Can the English translation of the Quran be trusted?

[Burninglight]

That you said the qur'an we have now is not original.
Please show evidence.

I didn't say what you have now wasn't original. It is the original Quran after Uthman compiled them. It is Uthman's original standarization of the Quran, but no one now for sure what the burned Qurans say. Can those be produced or seen any where? I just said those original were burned. We haven't burned any document as pretains to the Bible in the form of copies. Thousands of copies were made from the original.

Again, please tell us when, how and why uthman burned scripts of Qur'an.

I believe it was around 2 years after Muhammad's death, How? I imagine with fire; Why? I now what some say it was due to the translation not being in Quraish. I am not for sure I understand the reasons given. But one will never be able to prove by comparing and contrasting what was originally burned with what Uthman compiled later. Today Muslims have the original Quran that Uthman compiled. I don't doubt that and I never said that wasn't true.

Had there been any change, even slight change in thh qur'an right after the death of prophet (saw) when hundreds of people had fully memorized and tested by prophet Muhammad (saw) himself, there would have been thousands if not millions of different qur'ans by now.

I thought most of them were killed?

Then how did you know it has less translational errors if you do not have the original to compare it with?

Please show me how/why you think ESV has translational errors.

Again, please do not change the subject.

I don't think this is important. I meant less translational errors when compared to the Greek and Hebrew copies!

 

[Burninglight]

good night

 

[Ramadhan]

I didn't say what you have now wasn't original. It is the original Quran after Uthman compiled them. It is Uthman's original standarization of the Quran, but no one now for sure what the burned Qurans say.

Good. You are onto something.
The original after Uthman is exactly the same as the original before uthman.

WARNING: PLEASE STOP INTENTIONALLY MAKING FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT ISLAM.

Another of your false statement:
You said uthman was compiler of qur'an.
This is false.
prophet Muhammad (saw) was.
You shouldn't intentionally create false statement, or if you copy and paste from anti-Islam site, then at least make sure they were correct before you are parroting them.

You call yourself "true biblical christian" and yet you keep making lies against Islam.

We haven't burned any document as pretains to the Bible in the form of copies. .

I am surprised that you call yourself "true biblical christian" and yet you are unaware of historical facts that everyone knows:
That roman emperors and council nicea and constantine burned down hundreds of gospels which didn't agree or support with their view of 3-in-1 god and god incarnate and god-dies-to-pay-for-human-sins idea.

Thousands of copies were made from the original.

Again, WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL BIBLE?

I believe it was around 2 years after Muhammad's death

More lies from you.
Prophet Muhammad (saw) died in 632, and Uthman (ra) started caliphate only in 644. Even in the earlly years of Uthman's caliphate, Islam had spread to as far away as Morocco, Azerbaijan, south east pakistan, and china. And there were not under control of Uthman caliphate. There had been thousands of hafiz (full memorizers of quran) and located in all those areas.

Why? I now what some say it was due to the translation not being in Quraish.

HUH?
do you even understand what you are saying or have really switched off your brain because of "blind faith"?
Please elaborate what you are saying above because it does not even make any sense.

I don't think this is important. I meant less translational errors when compared to the Greek and Hebrew copies!

Good. we are getting somewhere.

Questions:

1. which greek and hebrew copies?
2. Are those greek and hebrew copies the original bible?

 

[Burninglight]

Good. we are getting somewhere.

Questions:

1. which greek and hebrew copies?
2. Are those greek and hebrew copies the original bible?

No, but that doesn't mean they were incorrectly copied, because the Jews have a copy in Hebrew and the Christians did one in Greek and those copies can be compared; there are thousands of copies to confirm what the original said.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace Burninglight

It is "Unfortunate" for who? I did watch the video. How did Uthman know what the original was? This was not answered in the video by Deedat. In other words, where did he get the info for the original did it have it in his memory?

Unfortunate as in you are incorrect, because you seemed to be confident/so sure in making your claim, if that makes sense, i may be wrong, but it seemed that way from your posts.

How did Uthman know what the original was?

Why do you think he ordered for it to be copied and written in the same dialect as it was revealed in?
i.e. the Quraishi dialect. Also, I believe the video will clarify your question fully.

In other words, where did he get the info for the original did it have it in his memory?

I hope this video clarifies your question..

 

[Ramadhan]

No, but that doesn't mean they were incorrectly copied

Questions:
1. those hebrew and greek copies, what are they called?
2. do they still exist now?
3. when were those copies written?
4. what were contained in the those greek and hebrew copies?
5. from what source were they copied from? what were the originals?
6. who copied them?

For the purpose of good discussion, please provide your answer with evidence, proof or explanations with sources. "hearsay" (like what you have been doing by making false statements about Islam) is very useless in discussion.

because the Jews have a copy in Hebrew

Please elaborate. What hebrew copy? explain what it is, because as far as I remember, and as far as all New testament scholars understand, hebrew copies were actually translation from greek.

the Christians did one in Greek

what greek copy? explain who wrote them? are they original? what years were they written? are they they the same or different from bibles that you have now?

and those copies can be compared

Hebrew copies can be compared to greek because hebrew copies were translated from the greek. Or did you actually not know this?

there are thousands of copies to confirm what the original said.

What thousands of copies? where's the evidence? There's no such thing as thousands of copies.
Also, even if there had been (there were not) "thousands of copies", how do they confirm the original if such original did not exist in the first place?
simple logic, or are you suggesting us not to use our brain and our honesty in our discussion?

 

[Ali Mujahidin]

Back on topic.

Can the English translation of the Quran be trusted? If "trusted" means that it is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". then definitely the English translation of the Quran cannot be trusted. For a start there are many English translations and every one of them differs on various points. The English translation of the Quran, as well as any other translation in any other language, can only be used a guide to understanding the Quran. To argue about the meaning of the Quran based on the English translation is as stupid as say, trying to tell the color of a person's skin by touching his face. In total darkness.

So does that mean that non-Arabic-proficient Muslims will never understand the Quran? No, that's not true. There's nothing to stop a non-Arabic-proficient Muslim from learning Arabic. And while he is still learning, he can refer to other Arabic-proficient Muslims for guidance.

Off-topic.

The Bible is not the Word of Allah as conveyed through Prophet Isa a.s. For a start, Isa had never been proven to speak English. There isn't much support for his capability to speak Greek either. Or Hebrew. The language that is most likely to be his mother tongue and daily language is Aramaic. The next problem is to find a written copy of what he said in Aramaic. Bibles that are written in English after being translated from Greek which had been translated from Hebrew which had been translated from Greek has as much authenticity as, say, Chinese Fried Rice which is cooked by an Englishman who learned it from a French cook who learned it from an Indian man who had once eaten what he was told was Chinese Fried Rice.

Look at it this way. Life is a serious business. Heaven and hell are not cardboard scenes in a school-children's play. To get through life successfully, you will need a good map. Now, would you prefer a map which is an exact copy of the original made by the engineer who built the road, or are you prepared to take your chances with a photostatted copy of a map copied from another one which wasn't even made by anyone who had actually gone where you wanted to go?

WalLahu aklam.

 

[crimsontide06]

Back on topic.

Can the English translation of the Quran be trusted? If "trusted" means that it is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". then definitely the English translation of the Quran cannot be trusted. For a start there are many English translations and every one of them differs on various points. The English translation of the Quran, as well as any other translation in any other language, can only be used a guide to understanding the Quran. To argue about the meaning of the Quran based on the English translation is as stupid as say, trying to tell the color of a person's skin by touching his face. In total darkness.

So does that mean that non-Arabic-proficient Muslims will never understand the Quran? No, that's not true. There's nothing to stop a non-Arabic-proficient Muslim from learning Arabic. And while he is still learning, he can refer to other Arabic-proficient Muslims for guidance.

Thank you for this answer...finally someone answered the question instead of going on with the flame war debate on this thread...

 

[Burninglight]

Please elaborate. What hebrew copy? explain what it is, because as far as I remember, and as far as all New testament scholars understand, hebrew copies were actually translation from greek.

I was refering to the OT being translated to Greek. These are the logical reasoning why I trust the Bible. Besides the Spirit of God bearing witness with my spirit

1. We have manuscripts of the New Testament dated c.127 A.D, c.150 A.D., and c.200 A.D., as well as recently released copies with the Dead Sea Scrolls dated before 100 A.D.

2. We have 10,000 other manuscripts of the New Testament to compare. Scribal errors did occur, but with 10,000 manuscripts, we can track these errors. The evidence would be weaker, not stronger, if there had been a "Christian 'Uthman" to burn them.

3. The early church writers (from 97/98 A.D. to 325 A.D.) referred to every single verse in the New Testament except around 17.

4. We have copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls of almost all of the Old Testament dated at the time of Christ, and Christ's use of Old Testament quotes.

5. We have God's promise that He will watch over and preserve His word, and that He will not let His followers be led astray. -Isa 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25, Mt 24:35

6. Christian scholars are very keen to examine all the evidence and be as precise as possible in what the original wording was.

Christians and all seekers of truth should welcome questioning the reliability of today's Bible. But rather than asking, "what is its reliability", one should also ask "what its reliability is being compared to."

 

[Burninglight]

Please elaborate. What hebrew copy? explain what it is, because as far as I remember, and as far as all New testament scholars understand, hebrew copies were actually translation from greek.

This thread's topic is on the reliability of the English translation of the Quran not on the Bible. Now, There were questions I asked you but they haven’t been answered fully to my satisfaction, but instead of answering them you accuse me of making false statements that you cannot back up. If I made false statements tell me what they are and prove they are, and I will retract them, but you haven’t done so. So plz stop making unsubstantiated claims about me.

Now are these true and can you prove they are or aren’t? These are significant to me, because if there is a problem with the material being trranslated, it doesn't matter how good and dependable the English translation is

Did 'Umar "stabilized" the Qur'an in 644 A.D. al-Tabari vol.39 p.22-23?

Do you believe the Qur'an is an exact copy of a tablet of the Qur'an [in Heaven] in Sura 85:20-22 like we believe God’s word is established in heaven forever?

Is it true that there is a temporary verses in the Qur'an that Muslims agree Mohammed said were abrogated, are stored for all time in Heaven? Are they are still in the Qur'an today?

Is it true that the Sahih Muslim Hadiths record an extra Sura that is not in the Qur'an today? And that Muslim apologists claim this too was abrogated, but it is not in today's Qur'an?

Is it true that 'Ubai's early copies of the Qur'an did not contain two Suras that are in the Qur'an today.

Is it true that 'Abdallah ibn Mas'ud was one of the four people Mohammed said to learn the Qur'an form. Is it true that the Al-Nuri lists verses in Ibn Mas'ud's version that are not in the Qur'an today?

I have more question, but this is enough for now.

 

[Woodrow]

It is "Unfortunate" for who? I did watch the video. How did Uthman know what the original was? This was not answered in the video by Deedat. In other words, where did he get the info for the original did he have it in his memory?

One factor non-arabic speakers over look is Arabic had only been a written language for about 100 years before the Qur'an was revealed. the most used form of preservation was oral recitation. If even one word in the Uthman qur'an differed from what Muhammad(PBUH) had recited, the Hafiz (those who memorized the Qur'an) would have caught it. Even today somewhere between 10-20% of all Muslims are Hafiz and follow what has been handed down orally from generation to generation for 1400 years. Every Hafiz still repeats the same Qu'ran no matter what nation they live in. A Hafiz in China will repeat the same Qur'an as a Hafiz in the UK. It has proven to be a very reliable means of being certain the written Qur'an remains unchanged.

 

[Burninglight]

I am surprised that you call yourself "true biblical christian" and yet you are unaware of historical facts that everyone knows:
That roman emperors and council nicea and constantine burned down hundreds of gospels which didn't agree or support with their view of 3-in-1 god and god incarnate and god-dies-to-pay-for-human-sins idea.

I never made such a claim of myself, but I simply told you what true Biblical Christians believe, but now that you mentioned it I accept the title. A true Biblical Christian doesn't need to know or be concerned with Constantine. The concept of God's nature is and was in the Bible way before Constantine was born! But please lets stay on the topic of this thread.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

How much of the Bible is truly divine revelation? and how much of it was written by random men of whom Biblical scholars admit that it is not known who they really were and nor is it known when they were written.

Whereas the Qur'an is 100% divine revelation. If you want to check the original then you can find it in almost every Muslim home and in every Masjid.

Where would i find the original Bible? Which has been subject to innumerable translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions at the hands of clerics up till now (with the “gender sensitive” versions coming out these days and even versions which have taken out the "son of God" to appeal to Muslims).

Well where is it? ANSWER: It is not in existence anymore and has not been for a very long time. Leaving the Bible open to further continuous translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions. When will you open your eyes?

 

[Burninglight]

One factor non-arabic speakers over look is Arabic had only been a written language for about 100 years before the Qur'an was revealed. the most used form of preservation was oral recitation. If even one word in the Uthman qur'an differed from what Muhammad(PBUH) had recited, the Hafiz (those who memorized the Qur'an) would have caught it. Even today somewhere between 10-20% of all Muslims are Hafiz and follow what has been handed down orally from generation to generation for 1400 years. Every Hafiz still repeats the same Qu'ran no matter what nation they live in. A Hafiz in China will repeat the same Qur'an as a Hafiz in the UK. It has proven to be a very reliable means of being certain the written Qur'an remains unchanged.

I thought many who memorized it were killed in a battle? Besides, if they weren't, why didn't they see to it that the first documented Qurans were done right so they didn't need to be burned?? From what I understand Muslims weren't happy to give up their older versions of the Quran. If the Hafiz recite it so prefectly, why was there a need to burn it? The Qurish dialect reason makes no sense to me.

People must have divided over the differences. Imo, different versions of the Qurans can cause a problem severe enough to warrant a burning. If there were no differences there would have been no need to burn and recompile it. People don't divide over a dialect, but it would make sense if they divided over the contents in the Quran. So why didn't the Hafiz get the first (burned) one right? Is it because Arabic was a new language? If so, why did they write what was supposed to only be said?

Quran means recite not write. Maybe the problem was they wrote instead of said especially when there is no evidence of a divine mandate to write like there was for the Bible. If that is the case, Uthman did no different. Where did he get the original information to compile the Quran? The answer according to you is from the memory of the Hafiz. So why didn't their memory work for the Qurans that had to be burned? If their memory failed them there or some other factor happened to cause the Qurans to be burned, how do you know it didn't happen to the recompiled versions of the Quran by Uthman who was no prophet standarizing the word of Allah

 

[Burninglight]

How much of the Bible is truly divine revelation? and how much of it was written by random men of whom Biblical scholars admit that it is not known who they really were and nor is it known when they were written.

Whereas the Qur'an is 100% divine revelation. If you want to check the original then you can find it in almost every Muslim home and in every Masjid.

Where would i find the original Bible? Which has been subject to innumerable translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions at the hands of clerics up till now (with the “gender sensitive” versions coming out these days and even versions which have taken out the "son of God" to appeal to Muslims).

Well where is it? ANSWER: It is not in existence anymore and has not been for a very long time. Leaving the Bible open to further continuous translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions. When will you open your eyes?

I don't think anything in life is a 100%. You don't have to have the original of something or know who wrote it or when for it to be true.

 

[Ali Mujahidin]

I don't think anything in life is a 100%. You don't have to have the original of something or know who wrote it or when for it to be true.

Let me see if I can follow you without going in circles. First, you want to know whether the English translation can be trusted. Then you said that you cannot trust the translation of something that is not reliable. Now you say you don't have to have the original of something or know who wrote it or when for it to be true. What's the next change of tack?

Since you have been comparing the Quran to the Bible, I don't think I will be off-topic to carry this discussion into the merits of the Bible itself. I assume that you have read the Bible. So have I. I assume that you must have read it more closely than I did. Since you declare yourself to be a Christian, I assume that the New Testament is of particular interest to your religious conviction. When I read the New Testament, I noticed that it was a compilation of various accounts. Various accounts like "The Gospel according to St. Mark", "The Gospel according to St. Luke", etc.

So where is "The Gospel according to Jesus"?

I assume that you consider what Jesus said to be the Word of God. Would it be too much to assume that the people, ie the disciples of Jesus, who heard the Word of God from Jesus' own lips would remember exactly what he said? Did they have to write it down to remember what they heard? Is it possible that none of the disciples wrote down what Jesus said? And if they did, is it possible that every single bit of writing that they wrote down is totally lost? Burned? Or what?

So where are the original written records of what the disciples heard from the lips of Jesus? And what language were those records written in? Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? English?

Of course, I do not know the answers. I am assuming that you might know better than me. Do you?

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace

I thought many who memorized it were killed in a battle?

By this, I think your reffering to this narration? Yes, many of the Qur'a died, but where does it say the Qur'aan itself was lost? It mentions that they began to recollect.

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

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

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

Besides, if they weren't, why didn't they see to it that the first documented Qurans were done right so they didn't need to be burned??

Why do they need to see to it, when nobody suggested the Qur'aan was not done right? The understanding was of the vowels and dialects, this was the only issue that could affect it, i.e the meaning would have changed not the Qur'aan itself. It was burnt so that the wrong meaning and understanding would stay the same as it was revealed.

From what I understand Muslims weren't happy to give up their older versions of the Quran. If the Hafiz recite it so prefectly, why was there a need to burn it? The Qurish dialect reason makes no sense to me.

They weren't happy because many of the memorisers were killed, and thinking it would have been lost, but it didn't because it states that they began to compile them and finally did so, the next narration after this states that due to the differences of dialect there were differences therefore they had to be burnt in case the wrong understanding derives thereof. You see there were arabs with different dialects, the meanings could have changed easily, this would mean that original meaning is not there or would have been lost.

People must have divided over the differences. Imo, different versions of the Qurans can cause a problem severe enough to warrant a burning.

Not necessarily, there was still the original version to compare them to in order to know which is the correct. i.e. Uthman (ra) asked for it from Hafsa (ra).

If there were no differences there would have been no need to burn and recompile it. People don't divide over a dialect, but it would make sense if they divided over the contents in the Quran.

There were arabs and non-arab muslims, but the arabs could understand the arabic better without the vowels the non-arabs could not, so therefore there was only the need to add the vowels. And nope they did not divide over the contents of the Qur'aan. The only issue they would divide over was the dialect while there was still the original in order to have it corrected, which it did. As you can see from the hadeeth's.

So why didn't the Hafiz get the first (burned) one right?

you don't get it do you. I'm sure that if you watch the videos and read over this thread, hopefully it will make sense.

Is it because Arabic was a new language? If so, why did they write what was supposed to only be said?

Nope, because it was what was revealed to the prophet (p) through the archangel Gabrael. Because it was believed to be the word's of God to mankind, because that was what was being revealed. He spoke unto his people what was revealed unto him.

Quran means recite not write. Maybe the problem was they wrote instead of said especially when there is no evidence of a divine mandate to write like there was for the Bible.

They wrote and they 'recited', however, another way if you look at it, the Qur'aan is the message for the whole of mankind to muslim and non-muslim, this is a great advantage for those who cannot hear but can read, so they can recite it. Though there is nothing wrong in it being written.

If that is the case, Uthman did no different. Where did he get the original information to compile the Quran?

From the wife of the prophet Hafsa (ra), you know about the killing and the burning, how did you manage to miss this part?

The answer according to you is from the memory of the Hafiz. So why didn't their memory work for the Qurans that had to be burned?

It was Hafsa (ra) (the wife of the prophet (p) whom Uthman (ra) borrowed the Qur'aan and ordered it be to copied from.

If their memory failed them there or some other factor happened to cause the Qurans to be burned, how do you know it didn't happen to the recompiled versions of the Quran by Uthman who was no prophet standarizing the word of Allah

Do you realise that all the Qur'aans weren't burnt except the ones that were differing from the original.

Also it was written down on whatever they could find, palm stalks, white stones, etc etc, these were written from the time of the prophet (p) and also men who had memorised it, and the companion Abu Bakr (ra) the first caliph had ordered it to be collected due to having many Qura'a being killed in the battle of Yamama. Also notice that he Abu Bakr (ra) had ordered Zaid Ibn Thabith to help compile the Qur'aan as he used to write down the revelation from the prophet (p).

The prophet (p) had done his duty, as it was written down and many had memorised it. Also the memorisers were not going to lose out on a single verse, you will find today that there are youth of today who've memorised the whole book without a single mistake, so imagine those who were the companions, the closest.

 

[Burninglight]

It was Hafsa (ra) (the wife of the prophet (p) whom Uthman (ra) borrowed the Qur'aan and ordered it be to copied from.

I believe she had the original. I thought he burned that too. If not then you would have the original in tact. I want to try and verify this is true.

 

[Burninglight]

So,

By this, I think your reffering to this narration? Yes, many of the Qur'a died, but where does it say the Qur'aan itself was lost? It mentions that they began to recollect.

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Yes, so according to what you have told me. Quran which means recitation was preserved in text form and NOT in oral form as claimed by Muslims to me over the years? So where is Hafsa's original copy now. If you can tell me, I'll shut up about your not having the original Quran? If you cannot produce that, then lets not hear any more about the original Bible not being produced. Agreed? Why were copies given more importance than the original source of the Quran -Hafsa's Quran??? Were copies not exactly the same as the source? If they were the same, then where is Hafsa's original so we can compare?
Uthman ordered to destroy all copies of Quran and thousands of Quran were burned by Muslims. Is it even proper to burn a Quran for a Muslim? Did all Qurans have problems and so destroyed? So who actually is the peserver of the Quran? Is it Muslim leaders or Allah? The ones making these decision weren't prophets so it begs these questions. I need to know what I am comparing the reliability of the Bible to.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace Burninglight

I believe she had the original. I thought he burned that too. If not then you would have the original in tact. I want to try and verify this is true.

As i've already mentioned, that he Uthman (ra) asked for the Qur'aan from Hafsa (ra)..and when he asked for it he also mentioned he would return it and he did this.

Here I'll post it up..

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

This from the hadeeth I previously posted, during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (ra)

Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

Yes, so according to what you have told me. Quran which means recitation was preserved in text form and NOT in oral form as claimed by Muslims to me over the years?

The beauty of the Qur'aan - The recitation is that it is memorised unlike any other book. So therefore it is dificult to have it lost. Especially when you've many around the world who've memorised it and that also in similar form from word to word. It is preserved in text form and also in oral form i.e. memorisation, so if all the 'Qur'an' or 'Islam' haters decided to abolish Islaam from the earth, they could not making it impossible, meaning the message has been preserved, but this does not mean that the written form is disliked.

Just because it means 'recitation' does not mean that it is wrong to have it in written book form.

So where is Hafsa's original copy now. If you can tell me, I'll shut up about your not having the original Quran?

You did state you believed Hafsa (ra) had the original

I believe she had the original.

where is it? I've shown you from the hadeeth that Uthman (ra) borrowed from Hafsa (ra) and returned it. Why? i also stated that, which was to copy. Do you know what copy means? Copy does not mean change or delete as far as I'm aware.

'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied
(from the first hadeeth I posted above) Please read the first hadeeth i've posted above.

If you cannot produce that, then lets not hear any more about the original Bible not being produced. Agreed?

As much as you seem to want to know about the originality of the Qur'aan, similar is the case with the others who want to know the originality of the bible. In other words what I am trying to say is that, it won't stop one from wanting to know about something or ask questions.

Why were copies given more importance than the original source of Quran -Hafsa's Quran???

Because, it was the original one, and other were differentiating due to dialects etc. And that is why it was copied from Qur'aan sent by Hafsa (ra) and was eventually returned. And there is no such thing as 'Hafsa's' Qur'aan, it was passed on to her to look after by the will of Allaah. Nor is there such a thing 'as Muhamamd's (p) Qur'aan'..As in they weren't words of theirs but of God. But ofcourse you will disagree with this.

Were copies not exactly the same as the source?

Yes, that is why they were copied.

If they were the same then where is Hafsa's original so we can compare?

I believe i've answered this above. It is with us today.

Uthman ordered to destroy all copies of Quran and thousands of Quran were burned by Muslims. Is it even proper to burn a Quran for a Muslim?

No it is not proper for a muslim to burn the Qur'aan, as muslims they believe it to be the word of God. However, if something isn't the 'original' how can it be referred to as the original? Due to differences of dialect, there was a
slight change of wording, which differed from the original and in order to not mislead anyone i.e. the followers, this reason was vital. If this did not take place, there would have been many 'versions' of the Qur'aan and much confusion in the muslim world. Allaah your lord and my lord has indeed preserved his book and message.

Did all Qurans have problems and so destroyed?

Not including the 'original'...

So who actually is the peserver of the Quran? It Muslim leaders or Allah?

Allaah SWT.

If i've not answered a question properly, feel free to ask inshaa'Allaah..