Authenticity of the Qur'an

[Hugo]

Go to the index of The History of The Quranic text, page 367. and follow it down to Metzger, Bruce M., 151
to put it in plain English, you mentioned this guy as having been misquoted or misrepresented in some form, which you failed to expound on as pertains to Dr. Al-Azami. I went to the index to see where Dr. Al'Azami made the error.. I found this fellow's name mentioned with two others and nothing in the following text pertinent to S's or O's in fact I have gone so far above as to write out the paragraph subsequent to their name mention.. either way I am still not sure even if he really did make a mistake, where it is, as you deliberately choose ambiguity and throw in random terminology from which the reader is to decipher what s/he may.. try to walk in the light Hugo.. one thing to be astray and another thing to lead the herd astray with you simply because you are banking on their ignorance of a topic where your own knowledge is quite superficial!

I don't want distillate if we are discussing issues of this caliber I'd like the finite details as per al-azami's book.. and you are welcome to walk free from it as well, as stated above, this is and has been a complete waste as you enjoy going thoroughly on tangentiality if not actual circumstantiality. It doesn't take a scholar to understand the text.. all one really needs is to sit down and actually read!all the best!

I don't quite understand why you are having such difficulty and I wonder if you actually read my post with any kind of care and instead shot off to indexes and page 151 and all over the place so perhaps you should take your own advice. If it is my fault here is my post again with details as exact as I can make them. I assume you have access to the copies quoted below.

I have looked at Dr Al-Azmai's book and it is well produced and referenced and his Islamic and other qualifications are impeccable. According to Dr Azami the book is 1/3 about the Bible and 2/3 about the Qu'ran (page xv first para) so the title is a little misleading. His premise seems to be that Qu'ran is authentic because the Bible is not. But let me give one example just from the preface and perhaps someone can shed light on it.

Bottom few lines of Page xvi and top few lines of page xvii where either his bias causes him to loses his objectivity or he is simply a bit careless but either way he is very selective (tendentious?) in his words.

He quotes Bruce Metzger (see footnote 5 mentioned in line 2 of page xvii) who was (he died a few years ago) a distinguished New Testament scholar and here Azami tries to show that the Gospels are a 10th century creation for he (Azami) writes in line 1 and 2 of page xvii

.. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...

but Metzger states within a section in his book that lists the important witnesses to the text of the New Testament and this manuscript goes by the designation "S" for reference purposes amongst Scholars.

This is one of the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel; a colophon states that is was written by a monk named Michael .....

One has to wonder why in his text Azami leaves out the critical word "one" and neither does he tell us that a colophon was involved. Frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT texts are 10th century or later and one wonders what he understood by the words "were written" and is he trying to imply that the monk wrote the Gospels whereas the colophon inclusion makes it clear that what is meant here by written is copied?

Refs:
Al-Azamiv, M. M., (2003), The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, ISBN 1-872531-65-2
Metzger, B. M., (1968), The Text of the New Testament, OUP, ISBN
(note Dr Azami quotes from Metzger's 3rd edition but the second is more readily available and the pages in question are identical)

 

[جوري]

I don't quite understand why you are having such difficulty and I wonder if you actually read my post with any kind of care and instead shot off to indexes and page 151 and all over the place so perhaps you should take your own advice. If it is my fault here is my post again with details as exact as I can make them. I assume you have access to the copies quoted below.

I can't make sense at all of your points if any in fact exist. I have no idea what the significance of S as pertains to the preface of the book, and it really doesn't matter as I'll write out the details of the text and then we can see who is exactly misleading and mislead!

I have looked at Dr Al-Azmai's book and it is well produced and referenced and his Islamic and other qualifications are impeccable. According to Dr Azami the book is 1/3 about the Bible and 2/3 about the Qu'ran (page xv first para) so the title is a little misleading. His premise seems to be that Qu'ran is authentic because the Bible is not. But let me give one example just from the preface and perhaps someone can shed light on it.

firstly, I can find no page XV? The book starts VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIXII, XIII, XIV, preface, then XVI, XVII,XVIII, XIX,XX, XXI then XXII then chapter one. leading me to believe that the 1/3 2/3 are your desired rendition that you desperately wish to be included so you can find fault where none exists .. where in the book does his premise stand out that the Quran is authentic because the bible is not? I'd really love to see that-- The book goes into great details about the history and compilation of the Quran completely separate from the other counter parts, if anything the book is meticulous detail as to where orientalists fail to subject the NT, OT to the same scrutiny and that neither book would stand a chance.

Now for me, the failure of the NT is in its basic core tenet not in the process of its transmission of compilation which in fact leaves little to be desired all on its own, but the man/god impregnating a woman with himself, praying to himself, forsaking himself, ineffectual at best and completely counter intuitive and you'll find that, that is what throws most people off not simply whether it was written by a disciple of Jesus or not (which obviously it wasn't) . One doesn't need to read the bible or scrutnaize it for such a conclusion. It fails on its own merits. If I don't accept that 1+1+1 =1 then nothing else built on that faulty premise will stand even if there is slight truth infiltrating it. please try again with more thought this time!

Also I still I can't figure out why you are so riled up that he discuses orientalists and NT,OT in there?.. is it because there is truth about said books and said orientalists that you have no desire to see? It is quite easy to know what the book is about anyone can see above
A History of The Qur'anic Text from Revelation to compilation then directly beneath it A comparative Study with the Old and New Testament. It says it right on the cover there is nothing misleading about what you'd have to embark on. Which actually leaves me to a loss as to why you keep mentioning this point over and over, it isn't like you had to leaf through it to be surprised by content.. the cover is above for all to see!

Bottom few lines of Page xvi and top few lines of page xvii where either his bias causes him to loses his objectivity or he is simply a bit careless but either way he is very selective (tendentious?) in his words.

Not at all, it is very well referenced, until you show us otherwise:

and pls allow me to quote the bottom of XVI

Judaism and Christianity are undoubtedly religions in history, but where the doubt does arise is on the authorship of the OT. The answer can't be established. The OT was initially considered a work of revelation, but was later deemed a work of Moses; the latest theory is that multiple sources (extending over approximately one thousand years) contributed to authorship of the five books of Moses 8 (Muslims believe that the Torah and Zabur were revealed and subsequently lost of corrupted. A very small percentage of the current OT may contain the original revelation , but it is scattered throughout the text. Recognizing it is difficult, the only criterion is that it must agree with the teachings of the Qur'an and sunnah) Who were these shadow writers, how honest and accurate were they? How reliable their knowledge of the incidents? and how did their knowledge eventually reach us? The only known facts are that OT books appeared on the scene only to disappear promptly for a few hundred years, before abruptly resurfacing See Kings 14-16. Again they appeared without a trace for many centuries.

Now notice that that is the last paragraph on said page.. you should have actually referenced us to the first paragraph which states.
The earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel were written c. The The 10th century C.E. 5 According to B.M Metzger, ''.......one of the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gospels...... was written by a monk named Micheal in the year of the world 6457 (=A.D 949). It is now in the Vatican library (no. 354)'' [ the The Text if the New Testament: Its transmission, Corruption, Restoration, 3rd enlarged edition, Oxford Univ. Press, 1992, P 56. For more details see this work PP 285-6

He quotes Bruce Metzger (see footnote 5 mentioned in line 2 of page xvii) who was (he died a few years ago) a distinguished New Testament scholar and here Azami tries to show that the Gospels are a 10th century creation for he (Azami) writes in line 1 and 2 of page xvii

see previous paragraph which I have quoted in full about the work of mitzger

.. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...

but Metzger states within a section in his book that lists the important witnesses to the text of the New Testament and this manuscript goes by the designation "S" for reference purposes amongst Scholars.

How do the witnesses designated as 'S' change the fact of the matter on the earliest dated and properly referenced The Text if the New Testament: Its transmission, Corruption, Resotration, 3rd enlarged edition, Oxford Univ.?
do folks make a habit of writing about all sections of another book in the preface, or do you mean that mitzger contradicted himself in later chapters let's have a look at the protracted details referenced to us by Dr. Al. Azami in relation to Mitzger pp 285
entitled Variant readings in the NT

Greek handwriting in antiquity consisted of two styles. The first was cursive written rapidly and used for everyday affairs, the second more formal called unical

there is then a figure 17.1 entitled
example of Greek unical script. Note that the text lacks dividers between adjacent words. Source: mitzger, The text of the NT, P 10
In time the Unical script began to deteriorate, necessitating a script writing reform during the 9th C C.E The resulting style was labeled minuscule 32 ibid, p 9. There are approximately 2800 fragmentary pieces of the NT written in minuscule, and about one tenth as many in unical, but if we limit ourselves to manuscripts containing the entire NT then the number plummets dramatically etc etc he goes on then to show variant readings and scribal alterations. with original reproduction figures, almost making your objections petty in comparison for even if I am to take what you say at face value, I'd not think differently after seeing all these discrepancies.. and you end up clutching on to a straw and gasping for air!

This is one of the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel; a colophon states that is was written by a monk named Michael .....

Again, it seems to me like you are splitting hairs, is the info included above not in fact found to a T in properly referenced The Text if the New Testament: Its transmission, Corruption, Restoration, 3rd enlarged edition, Oxford Univ.?

One has to wonder why in his text Azami leaves out the critical word "one" and neither does he tell us that a colophon was involved. Frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT texts are 10th century or later and one wonders what he understood by the words "were written" and is he trying to imply that the monk wrote the Gospels whereas the colophon inclusion makes it clear that what is meant here by written is copied?

I don't see the significance of either (see above comments) since in this preface the NT isn't the subject matter of interest and if we continue to read on from where I have left off:

This discrepancy in the attitudes toward the Qur'an on the one hand and the OT and NT on the other, must be addressed if we are to fully assess the Qur'an's integrity.
The established practice since the dawn of Islamic literary history was that any religious text (hadith, tafsir, fiqh) etc had to be transmitted by those who had learned the work directly from its authors, they in turn teaching it to the next generation. Full records of these transmissions were kept etc etc etc.
​

Plain and simple in this preface whether we are to include your hangups over the mystery 'S' or 'one' it wouldn't change anything on bit, the preface is plainly trying to establish a full historical account of transmission of important religious text from its inception, which is in fact not the case for either of the two previous out of admission of western scholars not Muslim ones.

Refs:
Al-Azamiv, M. M., (2003), The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, ISBN 1-872531-65-2
Metzger, B. M., (1968), The Text of the New Testament, OUP, ISBN
(note Dr Azami quotes from Metzger's 3rd edition but the second is more readily available and the pages in question are identical)

I'd recommend folks stick with the third edition since later editions usually include more info.

all the best

 

[Hugo]

I can't make sense at all of your points if any in fact exist. I have no idea what the significance of S as pertains to the preface of the book, and it really doesn't matter as I'll write out the details of the text and then we can see who is exactly misleading and mislead!

firstly, I can find no page XV? The book starts VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIXII, XIII, XIV, preface, then XVI, XVII,XVIII, XIX,XX, XXI then XXII then chapter one.

I am not sure we can have a meaningful discussion if you cannot even find the pages although I am puzzled why your are finding such a simple task so hard to do. So

1. Are you using ISBN 1-872531-65-2, just in case there is an American edition?

2. Secondly although I am giving page numbers they are NOT always printed in the book so one has to use simple logic, common sense to see what is going on. I have NO idea why publishers do this but some pages don't have printed numbers but that is the way it is.

So IF you look at the first page of the preface you will see it has NO page number but the previous and subsequent ones do. Therefore it is obvious that the first page of the preface is in fact page xv, indeed if you look in the contents list on page vii it tells you plainly the preface starts on page xv.

3. Did you not wonder why this book, any book would appear to start at page 6 (vi). Did you not notice that no page number is printed on the first page of chapter 1 yet a page number for it is in the content list?

 

[جوري]

I am not sure we can have a meaningful discussion if you cannot even find the pages although I am puzzled why your are finding such a simple task so hard to do. So

1. Are you using ISBN 1-872531-65-2, just in case there is an American edition?

You are right, there is no meaningful discussion if you desire to be deceptive. I have listed the paged exactly as in the book and no such page where the author alleges 1/3 Quran 2/3 bible with the integrity of the Quran resting on the errors of the bible exists exists!
There is only one version of the book as far as I am concerned since it is written in the British style, I conclude that the version I have is the only vrsion there is!

2. Secondly although I am giving page numbers they are NOT always printed in the book so one has to use simple logic, common sense to see what is going on. I have NO idea why publishers do this but some pages don't have printed numbers but that is the way it is.

You have given me letters and I have indeed followed them they've excluded the page of your rendering. I have started from the cover and worked my way to first chapter. Again no such nonsense as you've concluded exists therein! Do you wish to invent your own addendum to be included because the content is such a truthful slap in the face?

So IF you look at the first page of the preface you will see it has NO page number but the previous and subsequent ones do. Therefore it is obvious that the first page of the preface is in fact page xv, indeed if you look in the contents list on page vii it tells you plainly the preface starts on page xv.

The preface has no number and not particularly ironic states something entirely different to what you allege:
It states: The reader may be puzzled as to why 1/3 of the material in this book tackles the OT and the NT on that alone I have concluded that your previous 1/3 Quran 2/3 bible is a concoction of your desires. Quite the opposite in fact, he also goes on to tell us
The idea of authoring a book about the preservation of the Quran, about its collection and immaculate preservation, had long germinated my mind and approximately three and a half years ago I finally began working on this book along side another entitled Islamic studies: What methodology? It was journalist Toby Lester's article in the Atlantic Monthly (jan 1999) however and the chaos it had the potential to sow amongst Muslims, which prompted a greater concentration on this work. His article suggested that Muslims, despite believing the Quran as the unadulterated Book of Allah, were thoroughly incapable of defending their views in a scholarly fashion.. The gauntlet was thrown and I felt it necessary to take on this challenge and explain the stringent methodology used by early Muslim scholars in accepting a text as genuine or rejecting it as fake. This has lead to the unavoidable repetition of some material in both books. As most of the scholars that lester quotes are either jews or Christians. I also considered it fitting to cover the histories of the old and New testament by way of comparison.
I think his intentions are quite defined and no where in those words have I read 2/3 OT/NT or that the veracity of the Quran rests on the falsehood of the bible.. it is but an excellent side by side comparison and a direct result to an blatant offense, which he accepted and challenged in return!

3. Did you not wonder why this book, any book would appear to start at page 6 (vi)?

No, I didn't wonder, I don't like to waste my time on semantics and useless extraneous details that have no bearing on the subject matter.. Are you simply hoping you'd tire me out?
Why don't you try to walk in the light and quote correctly and not ad lib with little or no preparation or forethought, as I have already shown you that I have the book and even though it has been a while since I have read it, I still have an idea of the material therein, and your desired rendition of what it is about is very deviated from what it actually is about!


all the best

 

[جوري]

BTW as an addendum to the above and refresher.. does everyone else see:
A comparative study with the old and New testament right on the cover?

he has already listed the reasons for writing the book, so I really don't want hammered in over and over this moot point:

Originally Posted by Hugo (Authenticity of the Qur'an)
-- According to Dr Azami the book is 2/3 about the Bible and 1/3 about the Qu'ran so the title is a little misleading. His premise seems to be that Qu'ran is authentic because the Bible is not. But let me give one example just from the preface and perhaps someone can shed light on it.

It is neither the premise, nor the subject matter.. Dr. Al-Azami not only cleared and dispelled myths about the Quran and the orientalist accusations he faced, accepted and challenged back. Which should only be applauded not rendered into a different definition of a staunch orientalist sympathizer's choosing...

on a side note: I'd also like to recommend his book
On Sachacht's Origins of Muhammdan Jurisprudence!

 

[Hugo]

You are right, there is no meaningful discussion if you desire to be deceptive etc etc all the best

Sadly I conclude it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion with you about Dr Azami's book because either you are simply unable to deal with it rationally at an intellectual level or your aim is entirely destructive. Your typically vindictive words were well described by Prophet David when he said in Psalm 31 : “Let their lying lips be silenced, for with pride and contempt they speak arrogantly with disdain and contempt."

Firstly, for example you stated “you have given me letters... I have started from the cover and worked my way to first chapter. Again no such nonsense as you've concluded exists therein” and I can find no page XV? The book starts VI, VII, .. XXII then chapter one.”

Who rationally would regard Roman numeral as letters and any one can see the first 22 pages of the book are numbered using Roman numerals starting at i and ending at xxii with no missing pages. From what you say it is only possible to conclude that you have never heard of Roman numerals and have no understanding of publishing conventions either.

Secondly, I asked as way of helping you find relevant pages “Did you not wonder why this book, any book would appear to start at page 6 (vi) or why the first page of chapter 1 had no page number?” You said “No, I didn't wonder, I don't like to waste my time on semantics and useless extraneous details that have no bearing on the subject matter. Are you simply hoping you'd tire me out?” Thus showing you have zero interest in exact referencing because you don’t seem to know what page numbers are and that may explain why you cannot find them and that implies you cannot even read a content list or an index.

What am I to conclude about your capacity therefore to deal with the substantive elements of this discussion?

 

[جوري]

Sadly I conclude it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion with you about Dr Azami's book because either you are simply unable to deal with it rationally at an intellectual level or your aim is entirely destructive. Your typically vindictive words were well described by Prophet David when he said in Psalm 31 : “Let their lying lips be silenced, for with pride and contempt they speak arrogantly with disdain and contempt."

You'd rather cohere to ridiculous hangups as far as pithy sayings go and I know you appreciate good ones as you so often resort when at a loss for ammo, if you can't dazzle them with science or in this case well researched work baffle them with bull ****!

Though speaking of Arrogance, I much rather prefer the Noble Quran chapter 35:

43 their arrogant behaviour on earth, and their devising of evil [arguments against God's messages].33 Yet [in the end,] such evil scheming will engulf none but its authors; and can they expect anything but [to be made to go] the way of those [sinners] of olden times?34 Thus [it is]: no change wilt thou ever find in God's way; yea, no deviation wilt thou ever find in God's way!

44 Have they never journeyed about the earth and beheld what happened in the end to those [deniers of the truth] who lived before their time and were [so much] greater than they in power? And [do they not see that the will of] God can never be foiled by anything whatever in the heavens or on earth, since, verily, He is all-knowing, infinite in His power?

45 Now if God were to take men [at once] to task for whatever [wrong] they commit [on earth], He would not leave a single living creature upon its surface. However, He grants them respite for a term set [by Him]:35 but when their term comes to an end - then, verily, [they come to know that] God sees all that is in the hearts of His servants.
_____________________________

Again and for the third time.. it would do you better to walk in the light, especially when dealing with holy text than go for the tool around filling pages on end with mindless drivel!

Firstly, for example you stated “you have given me letters... I have started from the cover and worked my way to first chapter. Again no such nonsense as you've concluded exists therein” and I can find no page XV? The book starts VI, VII, .. XXII then chapter one.”

Who rationally would regard Roman numeral as letters and any one can see the first 22 pages of the book are numbered using Roman numerals starting at i and ending at xxii with no missing pages. From what you say it is only possible to conclude that you have never heard of Roman numerals and have no understanding of publishing conventions either.

ah forgive me indeed, is it almost as absurd as spending a paragraph writing about Roman numerals on a thread entitled 'Authenticity of the Qur'an'?

Secondly, I asked as way of helping you find relevant pages “Did you not wonder why this book, any book would appear to start at page 6 (vi) or why the first page of chapter 1 had no page number?” You said “No, I didn't wonder, I don't like to waste my time on semantics and useless extraneous details that have no bearing on the subject matter. Are you simply hoping you'd tire me out?” Thus showing you have zero interest in exact referencing because you don’t seem to know what page numbers are and that may explain why you cannot find them and that implies you cannot even read a content list or an index.

Again that must be it. It is after all me who is making side notes for the author rather than quoting him (as I in fact have done on every thread) I keep wondering how many more pages of this thread you wish to derange on furnishings for support rather than cut the crap? You can't simply say read the first paragraph below the preface, because well, that would just be too simple and paint a clear picture that what you wrote and what is actually written are at odds? in such a case you'd not be able to spend an entire page alleging how you can't engage in a meaningful dialogue; And if you can't do that, then what is left of ammo when the book has dealt with all your misconceptions and misgivings head on?!

What am I to conclude about your capacity therefore to deal with the substantive elements of this discussion?

You've already concluded a few pages back and we'd have been better off ceasing then as you seem to have alot of free time and delusions of grandeur on your hands, and for a reason unbeknown to me you need to ensnare the whole in equal erroneous beliefs along with your person.. nonetheless I think the culmination of this thread was summed up perfectly on this post:

Originally Posted by Hugo (Authenticity of the Qur'an)
-- According to Dr Azami the book is 2/3 about the Bible and 1/3 about the Qu'ran so the title is a little misleading. His premise seems to be that Qu'ran is authentic because the Bible is not. But let me give one example just from the preface and perhaps someone can shed light on it.

It is neither the premise, nor the subject matter.. Dr. Al-Azami not only cleared and dispelled myths about the Quran and the orientalist accusations he faced, accepted and challenged back. Which should only be applauded not rendered into a different definition of a staunch orientalist sympathizer's choosing...

If I am at a loss with a page number that doesn't exist (where you could have simply stated, read the first paragraph in preface.. what is your excuse for missing what is right on the cover?

all the best of course!

 

[Zafran]

Is the Quran Perfectly Preserved - Zawadi vs. Qureshi - 01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWK1xv0Bt-A&feature=channel_page

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQJwGK0vKfA&feature=channel

he doesnt care about all this -

 

[Hugo]

Can this book be trusted?

I will try again to introduce some thoughts on the book: Al-Azamiv, M. M., (2003), The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, ISBN 1-872531-65-2

I will begin with some points from the preface. Although he does not state it with any clarity one supposes that Dr Azami theorises about the authenticity of the Qu'ran and then in this book sets out to prove that theory. However, his method looks a little odd in that he, as far as I can see sets out to show that Qu'ran as authentic and at the same time that the Bible is not and that is not a coherent strategy.

One has to ask what purpose it has to do this? It is obvious that whether the Bible is authentic or not has no bearing on whether the Qu'ran is? For example, one could show from manuscript evidence that Moby Dick was indeed written by Herman Melville but that would have no bearing whatever as to whether Tom Sawyer was written by Mark Twain. So what is Dr Azami's purpose?

One might compare transmission of the Bible and Qu'ran and that might give confidence in one or the other but not of itself proof. However, this will only work if one accepts that:

1. the transmission in both cases is sufficiently similar and this might be true except that the manuscript evidence for the Bible is huge by comparison to that for the Qu'ran

2. that Dr Azami has the required knowledge and whilst his Islamic knowledge is I assume of the best his Biblical knowledge is not. As far as I can tell he has no qualifications in Greek or Hebrew or in assessing Biblical Manuscripts or philology.

3. that Dr Azami starts out in an unbiased manner. It is understood that none of us is without bias but what I mean here is that in such an undertaking; if it is to be scholarly you must be well aware of your own bias and as best you can set it to one side. That is one tries as best one can to forget you are Christian or Muslim otherwise its all to easy to start seeing the data as you would like it to be not as it actually is.​

My view is based on the preface (I will deal with other chapters later) is that Dr Azami falls short in terms of scholarship and objectivity. I will give just one example. Bottom of Page xvii Dr Azami says "The only known facts are that the OT books appeared on the scene only to disappear promptly for a few hundred years, before abruptly resurfacing. Again they disappeared without trace for many centuries, and were once again suddenly recovered."

Ignoring the impossibility of these being the 'only' known facts and the oddness of the second sentence, Dr Azami at this point gives a ref to 2 Kings 14-16. This is not a clear way to give a Biblical ref but let us assume he meant chapters 14 to 16 (which he refers to later in the book).

One supposes that these chapters would confirm his 'known facts', why else would he give them? The chapters lists the names together with a tiny biography of Kings for the two Jewish kingdoms: Israel and Judah spanning about 200 years. In this list of kings There is one ref to the Torah in 2 Kings 14:6 and a very oblique one in verse 14 to the temple being robbed (where a copy was kept) and several refs to the Book of The Chronicles of the Kings.

Hardly conclusive is it and one has to guess that Dr Azami's argument is that the Torah was mentioned by an early King, there was only one copy in the temple, it was stolen and it is not mentioned again in the list of kings so it disappeared for about 200 years. If you find that convincing then you will believe anything.

Secondly, the OT has 24 books in the Hebrew Bible but it can be divided in a slightly different way and we arrive at the usual number of 39 books. So Dr Azami is saying here that all 39 books disappeared and then miraculously all 39 reappeared and this happened twice. Next the temple chamber only contained the Torah, 5 books not 39 and finally these 39 books were not written all at the same time but span about 600 years.​

It is therefore abundantly clear that Dr Azami is letting his feelings about the Bible destroy his objectivity and his writing at least in this section is far from the scholarly tradition of exactitude and lucidity and indeed looks like total ignorance.

I might end by saying that I am not considering or questioning here the authenticity of the Qu'ran or Bible. But what I am doing is questioning DR Azami even handed research abilities.

 

[جوري]

To be trusted with unwavering certainty:

I will try again to introduce some thoughts on the book: Al-Azamiv, M. M., (2003), The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, ISBN 1-872531-65-2

I will begin with some points from the preface. Although he does not state it with any clarity one supposes that Dr Azami theorises about the authenticity of the Qu'ran and then in this book sets out to prove that theory. However, his method looks a little odd in that he, as far as I can see sets out to show that Qu'ran as authentic and at the same time that the Bible is not and that is not a coherent strategy.

In the preface Dr. Al.Azami writes:

The idea of authoring a book about the preservation of the Quran, about its collection and immaculate preservation, had long germinated my mind and approximately three and a half years ago I finally began working on this book along side another entitled Islamic studies: What methodology? It was journalist Toby Lester's article in the Atlantic Monthly (jan 1999) however and the chaos it had the potential to sow amongst Muslims, which prompted a greater concentration on this work. His article suggested that Muslims, despite believing the Quran as the unadulterated Book of Allah, were thoroughly incapable of defending their views in a scholarly fashion.. The gauntlet was thrown and I felt it necessary to take on this challenge and explain the stringent methodology used by early Muslim scholars in accepting a text as genuine or rejecting it as fake. This has lead to the unavoidable repetition of some material in both books. As most of the scholars that lester quotes are either jews or Christians. I also considered it fitting to cover the histories of the old and New testament by way of comparison.

I am not certain what is 'odd' about his method at all perhaps you'd like to expound on that perplexing testimony?
The book from the cover states ' a History of Qur'anic text' from revelation to compilation, a comparative study with the old and New testament!
How many titles can one fit on one cover? The book does exactly what it says. It isn't a book about the contents of the bible or the Torah or the Qur'an, certainly there are many references to those, but it isn't the books focus...
If you went out to purchase a book on molecular biology but ended up with a book on genetics, is the author of the book to be faulted or you for failure to distinguish subject matters?

One has to ask what purpose it has to do this? It is obvious that whether the Bible is authentic or not has no bearing on whether the Qu'ran is? For example, one could show from manuscript evidence that Moby Dick was indeed written by Herman Melville but that would have no bearing whatever as to whether Tom Sawyer was written by Mark Twain. So what is Dr Azami's purpose?

The book never alleged that its veracity rests on the falsity of the bible, I challenge you to show me such a conclusion in the book... this is one of numerous times you introduce this to the topic, it is very faulty (see above paragraph) the book deals with exactly what it states on the cover the compilation of the Quran compared to the compilation of previous testaments. Which is in fact what he was challenged to do and he so wrote in his preface!
This is but mere contrast in which the previous scriptures fail miserably!

One might compare transmission of the Bible and Qu'ran and that might give confidence in one or the other but not of itself proof. However, this will only work if one accepts that:

Proof of what exactly? the book deals with the painstaking task of preservation and compilation of both texts, not the contents of each. Nonetheless, the contents of both texts should stand on their own accord. and certainly the veracity therein, depends on how adulterated and abridged the content.. You have focused this thread on different 'scholars' alleging different reading, the use of dots deranging the readings, the different calligraphy or dialects affecting the Quran, yet failed to provide us with the different readings and how it could have manged to be deranged in such a short period of time or where such variations exist..Now, you'd rather abandon that to pursue a different topic all together or introduce a subject that isn't the focus of the book as right from the cover the book manifests what it is set out to do?

1. the transmission in both cases is sufficiently similar and this might be true except that the manuscript evidence for the Bible is huge by comparison to that for the Qu'ran

Allow me first to comment on size, not that it has bearing here (considering) that the Jews don't consider there to be an NT to their OT as you desire for us to believe, and well your christian forefathers saw fit to abrogate most of God's commandments from the old testament that it is a wonder at all that you should include them together.. nonetheless you have 260 chapters in the bible totaling 7958 verse
http://www.deafmissions.com/tally/bkchptrvrs.html

whereas the Quran has nearly 6679 verses and 114 chapters...
now because of the richness of the Arabic language, a verse such as in sure an'nazi3at: chapter 79
وَالنَّازِعَاتِ غَرْقًا {1


we see that two words translate here to 8 in
[ ASAD] CONSIDER those [stars] that rise only to set,1
or 13
[SIZE=-1][Yusufali 79:1] By the (angels) who tear out (the souls of the wicked) with violence;[/SIZE]
or 7 in pickthal
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 79:1] By those who drag forth to destruction[/SIZE]

none of them able to quite capture the meaning in Arabic, yet the Arabic remains unadulterated and the Quran ever transcendent-- if we are going by sheer volume and not content then the translation of the Qur'an would prove quite expansive..

.. Now, Imagine you then the actual words of Jesus, of whom no one actually knew in which language he communicated Since jesus spoke with a Galilean dialect of Chaldaic (J.J.Scaliger); Syriac (claude Saumaise); the dialect of Onkelos and Johnathan (Brian Walton); Greek (vossius); Hebrew (Delitzsch and Resch); Aramiac (Meyer), and even Latin. (Inchofer, for ''the Lord Cannot have used any other language upon earth, since this is the language of the saints in heaven'')
Schweitzer, PP 271, 275

but, we are not even disputing the spoken language here even we are at a loss as to authors. and what are we asked here? to take this book (the bible) in lieu of the Quran as a book of guidance with all its very questionable history and even more questionable content which no christian can quite articulate without lacking orderly continuity and logical relations (as per concept of trinity) which is extrmely counter intuitive and contrary to all that was presented by all the previous messangers!

Now with all that, I personally wouldn't make the bible and the Quran at all a subject of comparison. Since the Quran is the word of God, while the bible is random works of unknown scribes, altered and beaten and interpreted a thousand times over.. if anything at all, we may compare the bible to the hadith and yet even the hadith has proper Isnad and methodology that one can't find to hold true at all for the bible (the Isnad in Hadith is dealt with in Dr. Al-Azami's book pages 172-7)
To compare in such a case would rather be in the profound impact it had on its adherents. When Muslims followed their book of guidance, they lived in the age of enlightenment when they forgo for secularism (well current state speaks volume) let's compare that with the book of Guidance in Christianity when followed by its adherents, we had the darkest period of history known as the dark ages, and it wasn't until Christianity was abandoned for secularism that the west began the turn around. but that is a digression which I felt should be included as to veracity.. for certainly Allah swt so tells us:

2 :249 ------[SIZE=-1] How many a little company hath overcome a mighty host by Allah's leave! Allah is with the steadfast.[/SIZE]

Let's focus our attention to one area out of many where there is a great variance enough to sow seeds of doubt to the most devout christian.
on the transmission alone of the new testament Al-Azami writes"
Not a single book from the NT has survived in the original author's handwriting, the closest thing being a fragment dated c. 100-115 and containing six verses of John 18 (footnote) Here I must interject that this date is pure guesswork, a subjective enterprise that can occasionally run with a marginal difference of decades to centuries. Among the earliest Greek manuscript of the N.T to actually bear a date is one written in the year of the world 6457 (i.e 949. C.E) Vatican library No. 345. Notice that the the manuscript does not contain any christian date, because the Anno Domini 'year of the Lord' calendar system had yet to be invented. See also this work pp 238-39, where Leningrad Codex mentions a slew of dates, none of them christian. This reveals that until the 11th C C.E (if not beyond) no christian calendar system existed or at least was not in use]

Copies of the various books from the NT were made extensively throughout the first several centuries, generally by non-professionals who rarely checked for errors afterward. There was little incentive to check them anyway: almost all christians during the first century expected the impending return of christ, and likely never realized that they were preserving a text for the distant future (footnote ibid p.6) after a while in circulation the texts no longer bore resemblance to the works which had been originally authored, so that any scribe duplicating a parchment with great fidelity was not necessarily creating an accurate reproduction of the original 29
additionally ''the early christians didn't necessarily treat the NT text as sacred text''21

then goes on to describe different reading, the Alexandarian text, the western text with its numerous interpolations, the caesarean text a compromise between the previous two, the Byzantium text then Dates of Recension.

Please under what light exactly is Quranic text to be compared to the alterations, modifications of the NT?

2. that Dr Azami has the required knowledge and whilst his Islamic knowledge is I assume of the best his Biblical knowledge is not. As far as I can tell he has no qualifications in Greek or Hebrew or in assessing Biblical Manuscripts or philology.

For starters I question your own knowledge of Greek or Hebrew? for in order for your critique with scholarly adpetness and not come across superficially read you must sustain your statements by showing contradiction of what he wrote to other existing truth.. Dr. Al-Azami's knowledge is best evaluated by the quality of his work, not a deranged personal opinion, the fact that unlike western orientalists who suffice it to say have no knowledge of Arabic, let alone the Quran or Islamic history feel free to disseminate completely erroneous information as facts and have it peddled and believed is not at all the case of Dr. Al-Azami, who used original photographs used with permission and quotes directly western scholars and adds his own comments to such scholars in the footnotes, should be the actual testament on how acquired he is in other texts!

3. that Dr Azami starts out in an unbiased manner. It is understood that none of us is without bias but what I mean here is that in such an undertaking; if it is to be scholarly you must be well aware of your own bias and as best you can set it to one side. That is one tries as best one can to forget you are Christian or Muslim otherwise its all to easy to start seeing the data as you would like it to be not as it actually is.

An approach that you indeed need to adopt in your approach before preaching and expecting it of others-- as it stands now your own biases aren't only blinding you to ancillary topics but you can't sustain your own point of view in comparison to what he has written!
​

My view is based on the preface (I will deal with other chapters later) is that Dr Azami falls short in terms of scholarship and objectivity. I will give just one example. Bottom of Page xvii Dr Azami says "The only known facts are that the OT books appeared on the scene only to disappear promptly for a few hundred years, before abruptly resurfacing. Again they disappeared without trace for many centuries, and were once again suddenly recovered."

Which part of that isn't factual when he in fact doesn't write it out of personal fancy but recorded history!
pls see below for a table of properly referenced missing texts from the OT!

Ignoring the impossibility of these being the 'only' known facts and the oddness of the second sentence, Dr Azami at this point gives a ref to 2 Kings 14-16. This is not a clear way to give a Biblical ref but let us assume he meant chapters 14 to 16 (which he refers to later in the book).

One supposes that these chapters would confirm his 'known facts', why else would he give them? The chapters lists the names together with a tiny biography of Kings for the two Jewish kingdoms: Israel and Judah spanning about 200 years. In this list of kings There is one ref to the Torah in 2 Kings 14:6 and a very oblique one in verse 14 to the temple being robbed (where a copy was kept) and several refs to the Book of The Chronicles of the Kings.

I am at a loss at to why this is a difficult point -- you may actually use google the search feature and you'll get youtube vids by Jews speaking of the law of Moses being lost-- is it a matter of reference of vexation of bringing such a known point to the light?

The logical thing you can do in said case if you believe otherwise is provide evidence to the contrary? Dr. Al-Azami in this book in fact into quite the details of the names of those who held early manuscripts of the Quran, the hafiths, and the transmitters and from whose original copies, who had what and who was killed for what and where it was dissminated, how about instead of criticizing where there are no real perceived flaws to the rest of us, you do exactly what he has done for the OT, show us the not so lost books where they were kept, who had copies, the names of those who held copies. If it is merely disbelief, then you should replace it with factual evidence, not mere expression of dismay!

Hardly conclusive is it and one has to guess that Dr Azami's argument is that the Torah was mentioned by an early King, there was only one copy in the temple, it was stolen and it is not mentioned again in the list of kings so it disappeared for about 200 years. If you find that convincing then you will believe anything.

see above reply, you have a very superficial understanding as obviously one needs to draw on a great fund of knowledge which you don't have or simply desire to be cryptic and not introduce other relevant information? .. the book expects that you come in with some basic knowledge of biblical stories and an understanding of availability of ink and paper millenniums ago.. (anyone for a date of the date of Gutenberg's printing press?) One needs a little abstract thought and a scientific approach to the subject, not merely concede to emotionality!

Secondly, the OT has 24 books in the Hebrew Bible but it can be divided in a slightly different way and we arrive at the usual number of 39 books. So Dr Azami is saying here that all 39 books disappeared and then miraculously all 39 reappeared and this happened twice. Next the temple chamber only contained the Torah, 5 books not 39 and finally these 39 books were not written all at the same time but span about 600 years.

Please reference me to exactly where he wrote miraculously ALL 39 books disappeared then re-appeared as well do me the kind pleasure of pointing where they were preserved meanwhile i.e the names of their preservers (it is only fair since he does go into that detail with the Islamic text) if we are to have integrity in the side by side comparison.. before re-discovery whether by prophet Uzair or some other method ... you'll forgive me of course, not only do you have a habit of insetting text and your desired conclusions, leading me to refuse to take what you write at face value, and I have consistently exposed you to the readers here!

nonetheless, please allow me to corroborate the writing of Dr. Al-Azami with one of many sources on the web:
Missing books of the OT:

1. The Book of the Wars of the Lord(Sepher Milkhamot Adonai)​

“Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, “Waheb in Suphah, And the wadis of the Arnon,” (Numbers 21:14)​

Timothy R. Ashley says:​

“14-15 A citation from a source called the Book of Wars of Yahweh supports the claim made in v. 13. The exact nature of this work is “unknown”, since the only fragment of it is the poetry cited in vv. 14-15, unless the poem in vv. 17-18a is also from it. The title of the work suggests that it contained songs celebrating Yahweh’s victories against his enemies.” [1]​

Matthew Henry says:​

“we are not particularly told, but are referred to the book of the wars of the Lord, perhaps that book which was begun with the history of the war with the Amalekites, Ex. 17:14. Write it (said God) for a memorial in a book” [2] (emphasis added)​

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary says:​

“book of the wars of the Lord–A fragment or passage is here quoted from a poem or history of the wars of the Israelites, principally with a view to decide the position of Arnon.” [3]​

John Gill’s Exposition on the Bible:​

“Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord,…. A history of wars in former times” [4]​

The author of Izhar Al-Haq quotes the commentators Henry and Scott:​

“Presumably this book was written by Moses for the guidance of Joshua and described the demacration of the land of Moab.” [5]​

2.The Book of Jasher(Sepher Ha Yashar)​

“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:13)​

“and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.”(2 Samuel 1:18)​

Gnana Robinson comments on 2 Samuel 1:18,​

” “It is written in the Book of Jashar,” literally “the Book of the Upright”. Another poetical piece attributed to the book of this name is Josh. 10:12-14.” Similar literary collections of various sorts seem to have been circulating among the people (e.g. the Book of the Wars of Yahweh, Num. 2:14); this shows that the collection of poems was made well before Samuel was edited and written.” [6]​

Rev. Prof. Herbert G. May remarks,​

“The Deuteronomist makes the poem the words of Joshua, but the poem itself is non-committal as to the speaker. The Book of Jasher is also quoted in 2 Sam. 1:18, and in the LXX of 1 Kg. 8:53. It was apparently a collection of poems. Compare the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14).” [7]​

Concerning Joshua 10:13 Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary says:​

“The passage, which is parenthetical, contains a poetical description of the victory which was miraculously gained by the help of God, and forms an extract from “the book of Jasher,” that is, “the upright”–an anthology, or collection of national songs, in honor of renowned and eminently pious heroes.” [8]​

John Gill’s Exposition on 2nd Samuel 1:18:​

“behold, it is written in book of Jasher); which the Targum calls the book of the law; and Jarchi and Ben Gersom restrain it to the book of Genesis, the book of the upright, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and suppose respect is had to the prophecy concerning Judah, Genesis 49:8, but Kimchi, extending it to all the five books of Moses, adds his blessing, in Deuteronomy 33:7. In the Arabic version it is explained of the book of Samuel, interpreted the book of songs, as if it was a collection of songs; which favours the above sense. Jerom {s} interprets it of the same book, the book of the righteous prophets, Samuel, Gad, and Nathan…” [9] (emphasis added)​

Lost proverbs of Solomon​

“He also spoke 3,000 proverbs, and his songs were 1,005.”(1 Kings 4:32)​

John Gill’s Exposition:​

“And he spake three thousand proverbs,…. Wise sayings, short and pithy sentences, instructive in morality and civil life; these were not written as the book of Proverbs, but spoken only, and were taken from his lips, and spread by those that heard them for the use of others, but in process of time were lost…” [10] (emphasis added)​

On the verse the Methodist theologian Adam Clarke explains:​

“He spake three thousand proverbs] The book of Proverbs, attributed to Solomon, contain only about nine hundred or nine hundred and twenty-three distinct proverbs; and if we grant with some that the first nine chapters are not the work of Solomon, then all that can be attributed to him is only about six hundred and fifty.​

Of all his one thousand and five songs or poems we have only one, the book of Canticles, remaining, unless we include Psalm cxxvii. 1-5, Except the Lord build the house, &c., which in the title is said to be by or for him, though it appears more properly to be a psalm of direction, left him by his father David, relative to the building of the temple. “
He laments in his notes on verse 33:
“O, how must the heart of Tournefort, Ray, Linne, Buffon, Cuvier, Swammerdam, Blosch, and other naturalists, be wrung, to know that these works of Solomon are all and for ever lost! What light should we have thrown on the animal and vegetable kingdoms, had these works been preserved! ” [11] (emphasis added)

The Books of Samuel the Seer, the Prophet Nathan and Gad the Seer​

“Now the acts of king David first and last are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer:” (1 Chronicles 29:29)​

All of the books mentioned in the verse have all DISAPPEARED.​

Adam Clarke says,​

” The acts of David-first and last] Those which concerned him in private life, as well as those which grew out of his regal government. All these were written by three eminent men, personally acquainted with him through the principal part of his life; these were Samuel and Gad the seers, and Nathan the prophet. These writings are all lost, except the particulars interspersed in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, none of which are the records mentioned here.” [12]​

The Book of Isaiah the Prophet​

This is yet another book which is totally LOST. It so happens that it was written by the major Old Testament prophet, Isaiah.​

“Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first to last, the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz, has written.” (2 Chronicles 26:22)​

Adam Clark says,​

“The rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet-write.] This work, however, is totally lost; for we have not any history of this king in the writings of Isaiah. He is barely mentioned, Isa. i. 1; vi. 1. ” [13] (emphasis added)​

John Gill says,​

“Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last,…. What were done by him, both in the beginning and latter end of his reign:​

did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write: not in his own prophecy, but in the history of his own times, which was usual for every prophet to write, though now lost, see 2 Kings 15:6.” [14] (emphasis added)​

References:​

[1] Timothy R. Ashley. The Book of Numbers. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 411​

[2] www.ewordtoday.com/comments/numbers/mh/numbers21.htm / www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.iv.xxii.html​

[3] www.ewordtoday.com/comments/numbers/jfb/numbers21.htm​

[4] www.ewordtoday.com/comments/numbers/gill/numbers21.htm​

[5] Izhar Al- Haq. p. 166​

[6] Gnana Robinson. 1 & 2 Samuel, Internationl Theological Commentary(1993). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and The Handsel Press Limited. p. 157​

[7] H. G. May. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Joshua(1962). Routledge. p. 297​

[8] www.ewordtoday.com/comments/joshua/jfb/joshua10.htm​

[9] www.ewordtoday.com/comments/2samuel/gill/2samuel1.htm​

[10] www.ewordtoday.com/comments/1kings/gill/1kings4.htm​

[11] www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1kin4.htm​

[12]http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1chr29.htm​

[13] www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke2chr26.htm​

[14] www.ewordtoday.com/comments/2chronicles/gill/2chronicles26.htm​

​

It is therefore abundantly clear that Dr Azami is letting his feelings about the Bible destroy his objectivity and his writing at least in this section is far from the scholarly tradition of exactitude and lucidity and indeed looks like total ignorance.

I might end by saying that I am not considering or questioning here the authenticity of the Qu'ran or Bible. But what I am doing is questioning DR Azami even handed research abilities.

In conclusions I'd say that your ending statement is a clear penetrative perception of your own psyche, feelings and your own approach to this book. You can barely get past the preface i.e a short introduction without creating a problem where none in fact exists! I am utterly baffled at your ability to generate so much bull out of short premise!

nonetheless, the reason I have taken the time to reply is to hopefully spark interests of others in spite of your incessant attempts I certainly hope those with a discerning eye and reflective mind from the few snippets I presented in an overt and inconspicuous style see just how well researched and presented this book and go purchase their own copies.

I know that it is not easy when a book challenges the very fulcrum of your beliefs and the same of which you were trusting as errors in others to be quite substantial and apparent in your own and thus in lieu of being perceptive would rather resort to red herrings as above or circumstantial ad hom about his scholarship but the majority in this case will hopefully appreciate that the sense of wonder is the basis for all knowledge


Let's close on a verse from the Noble Quran:

5:8 0 YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever stead fast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone19 lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do.

 

[YusufNoor]

I have looked at Dr Al-Azmai's book and it is well produced and referenced and his Islamic and other qualifications are impeccable. According to Dr Azami the book is 1/3 about the Bible and 2/3 about the Qu'ran (page xv first para) so the title is a little misleading. His premise seems to be that Qu'ran is authentic because the Bible is not. But let me give one example just from the preface and perhaps someone can shed light on it.

Bottom few lines of Page xvi and top few lines of page xvii where either his bias causes him to loses his objectivity or he is simply a bit careless but either way he is very selective (tendentious?) in his words.

hmmm. as THIS thread is about the Authenticity of the Qur'an, lets see if YOU can be objective

He quotes Bruce Metzger (
.. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...

just a random comment here, it MAY be that the author is implying that the BEST available texts that WESTERN Europeans were using for "FRESH" translations, along with the Vulgate come from about the 10th Century. older ones DO exists, but no one had access to them. therefore most English translations are STILL based on those texts, iirc

This is one of the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel; a colophon states that is was written by a monk named Michael .....

One has to wonder why in his text Azami leaves out the critical word "one" and neither does he tell us that a colophon was involved. Frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT texts are 10th century or later and one wonders what he understood by the words "were written" and is he trying to imply that the monk wrote the Gospels whereas the colophon inclusion makes it clear that what is meant here by written is copied?

if everyone agrees that Dr Al-Azmai's book and it is well produced and referenced and his Islamic and other qualifications are impeccable, why don't we use them in discussing "the authenticity of the Qur'an?"

if anyone wants to delve into Textual Criticism of the Bible, i'd be happy to discuss this with what time restraints i have IN THE PROPER THREAD, In Sha'a Allah. i'm no expert, but i might be able to give some opinions of scholars on a few matters.

:wa:

 

[جوري]

just a random comment here, it MAY be that the author is implying that the BEST available texts that WESTERN Europeans were using for "FRESH" translations, along with the Vulgate come from about the 10th Century. older ones DO exists, but no one had access to them. therefore most English translations are STILL based on those texts, iirc

:wa:

I should forewarn you that the fellow Hugo makes up contents to the book as he desires.. in fact this is excerpted directly from the book:

Not a single book from the NT has survived in the original author's handwriting, the closest thing being a fragment dated c. 100-115 and containing six verses of John 18 (footnote) Here I must interject that this date is pure guesswork, a subjective enterprise that can occasionally run with a marginal difference of decades to centuries. Among the earliest Greek manuscript of the N.T to actually bear a date is one written in the year of the world 6457 (i.e 949. C.E) Vatican library No. 345. Notice that the the manuscript does not contain any christian date, because the Anno Domini 'year of the Lord' calendar system had yet to be invented. See also this work pp 238-39, where Leningrad Codex mentions a slew of dates, none of them christian. This reveals that until the 11th C C.E (if not beyond) no christian calendar system existed or at least was not in use]


he is just selectively, adding and parsing ad lib using adjectives, adverbs and pronouns to create the desired effect, which is obviously to discredit the author, for when you discredit the author, why should you bother reading the book.

He pursues vacuous attempts to paint the Quran and the bible in the same light in terms of transmission, or will come up with something like the author is pursuing this because the Quran's integrity rests on the falsity of the bible, and if that doesn't stand a chance then he'll figure something like volume or mass of empty contents, and when that doesn't work he'll figure out some other inane route to go on and turn the thread into 57 pages where he will discuss everything from roman numberals to the effects of orange juice on penmanship.. but nothing of substance!

It is all about a descent to word play and how he can use them to create a desired end, not an actual interest in textual integrity and content and side by side comparison.. really makes it belaboring to even attempt a response!

 

[Hugo]

if everyone agrees that Dr Al-Azmai's book and it is well produced and referenced and his Islamic and other qualifications are impeccable, why don't we use them in discussing "the authenticity of the Qur'an?"

by Hugo - I have looked at Dr Al-Azmai's book and it is well produced and referenced and his Islamic and other qualifications are impeccable. According to Dr Azami the book is 1/3 about the Bible and 2/3 about the Qu'ran (page xv first para) so the title is a little misleading. His premise seems to be that Qu'ran is authentic because the Bible is not. But let me give one example just from the preface and perhaps someone can shed light on it.

Bottom few lines of Page xvi and top few lines of page xvii where either his bias causes him to loses his objectivity or he is simply a bit careless but either way he is very selective (tendentious?) in his words.

hmmm. as THIS thread is about the Authenticity of the Qur'an, lets see if YOU can be objective

Comment by Hugo - yes a very good idea but you seem to be totally missing the point. It is a long book and at this stage I am being totally objective by asking is Dr Azami's book likely to be value in that he shows himself to be scholarly in all he does. This is a perfectly logical position to take because unless it is true the book is not to be trusted. My view is that he does not show these qualities.

By Hugo - He quotes Bruce Metzger .. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...

just a random comment here, it MAY be that the author is implying that the BEST available texts that WESTERN Europeans were using for "FRESH" translations, along with the Vulgate come from about the 10th Century. older ones DO exists, but no one had access to them. therefore most English translations are STILL based on those texts, iirc

Comment Hugo - Metzger's book lists 100s of NT manuscripts. It is logical nonsense to say "older ones DO exists, but no one had access to them".
if anyone wants to delve into Textual Criticism of the Bible, i'd be happy to discuss this with what time restraints i have IN THE PROPER THREAD, In Sha'a Allah. i'm no expert, but i might be able to give some opinions of scholars on a few matters. :wa:

Perhaps you would give the full ref to your thread so it can be followed.

 

[Hugo]

I should forewarn you that the fellow Hugo makes up contents to the book as he desires.. in fact this is excerpted directly from the book:

Not a single book from the NT has survived in the original author's handwriting, the closest thing being a fragment dated c. 100-115 and containing six verses of John 18 (footnote) Here I must interject that this date is pure guesswork, a subjective enterprise that can occasionally run with a marginal difference of decades to centuries. Among the earliest Greek manuscript of the N.T to actually bear a date is one written in the year of the world 6457 (i.e 949. C.E) Vatican library No. 345. Notice that the the manuscript does not contain any christian date, because the Anno Domini 'year of the Lord' calendar system had yet to be invented. See also this work pp 238-39, where Leningrad Codex mentions a slew of dates, none of them christian. This reveals that until the 11th C C.E (if not beyond) no christian calendar system existed or at least was not in use]

he is just selectively, adding and parsing ad lib using adjectives, adverbs and pronouns to create the desired effect, which is obviously to discredit the author, for when you discredit the author, why should you bother reading the book.

He pursues vacuous attempts to paint the Quran and the bible in the same light in terms of transmission, or will come up with something like the author is pursuing this because the Quran's integrity rests on the falsity of the bible, and if that doesn't stand a chance then he'll figure something like volume or mass of empty contents, and when that doesn't work he'll figure out some other inane route to go on and turn the thread into 57 pages where he will discuss everything from roman numberals to the effects of orange juice on penmanship.. but nothing of substance!

It is all about a descent to word play and how he can use them to create a desired end, not an actual interest in textual integrity and content and side by side comparison.. really makes it belaboring to even attempt a response!

1. It is a simple lie that I invent and if there is any invention it is down to you. If you cannot enter the discussion without invective, innuendo and false accusations then I suggest you keep your thoughts to yourself.

I have high regard for both the Qu'ran and the Bible and any book that claims to speak with authority on them must be rigorously tested else it can and will do more harm that good. In fact if you had read Azami's book with any care you will see that he was prompted to write it because he found fault with another publication. I have been as exact as I can be but you even here cannot give a proper references to the quotation you made from Azami's book.

2. You say I am trying to discredit the author - is that not allowed, is Dr Azami automatically someone who cannot be tried and tested, must we just accept his words, all of them without comment or criticisms? If Azami is to be discredited its not my words that do it but his own.

 

[Hugo]

Re: To be trusted with unwavering certainty:

My view is based on the preface (I will deal with other chapters later) is that Dr Azami falls short in terms of scholarship and objectivity. I will give just one example. Bottom of Page xvii Dr Azami says "The only known facts are that the OT books appeared on the scene only to disappear promptly for a few hundred years, before abruptly resurfacing. Again they disappeared without trace for many centuries, and were once again suddenly recovered."

Ignoring the impossibility of these being the 'only' known facts and the oddness of the second sentence, Dr Azami at this point gives a ref to 2 Kings 14-16. This is not a clear way to give a Biblical ref but let us assume he meant chapters 14 to 16 (which he refers to later in the book).

One supposes that these chapters would confirm his 'known facts', why else would he give them? The chapters lists the names together with a tiny biography of Kings for the two Jewish kingdoms: Israel and Judah spanning about 200 years. In this list of kings There is one ref to the Torah in 2 Kings 14:6 and a very oblique one in verse 14 to the temple being robbed (where a copy was kept) and several refs to the Book of The Chronicles of the Kings.

Hardly conclusive is it and one has to guess that Dr Azami's argument is that the Torah was mentioned by an early King, there was only one copy in the temple, it was stolen and it is not mentioned again in the list of kings so it disappeared for about 200 years. If you find that convincing then you will believe anything.

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:

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

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"?

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

 

[Hugo]

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?

 

[YusufNoor]

Comment by Hugo - yes a very good idea but you seem to be totally missing the point. It is a long book and at this stage I am being totally objective by asking is Dr Azami's book likely to be value in that he shows himself to be scholarly in all he does. This is a perfectly logical position to take because unless it is true the book is not to be trusted. My view is that he does not show these qualities.

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.

Comment Hugo - Metzger's book lists 100s of NT manuscripts. It is logical nonsense to say "older ones DO exists, but no one had access to them".

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.

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.

Perhaps you would give the full ref to your thread so it can be followed.

Bible authenticity and transmission,fully detailed argument is the title, i bumped it last night.

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 list a few references from that thread here:

i actually dabble "in the study of" the study of historical criticism and textual criticism. i doubt a post or two could explain it to anyone.

let me paraphrase Bart Ehrman, of the 5,700 Greek manuscripts that we now have, NO TWO are alike! HOWEVER [according to Ehrman] the VAST MAJORITY of the differences [and there are more differences than there are words in the NT!] are spelling errors and word placement in the Greek, which according to Ehrman CANNOT be replicated in English. there ARE differences that affect what a text might mean, but it would be better to stick to what is generally believed by those that do study the field.

now, Professor Luke Timothy Johnson is also highly aware of textual and historical criticism. UNLIKE Ehrman, Professor Johnson's faith is not diminished by this, at least he says as much. the belief is that [and i'm paraphrasing] we still understand the [original] Message in spite of all of the complications. Ehrman would retort that it is impossible to to know what the original message was if you don't know what the original words were!

surprisingly, [and i haven't read Jesus Interrupted yet, but i am reading Misquoting Jesus and iv'e either watched or listened to all but one of Ehrmans lecture sets from the Teaching Company (found here http://www.teach12.com/storex/professor.aspx?ID=150 )] i prefer the approach of Professor Johnson WHEN EXPLAINING just what textual criticism is. (his set is here http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDe....aspx?cid=6252 ) so let me ask:

just what is textual criticism and how did it come about and why should a Christian OR ANYONE care?

i am also half way through a series of lectures on Byzantium and one byproduct is that the "evolution of Christianity" is one of it's central issues.

quoting a Christian minister in another thread:

I too am well aware of the process by which the Bible that is in use today evolved over time. I don't have all of the answers to when this or that book was accepted or rejected memorized and don't always have the time to research answers to questions that I don't see as relevant to what I was asking, especially when they are as easily known to you as they are to me.

so, IF you would like to discuss this in an honest and historical manner, i would try to participate. that way this thread can be used for it's original purpose.

:wa:

 

[Hugo]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[alcurad]

^ 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.

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.

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.

"..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?"

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.

 

[جوري]

1. It is a simple lie that I invent and if there is any invention it is down to you. If you cannot enter the discussion without invective, innuendo and false accusations then I suggest you keep your thoughts to yourself.

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

I have high regard for both the Qu'ran and the Bible and any book that claims to speak with authority on them must be rigorously tested else it can and will do more harm that good. In fact if you had read Azami's book with any care you will see that he was prompted to write it because he found fault with another publication. I have been as exact as I can be but you even here cannot give a proper references to the quotation you made from Azami's book

.

It is humorously anecdotal that you are still a christian then, given the meticulous care with which you allegedly like to scrutinize texts that speak with authority!
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?!

2. You say I am trying to discredit the author - is that not allowed, is Dr Azami automatically someone who cannot be tried and tested, must we just accept his words, all of them without comment or criticisms? If Azami is to be discredited its not my words that do it but his own.

Yes, discrediting the author should be allowed indeed, but it can only be done when certain conditions are met.
1- You quote properly!
2- you provide historical evidence to the contrary!
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:
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)
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!

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