hear both sides of the story and can make your ow mind up. Part of the issue for Muslims is that the Qu'ran copies stories from the extra canonical books so it uses sources which the vast majority of scholarly opinions considers fabrications - why? * * * * * *
Reply

جوري
11-18-2010, 12:33 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
To lily I note you quote from Mohammad's post but not my reply and if you had bothered to do that you would see he mistakes what Dr Al Azami said as a conclusion so who Is dissembling here?
Still you-- a great liar and a Tartuffe -- The alleged Mistakes of Azami were answered here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post1371657
by my person as well on post 109 which again you chose to dodge and then project your incredible inadequacies and shortcomings . I suggest you seek psychiatric attention for your condition you seem to be suffering a terrible case of Hemispatial neglect with a touch of malingering!



All the best
Reply

Hugo
11-18-2010, 12:37 AM
To Lily

Show me the lies and the posts involved please.

With regard to Hadith there are hundreds of thousands of false ones so anyone has to decide what to accept. There are also accepted Hadith that have a content that is hardly believable by anyone so we must all use our minds. No one can disprove the Lock Ness monster stories any more than stories about Mohammad having is heart washed in snow.

I say again that I have never intentional or otherwise lied in this board that I know of though like anyone i can make mistakes and I consider your accusation as a gross insult fir integrity and has been a principle of my whole life.
Reply

Hugo
11-18-2010, 12:45 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Still you-- a great liar and a Tartuffe -- The alleged Mistakes of Azami were answered here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post1371657
by my person as well on post 109 which again you chose to dodge and then project your incredible inadequacies and shortcomings . I suggest you seek psychiatric attention for your condition you seem to be suffering a terrible case of Hemispatial neglect with a touch of malingering!
Nowhere do say I Azami made mistakes as far as I know all I have ever done is tell you what he said and asked questions.



All the best[/QUOTE]
Reply

جوري
11-18-2010, 12:47 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
To Lily

Show me the lies and the posts involved please.
scroll back and see above..
With regard to Hadith there are hundreds of thousands of false ones so anyone has to decide what to accept.
There is a science to ahadith. Orientalists are indeed keen on forging them I agree, but the strong chain of Isnad which is in the very book you often misquote as well Sr. Insaanah's post detailing the same things found on pages 172-7 entitled the Isnad System Authentication of Isnad will elucidate how that science is established. Please don't allege to be read when something that is smacking your hypocritical behind is lying in front of you!
There are also accepted Hadith that have a content that is hardly believable by anyone so we must all use our minds. No one can disprove the Lock Ness monster stories any more than stories about Mohammad having is heart washed in snow.
prophet Muhammad's heart being washed isn't the crux on which Islam is built. Whether one chooses to believe it or not it is irrelevant. Do contrast that with your entire religion perching upon the death of your god, which can't be verified in any form or fashion!
That is indeed worrisome 20,000 manuscripts or not..
I say again that I have never intentional or otherwise lied in this board that I know of though like anyone i can make mistakes and I consider it a gross insult and that has been a principle of my whole life.
You take adequate descriptions of yourself as an insult? either remedy that which everyone has pointed out new or late comers, or take your smarmy lying style to like minded individuals!

all the best
Reply

جوري
11-18-2010, 12:54 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Nowhere do say I Azami made mistakes as far as I know all I have ever done is tell you what he said and asked questions.

I have shown for all where you have completely misquoted Azami not myself or Muhammad, and where you have construed your desired renditions of what he has actually written or said!
question remains, why do you keep lying-- It wouldn't matter what Azami wrote one way or the other he isn't the only muslim scholar there is, it seems however that it is the only book in your possession written by a Muslim and it is a shame that you've done little but get past the title and the faulty claims of the orientalists therein without actually reading what the author wrote or refuted, and come here with utmost insolence and temerity not only misquoting, blatantly lying, but alleging that member after member is persecuting you. You know there is a phrase that psychiatrists though they try not to be confrontational except for a subset of patients where you most certainly are a poster boy-- if you are having problems with one or two people assuming wrong things about you, the fault indeed might lie with them, but if person after person points out the same thing, then it is best you reassess yourself, your beliefs and your approach lest you keep on with the same problem the rest of your miserable life!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
11-18-2010, 01:45 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I have a NT that has stood for t2,000 years and you denigrate without I suspect having read any of it or knowing the facts about it's history.

You KNOW very well that current NT is NOT 2,000 years.

That is a deliberate, OUTRIGHT LIE.

I am glad that you are getting more and more exposed and that the "truth" about bible is getting more exposed, which would convince the silent christian members that christianity is not founded on the pure unadulterated message brought by Jesus pbuh.


again, you are conveniently ignoring my previous question, which I will repeat again, in bold, just in case you cannot see properly:


how is it possible that there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world? This is after 1,400 years, and spread among 1.2 billion of muslims. how is it even possible?

Had there been just a single slight variation of the qur'an during the time of prophet Muhammad SAW or the shahaba/disciples, CERTAINLY that one single variation would have been multiplied, magnified and carried over to this day. And yet the deafening fact is: There is no variation found in the qur'an used today. A shia in Tehran recites exactly the same qur'an as a sunni in california.
so this totally destroys your argument that the qur'an had been changed after the prophet Muhammad SAW passing.

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust?

so, which is more to be trusted?

a book whose chain of transmission is recorded all the way to the prophet?

or

countless versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown?
and which has undergone god knows how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret BIBLES (in plural form) according their own desires?



And if you are still not seeing things clearly, this illustration might help:

Jesus pbuh said ABCDEFGHI -----> obeserved by the disciples 1, 2, and 3
oh, but the disciples were not asked to memorise ABCDEFGHIJKL by Jesus pbuh and the did not write it down. Trouble!
disciple 1 relayed to the person Z that Jesus said BCDEFGHI
disciple 2 relayed to the person y that Jesus said ABCDEFGH
disciple 3 relayed to the person x that Jesus said CDEFGHI
TROUBLE! message was distorted!
person z relayed to person greek 1 that Jesus said abcdefghi <------- BIG trouble, original message translated into different language, lost its exact meanings!
etc..
etc..
person greek 1 relayed the message to person greek w that the message was cdghiba <----- BIG OOOPSS!
person greek w relayed the message to UNKNOWN AUTHORS that the message was ghibcdae which was then written into the four gospels by UNKNOWN AUTHORS.

So, jesus originally said "ABCDEFGHI"

But, the four gospels which were written in koine greek told Jesus said "ghibcdae".

Oh but that is not the end.
The four gosples were then translated into latin. Per usual, translation NEVER retain 100% exact meaning, and this was compounded by the political nature of Latin.
So, the "ghibcdae" in koine greek were then further translated into "bghd3cbai" in latin.

And this is NOT the end.

further along, a certain king wanted to be religiously and politically independent from the vatican, so a more politically charged further translation into english was conducted, known as KJV.
god knows how much further was the original message distorted already with this new translation.

a few centuries later, KJV is deemed to be politically incorrect, so NIV was invented.

etc.
etc.

And All these do not take into account other bibles which are deeemed heretical bu protestants or roman catholics.


All that reminds of one thing:

Just few weeks ago, a certain member of this forum charged that the Qur'an is the product of a chinese whispers.
Judging by the illustration above and the fact about the state of the qur'an and the bibles today , which is more of the product of chinese whispers?

I hope you have time to ponder.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-18-2010, 02:04 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Of course people invent stories and Islam is not immune is it, consider the various sects and the thousands upon thousands of Hadith that were created and later not accepted. But as usual in your thinking you can only look one way.

Are you suggesting that the "eye witnesses" invented stories of how Judas iscariot's died? and thus explaining the contradicting accounts of his manner of death?
Reply

جوري
11-18-2010, 02:12 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
so, which is more to be trusted?

The question beyond this and that, is what does the book actually offer? what have christians done with their lives on the basis of said book which they allege is from a self-immolating god? Absolutely nothing, they live, behave and act as the pagans do. So even in his outright lies, which has done all else but address on matters of logical consistency, textual integrity, upright characters for these are the folks we are to model our lives after, there is very little by way of religion. what do they do beyond celebrating Pagan holidays which Jesus (p) never of them requested? They celebrate winter solstice like the pagan, the Nawruz like the pagans, and do very little by way of anything to reflect their respect and adoration for the creator. And then neatly wrap it in this god's ability to eat their sins so that they are free to do just that.

does he have time to ponder? He doesn't even read.. what he does is stick the same crap on every new thread to tire the rest of us out and that to him will give him some semblance of credibility!

:w:
Reply

Muhammad
11-18-2010, 04:25 PM
Greetings Hugo,
Originally Posted by Hugo
I note you quote from Mohammad's post but not my reply and if you had bothered to do that you would see he mistakes what Dr Al Azami said as a conclusion so who Is dissembling here?
I was not aware of any reply to my post. Anyhow, I am quite sure that the incident quoted is part of Dr Al Azami's conclusion. Even if for the sake of argument it is found elsewhere in the book, does it not sufficiently show that Dr. Al Azami's view is, as with the rest of the Muslim scholars, that there is only one Qur'an? I hope you will agree with this fundamental point.

I also notice you have raised the topic of Hadeeth. May I suggest you first complete the topic of the Qur'an, as it is pointless to start discussions if no answer or conclusion is desired from them.
Reply

Hugo
11-22-2010, 07:55 AM
To Naidamair

To answer your question as to whether Jesus taught his disciples and had them memorise his teaching the answer is an unequivocal yes he did.

Firstly, Nazareth was a small town but it is located a few miles from Sepphoris, a major city and Nazareth is also near a major highway that connects Caesarea Maritima to Tiberias. Sepphoris, Caesarea and Tiberias were the three largest and most influential cities in Galilee and this is where Jesus grew up.*Archeological evidence shows without a shadow of doubt that Nazareth and Sepphoris were thoroughly Jewish communities while Jesus was growing up.

Secondly, the history of Jewish teaching and learning in the time of Jesus show that he followed early rabbinic teachers who expected their students to memorise and pass on faithfully what was taught. For example, the distinguished Swedish scholar of Jesus and the Gospels has concluded that these practices apply to Jesus and his disciples. What was taught could be adapted, even expanded, but not distorted. Similarly, Shermaryahu Talmon has reached the same conclusion on the founding teacher of Qumran sect and Talmon's findings are consistent with what is know Jewish teachers and teaching methods.

It may be that Mohammad copied these teaching and learning methods from the Jews or Christians as I know of no studies that show such methods were used anywhere by the Arabs themselves.*
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-22-2010, 02:51 PM
Hugo, have you not realized you are always giving asterisks in reference to footnotes that you don't end up writing?
Reply

جوري
11-22-2010, 02:55 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Hugo, have you not realized you are always giving asterisks in reference to footnotes that you don't end up writing?

That is because he is the source of the reference!
Reply

Ramadhan
11-22-2010, 10:44 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
To answer your question as to whether Jesus taught his disciples and had them memorise his teaching the answer is an unequivocal yes he did.
Do you also believe in Santa Claus?

Or that Jesus was born in 25 December?
Reply

Hugo
11-23-2010, 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Hugo, have you not realized you are always giving asterisks in reference to footnotes that you don't end up writing?
Not sure what this means but if it a reference that might covers my summary remarks in post 145 then see professor Graig Evans book called "fabricating Jesus" which also contains many further refs or if you find the post in error then let us see what references you can find or perhaps the truth about Jesus' life and ministry upsets you?
Reply

Hugo
11-23-2010, 09:10 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Do you also believe in Santa Claus? Or that Jesus was born in 25 December?
Does this mean you don't like the evidence for the life and teaching of Jesus?
Reply

Hugo
11-23-2010, 09:14 AM
Taking Mohammed lead from post 144. Could I ask two connected questions.

1. There is theme that says the Qu'ran is unchanged over 1400 years but what exactly does that mean or prove? Does it mean for example that if I had all of the original verses written on stone or bone or leather or whatever that they would match exactly in every tiny detail what I would see in a printed Qu'ran today?

2. Showing that a book is unchanged is useful but such a book might contain errors or be untrue in hundreds of ways. For example, there are Egyptian inscriptions that have existed unchanged for 4,000 years that speak about various Gods so does that mean they are true? The Indian Vedas that are still recited unchanged today in Hindus rituals but also go back some 4,000 years.

So we need more that just the notion of unchanged. In Islam we hear about the perfection of the Qu'ran but how far does that extend: faultless spelling and grammar, every words, sentence and clause perfectly aligned with the language, every word can be understood perfectly, every meaning is unmistakable, perfect structure, perfect style, perfection of vocabulary, no errors, no contradictions, every verse fits perfectly into it's context, no hidden meaning, no spurious letters or words, nothing copied from elsewhere, every doctrine is perfect, every law is perfect, etc

So is it a limited or total perfection, what does perfection mean and if anyone can find one flaw what implication will it have?*
Reply

Hugo
11-23-2010, 09:18 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
That is because he is the source of the reference!
Well the world is open to you to find the evidence for yourself if you can face it
Reply

Ramadhan
11-23-2010, 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Does this mean you don't like the evidence for the life and teaching of Jesus?

I see that you have been avoiding the problem I posed to, despite my repeated attempts to ask you how to explain it:


how is it possible that there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world? This is after 1,400 years, and spread among 1.2 billion of muslims. how is it even possible?

Had there been just a single slight variation of the qur'an during the time of prophet Muhammad SAW or the shahaba/disciples, CERTAINLY that one single variation would have been multiplied, magnified and carried over to this day. And yet the deafening fact is: There is no variation found in the qur'an used today. A shia in Tehran recites exactly the same qur'an as a sunni in california.
so this totally destroys your argument that the qur'an had been changed after the prophet Muhammad SAW passing.

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust?

so, which is more to be trusted?

a book whose chain of transmission is recorded all the way to the prophet?

or

countless versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown?
and which has undergone god knows how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret BIBLES (in plural form) according their own desires?
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-23-2010, 03:09 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well the world is open to you to find the evidence for yourself if you can face it
You sound like J.P. Holding, mouthing off that anyone who wants to know his sources is free to do a Google search--though even he doesn't stoop so low as to refer intentionally to nonexistent endnotes with invariably unused asterisks. Even on the off chance that there is no disingenuity involved the appearance of disingenuity is still quite unmistakable, and the very best that can be said is maybe it is only sloth or apathy. One way or another, you're being immature, thoroughly unconvincing, and quite possibly immoral.
Reply

جوري
11-23-2010, 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Well the world is open to you to find the evidence for yourself if you can face it
I have indeed found ample evidence that you are an under-educated troll who can't seem to subject himself to that which he seeks of others ignoring a mountain of evidence against his faulty beliefs and deluding himself that by ignoring those difficult questions that often arise while misquoting and making up stories about other religions that it is actually going to deflect away from the Issues.. be that as it may we are neither discussing the Quran nor the hadith, can you read the thread title-- and do you understand the subject matter?

As my mentor from Medical school once said ''In your quest for knowledge find a trusted source and learn it well, and whittle yourself away on bull at the end of the day you'll have wasted your energy and gained nothing at all''.. sob7an Allah quite similar to a hadith by the prophet PBUH ''

إن هذا الدين متين؛ فأوغل فيه برفق، ولا تبغض إلى نفسك عبادة الله؛ فإن الْمُنْبَتَّ لا أرضا قطع ولا ظهرا أبقى» حديث جابر بن عبد الله عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: «.
The Religion of Islam is strong so teach and tread with gentility, and don't begrudge the rituals of worship; He who is angry/obstinate, will not traverse the lands to reach his destination nor keep his mode of transport' i.e he who beats and bullies has achieved neither the attainment of his goal nor keeping the denizen he's riding from abusing it all throughout.

Al7mdlillah for the great blessing that is the religion of Islam.
if I were you I wouldn't worry about Islam nor Muslims. We are strong in faith00 we know our history and the preservation of our religious text! you are absolutely nothing in the scheme of things compared to what has faced the Muslim world from the days of old, Romans/crusaders/Mongol Invasions.. Islam has always been and will always be, a religion of the conquered and conqueror alike -- you'd think that after the carnage that the Mongols unleashed upon Muslim land and with crusaders conspiring with them that Islam would have perished.. Instead the Mongols themselves became Muslim and spread our great religion to all of southeast Asia by peaceful means.. and those are the means that will continue and Islam will continue to grow.. In spite of your puny insignificant efforts and I must admit that I pity the effort even if you repeat yourself often as it must be a great disappointment that Islam has entered your very home and accepted by your very submitting to the great and only religion of God.. and what of your meager means which you can't properly reference and for apparent reasons as we have caught you in the very act of deception and misquotes prior You come here misquoting books and authors in a futile efforts as if an ailing ant putting up its dukes against lions.

all the best
Reply

Hugo
12-01-2010, 04:54 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I see that you have been avoiding the problem I posed to, despite my repeated attempts to ask you how to explain it:
See my post 151 but any honest look through this thread will show I have began a series answering your questions though you have not answered any one of mine so let me give you another chance. Let me state again there are lots of books that have remained unchanged so what if anything does it prove - can you say because whatever you say will apply to any book that remains unchanged. You say there is a chain all the way back to the prophet but it is not a written one is it and in any case we are supposed to go back to the author so please explain how you will do that if you claim the author is God?
And yet the deafening fact is: There is no variation found in the qur'an used today. A shia in Tehran recites exactly the same qur'an as a sunni in california. so this totally destroys your argument that the qur'an had been changed after the prophet Muhammad SAW passing.
I ask you again, the Qu'ran you have is likely based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did the publishers use to get that, what 'original' did they use? I have not I think argued that the Qu'ran has changed only that it cannot be proved - what would you consider as proof of corruption - a spelling error, what level of unchangeableness are you talking about?

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust? so, which is more to be trusted? Countless versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown? and which has undergone god knows how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret BIBLES (in plural form) according their own desires?
There are not countless versions as if any two Bibles are completely different and as I have said before I can find exactly the same stories and teaching in my German Bible, my English Bible or my Klingon Bible so you are speaking nonsense. As to interpretation, then all scriptures have to be interpreted as both Jews and Christians say "to go from the text to application without interpretation is itself heresy" and surely God wants us to explore and learn his message not just ignorantly and passively accept without any effort what someone else tells us. Of course it is possible to 'freely' interpret and some have done that and in my view perverted the message but Islam is not immune from that is it and there are many sects and versions and I think you will find the prophet said there will be 73.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-01-2010, 05:51 PM
Go back and write out your phony footnotes before we give you the time of day again.
Reply

Hugo
12-01-2010, 06:12 PM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
Greetings Hugo, I was not aware of any reply to my post. Anyhow, I am quite sure that the incident quoted is part of Dr Al Azami's conclusion. Even if for the sake of argument it is found elsewhere in the book, does it not sufficiently show that Dr. Al Azami's view is, as with the rest of the Muslim scholars, that there is only one Qur'an? I hope you will agree with this fundamental point. I also notice you have raised the topic of Hadeeth. May I suggest you first complete the topic of the Qur'an, as it is pointless to start discussions if no answer or conclusion is desired from them.
For my replies please look through now closed thread "Is it possible to Prove the Qu'ran is the very Words of God"

If you read post 129 and my reply you will see I did not introduce the topic of Hadith. I only mentioned it to show that all religions have to decide what is legitimate and what is not in written works, plus all religions have sects. It is therefore disingenuous to suggest as was done in the post mentioned that Christians are not capable of careful selection whereas Islam is somehow exempt from such difficulties.

It follows that Hadith science is not superior in every way to the techniques used by let's call them Western scholars and no doubt they could and should learn from each other. Hadith science as I understand it tries to establish who said or did something but cannot as far as I can see always establish if what was said was itself true or false without invoking the supernatural and this perhaps is where Islamic and Western ideas must in my opinion diverge. So if an Isnad shows that Mohammed said he saw more women in Hell than men then I can accept that he probably said it without accepting the truth of the statement itself since it's truth or falsehood is impossible to prove so that aspect is one of faith not fact.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-03-2010, 03:12 AM
Ah, finally Hugo has come out from his little hole to spew another round of misleading informations in his desperate attempt to cling to his very shaky belief that is founded on a house of sand. I was wondering where you were.

Originally Posted by Hugo
See my post 151 but any honest look through this thread will show I have began a series answering your questions though you have not answered any one of mine so let me give you another chance. Let me state again there are lots of books that have remained unchanged so what if anything does it prove - can you say because whatever you say will apply to any book that remains unchanged.
So is this your way in finally admitting that The Qur'an is indeed unchanged from the prophet till now?

Originally Posted by Hugo
1. There is theme that says the Qu'ran is unchanged over 1400 years but what exactly does that mean or prove? Does it mean for example that if I had all of the original verses written on stone or bone or leather or whatever that they would match exactly in every tiny detail what I would see in a printed Qu'ran today?
Ah. again you are being evasive and trying to overlook the thundering fact that I have been writing in bold several times:

Qur'an is not just a written. The name itself literary means "recitation".
There are currently millions of people on earth who fully memorise the Qur'an (several in this forum afaik), and more than a billion who memorise parts of the Qur'an.
How do you account for that fact alone.
In addition, how do you account for the fact that the qur'an recited and fully memorised by those millions is IN SYNC with the text?


Originally Posted by Hugo
Showing that a book is unchanged is useful but such a book might contain errors or be untrue in hundreds of ways.
Very true.
now, do you mind pondering over this fact:
which book is unchanged? Al Qur'an
which book is constantly changed? Bible
which book does not contain errors or untrue in hundred ways? Al Qur'an
which book contains God knows how many errors and contradictions in so many ways? Bible.

So, are you going to revert to your fitrah as a muslim, hugo?


Originally Posted by Hugo
For example, there are Egyptian inscriptions that have existed unchanged for 4,000 years that speak about various Gods so does that mean they are true? The Indian Vedas that are still recited unchanged today in Hindus rituals but also go back some 4,000 years.
Were those egyptian inscriptions in active use as a complete guide to life by millions and billions of people throughout 4,000 years?
So, I've heard wrong that those egyptian inscriptions buried in the sand for 4,000 years?

As for vedas, Are you claiming that the vedas are ACTUALLY unchanged for 4,000 years.
Because I've heard differently from my hindu friends, and from books that I've read.

Your dishonesty knows no bound, Hugo.
I hope it isn't a product of reading bible too much.


Originally Posted by Hugo
You say there is a chain all the way back to the prophet but it is not a written one is it and in any case we are supposed to go back to the author so please explain how you will do that if you claim the author is God?
In the confine of this debate, I have not actually asked you to believe that the Qur'an is from God. I am actually being merciful towards you.
Do you want to start a debate whether the Qur'an is from God and whether Bible is inspired by God?
Just a snippet here: you claim that bible is inspired by God, oh what kind of God that creates so much confusions by infusing so many errors and contradictions not to mention being so schizophrenic and revealing so many factual errors.



Originally Posted by Hugo
I ask you again, the Qu'ran you have is likely based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did the publishers use to get that, what 'original' did they use? I have not I think argued that the Qu'ran has changed only that it cannot be proved - what would you consider as proof of corruption - a spelling error, what level of unchangeableness are you talking about?
So, the qur'an that is completely memorised in the minds of millions people is based on the 1924 cairo edition?
Does this mean my great great grandfather who was a hafiz who died in 1915 learned to memorise the qur'an based on the 1924 cairo edition?
Does this mean that my great great grandfather's qur'an text which is still in our family possession and printed in 1905 was based on the 1924 cairo edition?

wow. I never knew anyone could be as smart as you are, Hugo!


Originally Posted by Hugo
There are not countless versions as if any two Bibles are completely different and as I have said before I can find exactly the same stories and teaching in my German Bible, my English Bible or my Klingon Bible so you are speaking nonsense
Does this mean you accept the New World Translation bible as the truth?
Does this mean The pope in Vatican accept King James Version bible as the truth and used it in mass in vatican?
Reply

جوري
12-03-2010, 04:07 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
If you read post 129 and my reply you will see I did not introduce the topic of Hadith.

do you always find it this difficult to concentrate on the topic at hand? avoiding the topic won't make it go away especially when you resort to your familiar desperation..
BTW br. Muhammad has more pressing matters to attend to,, I doubt even for the sake of amusement that he'd come and provide you with the desired attention you so often seek..

now, go buy a book, and actually read it!

all the best
Reply

Hugo
12-03-2010, 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Ah, finally Hugo has come out from his little hole to spew another round of misleading informations in his desperate attempt to cling to his very shaky belief that is founded on a house of sand. I was wondering where you were. So is this your way in finally admitting that The Qur'an is indeed unchanged from the prophet till now?
I know you find it hard very hard to answer any question you are asked. But let me do it in steps:

1. What is the significance of a book remaining being unchanged? What does it prove or what principle is involved?

2. You keep saying 1400 years so how long must it take for there to be some significance in a book remaining unchanged - would it be 10 years, 100 years 500 years, what?
Reply

Ramadhan
12-03-2010, 10:07 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I know you find it hard very hard to answer any question you are asked. But let me do it in steps:
Your questions hinge on my question to you which you have not anwered:

So is this your way in finally admitting that The Qur'an is indeed unchanged from the prophet till now?
If you deny it, why did you ask the questions?

Or were you just being deceitful per usual?

If you say yes, I will answer your questions. I give you my promise.

Oh by the way, you haven't actually addressed the points I hammered in bold for several times; you were being deceitfully evasive.
Reply

جوري
12-03-2010, 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
1. What is the significance of a book remaining being unchanged? What does it prove or what principle is involved?

A book that claims to be authored by God should have consistent verifiable and trustworthy content that transcends the test of time and reflects its authors code of conduct in an unparalleled style.. it is really simple.. nothing to strain your brain about!

all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-03-2010, 04:33 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
A book that claims to be authored by God should have consistent verifiable and trustworthy content that transcends the test of time and reflects its authors code of conduct in an unparalleled style.. it is really simple.. nothing to strain your brain about
"You must spread some rep points around before giving them to vale's lily again."
Reply

Hugo
12-07-2010, 08:43 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Your questions hinge on my question to you which you have not anwered: If you deny it, why did you ask the questions? Or were you just being deceitful per usual? If you say yes, I will answer your questions. I give you my promise. Oh by the way, you haven't actually addressed the points I hammered in bold for several times; you were being deceitfully evasive.
I think I have made it plain on many occasions that it cannot be proved one way or the other that the Qu'ran has remained unchanged since no originals exist because the companions of the prophet burned them. It is said that Usman made 3, 4 or seven copies no one knows and none of these copies now exist. However, the weight of evidence and plain common sense shows it to be false that the Qu'ran is unchanged and I give two examples to illustrate this; one simple and unavoidable truth and the other of more weight and importance.

1. In Dr Al Azami's book mentioned many times before and on pages 12and 33 he speaks about spelling errors or regularization of spelling so this is a change is it not?

2. The Qu'ran contains a large number of obvious interpolations. One example is the long verse 7:157 obviously introduced into the discourse addressed by God to Moses the idea of Mohammed's coming and the necessity of believing in it.
Reply

جوري
12-07-2010, 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I think I have made it plain on many occasions that it cannot be proved one way or the other that the Qu'ran has remained unchanged since no originals exist because the companions of the prophet burned them. It is said that Usman made 3, 4 or seven copies no one knows and none of these copies now exist. However, the weight of evidence and plain common sense shows it to be false that the Qu'ran is unchanged and I give two examples to illustrate this; one simple and unavoidable truth and the other of more weight and importance.
Actually it can and has been proven, your insistence on otherwise without presenting evidence to the matter is nothing short of wishful thinking.
1. In Dr Al Azami's book mentioned many times before and on pages 12and 33 he speaks about spelling errors or regularization of spelling so this is a change is it not?
Why do you continue to lie banking on others not owning the book?

let me quote what is actually written:

1.1 part of Dr. Puin's original letter to al-qahdha-al-akwa

The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Quranic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere. With the exceptions of details that DO NOT TOUCH THE QURAN ITSELF, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. The phenomenon is well-known, even in the Quran published in cairo in which written: Ibrahim (ابراهيم next to Ibrhm ) ابراهم Quran قران next to Qrn قرن etc. In the oldest Yemeni fragments, for example the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common -- which btw is still common modern day not just in the old fragments! he still goes on to write, this deflates the entire controversy, dusting away the webs of intrigue that were spun on Puin's discovery and making them a topic unworthy of any further speculations.

I must admit that I am intrigued by your persistence to misquote and lie and deliberately reach for members to whom in your mind you hold the sad belief that they're not going to be able to see through your prevarications!
2. The Qu'ran contains a large number of obvious interpolations. One example is the long verse 7:157 obviously introduced into the discourse addressed by God to Moses the idea of Mohammed's coming and the necessity of believing in it.
Like everything else you write, if you can't back it up trash it before you further humiliate yourself. You have no credibility, decency or common sense!

all the best
Reply

Hugo
12-07-2010, 09:21 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Why do you continue to lie banking on others not owning the book?
If you read what has been said by me and others you would know that you can get a pdf version of Dr Azami's book from the web. But let me ask you a simple question: though I doubt you will answer it.

Are you arguing that even the spelling in the Qu'ran has not changed, never changed from the moment it was written down and in those thousands of fragments burned by Usman not a single one of them differed from what you have now?
Reply

جوري
12-07-2010, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
If you read what has been said by me and others you would know that you can get a pdf version of Dr Azami's book from the web. .
Well then I implore you to use the PDF excerpts directly instead of prevaricating what is written .. it would save most of us from cleaning after your crap. And believe me I don't do it for you.. I don't care to cast pearls before swine.. I do it even though it is a complete waste of my time because I know there are sincere seekers of truth!

But let me ask you a simple question: though I doubt you will answer itAre you arguing that even the spelling in the Qu'ran has not changed, never changed from the moment it was written down and in those thousands of fragments burned by Usman not a single one of them differed from what you have now?
What I am arguing is obvious and summed up in what Azami had written and let me re-quote:

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
With the exceptions of details that DO NOT TOUCH THE QURAN ITSELF, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled.
Until you understand the fine nuances of Arabic and calligraphy I suggest you not argue against Arabic speaking Muslims!
I also suggest you not speak on behalf of other people but quote them directly as to cease with these perversions!

Is is that you can't be honest or simply unwilling to?

all the best
Reply

Hugo
12-07-2010, 09:53 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Well then I implore you to use the PDF excerpts directly instead of prevaricating what is written .. it would save most of us from cleaning after your crap. And believe me I don't do it for you.. I don't care to cast pearls before swine.. I do it even though it is a complete waste of my time because I know there are sincere seekers of truth! What I am arguing is obvious and summed up in what Azami had written and let me re-quote:
This just shows that you are selective in what you say and did not even state the reference. The section says on p12

"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qu'ranic fragments do not differ from those in Museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qu'ran itself, but a rather differences in the way words are spelled"

So this is not a general comment it is speaking of the Yemeni fragments which have been tentatively dated as 7/8 century (so maybe the earliest know manuscripts) but in a simple way it show that the Qu'ran is not the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God as of orthodox belief. Just as Azami does it is easy to find quotes, for example,

"The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt," says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, who is at the forefront of Koranic studies today. "Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."
Reply

جوري
12-07-2010, 10:19 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
This just shows that you are selective in what you say and did not even state the reference. The section says on p12
The reference was given by you in the previous post and incorrectly classified for something other than what it is. You say there is a PDF version, then why aren't you man enough to excerpt directly, what are you afraid of?
"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qu'ranic fragments do not differ from those in Museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qu'ran itself, but a rather differences in the way words are spelled"
indeed that is what I have quoted from the book directly. You could have done that if you wanted to display some intellectual integrity from the get go!
So this is not a general comment it is speaking of the Yemeni fragments which have been tentatively dated as 7/8 century (so maybe the earliest know manuscripts) but in a simple way it show that the Qu'ran is not the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God as of orthodox belief. Just as Azami does it is easy to find quotes, for example,
Original manuscripts are found and dated to Uthmanic era, it says so in the book, please do read it in totality at some point, it includes photos and references to names and places and as an aside the Quran has ALWAYS BEEN AND STILL Is AN ORAL TRADITION. If you take away every last copy of the Quran between three members here it can be constructed anew the same as it was first revealed and multiply that by the millions of hafith out there you really don't and never have withstood a chance.. and that is precisely why you oscillate between two facts neither which you can prove.
1- the importance of preservation
2- and so what if it preserved.
when offered sound reason for both, you regurgitate and circulate your original objections, then they are refuted and you jump to the other point, refuted, you go back to the original. It is so incredibly tedious and pedantic!

Now, how are different ways to spell words denote change to word or denotes different meaning of word do you mind showing me from the Quran itself as I have done so above by quoting in Arabic directly?
and just as an example do you find:

fetus not to be the same thing as foetus?
color to be something different than colour?
favorite to be different than favourite?
gray to be different than grey?
criticize to be different from criticise?
plow to be different from plough?
tire to be different from tyre?

etc etc. etc etc.

"The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt," says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, who is at the forefront of Koranic studies today. "Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."
Rather than quoting another under-educated ill informed orientalist simply to quell yourself into your personal beliefs show us how the readings and meanings are construed differently-- In fact I challenge you to!

all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-07-2010, 11:00 PM
Hugo, if you wrote a letter to someone in certain parts of the U.S. where they don't use the word "catsup" and might not know it, and the person you sent it through changed the word to "ketchup" so that they would get it, would you get on their case for "altering what you'd said"?
Reply

Rabi Mansur
12-08-2010, 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
do you find:

fetus not to be the same thing as foetus?
color to be something different than colour?
favorite to be different than favourite?
gray to be different than grey?
Great point Ukhti!

The best they can do is find evidence at some point that Ibrahim and Qur'an have variant spellings in Arabic? Well no duh! Give me a break.
Reply

جوري
12-08-2010, 01:05 AM
Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur
Great point Ukhti! The best they can do is find evidence at some point that Ibrahim and Qur'an have variant spellings in Arabic? Well no duh! Give me a break.

Jazaka Allah khyran.. in fact I own several copies of the Quran with old archaic manuscript and different calligraphy and can read it just the same. I would take his challenge more seriously if he actually presented evidence that proves that different spellings produced different meanings or different words.. what amazes me is after several books which he is so apt at misquoting and a 38 page spread where all his queries (which are dishonest in nature) were addressed one by one he comes on again and does the same thing over.. it makes me very angry to waste my time in such a fashion, but if you don't reply you run the risk of others of his kind believing his brand of deception.

language, poetry and calligraphy are embodied in Islamic art, it is a pinnacle of literature, beauty and pretty much the basis on which the last miracle given to mankind was based upon..






:w:
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-08-2010, 02:22 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
This just shows that you are selective in what you say and did not even state the reference. The section says on p12

"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qu'ranic fragments do not differ from those in Museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qu'ran itself, but a rather differences in the way words are spelled"

So this is not a general comment it is speaking of the Yemeni fragments which have been tentatively dated as 7/8 century (so maybe the earliest know manuscripts) but in a simple way it show that the Qu'ran is not the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God as of orthodox belief. Just as Azami does it is easy to find quotes, for example,

"The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt," says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, who is at the forefront of Koranic studies today. "Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."
you quote some Jewish prof Rippin at some obscure university in Canada (Uni of Calgary, lol), whose voice is not taken seriously by majority of oriental scholars of religious studies all across the Western academia.
Reply

جوري
12-08-2010, 02:57 AM
Originally Posted by mad_scientist
you quote some Jewish prof Rippin at some obscure university in Canada (Uni of Calgary, lol), whose voice is not taken seriously by majority of oriental scholars of religious studies all across the Western academia.
He can quote whomever he pleases and he has been known to do so and leave footers without citations that is never the problem.. the problem is he can't substantiate any of it and is so keen on consuming and wasting time and web space on utter repetitive empty drivel!

:w:
Reply

Hugo
12-12-2010, 07:41 PM
Originally Posted by mad_scientist
you quote some Jewish prof Rippin at some obscure university in Canada (Uni of Calgary, lol), whose voice is not taken seriously by majority of oriental scholars of religious studies all across the Western academia.
If you read my post I just use this as an example to show that Azami or anyone else can always find quotes that suit a particular purpose. Just look through the board and see how often the Gospel of Barnabas is quoted by Muslims who seem to be the only ones who take it seriously because one supposes it props up their case.

Even here you show your bias by saying "Jewish Professor" as if that tells us much of value about their work - I might as well discount Dr Al AZami's work by saying it is of no value as he is a Muslim - would that be acceptable to you? Have a look what http://www.campus-watch.org/recommends.php says about Professor Rippin and many others in the field of Middle East Studies or tell us how you decide who is acceptable?
Reply

Hugo
12-12-2010, 07:47 PM
Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur
Great point Ukhti! The best they can do is find evidence at some point that Ibrahim and Qur'an have variant spellings in Arabic? Well no duh! Give me a break.
Do you understand why this might be true? Well I will tell you Usman and thousands of companions of the prophet burned the very manuscripts that the prophet himself verified - why would they do that?
Reply

جوري
12-12-2010, 07:47 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Even here you show your bias by saying "Jewish Professor" as if that tells us much of value about their work - I might as well discount Dr Al AZami's work by saying it is of no value as he is a Muslim - would that be acceptable to you? Have a look what http://www.campus-watch.org/recommends.php says about Professor Rippin and many others in the field of Middle East Studies or tell us how you decide who is acceptable?

You seem to miss the point entirely. This ISN'T NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN about the credentials of a particular scholar it is about the validity of content. So how about you do just that instead of an odd list of laureates of which only you as a person seem to be impressed? I have seen you deliberately misquote scholars to serve your purpose and sadly deflect away from your own shortcomings by projecting exactly what it is you do-- Go ahead and back up what you say not by the quote of the author but by the content and cover all your basis so it is more than mere hearsay!

all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-12-2010, 07:48 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Just look through the board and see how often the Gospel of Barnabas is quoted by Muslims who seem to be the only ones who take it seriously because one supposes it props up their case.
Not all of us take that forgery seriously. I mean, for crying out loud, there were no knights in ancient Palestine. Would you like for us to list off spurious sources that Christians cite for no other reason than that it supports their views?
Reply

Hugo
12-12-2010, 07:52 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Hugo, if you wrote a letter to someone in certain parts of the U.S. where they don't use the word "catsup" and might not know it, and the person you sent it through changed the word to "ketchup" so that they would get it, would you get on their case for "altering what you'd said"?
What would they make of it if it read "ctsp" or "ktchp" as would have been the case in early Arabic? But the point that is being made that the transmission is not the perfect unchangeable text and if what is said about the Yemeni fragments is correct we have also differences in verses order. Now I don't know what is implied by what you say here but if you mean that nevertheless meaning can be preserved then I might well agree with you - is that what you mean?
Reply

Hugo
12-12-2010, 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Not all of us take that forgery seriously. I mean, for crying out loud, there were no knights in ancient Palestine. Would you like for us to list off spurious sources that Christians cite for no other reason than that it supports their views?
I am sure you are right but the point I was making is that it is all too easy for anyone of us to just look for stuff that props up our own view or as it is sometimes characterised - drawing the target after we have shot the arrow.
Reply

جوري
12-12-2010, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
What would they make of it if it read "ctsp" or "ktchp" as would have been the case in early Arabic? But the point that is being made that the transmission is not the perfect unchangeable text and if what is said about the Yemeni fragments is correct we have also differences in verses order. Now I don't know what is implied by what you say here but if you mean that nevertheless meaning can be preserved then I might well agree with you - is that what you mean?

vowels don't exist in Arabic all together thus rendering your analogy moot. You can browse any modern day Quranic script and find many verses written in the old style without tashkeel. A fragment is just that and precisely the reason why the Quran was compiled and not rendered in fragment forms. However, that which you deliberately and purposefully ignore hoping it would go away, is that the Quran has always been and will always be an oral tradition and when written down it was so done in the presence of witnesses and superimposed on the already existing Quran in Hafsah's possession!

Do you get tired of posing the same already addressed questions?
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-12-2010, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Do you get tired of posing the same already addressed questions?
Apparently not.
Reply

Hugo
12-12-2010, 08:21 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
vowels don't exist in Arabic all together thus rendering your analogy moot. You can browse any modern day Quranic script and find many verses written in the old style without tashkeel. A fragment is just that and precisely the reason why the Quran was compiled and not rendered in fragment forms. However, that which you deliberately and purposefully ignore hoping it would go away, is that the Quran has always been and will always be an oral tradition and when written down it was so done in the presence of witnesses and superimposed on the already existing Quran in Hafsah's possession!

Do you get tired of posing the same already addressed questions?
Are there vowel signs in Arabic and are they used in a modern Qu'ram? Most early Semitic languages just used consonants and the whole idea of alphabetic languages was to write the sound of the word and most sounds come from the range of consonants and recognising a word is much much easier if one uses just consonants rather than just vowels. Of course as vocabulary increases it becomes more difficult for obvious reasons and that is why one supposes diacritical marks were introduced which then makes the language more difficult to wrote down - this in fact was perhaps the major reason Arabic was replaced as the language of Science and philosophy by Latin scripts, it was just too difficult for early printing machines to cope
Reply

جوري
12-12-2010, 08:31 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Are there vowel signs in Arabic and are they used in a modern Qu'ram? Most early Semitic languages just used consonants and the whole idea of alphabetic languages was to write the sound of the word and most sounds come from the range of consonants and recognising a word is much much easier if one uses just consonants rather than just vowels. Of course as vocabulary increases it becomes more difficult for obvious reasons and that is why one supposes diacritical marks were introduced which then makes the language more difficult to wrote down - this in fact was perhaps the major reason Arabic was replaced as the language of Science and philosophy by Latin scripts, it was just too difficult for early printing machines to cope
Arabic was replaced by Latin due mostly to the invasion of the Mongols burning libraries and massive literature plus an intricate under ground water and piping system that hasn't really been recovered until the 20th c but that is no matter, for even with the unfortunate raid by the Mongols, and their corroboration with the crusaders. Islam still reigned/reigns supreme and its literature/ and collection of work very much untouched. Islam is the religion of conquered and conqueror alike as noted by the Mongol conversion to Islam and their subsequent spread of Islam to Asia. Again there are no vowels in Arabic, there are however diacritic symbol. In wiriting, those symbols are usually omitted, since the native speakers can usually guess from the context the meaning and pronunciation.

Hope that this will help you for the hundredth time around!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
12-13-2010, 04:29 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
What would they make of it if it read "ctsp" or "ktchp" as would have been the case in early Arabic? But the point that is being made that the transmission is not the perfect unchangeable text and if what is said about the Yemeni fragments is correct we have also differences in verses order. Now I don't know what is implied by what you say here but if you mean that nevertheless meaning can be preserved then I might well agree with you - is that what you mean?
And yet, yo have not been able to propose any viable explanation as to why the qur'an fully memorised by millions of muslims are exactly the same, and in sync with the written text.
Had there been very slight variations even during the prophet Muhammad SAW (when multiple people also fully memorised the Qur'an), those slight variations would have been carried on, mutiplied, and magnified throughout the centuries, resulting in muslims reciting and memorising different sets of qur'an.

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Hope that this will help you for the hundredth time around!
One would hope, but I don't think it will.
Reply

Hugo
12-16-2010, 11:03 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
And yet, yo have not been able to propose any viable explanation as to why the qur'an fully memorised by millions of muslims are exactly the same, and in sync with the written text. Had there been very slight variations even during the prophet Muhammad SAW (when multiple people also fully memorised the Qur'an), those slight variations would have been carried on, mutiplied, and magnified throughout the centuries, resulting in muslims reciting and memorising different sets of qur'an.
But if you care to read what has been said you would know that there were slight variations from the standard Cairo text you have now and the Yemeni fragments which may be the oldest known copies (70 years after Mohammed died) show this without doubt - that is the nearest textual evidence is 70 years after the supposed revelations. I don't think any sane scholar thinks otherwise or be surprised at such a circumstance and the only thing of importance is whether meaning is affected in any way. For example, modern Qu'ran's for 37:103 Say ..."both submitted their wills (became Muslims) " while the Tashkent Arabic manuscript I am told says the exact opposite - "they did not submit.." I don't find this strange or worrying and as long as one has several manuscripts the correct reading is I think easy found.
Reply

جوري
12-16-2010, 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
But if you care to read what has been said you would know that there were slight variations from the standard Cairo text you have now and the Yemeni fragments which may be the oldest known copies (70 years after Mohammed died) show this without doubt - that is the nearest textual evidence is 70 years after the supposed revelations. I don't think any sane scholar thinks otherwise or be surprised at such a circumstance and the only thing of importance is whether meaning is affected in any way. For example, modern Qu'ran's for 37:103 Say ..."both submitted their wills (became Muslims) " while the Tashkent Arabic manuscript I am told says the exact opposite - "they did not submit.." I don't find this strange or worrying and as long as one has several manuscripts the correct reading is I think easy found.
The 'Variations' are nothing more than different styles of writing.. it is called calligraphy, we have already demonstrated the difference quoting directly from the Quran. Something you are yet to do to cement your views. Again, I challenge as per your conjectures to prove what you are saying rather than simply asserting it.

all the best
Reply

Hugo
12-16-2010, 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
The 'Variations' are nothing more than different styles of writing.. it is called calligraphy, we have already demonstrated the difference quoting directly from the Quran. Something you are yet to do to cement your views. Again, I challenge as per your conjectures to prove what you are saying rather than simply asserting it.
Two questions

1. What would you accept as proof - I guess you reject the Yemeni fragments and the Tashkent manuscript so what is it that you want?

2. Is your view that the transmission of the Qu'ran was perfect in every way - that Mohammed and every companion had perfect memory, that the 60 scribes we are told wrote the messages down never made a single mistake, that when Usman made a copy it was perfect in every way and the thousands of companions who witnessed the burning of the prophets verified fragments had checked every one of them against Usmans 4 (or was it 7 copies) none of which n ow exist - where exactly do you stand?
Reply

جوري
12-17-2010, 12:32 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
Two questions

1. What would you accept as proof - I guess you reject the Yemeni fragments and the Tashkent manuscript so what is it that you want?
seeing both Arabic texts from both scrolls and examining it for myself, secondly a complete consensus from linguists, historians and theologians alike that what you conjecture has some basis in reality!

2. Is your view that the transmission of the Qu'ran was perfect in every way - that Mohammed and every companion had perfect memory, that the 60 scribes we are told wrote the messages down never made a single mistake, that when Usman made a copy it was perfect in every way and the thousands of companions who witnessed the burning of the prophets verified fragments had checked every one of them against Usmans 4 (or was it 7 copies) none of which n ow exist - where exactly do you stand?
I don't care to dignify base unfounded sarcasm with a response. See if you can fulfill the obligation as requested in my previous statement and if you have a genuine desire to understand the history and preservation of Quranic text, then we suggest you read the book in your possession without lying about content, as I again remind you that we have a copy and though sick of cleaning up after you are very capable of doing it!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
12-17-2010, 02:14 AM
For the following blah blah blah, you haven't offered yet explanation as to why and how the qur'an fully memorised by millions of muslims are exactly the same, and in sync with the written text, if indeed there were slight variations as you charged between "standard cairo text" and the yemeni fragments, as surely if there were slight variations from the very beginning, the qur'an would have mutated into countless versions throughout the centuries.
Does the word "bible" ring a bell?


Originally Posted by Hugo
But if you care to read what has been said you would know that there were slight variations from the standard Cairo text you have now and the Yemeni fragments which may be the oldest known copies (70 years after Mohammed died) show this without doubt - that is the nearest textual evidence is 70 years after the supposed revelations. I don't think any sane scholar thinks otherwise or be surprised at such a circumstance and the only thing of importance is whether meaning is affected in any way. For example, modern Qu'ran's for 37:103 Say ..."both submitted their wills (became Muslims) " while the Tashkent Arabic manuscript I am told says the exact opposite - "they did not submit.." I don't find this strange or worrying and as long as one has several manuscripts the correct reading is I think easy found.
Hugo, I have two qur'ans in my room written in two different calligraphy, one is in madinah style, the other is in south africa style. Are they the same in style and calligraphy ? no. are they the same in total pages? no.
Do they both have the exact number of surah and verses? yes.
Are the sequences exactly the same? yes
do both qur'an contain all exact verses with exact words and meanings? yes.


Now tell me, are these two following sentences the same or different:

Hugo would think these two sentences are completely different, not just in the style of letters

Hugo would think these two sentences are completely different, not just in the style of letters
Reply

Hugo
12-18-2010, 12:20 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
seeing both Arabic texts from both scrolls and examining it for myself, secondly a complete consensus from linguists, historians and theologians alike that what you conjecture has some basis in reality!

I don't care to dignify base unfounded sarcasm with a response. See if you can fulfill the obligation as requested in my previous statement and if you have a genuine desire to understand the history and preservation of Quranic text, then we suggest you read the book in your possession without lying about content, as I again remind you that we have a copy and though sick of cleaning up after you are very capable of doing it!
I asked two questions because it is obvious they are connected and necessary. If you take the view that the Qu'ran has been transmitted with a total perfection in the areas I mention in my post then all I or any one has to do is find a single imperfection and your thesis is shown to be false; if you don't take that view then I have nothing to prove do I?
Reply

Hugo
12-18-2010, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
For the following blah blah blah, you haven't offered yet explanation as to why and how the qur'an fully memorised by millions of muslims are exactly the same, and in sync with the written text, if indeed there were slight variations as you charged between "standard cairo text" and the yemeni fragments, as surely if there were slight variations from the very beginning, the qur'an would have mutated into countless versions throughout the centuries.
The explanation one supposes is that you are all now using the same text but that in no way shows that it was as you now have it from the beginning because you have no originals. Surely, it must be obvious to you that when your read about transmission that there was a huge emphasis on writing it down because it is obvious that is the only way to assure preservation so the question remains which you cannot answer is why did Usman burn all existing copies he could find and who verified his copies - why not for once answer these questions and tell us plainly if you subscribe to the view that the transmission was in every way totally perfect? THen we can move on to what is more useful and discuss what it actually says. You keep on about the Bible but can I ask have you ever read any of it for yourself? For example, if you read the Gospel of Mark in any translation can you find totally different stories or not?

Hugo, I have two qur'ans in my room written in two different calligraphy, one is in madinah style, the other is in south africa style. Are they the same in style and calligraphy ? no. are they the same in total pages? no. Do they both have the exact number of surah and verses? yes. Are the sequences exactly the same? yes. do both qur'an contain all exact verses with exact words and meanings? yes.
Fine I have no reason to doubt what you say but here you are arguing from the particular to the universal and that is fallacious logic. You are also committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent because in effect you are saying because you have two identical Qu'rans then every possible Qu'ran ever written is identical.
Reply

جوري
12-18-2010, 02:41 PM
Originally Posted by Hugo
I asked two questions because it is obvious they are connected and necessary. If you take the view that the Qu'ran has been transmitted with a total perfection in the areas I mention in my post then all I or any one has to do is find a single imperfection and your thesis is shown to be false; if you don't take that view then I have nothing to prove do I?
None of your questions are relevant, sensical or even necessary-- if you'd done the reading and proper research you'd not be asking such inane questions.
I notice that you answer no questions, and your best methodology in dealing with things that challenge your core beliefs are either to reply back with platitudes or deflect from the topic all together.. for instance, the thread is about a christian find and here you are objecting to historical finds that have to do with another religion all together with drivel that is neither historically accurate nor logically sound.

I truly pity you if this is the way you have to go through life to make belief that god is his own grandfather!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
12-19-2010, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by Hugo
The explanation one supposes is that you are all now using the same text but that in no way shows that it was as you now have it from the beginning because you have no originals.
From which text/copy?
You keep on saying things that yo have failed to back up.
You keep on throwing your baseless accusations against the authenticity, perfect transmission and veracity of the Qur'an, and we have kept refuting you each time, and then after a while you re-cycled those accusations. It is very apparent to anyone search your earlier posts in this comparative religion section and to those who are familiar with your tactic. It is very obvious that you want to divert even casual look at the state of your own scripture and that you are in so much denial about your faith and your delusions about the veracity, transmissions and authenticity of bible, and you do that by clinging to every false accusation you can google about the Qur'an.

You proposed before (a few posts earlier) that all of us in the world (more than billion muslims) now recite and memorise the qur'an based on early 1900 cairo copy, which in itself is absurd but I refuted nevertheless, and of which you then were silent about.

Now, your offer at explanation as to why all muslims memorise one exact qur'an above clearly demonstrate that you have absolute lack of knowledge about Islam and The Qur'an, because from your statement above (and the previous one about cairo copy), you seem to imply that muslims only started to read and memorise the Qur'an a century ago.

But this can't be possible, can it? because you have participated in more than a few discussions (pardon my understated phrase) about Islam and the Qur'an in this forums alone. Or... unless you never read any of those thousand posts by muslims members in response to you? So which one is it?

In summary, you have not yet offer viable explanation how/why more than a billion muslims recite the same qur'an, millions fully memorise the same qur'an, and the qur'an memorised and recited is in full sync with the written text. And this after more than 1,400 years after its revelation.



Originally Posted by Hugo
Surely, it must be obvious to you that when your read about transmission that there was a huge emphasis on writing it down because it is obvious that is the only way to assure preservation
It must be obvious to you that maybe, just maybe, after hundreds and maybe thousands of explanations of the qur'an method of preservation, one day you will finally understand.
And hopefully by then, you will also be able to understand that God cannot be human, and to worship another human as God is the biggest mistake a human can make.



Originally Posted by Hugo
why did Usman burn all existing copies he could find and who verified his copies - why not for once answer these questions and tell us plainly if you subscribe to the view that the transmission was in every way totally perfect?
Funny, I remember you asked this before (a lot more than once), and other members have answered it each time. It was not in this thread of course.
You seem to be getting very forgetful by the day. Maybe it is time for you to make a visit to a doctor?
let me remind you again a few of those:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...s-jews-17.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ds-god-17.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...s-jews-25.html

Originally Posted by Hugo
You keep on about the Bible but can I ask have you ever read any of it for yourself?
yes, I have. A couple of jehovah Witness missionaries gave a bible to me when I was studying in Australia. Unless you don't consider New World Translation as a bible?
By the way, you have not answered that also, "do you or the pope consider NWT as the bible?"


Originally Posted by Hugo
Fine I have no reason to doubt what you say but here you are arguing from the particular to the universal and that is fallacious logic. You are also committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent because in effect you are saying because you have two identical Qu'rans then every possible Qu'ran ever written is identical.
I did not say that, do not put words into my mouth, just like early gospel writers put words into Jesus pbuh mouth.
Yo are the one who need to prove that there are more than one qur'an used by muslims, because that is the heart of your every accusations.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!