Variant Korans-

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Where do you face these questions? I don't think you should be attempting to debate non-muslims on forums without having already studied Islam properly.

 

[Bittersteel]

Guess what Ansar?I don't think that and the Quran and Orientalists book can be found in Bangladesh.I checked in one shop and couldn't find it.tho I am still searching......

 

[SilentObserver]

some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text

I'm not sure why people continued in this thread to deny that there was any changes, but the proof is there. It has been changed some.
And big deal if it was changed a bit. It is to be expected that there would be some differences over such a long time of people copying it into a new book.

 

[Malaikah]

^Saying that Quran has been changed means that the copy accepted to be the official Quran was changed. But it wasn't!

Just because someone had a copy of the Quran that is different to the official doesn't mean the official is wrong. It means that the person made a mistake in his own copy (Or it could mean so many other innocent things, as details in Ansar's reply).

But the OFFICIAL one was NOT changed!

 

[SilentObserver]

^Saying that Quran has been changed means that the copy accepted to be the official Quran was changed. But it wasn't!

Just because someone had a copy of the Quran that is different to the official doesn't mean the official is wrong. It means that the person made a mistake in his own copy (Or it could mean so many other innocent things, as details in Ansar's reply).

But the OFFICIAL one was NOT changed!

So why preserve a copy with mistakes in a document grave?

 

[seeker_of_ilm]

So why preserve a copy with mistakes in a document grave?

Because in Islam we believe we must either destroy, or bury something with Quranic text, instead of merely throwing it away, where it can be disrespected, stepped on, become dirty etc...

 

[SilentObserver]

Because in Islam we believe we must either destroy, or bury something with Quranic text, instead of merely throwing it away, where it can be disrespected, stepped on, become dirty etc...

But if it was known to contain writings that were different, then it is not sacred. And why keep something that is not the 'true Quran' in the mosque? Wouldn't that be reserved for retired copies of the 'true' Quran?

 

[Malaikah]

But if it was known to contain writings that were different, then it is not sacred. And why keep something that is not the 'true Quran' in the mosque? Wouldn't that be reserved for retired copies of the 'true' Quran?

Firstly, people had written copies of the Quran before the official copy was complied into one book. These might have been written in different Arabic dialects (because not all arabs understood th dialect the Quran is written in) or they might have just been chapters from here and there but not in any particular order, written for the persons own personal reasons, with footnotes and what not. For more reasons refer to the first article in Ansars first post.

When the official copy was made, all other copies were to be destroyed, whether they contained mistakes or not, because it forced everyone to now go and get an official copy of the Quran and any mistakes that might have been in their unauthorized, personal copies would be disposed of.

Lastly, just because they contain mistakes or footnotes (which btw not all of them did because ALL copies were destroyed whether or not they matched the original), overall there were still the Quran and still had to be disposed of properly (by burning/burial/smudging the ink etc)

 

[Umar001]

I'm not sure why people continued in this thread to deny that there was any changes, but the proof is there. It has been changed some.
And big deal if it was changed a bit. It is to be expected that there would be some differences over such a long time of people copying it into a new book.

Where, sorry, I am abit slow, please point me towards it.

 

[SilentObserver]

Where, sorry, I am abit slow, please point me towards it.

In the article provided in the first post.

 

[SilentObserver]

Firstly, people had written copies of the Quran before the official copy was complied into one book. These might have been written in different Arabic dialects (because not all arabs understood th dialect the Quran is written in) or they might have just been chapters from here and there but not in any particular order, written for the persons own personal reasons, with footnotes and what not. For more reasons refer to the first article in Ansars first post.

When the official copy was made, all other copies were to be destroyed, whether they contained mistakes or not, because it forced everyone to now go and get an official copy of the Quran and any mistakes that might have been in their unauthorized, personal copies would be disposed of.

Lastly, just because they contain mistakes or footnotes (which btw not all of them did because ALL copies were destroyed whether or not they matched the original), overall there were still the Quran and still had to be disposed of properly (by burning/burial/smudging the ink etc)

Much of what is discussed here is similiar to the christian Bible. Muslims talk about different versions of the Bible, but it is different dialects only. King James version says the same thing as English Standard version, only in a different dialect. The words are different, but say exactly the same thing. I assume that is what is being said in this thread about the Quran being in different dialects as well.
So the Quran really is not immune to the same types of accusations that muslims make against the Bible.

ALL copies were destroyed whether or not they matched the original

How do you know this? Is there proof of this? A link perhaps? Thanks.

 

[Malaikah]

^You are wrong, it is NOT the same. The easiest way to prove why is that the protestants have 8 book less in their version of the bible than the catholic's do.

This does not exist in Islam. Your points are all totally invalid. Take the time to actual read Ansars posts and that should be clear.

 

[SilentObserver]

^You are wrong, it is NOT the same. The easiest way to prove why is that the protestants have 8 book less in their version of the bible than the catholic's do.

This does not exist in Islam. Your points are all totally invalid. Take the time to actual read Ansars posts and that should be clear.

I have read this thread, including Ansar's posts. Honestly, I only see excuses. Just my opinion of course. But nothing here is convincing.
An arguement can seem very convincing when you want to believe, as in the case of a muslim reading Ansar's posts. But when a person doesn't care one way or the other, as in my case, one can be objective, and not convinced.

No disrespect to Ansar, I've read many of his posts. He is a good debater. But a person can win a debate and still not be right. It just means they have excellent debate skills.

 

[lolwatever]

I have read this thread, including Ansar's posts. Honestly, I only see excuses. Just my opinion of course. But nothing here is convincing.
An arguement can seem very convincing when you want to believe, as in the case of a muslim reading Ansar's posts. But when a person doesn't care one way or the other, as in my case, one can be objective, and not convinced.

No disrespect to Ansar, I've read many of his posts. He is a good debater. But a person can win a debate and still not be right. It just means they have excellent debate skills.

but Silent, saying that doesn't make any point. or disprove anyone else's reply.

perhaps you could answer her points more methodically....

in short today you don't see Muslims reading different qurans do you? or arguing that one quran is more authentic than another... there is a consensus which is backed by verified chains of narration with regards to the quran that is unanimously agreed to.

 

[Umar001]

Much of what is discussed here is similiar to the christian Bible. Muslims talk about different versions of the Bible, but it is different dialects only. King James version says the same thing as English Standard version, only in a different dialect. The words are different, but say exactly the same thing. I assume that is what is being said in this thread about the Quran being in different dialects as well.
So the Quran really is not immune to the same types of accusations that muslims make against the Bible.

Actually you are mistaken, if I have understood your post correctly that is.

The King James Version and the English Standard versions are different not because one translates a word as 'veichle' and the other as 'donkey' or such minor details.

Rather, since I am not familier in totality with the English Standard Version, I will emphesise what the Revised Standard Version states, if you read the preface, you will see that the Revised Standard Version claims that the King James version was based upon late manuscripts and have grevious errors such as to call for revision, in my own words. We are not talking about dialect, but are talking about words which effect the meaning and are not copyst errors that have been inserted and ommited. The Manuscripts based to make the translations vary.

Even in the two above versions you have mentioned such can be evident, take a look if you may:

The King James Version, at 1 John chapter 1 verses, 6-7-8 states:

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

Whislt the English Standard Version, at 1 John chapter 1 verses, 6-7-8 states:

6This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7For there are three that testify:

8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.​

In case it was missed, the whole of verse 7 from the King James Version is ommited, i.e. this For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And in the ESV the 8th verse is split into two.

Why is this, because according to the NIV footnotes verse 7 is not found within any manuscripts before the 16th Century thus shattering it's credability.

This is a small example of curroption, now this is not something I say to 'win' a debate, or sound smart but just carrying forth what I have learnt. Thus if you want to show me how a dialect can insert a whole verse which has a fundamental role in doctrine then feel free to do so.

I also would like to thank you for pointing me towards the source and I will read it G-d willing.

Source for quotes, Bible Gateway

Eesa.

 

[brenton]

^Really well prepared response.

I think there is an analogy between the Qur'an and the Christian Bible, but it isn't "exactly the same thing."

Between ancient versions and today there are variants in both. There are translations of both. There are text critical schools in both Islam and Christian Bible scholars.

But the %/amount of variants in the Qur'an is quite small compared with the New Testament. The Sana'a scraps in Yemen are quite close to today (33AH-58AH/645-690CE). The New Testament's earliest manuscripts are 125-150 years after writing (there are some fragments earlier, about 25 years after, but very few). The insriptions at the Dome of the Rock and the fragments occur for the Qur'an within 65 years of Muhammad's death.
Even the most critical scholars of Qur'an agree that there was a Qur'an by 700CE, and many non-Muslim scholars think the Qur'an is largely what Muhammad taught. Not so the New Testament. While a number of scholars believe the New Testament was completed as the authors state and by about 95CE, critical scholars doubt 3-6 of Paul's letters--putting the Pastoral letters as late as 70-100 years after Paul--both letters of Peter, Jude and James. Acts is not viewed as accurate history, and the gospels are not viewed as apostolic (although they are really anonymous). The Qur'an is much different.
For the New Testament there are hundreds of interesting variants and dozens of significant ones. Besides spelling and grammar and the seven systems of reading Qur'an (the Qur'an critical school is more like the Hebrew Bible schools), the differences are few.

I just don't see who the New Testament & Qur'an compare. Even their composition is different: one man claiming to recite the words of God vs. dozens of men and women working with apostolic writings and oral sayings, forming them as a community into books for the community.
And the "Canon" is different. Within a generation of Muhammad, Uthman standardized the text. There has never been a total standardization of the text, and it took 3 centuries to recognize what the community saw as canonical in Christian experience.

Much different things.

 

[Umar001]

^Really well prepared response.

Praise be to The Almighty for any good, and I am very happy that you did not take offence to it.

I think there is an analogy between the Qur'an and the Christian Bible, but it isn't "exactly the same thing."

Between ancient versions and today there are variants in both. There are translations of both. There are text critical schools in both Islam and Christian Bible scholars.

Maybe you can just clarify the variants of which you speak of, and what versions also, I think that maybe the idea of variants is something I am misunderstanding.

But the %/amount of variants in the Qur'an is quite small compared with the New Testament. The Sana'a scraps in Yemen are quite close to today (33AH-58AH/645-690CE). The New Testament's earliest manuscripts are 125-150 years after writing (there are some fragments earlier, about 25 years after, but very few). The insriptions at the Dome of the Rock and the fragments occur for the Qur'an within 65 years of Muhammad's death.
Even the most critical scholars of Qur'an agree that there was a Qur'an by 700CE, and many non-Muslim scholars think the Qur'an is largely what Muhammad taught. Not so the New Testament. While a number of scholars believe the New Testament was completed as the authors state and by about 95CE, critical scholars doubt 3-6 of Paul's letters--putting the Pastoral letters as late as 70-100 years after Paul--both letters of Peter, Jude and James. Acts is not viewed as accurate history, and the gospels are not viewed as apostolic (although they are really anonymous). The Qur'an is much different.
For the New Testament there are hundreds of interesting variants and dozens of significant ones. Besides spelling and grammar and the seven systems of reading Qur'an (the Qur'an critical school is more like the Hebrew Bible schools), the differences are few.

I just don't see who the New Testament & Qur'an compare. Even their composition is different: one man claiming to recite the words of God vs. dozens of men and women working with apostolic writings and oral sayings, forming them as a community into books for the community.
And the "Canon" is different. Within a generation of Muhammad, Uthman standardized the text. There has never been a total standardization of the text, and it took 3 centuries to recognize what the community saw as canonical in Christian experience.

Much different things.

Well this is it, when one understands the difference in revelation, compilement, and preservation then one can come at a better understanding without the need to feel threatned or attack the other religion, I think it is through understanding the fundamental basis of both that one can start to analyse the text and preservation.

Thank you for your insight and I await your reply.

Regards, Eesa.

 

[brenton]

I don't know of any "versians" of Qur'an, but there are variants according to the Islamic histories I've read. I guess I don't understand your question.

 

[lolwatever]

I don't know of any "versians" of Qur'an, but there are variants according to the Islamic histories I've read. I guess I don't understand your question.

heya brenton

perhaps you're referring to the variants in recitation? yes there's 7 ways to recite the quran, and they have all been directly confirmed by the prophet.

It's not like they're 7 diff qurans (the way there's x diff bibles), but seven ways of reciting it... so the words are teh same but the vowels on a efw words are different as well as the way they're pronounced..

all the best

 

[Umar001]

I don't know of any "versians" of Qur'an, but there are variants according to the Islamic histories I've read. I guess I don't understand your question.

Between ancient versions and today there are variants in both. There are translations of both. There are text critical schools in both Islam and Christian Bible scholars.

Maybe you can just clarify the variants of which you speak of, and what versions also, I think that maybe the idea of variants is something I am misunderstanding.​

I think this is what I was saying, what I mean was that when you said, 'between ancient versions and today there are variants in both' I understood it to mean that by 'both' you meant, both The Bible and the Qu'ran.

So from there I asked what did you mean by variants in that sentance.

Sorry if I was unclear

Eesa.