First Corrupted Verse

[جوري]

a brief example because I don't actually have all day to dedicate to this.
When Eherlman says. The story of Mary Magdalene isn't found in any early apocrypha, it is something that all christian scholars can actually agree on.

When 'Ibn Warraq' says you can apostate in Christianity, not so in Islam in his why I am not a Muslim..
Not only is he unread on the Good book, but he actually doesn't understand proper Islamic ruling on the matter either!

Deuteronomy
Chapter 13
KJV

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

 

[rpwelton]

Well as we say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have read Ehrman, Metzger, Watt and Warraq.

Since we are focusing on Warraq then if you have read any of his books you will see they are fully research and referenced and would pass any scholarly test. The writing is lucid and the coverage beyond reproach and shows a deep understanding of the issues and points of view and is scrupulously honest in expressing viewpoints. His books vary, some are collections of scholarly papers and others are in the form of treatise or explanations and refutations.

If you want to discuss any them or show me their faults then do so, that is what academic study is about.

An article he wrote titled "Islam's Shame" begins with the following sentence:

"Islam is deeply anti-woman".

I stopped right there. Anybody with any real knowledge of Islam knows this is not true.

My main problem will all these Islamic critics is that they are criticizing the actions of Muslims, not the religion itself. They view the religion through the eyes of a modernist and as though Muslims today are shining examples of Islam's true teachings.

I'll dig up some more stuff, but I'm sure it all tows the same line.

 

[جوري]

Needless to say, there are many self-proclaimed scholars out there, who know how to put a proper reference, since they have read 'rules of thumb'...

question is, whom are they quoting? Daniel Pipes for instance likes to reference to himself often..
Pipes, Daniel (2009). ''Reference". The Hate Agenda against Muslims
pipes, Danie (again), more stuff and nonsense, PP. 1-100 ISBN 1234568910112


easy pleasy right.. and oh so scholarly!

 

[Hugo]

Nothing compares to the Quran indeed that has fulfilled all of its criteria.

This is a logical fallacy. If it cannot be compared then one cannot know one way or the other about its merits. I give you an example, can you compare anything in the Qu'ran to Psalm 23 (New International Version) a Psalm of David

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

 

[جوري]

This is a logical fallacy. If it cannot be compared then one cannot know one way or the other about its merits. I give you an example, can you compare anything in the Qu'ran to Psalm 23 (New International Version) a Psalm of David

Not at all, indeed there is nothing in existence like it, but the challenge is open for you to come up with better if you can with all the criteria listed!

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.

Did God proclaim himself a Shepard in any of his books? God has no such occupation

2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

That is nice.. but so is this!

Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there, I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glint on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you wake in the morning hush,
I am the swift, uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circling flight.
I am the soft starlight at night.
Do not stand at my grave and weep.
I am not there, I do not sleep.
Do not stand at my grave and cry.
I am not there, I did not die!
Do not stand at my grave and weep.
I am not there, I do not sleep.
I am the song that will never end.
I am the love of family and friend.
I am the child who has come to rest
In the arms of the Father
who knows him best.
When you see the sunset fair,
I am the scented evening air.
I am the joy of a task well done.
I am the glow of the setting sun.
Do not stand at my grave and weep.
I am not there, I do not sleep.
Do not stand at my grave and cry.
I am not there, I did not die!
~ Author Unknown ~


pretty indeed, but rhyme isn't what it is all about!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Needless to say, there are many self-proclaimed scholars out there, who know how to put a proper reference, since they have read 'rules of thumb'...question is, whom are they quoting? Daniel Pipes for instance likes to reference to himself often..
Pipes, Daniel (2009). ''Reference". The Hate Agenda against Muslims
pipes, Danie (again), more stuff and nonsense, PP. 1-100 ISBN 1234568910112

You're problem is that you only agree with writers who agree with you. You latch on to Ehrman but ignore Metzger, you don't answer Pipes you vilify him, you don't like Warraq because he was taught be a Christian and Bernard Lewis is unmentionable.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Now it is fair enough to build a case with criteria as you have done but if oner is not careful one does it to support your own case and not in an open ended way that allows tests to take place. Using you criteria one might come to a decision about book A or B but if I may say so there are many other criteria so your argument is a fallacy because you have in effect introduced bias.

Here for example your criteria have a major and perhaps fatal weakness, you have ignored what the book actually says and you would be a madman to accept any book with just the basis you claim. The book or Mormon (and likely many others) for example meets ALL your requirements. You also ignore manuscript evidence. In the case of the Bible there is a huge collection available. In the case of the Qu'ran there is almost nothing. There are of course many other possible criteria.

May I ask some questions:

Are you implying here that the author of the Qu'ran was prophet Mohamed because if you say it was God then that can only be believed and never shown to be fact.

You talk about variants in manuscripts but what do you mean: manuscripts were deliberately altered, added to or perhaps verses were deleted or do you mean there were scribal errors or defective scripts were used perhaps all of these?

You're missing the point. These are not criteria. These are examples. Now choose which would be more likely from God based only on these points and forget which is the Bible or the Quran.

Also, you need to do some research on the Book of Mormon then. There are in fact variants of it. Moreover, scholars show that it had undergone textual changes from the time of its inception. It also fails the destruction point.

So it fails. Also, just because the Bible is "huge" doesn't give it any reason to have variants in its text. It is God we are talking about here, who can keep any book consistent.

BTW The Quran is Anti Woman? O really? Prove it in a separate thread of course. But while you're at it

Heres some Bible verses from bottom of the barrel (I have more) as food for thought!

“…women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission...” 1 Corinthians 14:34


8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Etc etc...

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Note my answer to Gossemer Sky above. However, given that I have read both and tend to accept and follow the teaching of the Bible over that of the Qur'an, I suppose my answer is rather obvious.

You haven't answered my question though. Are you saying you would choose book A as more likely to be from God? Forget about which is the Bible or Quran.

Based purely on the examples I gave above.

 

[جوري]

You're problem is that you only agree with writers who agree with you. You latch on to Ehrman but ignore Metzger, you don't answer Pipes you vilify him, you don't like Warraq because he was taught be a Christian and Bernard Lewis is unmentionable.

That is not the true at all.
and I don't actually need to vilify pipes, thankfully, he is making such an a$$ of himself that even fellow Jews speak out against him, search the web some in fact I'll go so far as to say you are projecting.. for I actually take the time to listen to both sides, else I couldn't point out to you with detail, exactly what it is that is objectionable by consensus amongst all Muslims .. I have given you the criteria above of what it means to be a scholar with examples.. You not liking facts for emotionality is rather your problem than mine...




anyhow, I don't have the rest of the day to be at it tit for tat with you, in fact I have a family member in the hospital and my mind has bigger things on it than your temper tantrums!

all the best

 

[Brasco]

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

1 John 5:7

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." by "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson

There is no bible in the original language! but the Qur'an has been kept without the change of a dot! In arabic!! the language of the prophet (pbuh).

 

[Hugo]

You're missing the point. These are not criteria. These are examples. Now choose which would be more likely from God based only on these points and forget which is the Bible or the Quran.

Also, you need to do some research on the Book of Mormon then. There are in fact variants of it. Moreover, scholars show that it had undergone textual changes from the time of its inception. It also fails the destruction point.

So it fails. Also, just because the Bible is "huge" doesn't give it any reason to have variants in its text. It is God we are talking about here, who can keep any book consistent.

You miss the point, the criteria are not acceptable. You might think them acceptable and that is fine but me and others may not. Suppose I create criteria and I add: "Must contain no changes of mind in its text" will you accept that?

If you can can create a set of criteria that we might agree on then we can do the test but how can you know the criteria are the right ones, how can we check that. So can you show that those criteria are the right ones? Of course we have to be aware that they only make sense at all if we accept the idea of God.

We have a dilemma and your criteria might be worded like a question of Socrates "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy." In other words are you starting from the Islamic position and defining the criteria to match it or did you start with an open mind?

If I can state it in research terms then problem is to confirm a book, any book was written by God. (I take it we can agree that any book has to be written down by someone human?)

The project then is how we can set about doing that and how can we show our method to be foolproof? We can use logic perhaps, we can set criteria inductively, create and hypothesis, etc but using normal standards we should do all we can to falsify the claim and if it stand up to our most brutal attacks then we can begin to feel it is true.

Note. It is best if you read what was it is written, I did not say the Bible was 'huge' I was talking about the manuscript evidence that support it.

 

[جوري]

you don't get to make up the criteria.
All you need is to try better if you are truthful:
philosophy and religion are separate topics, thus I don't understand your incessant need to confabulate and digress into Socrates and what nots?

as for manuscript evidence to support it, well what the hell does that man .. was there manuscript evidence of Boerhaave's syndrome before 1739? does the fact that it was only documented then make it any less truthful or pertinent?.. in fact the very matter of the Quran being what it is, with so many unreported stories of old that are now being discovered such as the recent find of the lost city of Uber ( Aad) as mentioned in the Quran, should bring your attention to the fact, that if there were any former DOCUMENTED evidence to support it, wouldn't make it miraculous at all. The Quran is transcendent, its miracles never cease. It attests, manifests and abbrogates, it is the criterion.. If it were some guy who all of a sudden saw the light, it wouldn't be taken for the authority that it is. It would be just another Paulian or arceasque 'epiphany' The Quran stands on its own accord. Try to wrap your head around that-- it is the source to be Quoted!



Classified Articles

Scientific Miraculousness

Linguistic Miraculousness

Other Aspects of Miraculousness
More Articles

The Qur'ân and Science

Science Themes in the Holy Qur'an

The Miracle of Honey as an Alternative Medicine

The Leaders of Modern Science Choose Islam and the Qur'an

Some Remarkable Aspects of the Holy Qur'an

Origin of the Universe and Life in the Qur'an

Relativity in the Qur'an

From a Gaseous Mass to the Heavens and the Earth ( Part 2 )

Science and the Noble Qur'an

The Expansion of the Universe in the Qur'an

Qur'an and the Clouds

Health Guidelines from Qur'an And Sunnah

Altitude Sickness in the Qur'an

The Consistency between Qur'an and Modern Science

Creation of the Universe

 

[Hugo]

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

1 John 5:7

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." by "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson

There is no bible in the original language! but the Qur'an has been kept without the change of a dot! In arabic!! the language of the prophet (pbuh).

You might be right about the Bible but you are wrong about the Qu'ran. The Arabic script you see in your Qu'ran today was not available to the prophet since it was perfected in the later 9th century. NO Qu'ran exist from the time of the prophet so it is not possible to prove your claim.

 

[Brasco]

You might be right about the Bible but you are wrong about the Qu'ran. The Arabic script you see in your Qu'ran today was not available to the prophet since it was perfected in the later 9th century. NO Qu'ran exist from the time of the prophet so it is not possible to prove your claim.

Do you really think so?? or is this just what you read?

 

[جوري]

actually if you'd bother use the search feature, not only will you learn that the Quran in its entirety was written down during the time of the prophet, you'd actually see the manuscripts on shoulders of animals and bones .. bound and put into a book during Abu Bakr's time doesn't denote no copies were existing before hand.

pls don't repeat foolishness that can be easily refuted. It is better to remain silent or profess to ignorance than keep hoping that everyone is as ignorant as you're and will take what you write at face value!

 

[Hugo]

you don't get to make up the criteria.
All you need is to try better if you are truthful: philosophy and religion are separate topics, thus I don't understand your incessant need to confabulate and digress into Socrates and what nots?

as for manuscript evidence to support it, well what the hell does that man .. was there manuscript evidence of Boerhaave's syndrome before 1739? does the fact that it was only documented then make it any less truthful or pertinent?.. in fact the very matter of the Quran being what it is, with so many unreported stories of old that are now being discovered such as the recent find of the lost city of Uber ( Aad) as mentioned in the Quran, should bring your attention to the fact, that if there were any former DOCUMENTED evidence to support it, wouldn't make it miraculous at all. The Quran is transcendent, its miracles never cease. It attests, manifests and abbrogates, it is the criterion.. If it were some guy who all of a sudden saw the light, it wouldn't be taken for the authority that it is. It would be just another Paulian or arceasque 'epiphany' The Quran stands on its own accord. Try to wrap your head around that-- it is the source to be Quoted!

Let's be clear, there is virtually no manuscript evidence for the Qu'ran at the time of the prophet, your own history attests that. If you wish to see it as God speaking that is excellent but not everyone will see it as authoritative and transcenedent and it is obviously unprovable.

 

[جوري]

Let's be clear, there is virtually no manuscript evidence for the Qu'ran at the time of the prophet, your own history attests that. If you wish to see it as God speaking that is excellent but not everyone will see it as authoritative and transcenedent and it is obviously unprovable.

No, you be clear before you write.
make a small purchase of 'A history of Quranic text from revelation to compilation' by Dr. Al Azami.. not only will you learn something about the preservation of the Quran, but you'll actually see the original scripts with their locations in museums world wide!
Also it is transcendence and authoritativeness is taken by 1.86 billion Muslims and growing. Not the case at all with Christianity where the man/god delusion is fast falling out of favor!

The Qur'anic Studies

The Qur'anic Studies​

This section is devoted to the recent research carried out in the field of the Qur'anic studies. The content will be primarily the interesting papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Some material is alsothe excerpts from books. The aim of bringing such material on the web is to disseminate interesting information which otherwise would end up getting stacked in the libraries unread.
The articles in the journals are reproduce by the permission of the authors (and in some case even the journals) as they are under the copyright act. Please do not reproduce or redistribute as it amounts to the violation of the copyright act.
Grammar & Balaghah (Rhetoric)

Grammatical Shift For The Rhetorical Purposes: Iltifat And Related Features In The Qur'an, M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1992, Volume LV, Part 3.
This article deals with the misunderstandings of various Orientalists on the issue of grammatical shifts arising in Arabic rhetoric; some them even called these linguistic features as linguistic defects in the Qur'an. Notable of them are the works of Theodor Nöldeke, Bell and Watt, Rudi Paret and John Burton.

Sudden Change In Person & Number: Neal Robinson On Iltifat, Neal Robinson, Discovering The Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach To A Veiled Text (1996, SCM Press Ltd.). The chapter is "The Dynamics Of The Qur'anic Discourse", [pp. 245-252].
This article is packed with some examples taken from the above work on Iltifat by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem.

Between Grammar And Rhetoric (Balaghah): A Look At Qur'an 2:217, Mustansir Mir, Islamic Studies, 1990, Volume 29, No. 3. pp. 277-285.
The article deals with various problems raised by the verse 2:217 concerning the case-ending of the phrase wa'l-masjidi 'l-harami in the verse. Rudi Paret has called this verse as 'rough' (perhaps taking a clue from the work of Theodor Nöldeke). Is it an issue of grammar or balaghah?​

Literary Aspects

The Qur'an As Literature, Mustansir Mir, Renaissance, 2000, Volume 10, No. 5.
Professor Mustansir Mir introduces the often neglected aspect of the Qur'an i.e., the Qur'an as literature and illustrates this aspect with some interesting examples.

Is The Qur'an A Shapeless Book?, Mustansir Mir, Renaissance, 1999, Volume 9, No. 8.
Professor Mustansir Mir briefly discusses some of the ideas of Imam Farahi and his student Mawlana Islahi concerning the structure in the Qur'an. A more detailed study of their ideas is available in Professor Mir's book Coherence In The Qur'an. To a considerable extent, Professor Neal Robinson in his book Discovering The Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach To A Veiled Text (1996, SCM Press Ltd.) also deals with the ideas of Imam Farahi and his student Mawlana Islahi. The reader is also advised to refer to the article "Islahi's Concept Of Surah Pairs", The Muslim World, 1983, Vol.73, No.1, pp. 22-32.

The Qur'anic Story Of Joseph: Plot, Themes, And Characters, Mustansir Mir, The Muslim World, 1986, Volume LXXVI, No. 1, pp. 1-15.
This article deals with the literary aspects and themes of the Qur'anic story of Joseph. The Qur'anic story is neatly structured on the analogy of the literary-rhetorical device of al-laff wa 'l-nashr `ala 'l-`aks (involution and evolution in reverse).

Contrapuntal Harmony In The Thought, Mood And Structure Of Surah Fatihah, Mustansir Mir, Renaissance, 1999, Volume 9, No. 11, April Issue.
The commentary of the opening Surah of the Qur'an runs into a few 100 pages. The above article summarizes some of the literary aspects of Surah Fatihah. Above all it shows that the Surah itself is a unity.

The Qur'an Oaths : Farahi's Interpretation, Mustansir Mir, Islamic Studies, 1990, Spring Issue.
The article compares Islahi-Farahi approach with the traditional approach to the Qur'anic oaths. Should we look at the Qur'anic oaths from literary or theological standpoint?

Study Of The Qur'an, Mustansir Mir, Renaissance, 2000, Volume 10, No. 1.
The verse 2:251 is used to show Qur'anic i`jaz as well as to draw attention to the historical events related to the verse.​

Orthography

Qur'anic Orthography: The Written Representation Of The Recited Text Of The Qur'an, M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Islamic Quarterly, 19??, pp. 171-192.

The Dotting Of A Script And The Dating Of An Era: The Strange Neglect Of PERF 558, A. Jones, Islamic Culture, 1998, Volume LXXII, No. 4. pp. 95-103.

It is usually assumed that the dotting of the Arabic script began with the advent of dotting of Qur'anic manuscripts. However, recent observation on a 70 year old Arabic papyri has shown conclusively that dotting was available as early as 22 AH, perhaps even earlier.
​

Miscelleneous

Forgotten Witness: Evidence For The Early Codification Of The Qur'an, Estelle Whelan, Journal Of The American Oriental Society, 1998, Volume 118, No. 1, pp. 1-14.

This article discusses the Umayyad inscriptions on Dome of the Rock among others to show that the Qur'an was already codified before the construction of Dome of the Rock.
​

"Arabia Without Spices": An Alternate Hypothesis, Gene W. Heck, Journal Of The American Oriental Society, 2003, Volume 123, No. 3, pp. 547-576.

An interesting critique of Patricia Crone's Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam as well as other authors dealing with Makkan economy.
​

Some Logical Fallacies Dealt With In The Qur'an, Mustansir Mir, Renaissance, 1995, April Issue.

Review of The History Of The Qur'anic Text From Revelation To Compilation: A Comparative Study With The Old And New Testaments (M. Mustafa al-A`zami, UK Islamic Academy: Leicester, UK) by Murad Wilfried Hoffman, Muslim World Book Review, 2004, Volume 24 (Issue 4).

A very terse review of Mustafa al-A`zami's recent book on the Qur'an. Shaykh al-A`zami's work throws new light, especially, on the issues of Qur'an's compilation, dotting and addition of diacritical marks.
​

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Q_Studies/

 

[Hugo]

actually if you'd bother use the search feature, not only will you learn that the Quran in its entirety was written down during the time of the prophet, you'd actually see the manuscripts on shoulders of animals and bones .. bound and put into a book during Abu Bakr's time doesn't denote no copies were existing before hand.

pls don't repeat foolishness that can be easily refuted. It is better to remain silent or profess to ignorance than keep hoping that everyone is as ignorant as you're and will take what you write at face value!

There a large number of traditions relating to transmission of the Qu'ran and they don't all agree. Whether all the written down portions were collected cannot be affirmed and in any case what you refer to was a first collection but a second one was made later. Why make a second collection, why collect in all the copies that did exist and destroy them if there were no variations etc.

 

[Hugo]

No, you be clear before you write.
make a small purchase of 'A history of Quranic text from revelation to compilation' by Dr. Al Azami.. not only will you learn something about the preservation of the Quran, but you'll actually see the original scripts with their locations in museums world wide!
Also it is transcendence and authoritativeness is taken by 1.86 billion Muslims and growing. Not the case at all with Christianity where the man/god delusion is fast falling out of favor!

Why don't you get a copy of Professor Farid Esack's book (ISBN 978-1-85168-624-7) then you might learn something also about the Qu'ran. I am willing to accept that I might be deluded but sadly the thought that you might be deluded never crosses your mind?

 

[Hugo]

Do you really think so?? or is this just what you read?

Of course I get information from what I read - where does yours come from?