Authenticity of the Qur'an

[جوري]

Re: To be trusted with unwavering certainty:

1. It is best not to substitute volume for arguments. My post was about Dr Azami and his scholarly approach or otherwise as seen in his writing. In the above he did not refer to Google or Uzzia or Gutenberg etc and I am not criticizing the Qu'ran or bible. I am simply asking you here:

we are not substituting, we have addressed each of your points head on in a proper concise manner, you should try it sometimes-- I noticed you didn't even want to touch my original reply and ran to the one I'd directed to br. Yusuf. (which was simply to clarify a sterile point you've made in your post which he replied to based entirely on your faulty interpretation of it . I obviously wanted to show him where the book speaks differently than what you allege) You disregarding my reply evinces that you have no interest in the scholarly approach to things, rather deflecting what you can't handle head on!

2. Where in the references he give to 2 Kings do we find his 'known facts'?

I have provided you with a long list of missing texts of the OT completely outside of Dr. Al-Azami's book in corroboration with his writing on the bottom fully referenced, which again is something you have refused to acknowledge or address!

3. He mentions 'OT books', does he mean all of the books, does he mean the Torah or Psalms - what is he saying and does his reference provide any useful evidence? It is his job to make it clear and he is not doing that is he. Everyone agrees there are or were other OT books because of references to them in several extant books. My point was that we have now 39 and those 39 go back a long time and what I am asking here what is Azami talking about when he says "OT books"?

Indeed the addition of 'All' is yours, you can always write the author and ask him to humor your little isolate hangups instead of speaking for him directly? especially that such a comment was made in a short preface, one isn't expected to write the entire contents of the book in his short introduction! nonetheless, I asked you a question and asking you again to exonerate the OT from such prevarications whether in part or in whole, I asked you to show me where the books were kept (if they weren't actually lost and with whom) and I thought it only fair since he does the same exact thing in reference to the Quran, and since you love splitting hairs, one can't conceive that you'd provide us with anything less than 100% integrity in your own research!
Go ahead prove him wrong.. Give me names and dates of who kept 'All' or 'Some' of the OT during the ages from its inception!

If this author cannot write with clarity then his work is suspect and wide open to all sorts of interpretation.

When you go sit for an exam and you read:

A previously healthy 37 yr old woman comes to the physician because of leg leg pain for 2 days. Medications include an OCP and Calcium supplementation. Examination of the distal left lower extremity shows a subcutaneous, palpable, hard, cord-like structure within a 6 X 1 cm, warm, erythematous area just proximal to the ankle. There are scattered varicose veins in the lower extremities. Which of the following is the most appropriate next step in management?

A. Application of warm compresses
B. Use of compression stockings
C. Oral diclox therapy
D. Oral prednisone therapy
E. Subcutaneous enoxaparin therapy


Do you then raise your hand and ask the proctor, excuse me, this question seems incomplete to me, the questioner is missing something about both her travel and smoking history, if she is having erythema then more details need to be included (a million things can cause it)
if you do then perhaps you've missed the point entirely. which I imagine as you so often do if that is how linear your thought processes!--

When any author writes to enlighten or question what you know, s/he expects you to come in with some baseline knowledge!
but as always, if you know otherwise then please show me with proper reference, although admittedly I am enjoying that you are actively exposing yourself to others--
one wonders why you don't scrutinize your orientalist Illuminati, though God knows it wouldn't be a mere splitting of hair but a blanket of nonsense to unveil, considering none of their bull could stand a chance with anyone having the most basic knowledge of islam!
Could it be that you are indeed a hypocrite? and try as you may to free yourself of bias, you are in fact a slave to it.
If you shifted gear a little you might conclude that your entire methodology and faith crumbles at the very fulcrum that it rests on!

all the best

 

[جوري]

Re: So the Qu'ran is not accurate according to Azami?

In Dr Azami's book on page xxi 3rd para he states

..the people behind the Madina Mushaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world.

So if words mean anything one supposes that there are Qu'ran's, perhaps millions of Qu'rans that are not accurate and one further supposes that it might later be possible to print an even more accurate one?

Incidentally, how does Dr Azami know it is the most accurate text in the world, has he access to some single original as well as all these supposedly inaccurate ones?

No, Only you are supposing that the others are false because oh it would be so delightful, the Medinah Mus'haf if you have bothered with a two second research you'd have come up with:

http://www.iqrashop.com/product_info.php?products_id=1806&language=en&currency=GBP

and let me quote since the page won't allow for a cut and paste:


''However, authors and publishers have not been able to include the Qur'anic verses in documents and personal writings, except in normal fonts, which lack many of the aesthetic aspects that the Uthmanic calligraphy has. This has resulted in some instances of text distortions, confusion of reading or drops of certain items.''

To expound on that you'd have to know something about rules of reading the Quran, such as the use of idgham, iqlab, ith'har' in tajweed idgham and the rest each have a subset in 7iroof matmathleen, or 7iroof motqarbeen or 7iroof mot3abadeen etc e.x can only be given in Arabic as these are rules of grammar but for those Arabic speakers interested in further investigation:

نواع ادغام

ادغام از نظر مدغم و مدغم فیه، در روایت حفص از عاصم بر سه قسم است:

ادغام متامثلین

دو حرف مثل هم (متماثل) بلا استثناء در یکدیگر ادغام می شوند و کافی است که حرف اول ساکن باشد.
مثال

قُلْ لِمَنْ
لَهُمْ مُوسَی

اِضْرِبْ بِعَصَاکَ

رَبِحَتْ تِجَارَتُهُمْ

اَوْ وَزَنُوا

یدْرِکْکُم النساء 78

ادغام متجانسین

این ادغام فقط در موارد زیر انجام می شود:

1. باء ساکن در میم مثل اِرْکَبْ مَعَنَا که در قرآن فقط همین مورد و در سوره هود علیه*السلام آمده است.
2. (ت- د- ط) دو به دو با یکدیگر. مثل

اَحَطْتُ نمل آیه 22 ادغام ناقص
هَمَّتْ طَائِفَةٌ
قَدْتبَینَ

1. (ث- ذ- ظ) دو به دو با یکدیگر. مثل

یلْهَثْ ذَلِکَ
اِذْ ظَلَمْتُمْ زخرف آیه 39
عَبَدْتَ
http://daneshnameh.roshd.ir/mavara/mavara-index.php?page=%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%BA%D8%A7%D9%85+%C2%AB%D8%AA%D8%AC%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF%C2%BB&SSOReturnPage=Check&Rand=0


this is a topic completely expansive and over your head, that I have no desire to discuss it here in any detail given your pedantry. But the parsing of letters dictates the speech and that certainly can be lost to people who don't understand the rules of grammar and thus tashkeel saves them the principal conditions behind it. They can read like the pro without being pros!




and yes of course the originals exist you can see them in the book or on line
.. one I have personally seen in Egypt.. you are simply not allowed to browse every page. You look at whatever is on display!

.

I have already gone extensively as well so did Dr. Al-Azami and actually is right on the cover of the book itself, that it doesn't matter the calligraphy, the dotting or the parsing. It is read in the exact same manner.. The recitations stylistically can differ as we have Quran Majwad, or moratal. as well we also have different styles of writing in Arabic:
riq3a, naskh, Thuluth, farsi, kufi and amazingly able to read them all just the same!
please allow me demonstrate:

la yazhal almr'r 3aliman ma talab al3ilm, fa'izha athann anaho qad 3alim faqd jahal (the above is a proverb is riq3a)

easy to read as is,

wa3ad Allah Alzheena amano wa'3amilo as'sali7at ...

this is the actual page by the way as you can see the calligrapher didn't leave meaning of the traditionally written text for me to decode it.
http://www.almajara.com/photos/details.php?image_id=833&sessionid=3a682fd0eeb63519a96b9d94d1491c2d

as well I can read this:

وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا يَغْشَى {1}
وَالنَّهَارِ إِذَا تَجَلَّى {2}
وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى {3}
إِنَّ سَعْيَكُمْ لَشَتَّى {4}
Wa'lyel izha yagh'sha, wa'nahar izha tajala, wama khlaqa Alzhakara wa'lontha, inna sa3yokoum lashata



and this

la illah illah Allah, Mohammed rasool Allah

and the more common traditional naskh

min suret al'an3am al7mdllillah alzhi khalaq as'samwat w'alard, waja3ala athulmat wa'noor.




Now you tell me honesty If there were such a thing as an 'original bible' from the mouth of Jesus in such ancient text, or different shattered handwriting, would you be able to read it as I have just done with this level of confidence and fluidity?

examples of different recitations of the same surah mortal or mojwad you'll notice the 'tempo' of the first as such the entire surah is finished in 6 minutes and read differently than the second which at 8 minutes isn't half way through.. to the ignorant they can appear very different, but to the erudite they are but different styles:

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFeMUVEGNGY[/MEDIA]
___________________________

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsVClOiWJ4&feature=related[/MEDIA]​

The Quran IS the unadulterated word of God and so it shall remain by his will!

all the best!

 

[YusufNoor]

Quote:
Originally Posted by YusufNoor View Post
if a mistake or 2, and i'm not saying that there ARE any [as i haven't read the book. if i WAS to read the book, i would focus on what the Brother has to say on the Qur'an. i have work by scholars on the Bible, and would use those for that], is enough to dismiss any author on any subject, then you would cease and desist using "orientalist" garb around here[WHY? the are not Muslims, therefore they are in error, and therefore NOTHING they say can be trusted.] one should realize that it would be difficult for any Muslim to be 100% objective is discussing the plague of variations in the NT, when that Muslims starting point was, in fact, that the scriptures are indeed corrupt. there are very few Muslim brothers whose work in that area i would pay heed.

Hugo - I think I follows what you say but you sound biased to me when you say "Orientalist garb" and I might be wrong but may I ask, are you happy to accept Dr Azami's work because it supports the Islamic view and he is well qualified but not say Professor Bernard Lewis who is equally well qualified but critical of some Islamic positions?

actually Sister Skye is having the discussion on the authenticity of the Qur'an, i was merely trying to follow the discussion. whatever she accepts is acceptable to me. i am referring to the authenticity of the Bible, which can be discussed in another thread.

i used the past tense "had access." 1000 years ago manuscripts were still done by hand, it was assumed that the most "modern" were the most correct. some would also say that until Constantine's conversion to Christianity, there were no professional scribes,ie, monks or people assigned by clergy to do the work. the result being that once pros were employed, the rate and variety of mistakes diminished. no one wanted these "older amateurish" manuscripts as it was assumed that the latest were the most scholarly. it's not like a monk in Ireland could ask another monk in Bremen to fax him a copy of a manuscript.

Hugo - yes at the time doing it by hand was the only way a copy could be made and of course it goes back perhaps 3,000 years and copying was done long before Constantine was even born. Incidentally, Dr Azami suggest there are 250,000 copies of or bits of Qu'ranic manuscripts and says there are many errors and the issue is the same - copying by hand. (see page 151) I hope to come back to what is said on page 151 later.

The point is one supposes that if you have many copies one can get back to the original and this applies to the Qu'ran and the Bible.

actually, with each and every NT you tend to get more variations. the difference between the bible and the Qur'an is that there were Hafz alive when the Prophet was alive[in fact all 4 of the rightly guided Khalifas were related by marriage to the Prophet]. there is no "break in the chain" between revelation and the "official" collection and in the "official collection" by Ziad ibn Thaabit, only Ayats written in the presence of the Prophet could be included. Thus, we have contemporaneous evidence. there is little evidence that ANY of the NT writers actually knew Jesus!

it wasn't until the advent of the printing press [with some exceptions], along with the general revulsion[if that's a word] of the Catholic Church that believers trying to determine what their faith should be [weed out all the crap that Catholicism allowed in], and were determined to return to a religion based SOLELY on Scripture that Textual Criticism came into being on a wide scale. it simply dodn't matter before that. generally speaking, the churches in the west used Jerome's Vulgate.

Hugo - this overstates the case and most of the Greek NT manuscripts and all of OT the pre-date the Vulgate by many 100s of years. The Vulgate did not just turn up' it had to have a source.

for OT, just read Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible. i would think that the Torah should be separate from the NT when discussing the "authenticity" of "the Bible." btw, name 5 complete manuscripts that predate Jerome's Vulgate.

it is NOT however "MY THREAD." i simply offered to discuss the matter if folks were interested. as this thread appears to be Skye defending Dr Azami's view of the authenticity of "the Bible," rather than the authenticity of the Qur'an, THAT thread can be used for discussions about "the Bible." it's NOT a very active thread, i'm NOT an expert on the subject, but i have [because i enjoy history] recently added items to my library that discuss the matter, and so i would be willing to [time permitting and pre-Ramadhan] offer what some experts have to say.
I note what you Christian minister said and of course every religion evolves. Islam did not arrive complete on day 1 did it and many centuries were need before it was all worked out. Some now think its a pity that evolution is now longer a feature of Islam.

reread the comment, it says;

the process by which the Bible that is in use today evolved over time

that says Bible, but yes, you are quite right that Christianity took hundreds of years to develop into it's "orthodox" form. Islam on the other hand was completed during the life of the Prophet. the Qur'an and Sunnah as understood by the 1st 3 generations of Islam IS Islam, not the whirling dervishes or even the shii'a.

i have 100% faith in Sister Skye being able to discuss the authenticity of the Qur'an.

as i have said, i am willing, if Allah gives me life and time, to discuss the authenticity of the Bible in the other thread.

:wa:

 

[Clover]

Question to anyone who is active in this topic. What exactly are you authenticating about the Quran? That it was written by God, or was made all at once, or what?

 

[جوري]

Question to anyone who is active in this topic. What exactly are you authenticating about the Quran? That it was written by God, or was made all at once, or what?

It depends on the intentions of the OP... he started attacking the authenticity of the Qur'an first by the method of its collection, disputes over recitations, philology, arrangements and readings as per his orientalists (which I have addressed in quite expansive details see especially my last post). So this is where we are currently. I can't predict how it will evolve from this point. Obviously if you wish to challenge something you have to do in layers but it would be good if you are adept at what you are doing, if on the lowest common denominator not be wasteful of everyone's time!

all the best

 

[Clover]

Well, I don't really care if its changed in the 1400 years or not. I mean, I guess it's possible for either ways. It could be not completely authentic, or it could not be. Either way, over a billion people believe it.

 

[Hugo]

^ i can understand where you're coming from hugo, but this "Some now think its a pity that evolution is now longer a feature of Islam." I don't think you understand Islam much if you can actually say things like that, no offense, but really, do give us a bit more credit.

Hugo - a bit more credit for what? But I did not say it, my post said "some now..". Having said that are you implying here that Islam has moved on, that parts of sharia can be abolished as no longer of value - ie evolve?

Christianity now has evolved beyond what it was supposed to be in the first place, or more accurately devolved seeing that it's now not very different than the pagan religions that it came to address. if that is hat evolution means, then it is good for us that we stopped evolving.

Hugo - this is just nonsense or if it is true then it's the same for Islam as you have sunni, shia, behai etc etc all 73 of them as the prophet said.

otherwise, IMHO the discussion is not really a discussion anymore, it also has devolved to little more than nitpicking beyond reason, and making nonsensical points. not that you only are to blame.

Hugo - what would a good discussion mean for you? Would you be happy for me or anyone to produce pages of evidence that shows the Qu'ran to be corrupted? You say its nit picking but so far all we have done is discuss if Dr Azami shows scholarly chrateristics - what is your objection to doing that?

"..the people behind the Madina Mushaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world.

Comment by Hugo - So if words mean anything one supposes that there are Qu'ran's, perhaps millions of Qu'rans that are not accurate and one further supposes that it might later be possible to print an even more accurate one?"

this is what i mean by nonsensical, it is well known that the Arabs at the time of the prophet were not very literate, hence when the qur'an was written, some of them made slight mistakes, these mistakes were later the reason for Uthman's order that they be burned and only the copy that the prophet had ordered written be used, not the individual copies some made for themselves, hence the references to most accurate and so on.

So are YOU saying that Dr Azami's Qu'ran publishers has access to a manuscript copy approved by the Prophet? If so one supposes that it has been available for 1,400 years so why has it taken so long to get what Dr Azami calls 'the most accurate copy in the world".

Just as a matter of logic, if all the other copies were burned then there is not a shred of evidence they were different is there and for all anyone knows Uthman's copy is a total corruption?

 

[Hugo]

i have 100% faith in Sister Skye being able to discuss the authenticity of the Qur'an.

Hugo - that is fine but does that mean the Sister Skye is Omniscient?

that says Bible, but yes, you are quite right that Christianity took hundreds of years to develop into it's "orthodox" form. Islam on the other hand was completed during the life of the Prophet. the Qur'an and Sunnah as understood by the 1st 3 generations of Islam IS Islam, not the whirling dervishes or even the shii'a.

:wa:

How long was three generations?

 

[جوري]

So are YOU saying that Dr Azami's Qu'ran publishers has access to a manuscript copy approved by the Prophet? If so one supposes that it has been available for 1,400 years so why has it taken so long to get what Dr Azami calls 'the most accurate copy in the world".

Just as a matter of logic, if all the other copies were burned then there is not a shred of evidence they were different is there and for all anyone knows Uthman's copy is a total corruption?

the answer has already been offered in this thread:

In Dr Azami's book on page xxi 3rd para he states

..the people behind the Madina Mushaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world.

So if words mean anything one supposes that there are Qu'ran's, perhaps millions of Qu'rans that are not accurate and one further supposes that it might later be possible to print an even more accurate one?

Incidentally, how does Dr Azami know it is the most accurate text in the world, has he access to some single original as well as all these supposedly inaccurate ones?

No, Only you are supposing that the others are false because oh it would be so delightful, the Medinah Mus'haf if you have bothered with a two second research you'd have come up with:

http://www.iqrashop.com/product_info.php?products_id=1806&language=en&currency=GBP

and let me quote since the page won't allow for a cut and paste:


''However, authors and publishers have not been able to include the Qur'anic verses in documents and personal writings, except in normal fonts, which lack many of the aesthetic aspects that the Uthmanic calligraphy has. This has resulted in some instances of text distortions, confusion of reading or drops of certain items.''

To expound on that you'd have to know something about rules of reading the Quran, such as the use of idgham, iqlab, ith'har' in tajweed idgham and the rest each have a subset in 7iroof matmathleen, or 7iroof motqarbeen or 7iroof mot3abadeen etc e.x can only be given in Arabic as these are rules of grammar but for those Arabic speakers interested in further investigation:

نواع ادغام

ادغام از نظر مدغم و مدغم فیه، در روایت حفص از عاصم بر سه قسم است:

ادغام متامثلین

دو حرف مثل هم (متماثل) بلا استثناء در یکدیگر ادغام می شوند و کافی است که حرف اول ساکن باشد.
مثال

قُلْ لِمَنْ
لَهُمْ مُوسَی

اِضْرِبْ بِعَصَاکَ

رَبِحَتْ تِجَارَتُهُمْ

اَوْ وَزَنُوا

یدْرِکْکُم النساء 78

ادغام متجانسین

این ادغام فقط در موارد زیر انجام می شود:

1. باء ساکن در میم مثل اِرْکَبْ مَعَنَا که در قرآن فقط همین مورد و در سوره هود علیه*السلام آمده است.
2. (ت- د- ط) دو به دو با یکدیگر. مثل

اَحَطْتُ نمل آیه 22 ادغام ناقص
هَمَّتْ طَائِفَةٌ
قَدْتبَینَ

1. (ث- ذ- ظ) دو به دو با یکدیگر. مثل

یلْهَثْ ذَلِکَ
اِذْ ظَلَمْتُمْ زخرف آیه 39
عَبَدْتَ
http://daneshnameh.roshd.ir/mavara/mavara-index.php?page=ادغام+«تجوید»&SSOReturnPage=Check&Rand=0


this is a topic completely expansive and over your head, that I have no desire to discuss it here in any detail given your pedantry. But the parsing of letters dictates the speech and that certainly can be lost to people who don't understand the rules of grammar and thus tashkeel saves them the principal conditions behind it. They can read like the pro without being pros!




and yes of course the originals exist you can see them in the book or on line
.. one I have personally seen in Egypt.. you are simply not allowed to browse every page. You look at whatever is on display!

.

I have already gone extensively as well so did Dr. Al-Azami and actually is right on the cover of the book itself, that it doesn't matter the calligraphy, the dotting or the parsing. It is read in the exact same manner.. The recitations stylistically can differ as we have Quran Majwad, or moratal. as well we also have different styles of writing in Arabic:
riq3a, naskh, Thuluth, farsi, kufi and amazingly able to read them all just the same!
please allow me demonstrate:

la yazhal almr'r 3aliman ma talab al3ilm, fa'izha athann anaho qad 3alim faqd jahal (the above is a proverb is riq3a)

easy to read as is,

wa3ad Allah Alzheena amano wa'3amilo as'sali7at ...

this is the actual page by the way as you can see the calligrapher didn't leave meaning of the traditionally written text for me to decode it.
http://www.almajara.com/photos/details.php?image_id=833&sessionid=3a682fd0eeb63519a96b9d94d1491c2d

as well I can read this:

وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا يَغْشَى {1}
وَالنَّهَارِ إِذَا تَجَلَّى {2}
وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى {3}
إِنَّ سَعْيَكُمْ لَشَتَّى {4}
Wa'lyel izha yagh'sha, wa'nahar izha tajala, wama khlaqa Alzhakara wa'lontha, inna sa3yokoum lashata



and this

la illah illah Allah, Mohammed rasool Allah

and the more common traditional naskh

min suret al'an3am al7mdllillah alzhi khalaq as'samwat w'alard, waja3ala athulmat wa'noor.




Now you tell me honesty If there were such a thing as an 'original bible' from the mouth of Jesus in such ancient text, or different shattered handwriting, would you be able to read it as I have just done with this level of confidence and fluidity?

examples of different recitations of the same surah mortal or mojwad you'll notice the 'tempo' of the first as such the entire surah is finished in 6 minutes and read differently than the second which at 8 minutes isn't half way through.. to the ignorant they can appear very different, but to the erudite they are but different styles:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFeMUVEGNGY[/media]___________________________

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsVClOiWJ4&feature=related[/media]​

The Quran IS the unadulterated word of God and so it shall remain by his will!

all the best!

if it is unsatisfactory to you then the problem really isn't a matter of logic, rather personal disposition!
copies weren't burnt rather fragments.. the original such as the one in Hafsah's possession was always in existence, every verse was written down with the presence of two witnesses and an original by folks taught by the prophet himself and who have recited at least twice to him in the year of his death!

But if you believe otherwise, then bring your evidence of otherwise!

all the best

 

[جوري]

''So Uthman sent Hafsah a message stating: send us the Suhuf so that we may make perfect copies and then return the suhuf back to you'' Hafsah sent it to Uthman who ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin zubair, Sa'id bin al-as and Abdur-rahman bin harith bin hisham to make duplicate copies. He told the three Queryshi men, ''should you disagree with Zaid ibn Thabit on any point regarding the Quran, write it in the dilaect of Querish is the Quran was revealed in their tongue'' They did so, and when they had prepared several copies'' Uthman returned the suhuf to Hafasah

Ibn Hajar, Fatul Bari, ix, hadith no. 4987; ibn abi dawud, al-Masahif, pp. 19-20; abu 'Ubaid. Fadail, P282.

 

[YusufNoor]

Re: Authenticity of the Qur'an
Quote:
Originally Posted by YusufNoor View Post
i have 100% faith in Sister Skye being able to discuss the authenticity of the Qur'an.

Hugo - that is fine but does that mean the Sister Skye is Omniscient?

no, but it might mean that you are a dipstick! IF, and i realize that it might be difficult for you, IF you can stick to the topic at hand, and if you brought 10 or 12 friends to help you, Sister Skye would have you outnumbered in both knowledge of the Qur'an as well as class.

that says Bible, but yes, you are quite right that Christianity took hundreds of years to develop into it's "orthodox" form. Islam on the other hand was completed during the life of the Prophet. the Qur'an and Sunnah as understood by the 1st 3 generations of Islam IS Islam, not the whirling dervishes or even the shii'a.

How long was three generations?

it refers to the people, not a period of time.

from Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed 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. The Verse is:

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

Abu Bakr died within 2 years of the Prophet. which day or days are you alleging that every single living Muslim at the time forgot the Qur'an AND what is your evidence?

:wa:

 

[Hugo]

I notice how when you are at a loss to defend your position against what I have written you resort to adhoms!

Hugo - I don't use ad hominem attacks but if I wished to then I am sad to say I have learned them from a master.

Nonetheless I have consistently quoted directly from the book.. It is not that difficult today, all you need is to cut down on the turgid lofty crap and replace it with something of substance. All you have managed to do is twist his words around, or leave out contents or take things out of contexts, you must realize that you come across as a complete Tartufe?!

Hugo - I have quoted Dr Azami's words and given exact references to them so that they can be examined. You are entitled to feel he is perfectly clear in what he says but I can and do take a different view. However, some readers could not even find the page when given its number and as to 'turgid lofty crap' its easy to find posts by some which are 20,000 words long and if I am abusively described as Tartuffe then perhaps you might consider taking the part of Laurent or Flipote.

Yes, discrediting the author should be allowed indeed, but it can only be done when certain conditions are met.

1- You quote properly!

Hugo - I always do AND give a full reference which you often do not. You need to understand that copying in large chunks is not good enough and it is proper to give the full ref to the primary source and that is why I rarely if ever use websites

2- you provide historical evidence to the contrary!

Hugo - that is fair up to a point but one cannot provide historical evidence as if its the only valid response to every query or criticism. For example, Dr Azami said 'OT books' and I said this was vague so his own words are all that is needed.

3 With all due respect of course, provide us with your own qualifications.. in other words, and let me use an example from above you declare 'he isn't learned in Greek or Hebrew' thus discounting anything he writes on the matter (though he himself references to western scholars on any topic regarding the previous testaments) yet by the same token you fail to do two things:

Hugo - I have stated my background in enough detail to meet the needs of this board but although I might have missed it I have seen no sign of yours? I did not write the book did I; so whether I am learned in Greek and Hebrew is not of much regard. If it is important then it may be that neither you nor I can read this book with any kind of understanding unless you are a Greek and Hebrew scholar as well as familiar with textual criticism plus being an expert in Arabic scripts and manuscript as well as philology - are you so qualified or has the book been written for the general reader??

a- when quoting an orientalist you fail to subject them to that same objections in their case for obvious reasons (for they fail to use Muslim scholars to corroborate their points)

Hugo - I am not sure what you imply here - that I must not say quote from Bernard Lewis unless a Muslim scholar corroborates his points? In that case I shall demand that whenever you quote a Muslim scholar you find an Orientalist to corroborate their points. I might also add that on a number of occasions I have quoted Muslim scholars but you without a though dismissed them and according to you all Orientalist are not worth a light - is this the pot calling the kettle black and you should acquaint yourself with the sort of fallacy that occurs when one applies double standards?

b- you fail to show your own accreditation as a scholar on the subject, and provide us with contrary evidence as to how or where he has erred!

Hugo - I have never claimed to be a scholar and it is not as far as I know a rule of this board that we must have our qualifications, if any, scrutinised and accepted before we can join in - if I am wrong then point me to the regulation and I will comply.

Hopefully now with new found clarity you realize why it is that you have no credibility none whatsoever!.. There is more to critique then putting English words together! a crying shame that I labor with such a concise long reply and this is all you can come up with!
all the best

I have made a few serious posts and they seem clear to me and I await your answers if any but if your only contribution is a continually attempt to discredit me then so be it as long as you don't go outside the norms expected in this board.

 

[Hugo]

it refers to the people, not a period of time.

Hugo - then the word 'generations' has no meaning in your original post if they all occurred at the same time. One might ask, what Sharia fully formed at the time of the prophet or did it not reach its final form until about the 10th century.

from Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed 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. The Verse is:

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

Abu Bakr died within 2 years of the Prophet. which day or days are you alleging that every single living Muslim at the time forgot the Qur'an AND what is your evidence?:wa:

It is best not to insult me by calling me a 'dipstick', all that does is show the paucity of your own arguments and implies that Muslims are spiteful and uncaring.

Interesting here that you confirm there was no collection during the time of the prophet and seem to make nonsense of other posts which say every verse was written down and confirmed by two people - but I suppose you also must know this is not the only tradition?

I don't understand your last sentence as I am not aware that I said anything about anybody or everybody forgetting but if I did please point it out to me?

 

[YusufNoor]

It is best not to insult me by calling me a 'dipstick', all that does is show the paucity of your own arguments and implies that Muslims are spiteful and uncaring.

not really, but after at time we get to see the intent of people and we end up just not caring about some people. unless you repent, your attacks on the Qur'an will put you in the hellfire. not even Jesus/Isa, Alayhe Salaam, we be able to save from it without Allah's permission

Interesting here that you confirm there was no collection during the time of the prophet and seem to make nonsense of other posts which say every verse was written down and confirmed by two people - but I suppose you also must know this is not the only tradition?

perhaps you have forgotten how to read? i'll break it down below for the hard of hearing. although we could give you a diploma in nonsense

I don't understand your last sentence as I am not aware that I said anything about anybody or everybody forgetting but if I did please point it out to me?

UNLIKE the New Testament which is mostly anonymous or psuedonymous, and therefore EXTREMELY questionable in authenticity, the Ayats of the Qur'an were collected during the life of the Prophet, contemporaneously and with witnesses. you are claiming mistakes in this process, i am asking when and where these mistakes were made.

to answer the above attack on the veracity of the Qur'an:

Interesting here that you confirm there was no collection during the time of the prophet and seem to make nonsense of other posts which say every verse was written down and confirmed by two people - but I suppose you also must know this is not the only tradition?

How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?

this is correct, the Rasulullah NEVER ordered that the Qur'an be prepared as a book! EVER! i never said that he did. in fact it would have been impracticable to do so as, for as long as Rasulullah was alive,Wahy [Revelation] could come down. placement of this Revelation would be directed by Gibreel, Alayhe Salaam, himself! Rasulullah had to die in order for Revelation to stop and for the Qur'an to be complete.

Zaid ibn Thaabit was order to:

you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book

how is it that you don't understand this? how could he search for these fragments if they didn't exist?

So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed 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

Zaid had search until he found every Ayah PREVIOUSLY written down. how again does that make nonsense of every other post?

perhaps you feel that something can only be authentic if it is written anonymously and after a generation or so? THAT would be your book, NOT ours!

:wa:

 

[جوري]

Hugo - I don't use ad hominem attacks but if I wished to then I am sad to say I have learned them from a master.

So what you are saying is, you are malleable and can't stand your ground, flounder under the slightest stress so you end up assimilating to what others' are doing rather than be assured by what you believe?

Hugo - I have quoted Dr Azami's words and given exact references to them so that they can be examined. You are entitled to feel he is perfectly clear in what he says but I can and do take a different view. However, some readers could not even find the page when given its number and as to 'turgid lofty crap' its easy to find posts by some which are 20,000 words long and if I am abusively described as Tartuffe then perhaps you might consider taking the part of Laurent or Flipote.

If it were the case then why is what I fully quote directly from the book completely at odds with what you allege?
As to not finding the page, again I question what is your excuse for not finding what is right on the cover? A post that is' 20,000 words long' should echo that one has slaved and labored to quote correctly, properly reference and took the time to respond to each comment with high fidelity. You ought to try it something in lieu of winding every thread to a place where we always have to allay your bruised ego...

Hugo - I always do AND give a full reference which you often do not. You need to understand that copying in large chunks is not good enough and it is proper to give the full ref to the primary source and that is why I rarely if every use websites

what a paradox, so which is it, do you give reference or doing so isn't good enough.. or simply the things you write are correct because you are too good to be true? You don't support anything you write and you have no scholarship in the subject you are gauging so why should anyone take anything you write with other than a grain of salt?
The previous page where I have answered you paragraph by paragraph is all my writing, except for the portion where I corroborate Dr. Al-Azami's writings as per regard to the OT using and outside source. You are yet to address it or the other about 'the best copy' shbeal!

Hugo - that is fair but one cannot provide historical evidence as if its the only valid response to every query or criticism. For example, Dr Azami said 'OT books' and I said this was vague so his own words are all that is needed.

If you can't provide evidence to the contrary, then by what audacity do you dare criticize? A critique is an appraisal based on certainty, the veracity of content in contrast to opposing or supporting evidence.

The sky is blue at 12 o'clock on a Saturday, she exclaimed -- you come and say No, it wasn't blue! with your casual assured conviction.. well do you have evidence that it was gray? or muddy with wind from the western front, white from a blizzard?... sure the possibilities are endless, but what is your evidence to corroborate what you say-- a hunch? a feeling? or is it mere dislike for the person who said thus leading you to automatically find everything objectionable?

Hugo - I have stated my background in enough detail to meet the needs of this board but although I might have missed it I have seen no sign of yours? I did not write the book did I so whether I am learned in Greek and Hebrew is not of much regard. If it is important then it may be that neither you nor I can read this book with any kind of understanding unless you are a Greek and Hebrew scholar as well as familiar with textual criticism plus being an expert in Arabic scripts and manuscript as well as philology - are you so qualified or has the book been written for the general reader??

I haven't read anything by on your background ( I think a person's background should be evinced from their writing... when critiquing another on lack of merits in said fields is it because you are better acquired with profound knowledge in said areas or simply miffed by contents that challenge the foundation of your beliefs?

when you have signed up for your class in 'textual criticisms', you must have done poorly as you are unable to substantiate why you are so irked when your overt flaws are pointed out, and enraged at best if you are questioned on whether or not you subject orientalists to those same particulars right from the preface. Given the stuff you spew here with bravado, you are lacking complete basic knowledge of the fundamentals in the subjects which you gauge, and I don't need a class in textual criticism to point it out as it is visible to the naked eye!

btw, I haven't feigned scholarship when I recommended a book (to someone other than you if I may add) but my baseline starts in a far superior place than yours as far as Islamic methodology is concerned and Arabic is my mother tongue! While on the subject, what was Jesus' mother tongue and do you speak it?

Hugo - I am not sure what you imply here - that I must not say quote from Bernard Lewis unless a Muslim scholar corroborates his points? In that case I shall demand that whenever you quote a Muslim scholar you find an Orientalist to corroborate their points. I might also add that on a number of occasions I have quoted Muslim scholars but you without a though dismissed them and according to you all Orientalist are not worth a light - is this the pot calling the kettle black and you should acquaint yourself with the sort of fallacy that occurs when one applies double standards?

It is really quite simple and I think Dr. Al-Azami sums it up best when he wrote : I will raise an analogous question: in Jewish opinion, can an anti-Semitic scholar be deemed impartial when examining Jewish documents such as the OT or the dead sea scrolls? Whatever verdict we receive in the affirmative or negative we must apply to orientalists supposed objectivity in dissecting Islam.''

on a side note you allege Islamic scholarship, yet none of the people you'd brought are recognized as such. Again, I ask do you have a different definition of 'Muslim scholar' than the rest of us .. something fundamental is missing from said title, that being a Muslim! Also writing 'The Best Arabic Lexicon' doesn't make one an expert on Islamic text, anymore than a general practitioner an expert on surgical neurology. Having an M.D or PhD next to your name grants you scholarship in the area of your studies and it doesn't extend itself outside your sphere of expertise. Furthermore I have shown where ones qualifications and even licensure in a field maybe revoked under questionable personal agenda.. although I can't see such sound judgement being applied to orientalists given that the anti-Islamic sentiment is ever en vogue and goes unquestioned!

Hugo - it is not as far as I know a rule of this board that we must have our qualifications, if any, scrutinised and accepted before we can join in - if I am wrong then point me to the regulation. One might though say that being able to write a correct sentence and spell correcty is helpful.

When you write emphatically as if 'an authority sounding figure' on the field.. be prepared to be challenged on the accuracy of that which you spew especially so when all we have to go by is your word alone!

I have a headache.. Take an aspirin (with authority) well, will the ASA. work as well for a headache caused by giant cell arteritis as it does for a cluster migraine (actually we don't treat migrains with ASA) nonetheless for the sake of argument. Hopefully you can see the absurdity as an anlogue to what you write?.. Is it simply that Aspirin has worked (for you) and thus it must for everyone else by your authority as a headache sufferer?

I have made a few serious posts and they seem clear to me and I await your answers if any but if your only contribution is a continually attempt to discredit me then so be it as long as you don't go outside the norms expected in this board.

You actually haven't made any serious posts, and all you need to do is go to the thread, 'things in Islam I am curious about' and see that you bring exactly the same agenda as that of your predecessors, if it weren't the case, then it wouldn't have taken me exactly 0.69 sec search to come up with threads where the exact same topics have been brought up and addressed nearly a hundred times over.. It doesn't matter the style you choose for yourself the content doesn't differ much from those before you and in all liklihood those to come after you.


all the best

 

[Uthman]

Members are reminded of the need to maintain the correct and proper etiquette when debating others. Forum rule #9:

Beef will not be tolerated in any forum. Differences in opinion are expected, but please debate respectfully. (Beef are comments made for the purpose of insulting somebody else with negative intent, looking for a negative reaction, or blatantly insulting somebody)
​

This isn't directed at anybody in particular.

 

[GreyKode]

'The Best Arabic Lexicon' doesn't make one an expert on Islamic text, aound

I just wanted to respond to this point cause Hugo keeps bring about the point "Oh, go look for the best arabic lexicon around and see who wrote it" in reference to the works of non-muslims and orientalists.

My response:

Arabic IS the language of Islam and the scholars like the four Imams for example were unmatched in the language, so what are you possibly claiming here?, that someone who compiled a lexicon is somehow comparable in skill to the Islamic scholars who lived and talked the language, like say ibn kathir.
Its just like saying the compiler of the oxford dictionary is like shakespeare in literary skill.

Probably whomever wrote those lexicons must have relied on Islamic literature because there aint any other arabic literature(arab chrisitian literature or jewish maybe) richer than that of the muslims.

 

[Hugo]

to answer the above attack on the veracity of the Qur'an. Hugo - I made NO attach on the Qu'ran, please do not invent falsehoods and may I respectfully suggest you read the posts to see this is correct.

Originally Posted by Hugo - It is best not to insult me by calling me a 'dipstick', all that does is show the paucity of your own arguments and implies that Muslims are spiteful and uncaring.

not really, but after at time we get to see the intent of people and we end up just not caring about some people. unless you repent, your attacks on the Qur'an will put you in the hellfire. not even Jesus/Isa, Alayhe Salaam, we be able to save from it without Allah's permission.
Hugo - as I said I have made NO attacks on the Qu'ran and may I remind you the board is open to all as long as they follow the rules. You say you know my intent but I can equally say I know yours so we get nowhere do we by being self-righteous and judgement belongs to Gods not you or me.

Posting by Hugo - Interesting here that you confirm there was no collection during the time of the prophet and seem to make nonsense of other posts which say every verse was written down and confirmed by two people - but I suppose you also must know this is not the only tradition?

perhaps you have forgotten how to read? i'll break it down below for the hard of hearing. although we could give you a diploma in nonsense.
Hugo - I think its time you read with understanding the administrator's recent post.

Original Posting By Hugo - I don't understand your last sentence as I am not aware that I said anything about anybody or everybody forgetting but if I did please point it out to me?

UNLIKE the New Testament which is mostly anonymous or psuedonymous, and therefore EXTREMELY questionable in authenticity, the Ayats of the Qur'an were collected during the life of the Prophet, contemporaneously and with witnesses. you are claiming mistakes in this process, i am asking when and where these mistakes were made. to answer the above attack on the veracity of the Qur'an:

Hugo - you are just inventing this, I did not claim there were mistakes all I did was quote what Dr Azami said about accuracy so I suggest you direct your allegation to him.

Original Posted by Hugo - Interesting here that you confirm there was no collection during the time of the prophet and seem to make nonsense of other posts which say every verse was written down and confirmed by two people - but I suppose you also must know this is not the only tradition?

this is correct, the Rasulullah NEVER ordered that the Qur'an be prepared as a book! EVER! i never said that he did. in fact it would have been impracticable to do so as, for as long as Rasulullah was alive,Wahy [Revelation] could come down. placement of this Revelation would be directed by Gibreel, Alayhe Salaam, himself! Rasulullah had to die in order for Revelation to stop and for the Qur'an to be complete.

Zaid ibn Thaabit was order to: you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book. how is it that you don't understand this? how could he search for these fragments if they didn't exist?

Hugo - I know this tradition very well as well as a many others. But here you make logical nonsense. If the verses were all written down with such care why did he have to search at all? How do we know he found all the fragments? Why was the Qu'ran is such disarray, how did he know a fragments was a genuine one and so on. Because you do not read these traditions with care I think you are just creating a minefield for ridicule.

So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed 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

Zaid had search until he found every Ayah PREVIOUSLY written down. how again does that make nonsense of every other post?

Hugo - but how did he know he had every one? It make nonsense because other posts speak of verses being written down and verified by two people and that sounds like great care was taken but what you say looks like lets hope for the best.

perhaps you feel that something can only be authentic if it is written anonymously and after a generation or so? THAT would be your book, NOT ours!

So far in my post I have not brought up the question of authenticity and my posts on Dr Azami's book are about his qualities as a careful scholar.

Let me ask you a question then as per your last sentence - who was the author of the Qu'ran and can you authenticate this person as the one who penned those pages, can you trace the writings back to him or her?

 

[Hugo]

I just wanted to respond to this point cause Hugo keeps bring about the point "Oh, go look for the best arabic lexicon around and see who wrote it" in reference to the works of non-muslims and Orientalist. My response:

Arabic IS the language of Islam and the scholars like the four Imams for example were unmatched in the language, so what are you possibly claiming here?, that someone who compiled a lexicon is somehow comparable in skill to the Islamic scholars who lived and talked the language, like say ibn kathir.
Its just like saying the compiler of the oxford dictionary is like shakespeare in literary skill.

Probably whomever wrote those lexicons must have relied on Islamic literature because there aint any other arabic literature(arab chrisitian literature or jewish maybe) richer than that of the muslims.

I think it helps if you read what was posted and its context. The lexicon in question is one by Lane and it is the very best there is and no scholar of Arabic or Islam would be without it's 8 volumes. My point was that it is simply foolish to suggest that only Islamic literature is of value.

You say about great Islamic scholars but we don't have any lexicons from them do we as far as I know. The Arabic we are talking about is as it was spoken and written 1,400 years ago. It follows that to understand it you have to tune in to the use of the language back then.

So Lane when he compiled his lexicon would have looked at every bit of Arabic literature he could find (including non-Islamic sources such as Poetry of which there was a good deal) of whatever kind to see how a word was used and hence define its meaning. If you look at the lexicon it not only gives the meaning but also examples from the literature of the time. The Arabic of the Qu'ran was just ordinary everyday Arabic of the time otherwise no one could have understood it. So to understand it now we need lexicons.

 

[GreyKode]

The lexicon in question is one by Lane and it is the very best there is and no scholar of Arabic or Islam would be without it's 8 volumes.

You have such audacity to make such claims....!!
Do you think any of the Islamic scholars really use laine's lexicon, are you kidding or something? Is it being taught in Al - azhar or anywhere else, do you think they don't have better sources?
They have been taught by people who were taught by people who did talk and live the language.
Did Ibn kathir and the likes need laine's lexicon in writing his tafseer?
Does Imam al sha'rawi use this lexicon in writing his tafaseer?
What in the world are you talking about?

[/QUOTE]

My point was that it is simply foolish to suggest that only Islamic literature is of value.

Like i said there are hardly any other pieces of ancient arabic literature that are non-Islamic, and if you think about it, it makes sense, in egypt where I live, the christian egyptians are for some reason very fond of the coptic culture and language, even their priests they are not well versed in classical arabic, in fact they hate it, and this is a well known fact, unlike the muslims Imams who or sheikhs who always speak it on radio programs, juma'a prayers etc etc.

You say about great Islamic scholars but we don't have any lexicons from them do we as far as I know. The Arabic we are talking about is as it was spoken and written 1,400 years ago. It follows that to understand it you have to tune in to the use of the language back then.

You keep saying we???, Maybe you need the it when you wanna read something in arabic, but most of us arabs don't.
Doesn't ever occur to your mind that people learn things orally from their teachers, in fact when it comes to language it is more effective
Again, you keep lying to yourself and make it seem like the arabic of the Qur'an is a dead language, but like I said previously, in all our congregational prayers, radio programs, etc etc, the imams, sheikhs speak that very same language, or almost it to be fair.