Interesting find - Christians please comment

[Ramadhan]

this cannot be entirely true because it may not have occurred for the early revelations. Also, we know the Qu'ran is an oral tradition because it has such a small vocabulary consistent with what would be normal for everyday speech but how do you account for the fact that although it is said that some 60 scribes were used that not a single record of that work survives and even among those 60 scribes and many others who memorised that not a single error occurred - so what standard are you wanting me to apply other than incredulity - please say and then we can compare. This is important since one of us might just have the truth and I am as keen to know it but ultimately it's the message that matters would you not agree

Hugo,

I believe you were also involved in previous other threads about Qur'an revelations and preservations.
But yet again, here you are offering your opinions which is not based on anything except your hatred for Islam.

I am going to be patient, and I am going to out here a series of How the Qur'an was revealed and preserved, and maybe this time you actually will read it.



By Dr. Zakir Naik


Question:
There were many versions of the Qur’an all of which were burnt by Usman (r.a.) except for one. Therefore is it not true that the present Qur’an is the one compiled by Usman (r.a.) and not the original revelation of God?


Answer:
One of the most common myths about the Qur’an, is that Usman (r.a.), the third Caliph of Islam authenticated and compiled one Qur’an, from a large set of mutually contradicting copies. The Qur’an, revered as the Word of Allah (swt) by Muslims the world over, is the same Qur’an as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It was authenticated and written under his personal supervision. We will examine the roots of the myth which says that Usman (r.a.) had the Qur’an authenticated.


1. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an

Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (R.A. – Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) – May Allah be pleased with him who would also memorize it. The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh).


2. Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired

The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.

Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.

It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.


3. Qur’an copied on one common material

The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The verses however, were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost.


4. Usman (r.a.) made copies of the Qur’an from the original manuscript

Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third Caliph Usman (r.a.).

Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet (pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centres of Muslims.

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman (r.a.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.


5. Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs

The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.


6. Allah Himself has promised to guard the Qur’an

Allah has promised in the Qur’an :
"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]

 

[Ramadhan]

From http://www.islamic-life.com/other-refutations/quran/article-quran-preserved

(there are some arguments from non-muslims below, just in case you want to argue those, Hugo. It may save you -and us- time and energy)


Has Qur'an been Preserved?
[E-mail] [Print] [PDF]
By Muhammad SalmanPublished in Qur'anPublished on Aug. 23, 2008

This article covers the Muslims response and refutation to some of the common false allegations against the preservation of the Qur'an. These are my notes from a debate that I had with an atheist on the topic of preservation of the Qur'an. He mainly argued that Qur'an was not complete during the life of the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam - peace and blessings be upon him), neither it was completely written down or memorized. He also argued that the Qur'an we've today is missing ayaat (verses) and parts. The preservation of the Qur'an has been guaranteed by Allah (God): "Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'an) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)" (1). Imam ibn Jarir at-Tabari (rahimahullah - May Allah have mercy on him) says in the tafsir (exegesis) of this ayah: "Allah is saying, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (Reminder), i.e. the Qur'an, and We will guard the Qur'an against anything false being added to it that is not part of it, or anything that is part of it being taken away, whether that has to do with rulings, hudood punishments or matters having to do with inheritance" (2). The sound minded readers can go through my notes and analyze the truth:
Was Qur'an Incomplete when Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salm) died?
Non-Muslim's Argument

Qur'an was not complete when Muhammad died and was in fragments. Qur'an is incomplete because it was not completely compiled, missing parts or some parts didn't survive. If the sayings of the Qur'an was not organised into a book called the Qur'an, there is no Qur'an.
Muslim Response

This misconception is only raised due to lack of basic knowledge. The attacker thinks that when Muslims today say "Qur'an", they refer to the written mushaf (codex), which is not true as no sound minded Muslim believe in such a thing. According to the correct Islamic 'aqeedah (creed), Sunni Muslim believe that the Qur'an is the Kalam (speech) of Allah and it is not created. In addition, the literal meaning of the word Qur'an is, "the recitation". Therefore, when Muslims say "Qur'an", they're talking about the text not the written copies which contain the text. Now, the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) over the period of 23 years, it was completed while he was alive. Allah Ta'ala says in the Qur'an: "this day have I perfected your deen for you" (3). Therefore, the Qur'anic revelation was completed when Allah’s Messenger (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) was alive. Even if we assume the attacker's position, if the content of a story is complete, how can you claim that the story is incomplete? The following sahih (authentic) ahadith further confirms it:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet was the most generous person, and he used to become more so (generous) particularly in the month of Ramadan because Gabriel used to meet him every night of the month of Ramadan till it elapsed. Allah's Apostle used to recite the Qur'an for him. When Gabriel met him, he used to become more generous than the fast wind in doing good. (4)

Narrated Abu-Huraira: Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur'an with the Prophet once a year, but he repeated it twice with him in the year he died. The Prophet used to stay in I'tikaf for ten days every year (in the month of Ramadan). (5)
Did Companions (radi-allahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad(sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salm) not memorized and write down the whole Qur'an?
Non-Muslim's Argument

No one memorized or wrote down all of Muhammad's teachings. Look at the following hadith: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ...So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf 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... (6). From this hadith, it is clear that the scribes failed to note down all the Muhammad said, hence why the tale talks about his followers failing to create a book and also why the person needed to search for multiple people, multiple writings to even compile it.
Muslim Response

Again, the attacker shows his lack of basic Islamic knowledge and misinterpretation of the hadith. First, let's look at the proofs which refutes his false claims and then we'll look at this hadith within the context. Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid (May Allah preserve him) said:

Everything that was revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was written down in front of him straight away, and some of the Sahaabah had masaahif (written copies of the Qur'an). After the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), the first khaleefah, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) gathered the Qur’aan in written and kept it. Then the third khaleefah, 'Uthmaan ibn 'Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) compiled it in mus-hafs that were based on the mus-haf compiled by Abu Bakr, in addition to what had been memorized. (7)

and in another place he said:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) appointed a group of his companions who were trustworthy and knowledgeable to write down the revelation. They are known in their biographies as those who wrote down the Revelation, such as the four Caliphs, 'Abd-Allaah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'Aas, Mu'aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, Zayd ibn Thaabit and others – may Allaah be pleased with them all.(8)
The whole Qur'an was memorized by many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam)

Let's look at some of the authentic sources which supports what the Shaykh said; Imam Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah - May Allah have mercy on him) records the following hadith in Sahih Al-Buhkhari in chapter, "Who were the Qurra'/hufaz among the companions (radiallahu anhuma - May Allah be pleased with them) of Prophet (peace be upon him)?" Qari'/ hafiz (singular of Qurra'/hufaz) is someone who has memorized the WHOLE QUR’AN!:

Narrated Masriq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b'". (9)

The commenter in the commentary of this hadith says: "These four companions (RA) were the biggest 'ailm (scholar) and the memorizer of the whole Qur'an. There were other qurra' among them but these four knew the most". (10) The phrase, "Knew the most", doesn't refer to the quantity; rather it refers to the strength of their memory. This also proves that companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) perfectly memorized and learned the entire Qur'an. You can't teach others or help them memorize the Qur'an unless you have memorized the entire Qur'an and its 'alim. Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) would never have made such a statement if they were not qualified for it! We further read in 'Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Qur'an: "Some of the companions who memorized the Quran were: 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama". (11) Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) has told us of great virtue of memorzing the Qur'an. Muslims for 14 centuries have been memorizing the Qur'an and passing it down as it came. Hence, it is complete nonsensical of one to say that the companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) didn't memorize the whole Qur'an. There are numerous other overwhelming evidences, which I'm not quoting to keep the response short, that confirm the fact that many of the companions (rahiallahu anhuma) memorized the entire Qur'an and the readers will soon see that the very hadith quoted by the attacker proves him wrong.
Statements of non-Muslim Scholars on memorization of the Qur'an

John Burton says: "The method of transmitting the Quran from one generation to the next by having he young memorize the oral recitation of their elders had mitigated somewhat from the beginning the worst perils of relying solely on written records…" (12) Kenneth Cragg says: "this phenomenon of Quranic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifdh (Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation, never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone". (13)
The whole Qur'an was written down by many Companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam)

Let's look some of the authentic evidences proving the fact that the Qur'an was written down by many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) during his life:

Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the Prophet ?" He replied, "Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. (14)

Narrated Anas bin Malik: When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur'an but four persons: Abu Ad-Darda'. Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring. (15) The commenter in the commentary of this hadith says: "Hadhrat Anas (radhiallahu anho) is saying what he knew. There were other companions (radhiallahu anhuma) besides these four who collected (wrote down) the Qur'an. However, Hadhrat Anas (radhiallahu anho) means the companions who collected (wrote down) the whole Qur'an". (10) Some may argue that the word "collected" could also mean they memorized it or collected knowledge because these ahadith are also recorded in the same chapter as 521. However, the correct translation is that they wrote it down. The Arabic word used here is, Jam'a, and it means literally collecting objects. Therefore, they must have collected Qur'an in written form.

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." (16)

Narrated Al-Bara: There was revealed: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah" (4.95). The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: …" (17)

The entire Quran was however also recorded in writing at the time of revelation from the Prophet's [sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam] dictation, may God praise him, by some of his literate companions, the most prominent of them being Zaid ibn Thabit. (18)

Others among his noble scribes were Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Ibn Mas’ud, Mu’awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan, Khalid ibn Waleed and Zubayr ibn Awwam. (19)
Explanation of the hadith and reasons for collecting the Qur'an from different people

In the refutation of the attacker's claim, I've above shown using the authentic evidences that the entire Qur'an was memorized and written down during the life of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam). Now, the attacker's false claims only arise due to his misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the hadith: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ...So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf 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... (6). However, when we read the complete hadith it tells us the reasons about their decision of collecting the Qur'an. We read in the hadith that many Qurra' (who memorized the whole Qur’an) martyred during the battle of Yamama. Again, the very hadith quoted by the attacker to prove his point contradicts him and it proves my point: many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) memorized the entire Qur’an during his life. The battle of Yamama took place right after Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) passed away, in fact, he (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) sent the army himself and later this army was strengthened with more men by Abou Bakr (radiallahu anho). Hence, the companions (rahiallahu anhuma) decided to make a committe which was responsible of collecting the Qur'an and Zaid was incharge of this task.

Imam ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) says in Fathul Bari: "The material must have been originally written down in the presence of the Prophet; nothing written down later on the basis of memory alone was to be accepted. The material must be confirmed by two witnesses, that is to say, by two trustworthy persons testifying that they themselves had heard the Prophet recite the passage in question". (20) The restrictions placed by the committee are the sole reason for collecting the Qur'an from different people and finding a certain ayah with only one person. In other words, reading the hadith within the context of other evidences, we understand that the phrase in the hadith "other than him" exclude the members of committee as Zaid (radiallahu anho) was collecting the Qur'an from non-members and they needed two trustworthy witnesses to confirm it. Shaykh Muhammad Salih confirms it: "The Sahaabi Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) knew the Qur’aan by heart but he was methodical in his confirmation; he would not agree to write down any verse until two of the Sahaabah testified that they had heard it from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)". (8) Imam ibn Hajr further explains this in Fathul Bari:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) permitted the writing of the Qur'an and prohibited the writing of anything else along with it, so Abu Bakr did not order anything to be written down except what has already been written down, and that is the reason why he (Zayd bin Thaabit) refrained from writing the last verses from Surah al Bara'a until he found it written, for he already knew it and had people who remembered it along with him. Umar said: Who ever received anything regarding the Quran from the Prophet (peace be upon him) then let him bring it. And they used to write it on the manuscripts and boards and date palmed stalks. He said that nothing would be accepted from anyone until two witnesses testify to it. "And this points out that Zayd was not satisfied with only finding it written down until someone testified that he heard it, even though Zayd himself had memorized it, and they used to take this extra precaution in order to be more cautious. And Abu Dawud contained a narration on the authority of Hisham bin Arwa that his father said that Abu Bakr said to Umar and Zayd: Sit down on the door of the Mosque and whoever of two witnesses come to you regarding the Quran then write it down'. The men of this narration are trustworthy despite the chain being broken, and the intended meaning regarding two witnesses was memorization and writing, or it meant that they both testify that what was written down was actually written down under the authority of the Messenger peace be upon him, or it meant that they both testify that it was sent down as Quranic revelation. And it was their way that nothing was written down except that they receive what was written down during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him and not just from memorization. (21)

From above evidences, it is clear that Zaid (radiallahu anho) didn't find the ayaat (verses) written down with anyone except Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho); however, it doesn't mean that no one else knew about these ayaat beside him. Even if we assume the attacker position, then how did Zaid (radiallahu anho) know that he had to look for these ayaat? How did he know that he will find these ayaat from Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho)? How did Zaid (adiallahu anho) confirm that it was part of Sura At-Tauba and Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho) was mentioning those two specific ayaat? Even, if we assume that Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho) told him this then the committee would never have taken this into account because this would nullifies their basic premise for verifying the correct collection of the Qur'an (only one source). To hit the nail to the ground, we read Tafsir ibn Kathir in which Imam ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) summed it all up:

And Ahmad said: Ali bin Bahr said that Ali bin Muhammad bin Salma on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq on the authority of Yahya bin Ebad on the authority of his father Ebad bin Zubayr may Allah be pleased with him said that Al Harith (Zayd) approached bin Khuzaymah with these two verses from the ending of Surah Al Bara'a (Surah 9) 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves' to Abdullah ibn Umar Al Khattab so he said 'Who is with you on this?' He said 'I don't know' and by Allah I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I learned it and memorized it then Umar said: And I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him. (22)

Therefore, it is clear from the above evidences that other than Abi Khuzaima (radiallahu anho), other companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) indeed knew about these ayaat. A more detailed Muslim response to attacker's claim can be found here.
Is Qur'an Incomplete (missing ayaat/parts)?
Non-Muslim's Argument

Many passages of the Qur'an were lost as it is related by the following narration: "Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor 'Umar nor 'Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an. Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur'an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur'an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other" [-bu Bakr 'Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif"]
Muslim Response

First, it is well known that "al Masahif" by 'Abdullah bin abi Da'ud is full of fabricated narrations. Hence, there's no point of refuting the claim if it is not authentic. It is well known and reported by Islamic scholars that if it weren't for the isnaad (chain of narrators/transmitters), the people would had come up anything they wanted and inculded it in Islam. Thus, I ask the attacker where is the isnaad of this narration? I'm assuming that Zhuri mentioned in the narration is Imam Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn 'Ubaydullah ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (rahimahullah). I say this is a lie attributed to a great Sunni Imam and muhadith (scholar of hadith) as the narrations goes against the well known authentic ahadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari. It has been proved earlier that there were many companions (radiallahu anhuma) of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam), who memorised and wrote down the entire Qur'an, but we read few names from authentic ahadith (9) (14) (15): 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Ubai bin Ka'b, Abu Ad-Darda', Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.

Among these people, Ubai bin Ka'b (radiallahu anho) and 'Abdullah bin Masud (radiallahu anho) passed away during the caliphate of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho). Mu'adh bin Jabal (radiallahu anho) passed away during the caliphate of 'Umar (radiallahu anho). Zaid bin Thabit (radiallahu anho) and Abu Ad-Darda' (radiallahu anho) passed away during/after the caliphate of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho). Salim (radiallahu anho) was martyred during the battle of Yamama. I could not trace down some info about Abou Zaid (radiallahu anho). Therefore, out of seven people, who are proven from authentic ahadith that they memorised and/or wrote down the entire Qur’an, only one of them was martyred during the battle of Yamama; hence, the report/rumour that is either attributed to Imam Zahri (rahimahullah) or he heard is false and an utter lie.
Non-Muslim's Argument

Quran is incomplete as relayed by the earliest Muslims: "It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" [as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524].
Muslim Response

If we read this report, from Ibn 'Umar (radiallahu anho), in the context and the correct translation of it, we understand that he is talking about understanding of the Qur'an not compilation or completion of the Qur'an as the attacker claims! Dr. G.F. Hadad says:

The words used by Ibn 'Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" above were -- I am quoting from memory -- respectively "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated). The actual meaning of Ibn 'Umar's words is: "Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Qur'an [= its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]". Ibn `Umar was famous for his strictness in refraining from interpreting the Qur'an, even criticizing Ibn 'Abbas's interpretive zeal in the beginning, then accepting its authority. He was not referring to the collection of the Qur'an! But only to the ethics of the exegete, in the same line as Ibn 'Abbas's saying narrated by al-Tabari and cited by al-Suyuti and al-Zarkashi: 'There are ambiguous verses in the Qur'an which no one knows besides Allah. Whoever claims that he knows them, is a liar.' (23)
Non-Muslim's Argument

Different version of the Qur'an were destroyed: Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm 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 (Qur'an) 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 ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman 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 the Quraish as 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. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).
Muslim Response

Qur'an was originally revealed in the dialect of Quraish but later was allowed to recited/read in seven different ways: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas: Allah's Apostle said, "Gabriel recited the Qur'an to me in one way. Then I requested him (to read it in another way), and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways. (24) Hence, various readings among people from different tribes/nations became obvious and we also make a note of this from the hadith, which the attacker quoted, that they were afraid of disputes raising among people. As a result, 'Utman (radiallahu anho) set a committee to prepare a final copy of the Qur'an from the copy that Abou Bkar (radiallahu anho) left with the wife of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam), Hafsa (radiallahu anha - May Allah be pleased with her). He also ordered to write down the Qur'an in Quraish dialect and burned the other copies to resolve any uncertainty, discrepancies and errors in terms of textual or reading variants. Shaykh Muhammad Salih briefly explains the reasons for uniting upon one recitation:

This Mus-haf (written copy of the Qur’aan) remained in the hands of the caliphs until the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliph ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him). The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) had dispersed to different lands, and they used to recite the Qur’aan according to what they had heard of the seven recitations from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and each of their students used to recite according to what he had heard from his shaykh. If a student heard someone reciting in a manner different from what he knew, he would denounce him and accuse him of making a mistake, and this went on until the Sahaabah feared that there would be fitnah (trouble) between the Taabi’een and successive generations. So they thought that they should unite the people in following one recitation, which was in the dialect of Quraysh in which the Qur’aan had first been revealed, so as to dispel any disputes and resolve the matter. ‘Uthmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) was consulted, and he agreed with this opinion.

Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (4988) from Anas ibn Maalik that Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamaan came to ‘Uthmaan at the time when the people of Shaam (Syria) and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was alarmed by their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’aan, so he said to 'Uthmaan, "O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! Save this nation before they dispute about the Book (Qur’aan) as the Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthmaan sent a message to Hafsah saying, "Send us the manuscript of the Qur’aan so that we may make copies of the Mus-haf and we will return the manuscript to you." (8)

We also read:

The earlier recension (Original copy prepared by Abu Bakr) was to serve as the principal basis of the new one. (25)

Any doubt that might be raised as to the phrasing of a particular passage in the written text was to be dispelled by summoning persons known to have learned the passage in question from the Prophet. 'Uthman himself was to supervise the work of the Council. (26)

It is well known that when the final recension was completed, 'Uthman (radiallahu anho) sent a copy of it to each of the major cities of Makka, Damascus, Kufa, Basra and Madina. The action of 'Uthman (radiallahu anho) to burn the other copies besides the final recension, though obviously drastic, was for the betterment and harmony of the whole community and was unanimously approved by the Companions of the Prophet as Zaid ibn Thabit (radiallahu anho) is reported to have said: "I saw the Companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, 'By God, Uthman has done well! By God, Uthman has done well!". (27)
Non-Muslim's Argument

Editing of the Qur'an is allowed as it is reported in a hadith: Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts (of the Qur'an). 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, "If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur'an, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their language". So they acted accordingly. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.466]
Muslim Response

So, what exactly did they edit? As I showed above that Qur'an was originally revealed in Quraish dialect but later was allowed to be recited/read in seven different dialects. I don't know by which logic using one of the seven dialects is considered editing!
Non-Muslim's Argument

There have been changes to the Qu'ran as Zaid has been reported to said: "I missed a verse from al-Ahzab (Surah 33) when we transcribed the mushaf (the written text of the Qur'an under Uthman's supervision). I used to hear the messenger of Allah (saw) reciting it. We searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: 'From among the believers are men who are faithful in their covenant with Allah' (33.23). So we inserted it in the (relevant) surah in the text." [As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.138]
Muslim Response

Again, the attacker mixed up the completion of the Qur'an with compilation of the Qur'an. Does the attacker's source say that they came up with this ayah and added it to the completed Qur'an? All it is saying that when they were compiling the Qur'an under the supervision of 'Uthman (radiallahou anho), one of the companion (radiallahu anho) forgot an ayah but he knew that he (radiallahu anho) heard it from Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam); so, he (radiallahu anho) got it from another companion (radiallahu anho) and added it in where it belonged! Therefore, I don't see how this is changing the Qur'an. The argument of edition of the Qur'an would make sense if they (radiallahu anhuma) created or removed an ayah which was not part of the Qur'an, but there is ZERO evidence for that. I already have showed above that Qur'an was perfectly compiled and the same Qur'an exist today as it has been perfectly passed down for 1400 years.
Non-Muslim's Argument

An example of a missing verse, Verse of Stoning; One of the missing verses is the verse of stoning, where an adulterer would be stoned to death as punishment: "Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle (saw) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book', and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.539]
Muslim Response

This has been already dealt here in details. It is important to note that there are other cases like the rajam (stoning) ayah. Other Islamic sources prove that certain ayaat were revealed but they were later abrogated; hence, not found in the Qur'an. However, the attackers quote the narrations which prove that certain ayaat were revealed but either deliberately misses out the narrations which say that those ayaat were abrogated or misinterpret them. For example, the case of missing part of 2:238, which has been dealt here in details. With this, I would like to conclude that in this article, I've shown many authentic evidences to disapprove and refute the common false allegations made against the authenticity and preservation of the Qur'an. For more information on this topic and Muslims refutations/responses to suspicious arguments raised by Islamic haters, the readers can refer to Qur'anic Variants and Qur'an. Wallahu a'lam (and Allah knows best)!

 

[Ramadhan]

I hope you read the articles above, Hugo, so you won't waste our time and energy by saying the same thing over and over again, which is not true and has been answered many times over.
It is another thing if you just don't want to believe, but please spare us your filth and lies.


Now,

can you apply the same standard to bible (NT)?

Were the gospels written by Jesus (as)?
were the gospels memorised by his disciples?
were there strong and reliable oral tradition that passed on and preserved the gospels?
were the authors of the gospels even known?
were the gospels written during the time of Jesus (as)?
Were the gospels written during jesus' disciples time?

Also, just in case you missed it, Allah has promised in the Qur'an to preserve it:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]

Now let's take a look: the Qur'an recited and memorised by someone in Birmingham, Bandung, Baghdad, Beijing, Buenos Aires and Boston is exactly the same.
And this is after 1,400 years.
had there been a slight variations from the beginning, there would have been countless of qur'an versions, just like...errr... some other scriptures who need to be retranslated and "reimproved" all the time (rings a bell?)

Compare that with state of bible: how many versions? (only god knows), what was the original gospel? (only god knows)

What is your next excuse to deny that Islam is the truth and the Qur'an is the message from God?

 

[Hugo]

I hope you read the articles above, Hugo, so you won't waste our time and energy by saying the same thing over and over again, which is not true and has been answered many times over.

Thank you for the long notes and I will reply as soon as I can but I have limited facilities at present as I am in the middle of a research trip and cannot get Internet access reliably - my I ask for some clarification, you say two copies of I assume Uthmans recencion exists but your refs are far to vague for me to check - for example the Topkapi has about 1,600 ancient Qu'rans so which one are you actually referring to? if you can be precise it would help with my responses.

 

[Ramadhan]

Thank you for the long notes and I will reply as soon as I can but I have limited facilities at present as I am in the middle of a research trip and cannot get Internet access reliably - my I ask for some clarification, you say two copies of I assume Uthmans recencion exists but your refs are far to vague for me to check - for example the Topkapi has about 1,600 ancient Qu'rans so which one are you actually referring to? if you can be precise it would help with my responses

Ah I knew it. You are going for "answering-islam" way for you rnext excuse in rejecting the truth.
Are you not going to give me the courtesy and answer my questions first? After all, I did my turn and explained to you at great lengths about qur'an revelations and methods of preservation.

1. Qur'an means "recitation", so to read it is to recite it, and the way to pass it on is to recite it.
2. There were many shahaba (companions, disciples) of the prophet SAW who memorised fully the qur'an
3. even after uthman r.a. commissioned to compile the Qur'an in quraishi dialect the way it was revealed, there were still many living hufaz of the qur'an.
4. if there had been ANY differences, no matter how small, between the hufaz (people who fully memorize the qur'an) themselves and the qur;an text, it would have been manifested and increasingly magnified over and over throughout generations and centuries, resulting in many different versions of the qur'an, both in recitation and text
5. the fact is, today, there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world. the qur'an recited and memorised by a shia in tehran (let's ali khamanei) is EXACTLY the same as the qur'an recited and memorised by a sunni in california (let's say brother rashad)
6. There are currently millions of hufaz in the world, who hold lineage/transmission all the way back to the prophet Muhammad SAW. One of those hufaz is a cousin of mine, she is only 16.
7. In the qur;an, God has promised to guard the Qur'an from corruption and changed, and FACT: the qur'an has stayed the same for 1,400 years while other scriptures have gone into countless editings and changings and rewritings. Do YOU not PONDER this?

Now, it is very apparent from your questioning the authenticity of the qur'an that you are very interested to make sure that scriptures can be traced all the way back to the prophet, let's apply this to the gospels, shall we?

Were the gospels written by Jesus (as)?
were the gospels memorised by his disciples?
were there strong and reliable oral tradition that passed on and preserved the gospels?
were the authors of the gospels even known?
were the gospels written during the time of Jesus (as)?
Were the gospels written during jesus' disciples time?

Shall we keep with the title of this thread?

 

[Hugo]

Naidamar some general comments on your post outlining work by Dr. Zakir Naik

1. Naik's work is well known but it is typically tendentious for he decides what he wants to assert and then cherry picks the evidence to gain his desired conclusion and ignores everything else. In this case he recounts one version of Qu'ranic transmission to the written word without telling you there are several other versions. You might like to read Dr Al Azami's book "The history of the Qu'ranic text" page 89 (I am told a PDF version is on Utube but it seems to be a pirated version)

2. One can see this in the article you posted for he is unable to make any kind of distinction between faith and fact - that the Qu'ran is divinely inspired is a matter of faith not fact as it cannot be verified one way or the other but that Mohammed dictated his supposed revelation to his scribes is a fact if the documents can be produced.

3. He is inconsistent and unhappily Muslims accept what other Muslims write without reading it for themselves as if in this case Dr Naik is infallible. For example*

a. Naik says "The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself." Since the prophet could not read or write it is obvious he could not 'recheck himself'; that is he could not check what was written down.

b. Naik writes "If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked" in one place yet in another he says *"Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes." One or other of these statements us false.

c. Naik continually says there were mistakes made and the prophet continually revised what was written but If you insist on perfection at every stage then one has to wonder why all this correcting and revising was necessary? On a personal note this process of correction and revision as Naik describes is both practical and credible as the only other possibility is total recall by the prophet over 23 years or you appeal the angel re-instructing but of course that cannot be proved or disproved and relies on there being just one witness the prophet and nothing is established on the word of a single witness

4. Finally, we have Abu Bakr making a single copy from the various fragments of which there were many in different forms from*Hafsha though he do es not explain why she had all these fragments or*say how they collected all those fragments or how they could be sure they were authenticated. We then seem to have the absurd and shocking position that a copy was made and the originals as AUTHENTICATED by the prophet himself were destroyed, lost or what - would YOU prefer the original or the copy? We hear so much about Muslim anger when a Qu'ran is burned but here we have the companions doing the same with the original!!

5. I have no idea what Topkapi Qu'ran you affirm is one of the Usman copies and the Tashkent copy is almost certainly not one and in any case it is incomplete and has many repairs and as far as I know scholars have only seen facsimiles of it not the actual codex. But if you have new information let us all have the details **

 

[Hugo]

Naidamar - When we speak if authenticity there are two aspects: the text itself which can be establish by normal scholarly practices and the text being an authentic message from God which cannot be established by any scholarly practice but is a matter if faith. Now to your questions which to avoid having large posts I will answer one at a time.

Were the gospels written by Jesus (as)?
They were not written down by Him if that is what you mean. The mechanism was that Jesus taught his disciples and others for three years and later they recounted his teaching and work. From a textual point if view there exist about 5,400 manuscripts of the NT from a few verses to complete Gospels. In addition there are about 15,000 other sources for the NT in things like commentaries and letters and the NT could be reconstructed from these alone. Most scholars agree that as far as the text of the NT is concerned there are only three passages, Mark 16:9-20 An added ending to the Gospel,*Luke 22:41-45 Jesus prayer in the Garden*and John 7:53-8:11 woman caught in the act of adultery.*These three sections represent the only major textual problems in the Gospels and no important teaching hangs on any one of them unless you have some weird beliefs

Now a comparison. You say the Qu'ran is God's word but the Qu'ran was dictated to Mohammad *and he dictated it to others to write down so one might say that what you have now is third hand - God to the angel, angel to Mohammad, Mohammad to the companions. Secondly, you have no manuscript base because the originals as authenticated by Mohammad are lost or destroyed and this is an unbridgeable gap. Thirdly, you rely on an oral tradition but as Bart Ehrman (beloved of Muslims when he speaks of the Gospels) say oral traditions are not meant to preserve exactly but will vary each time it is recited to suit circumstance, audience etc - if you want to preserve you have to write it down. *

 

[جوري]

Naidamar some general comments on your post outlining work by Dr. Zakir Naik

1. Naik's work is well known but it is typically tendentious for he decides what he wants to assert and then cherry picks the evidence to gain his desired conclusion and ignores everything else. In this case he recounts one version of Qu'ranic transmission to the written word without telling you there are several other versions. You might like to read Dr Al Azami's book "The history of the Qu'ranic text" page 89 (I am told a PDF version is on Utube but it seems to be a pirated version)

ah I was wondering when you'd purge yourself of your favorite word 'tendentious' -- what you have done above is called ad hominem -- are you familiar?

2. One can see this in the article you posted for he is unable to make any kind of distinction between faith and fact - that the Qu'ran is divinely inspired is a matter of faith not fact as it cannot be verified one way or the other but that Mohammed dictated his supposed revelation to his scribes is a fact if the documents can be produced.

Not at all a matter of faith, it is a matter of the document itself.. and many folks have written of this including the former Christian minister Dr. Gary Miller:
[PDF]The Amazing Quran
anyone can put the Quran to the same or different challenges. Your inability to accept that fact is more a personal problem than an actual reality!

3. He is inconsistent and unhappily Muslims accept what other Muslims write without reading it for themselves as if in this case Dr Naik is infallible. For example*

how do you know what Muslims accept and not accept, and do you have something to go on other than your apparent seething hate for anything Islamic?

a. Naik says "The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself." Since the prophet could not read or write it is obvious he could not 'recheck himself'; that is he could not check what was written down.

Hearing it back 17 times every day longer on some days and multiple times during Ramadan as is incumbent on every Muslim since the inception of Islam insures that what was written even if not re-checked by the prophet is exactly what was revealed!

b. Naik writes "If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked" in one place yet in another he says *"Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes." One or other of these statements us false.

see above response!

c. Naik continually says there were mistakes made and the prophet continually revised what was written but If you insist on perfection at every stage then one has to wonder why all this correcting and revising was necessary? On a personal note this process of correction and revision as Naik describes is both practical and credible as the only other possibility is total recall by the prophet over 23 years or you appeal the angel re-instructing but of course that cannot be proved or disproved and relies on there being just one witness the prophet and nothing is established on the word of a single witness

Revision and memorization is what gives us perfection. And indeed necessary without it we'd end up man worshiping heathens like the Christians.

4. Finally, we have Abu Bakr making a single copy from the various fragments of which there were many in different forms from*Hafsha though he do es not explain why she had all these fragments or*say how they collected all those fragments or how they could be sure they were authenticated. We then seem to have the absurd and shocking position that a copy was made and the originals as AUTHENTICATED by the prophet himself were destroyed, lost or what - would YOU prefer the original or the copy? We hear so much about Muslim anger when a Qu'ran is burned but here we have the companions doing the same with the original!!

The decision to have the Quran in non-fragmented forms was because 1- Islam was expanding 2- after the killing of 70 haifth who were sent to teach and were killed in an act of treachery ensured that with the death of the hafith there would be no death to the Quran.. other than that what are your reservations on hafash having fragments, who would you rather have? would person X or person Y elicit the same reaction from you? or just hafsah or simply that you have no argument so you want to fill the lines with your usual? ah here is a good place to stick tendentious

5. I have no idea what Topkapi Qu'ran you affirm is one of the Usman copies and the Tashkent copy is almost certainly not one and in any case it is incomplete and has many repairs and as far as I know scholars have only seen facsimiles of it not the actual codex. But if you have new information let us all have the details **

you should read the book in your possession or do you fear another public expose by my person for you constant and incessant misrepresentations and deliberate dishonesty?

all the best as always!

 

[Ramadhan]

Naik's work is well known but it is typically tendentious for he decides what he wants to assert and then cherry picks the evidence to gain his desired conclusion and ignores everything else. In this case he recounts one version of Qu'ranic transmission to the written word without telling you there are several other versions. You might like to read Dr Al Azami's book "The history of the Qu'ranic text" page 89 (I am told a PDF version is on Utube but it seems to be a pirated version)

what versions?

I believe you were in previous other threads discussing the "so called" versions of the qur'an, and sister Lily has explained in great lengths along with evidence to refute it.
And now, you are back here espousing it again.

Frankly, despite your insistence that you are here to learn "truth", that could not be further from the truth.

Not only that, You just do not have sincerity at all.

2. One can see this in the article you posted for he is unable to make any kind of distinction between faith and fact - that the Qu'ran is divinely inspired is a matter of faith not fact as it cannot be verified one way or the other but that Mohammed dictated his supposed revelation to his scribes is a fact if the documents can be produced.

From all evidence and facts presented to you over and over in countless other threads, suffice to say that the Qur'an cannot be from other than God SWT.
It is not our job that you decide not to read all of those.

a. Naik says "The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself." Since the prophet could not read or write it is obvious he could not 'recheck himself'; that is he could not check what was written down.

The prophet SAW taught the shahaba to memorise the qur'an. Now, if what was memorised had not been identical with what were written, do you not think there would have been countless different versions qur'an these days?
Remember, rasulullah SWT sent his shahaba to do dakwah in foreign places and this continued after his death. If there had been variations, even an extremely small one, there would have been carried out throughout the centuries. But there was none.

You conveniently failed to address this fact.

Naik continually says there were mistakes made and the prophet continually revised what was written but If you insist on perfection at every stage then one has to wonder why all this correcting and revising was necessary? On a personal note this process of correction and revision as Naik describes is both practical and credible as the only other possibility is total recall by the prophet over 23 years or you appeal the angel re-instructing but of course that cannot be proved or disproved and relies on there being just one witness the prophet and nothing is established on the word of a single witness

Reading the qur'an is not like reading any book: it is by recitation.

Every muslims then and today know that to master tajweed perfectly one needs months if not years of practice, let alone memorisation the whole qur'an with perfect tajweed.
The prophet SAW even needed to revise the whole Qur'an under the supervision of the angel Jibreel twice a year.
That is how he also made sure the shahaba recited the qur'an perfectly and with tarteel.

4. Finally, we have Abu Bakr making a single copy from the various fragments of which there were many in different forms from*Hafsha though he do es not explain why she had all these fragments or*say how they collected all those fragments or how they could be sure they were authenticated. We then seem to have the absurd and shocking position that a copy was made and the originals as AUTHENTICATED by the prophet himself were destroyed, lost or what - would YOU prefer the original or the copy? We hear so much about Muslim anger when a Qu'ran is burned but here we have the companions doing the same with the original!!

You are making up things.
Surely if you read the articles I gave you you would know what was destroyed and why.
Again, had there been any inconcistencies however small between the fragments, the memorisers and the copy, surely it would have been carried and greatly magnified till today. But fact shows: there is none.
Burning the qur'an is one of the prescribed ways of disposing old qur'an.
The matter with terry jones is different. Jones wanted to burn the qur'an out of spite for muslims and Islam.

 

[Ramadhan]

Were the gospels written by Jesus (as)?
They were not written down by Him if that is what you mean.

NO!!
the gospels were NOT written by Jesus pbuh?
But according to your standards for scriptures, they must be authenticated and had sufficient witnesses and recorded, no?
Isn't your faith shaky now?

From a textual point if view there exist about 5,400 manuscripts of the NT from a few verses to complete Gospels. In addition there are about 15,000 other sources for the NT in things like commentaries and letters and the NT could be reconstructed from these alone.

were those 5,400 manuscripts and 15,000 other sources written during the time of jesus pbuh?
were those 5,400 manuscripts and 15,000 other sources written by his disciples who had direct contact with jesus pbuh?
were those 5,400 manuscripts and 15,000 other sources written during the time of his disciples who had direct contact with jesus pbuh?

If none, then by using the standards that we agree upon and that you were exacting from the quran which we provided, we can dismiss those 5,400 manuscripts and 15,000 other sources as being authentic, no?

So you should relinquish your faith now, right?

Man up, Hugo.

Now a comparison. You say the Qu'ran is God's word but the Qu'ran was dictated to Mohammad *and he dictated it to others to write down so one might say that what you have now is third hand - God to the angel, angel to Mohammad, Mohammad to the companions.

Yes, so?

Secondly, you have no manuscript base because the originals as authenticated by Mohammad are lost or destroyed and this is an unbridgeable gap.

You know you are embellishing facts.
As we have shown you, even if the every single quran text destroyed, the quran still exists, because the main method of preservation and transmission is by recitation and memorisation.

Thirdly, you rely on an oral tradition but as Bart Ehrman (beloved of Muslims when he speaks of the Gospels) say oral traditions are not meant to preserve exactly but will vary each time it is recited to suit circumstance, audience etc - if you want to preserve you have to write it down.

You are digging your own grave.
As I repeatedly said, Had the oral traditions of the quran been like any other oral traditions, that might have been the case; but the fact is that currently there are millions of people memorise the WHOLE qur'an, down the same letters and marks, and hundreds millions others memorise parts of it WTIHOUT ANY DIFFERENCES NO MATTER HOW SMALL points as hard evidence that there had been NO variation and inconsistency starting from the time prophet Muhammad SAW taught to his shahaba until now.

Isn't the fact that the Qur'an is 100% preserved in 1,400 years and the way it is preserved miraculous?
Doesn't this fact make you ponder, Hugo?


Let's see with the gospels and the NT:

The disiciples llearnt from Jesus pbuh, nothing written down, Jesus did not make sure that his disciples remember or memorise everything he said
jesus pbuh left, left no manuscripts and did not make sure that his disciples remember or memorise everything he said. Hence the chinese whispers started
the disciples taught jesus teachings and sayings to others, but there were none manuscripts, no records written down, and again no strong oral traditions and memorisations
Others who'd heard about jesus started form their opinions about what happened
all disciples died
the chinese whispers intensified
some unknown people decided to write books based on what they heard about the disciples, which later titled the gospels according to such and such with made up names based on the names of the disciples
etc
etc.
translations
retranslations
reinterpretations
rereinterpretations
retranslations

oh, meanwhile some guy who had been enemy of jesus whose name was saul claimed that he had met jesus in his dream, and wrote letters based on his "dream", which then formed the NT.

Again, how many bible versions out there today? Only god knows.
The bible is a perfect example of a chinese whispers product

 

[Ramadhan]

double post.

deleted

 

[Hugo]

To Naidamar

As far as I know i have said NOTHING here about versions of the Qu'ran you have invented that idea because you have not read what was written. What I did say is that there are several versions of the STORY of how the Qu,ran eneded up in written form and of this that there is no doubt at all - some say there are as many as 22 different stories and I am surprised you do not know this.

 

[جوري]

some say there are as many as 22 different stories and I am surprised you do not know this.

Who are the 'they' orientalists?

 

[Hugo]

ToNaidamar

I am not making things, simply pointing out that Naik is an unreliable witness and contradicts himself. If you now want to move on an dicuss proofs that th Qu'an is from God then state just one and we can look at it together

 

[جوري]

ToNaidamar

I am not making things, simply pointing out that Naik is an unreliable witness and contradicts himself. If you now want to move on an dicuss proofs that th Qu'an is from God then state just one and we can look at it together

'witness' to what? -- you can't seem to get yourself past the ole Argumentum ad hominem... problem is you start threads you can't finish, you can't sustain yourself and you have no desire to read and all the desire to character assassinate!

 

[Ramadhan]

As far as I know i have said NOTHING here about versions of the Qu'ran you have invented that idea because you have not read what was written. What I did say is that there are several versions of the STORY of how the Qu,ran eneded up in written form and of this that there is no doubt at all - some say there are as many as 22 different stories and I am surprised you do not know this.

No, i did not know there are 22 "stories" of how the Qur'an ended up in written form.
The orientalists certainly had a lot of time in their hand to invent such stories, arent they?

Meanwhile, you have been always very evasive about the facts:

1. There is only one Qur'an in the World. And This is 1,400 years after revelations. The qur'an recited by every muslim in the world is EXACTLY the same. A shia in tehran recite exactly the same qur'an as a sunni in california. The chains of transmissions from currently more than a billion muslims reciting the qur'an or from currently millions of huffaz (memorisers of the whole qur'an) all to the way to the prophet SAW are recorded and authenticated. Whehther you don't believe that the prophet Muhammad SAW received the Qur'an from Allah SWT thorugh Jibrell is a different matter, but you cannot escape the fact of the broken chain of transmission of the Qur'an.

1. Your NT was written by various authors are unknown (your own bible scholars even admit this), except for saul (who never even met Jesus pbuh) who wrote about things he dreamt. The gospels were written in greek, long after the departure of Jesus pbuh, who surely did not speak greek to his disciples (unless you are one of those nutties who claim otherwise).

There were plenty of my points you did not address, which you show that you know deep in heart you cannot defend bible's authenticity and pedigree against the Qur'an.
Why dont you just admit that you will just have to accept christiniaty as a matter of faith (like glo maybe), no matter how ridiculous and absurd christinity theology is and how shaky and errors-ridden your bible is.
That is more respectable for yo to do so, rather than being a hypocrite all the time and a laughing stock for all the muslim members in this forum.

 

[Hugo]

To Naidama

Your are just ovoiding the points being made.

1. You have no manuscript base and as far as I know the earliest written Qu'ran is at least some 200 years after the death ofMohammed.

2. Dr Azami in his book tells us that thousands, yes, thousands of the companions witnesses the burning of the very fragments that your prophet himself verified - (did they all check Usman's copy against their own or the hundreds of fragments?) so not just any copy of the Qu'ran but the first verified copy which one might have thought as being of inestimable value and is the only sure way to verify it's wording. Let me ask a question, do you know which copy of the qu'ran was used by the printers as surely there must have been an official verified version?

3. Allah did not write down his words, scribes did it at third hand and only ONE witness to that and yet you bang on about about Jesus not writing anything down - standards you say, but you have only convenient ones

 

[جوري]

To Naidama

Your are just ovoiding the points being made.

1. You have no manuscript base and as far as I know the earliest written Qu'ran is at least some 200 years after the death ofMohammed.

2. Dr Azami in his book tells us that thousands, yes, thousands of the companions witnesses the burning of the very fragments that your prophet himself verified - (did they all check Usman's copy against their own or the hundreds of fragments?) so not just any copy of the Qu'ran but the first verified copy which one might have thought as being of inestimable value and is the only sure way to verify it's wording. Let me ask a question, do you know which copy of the qu'ran was used by the printers as surely there must have been an official verified version?

3. Allah did not write down his words, scribes did it at third hand and only ONE witness to that and yet you bang on about about Jesus not writing anything down - standards you say, but you have only convenient ones

are you counting that Br. Naidamar doesn't have the book and that I won't tail you and humiliate you as always with direct quotes. You are probably one of the sickest scheming orientalists that have ever come on board with nothing to gain but fooling yourself with your flight of ideas and tangentiality!

Why don't you quote from the book directly without snipping and adding words or are you afraid that not just Muslims but christians as well will see you as the scheming lying Tartuffe that you are?

show us the '22' different stories!

 

[Hugo]

To Naidamar

I think you are missing the point, if I have some 20,000 manuscripts some going right back to ad 35 then I think I am entitled to say that I have an authoratative record of what Jesus did and said and in an earlier post I said that there are only three tiny vereses that are still in question. If you want to dismiss all that evidence that is a matter of enternal concert to you alone and you have almost no right to talk about standards when you have no manuscript base and you expect me to trust in a book that mostly relates what can be found elsewhere and has a single witness to its content on the basis that zislamic oral tradition is quite different to every other one

 

[جوري]

To Naidamar

I think you are missing the point, if I have some 20,000 manuscripts some going right back to ad 35 then I think I am entitled to say that I have an authoratative record of what Jesus did and said and in an earlier post I said that there are only three tiny vereses that are still in question. If you want to dismiss all that evidence that is a matter of enternal concert to you alone and you have almost no right to talk about standards when you have no manuscript base and you expect me to trust in a book that mostly relates what can be found elsewhere and has a single witness to its content on the basis that zislamic oral tradition is quite different to every other one

how about you start with the language your god spoke before you 'verify' that 'authoritative record'