Interesting find - Christians please comment

[Hugo]

Ah, finally Hugo has come out from his little hole to spew another round of misleading informations in his desperate attempt to cling to his very shaky belief that is founded on a house of sand. I was wondering where you were. So is this your way in finally admitting that The Qur'an is indeed unchanged from the prophet till now?

I know you find it hard very hard to answer any question you are asked. But let me do it in steps:

1. What is the significance of a book remaining being unchanged? What does it prove or what principle is involved?

2. You keep saying 1400 years so how long must it take for there to be some significance in a book remaining unchanged - would it be 10 years, 100 years 500 years, what?

 

[Ramadhan]

I know you find it hard very hard to answer any question you are asked. But let me do it in steps:

Your questions hinge on my question to you which you have not anwered:

So is this your way in finally admitting that The Qur'an is indeed unchanged from the prophet till now?

If you deny it, why did you ask the questions?

Or were you just being deceitful per usual?

If you say yes, I will answer your questions. I give you my promise.

Oh by the way, you haven't actually addressed the points I hammered in bold for several times; you were being deceitfully evasive.

 

[جوري]

1. What is the significance of a book remaining being unchanged? What does it prove or what principle is involved?

A book that claims to be authored by God should have consistent verifiable and trustworthy content that transcends the test of time and reflects its authors code of conduct in an unparalleled style.. it is really simple.. nothing to strain your brain about!

all the best

 

[IAmZamzam]

A book that claims to be authored by God should have consistent verifiable and trustworthy content that transcends the test of time and reflects its authors code of conduct in an unparalleled style.. it is really simple.. nothing to strain your brain about

"You must spread some rep points around before giving them to vale's lily again."

 

[Hugo]

Your questions hinge on my question to you which you have not anwered: If you deny it, why did you ask the questions? Or were you just being deceitful per usual? If you say yes, I will answer your questions. I give you my promise. Oh by the way, you haven't actually addressed the points I hammered in bold for several times; you were being deceitfully evasive.

I think I have made it plain on many occasions that it cannot be proved one way or the other that the Qu'ran has remained unchanged since no originals exist because the companions of the prophet burned them. It is said that Usman made 3, 4 or seven copies no one knows and none of these copies now exist. However, the weight of evidence and plain common sense shows it to be false that the Qu'ran is unchanged and I give two examples to illustrate this; one simple and unavoidable truth and the other of more weight and importance.

1. In Dr Al Azami's book mentioned many times before and on pages 12and 33 he speaks about spelling errors or regularization of spelling so this is a change is it not?

2. The Qu'ran contains a large number of obvious interpolations. One example is the long verse 7:157 obviously introduced into the discourse addressed by God to Moses the idea of Mohammed's coming and the necessity of believing in it.

 

[جوري]

I think I have made it plain on many occasions that it cannot be proved one way or the other that the Qu'ran has remained unchanged since no originals exist because the companions of the prophet burned them. It is said that Usman made 3, 4 or seven copies no one knows and none of these copies now exist. However, the weight of evidence and plain common sense shows it to be false that the Qu'ran is unchanged and I give two examples to illustrate this; one simple and unavoidable truth and the other of more weight and importance.

Actually it can and has been proven, your insistence on otherwise without presenting evidence to the matter is nothing short of wishful thinking.

1. In Dr Al Azami's book mentioned many times before and on pages 12and 33 he speaks about spelling errors or regularization of spelling so this is a change is it not?

Why do you continue to lie banking on others not owning the book?

let me quote what is actually written:

1.1 part of Dr. Puin's original letter to al-qahdha-al-akwa

The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Quranic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere. With the exceptions of details that DO NOT TOUCH THE QURAN ITSELF, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. The phenomenon is well-known, even in the Quran published in cairo in which written: Ibrahim (ابراهيم next to Ibrhm ) ابراهم Quran قران next to Qrn قرن etc. In the oldest Yemeni fragments, for example the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common -- which btw is still common modern day not just in the old fragments! he still goes on to write, this deflates the entire controversy, dusting away the webs of intrigue that were spun on Puin's discovery and making them a topic unworthy of any further speculations.

I must admit that I am intrigued by your persistence to misquote and lie and deliberately reach for members to whom in your mind you hold the sad belief that they're not going to be able to see through your prevarications!

2. The Qu'ran contains a large number of obvious interpolations. One example is the long verse 7:157 obviously introduced into the discourse addressed by God to Moses the idea of Mohammed's coming and the necessity of believing in it.

Like everything else you write, if you can't back it up trash it before you further humiliate yourself. You have no credibility, decency or common sense!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Why do you continue to lie banking on others not owning the book?

If you read what has been said by me and others you would know that you can get a pdf version of Dr Azami's book from the web. But let me ask you a simple question: though I doubt you will answer it.

Are you arguing that even the spelling in the Qu'ran has not changed, never changed from the moment it was written down and in those thousands of fragments burned by Usman not a single one of them differed from what you have now?

 

[جوري]

If you read what has been said by me and others you would know that you can get a pdf version of Dr Azami's book from the web. .

Well then I implore you to use the PDF excerpts directly instead of prevaricating what is written .. it would save most of us from cleaning after your crap. And believe me I don't do it for you.. I don't care to cast pearls before swine.. I do it even though it is a complete waste of my time because I know there are sincere seekers of truth!

But let me ask you a simple question: though I doubt you will answer itAre you arguing that even the spelling in the Qu'ran has not changed, never changed from the moment it was written down and in those thousands of fragments burned by Usman not a single one of them differed from what you have now?

What I am arguing is obvious and summed up in what Azami had written and let me re-quote:

With the exceptions of details that DO NOT TOUCH THE QURAN ITSELF, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled.

Until you understand the fine nuances of Arabic and calligraphy I suggest you not argue against Arabic speaking Muslims!
I also suggest you not speak on behalf of other people but quote them directly as to cease with these perversions!

Is is that you can't be honest or simply unwilling to?

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Well then I implore you to use the PDF excerpts directly instead of prevaricating what is written .. it would save most of us from cleaning after your crap. And believe me I don't do it for you.. I don't care to cast pearls before swine.. I do it even though it is a complete waste of my time because I know there are sincere seekers of truth! What I am arguing is obvious and summed up in what Azami had written and let me re-quote:

This just shows that you are selective in what you say and did not even state the reference. The section says on p12

"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qu'ranic fragments do not differ from those in Museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qu'ran itself, but a rather differences in the way words are spelled"

So this is not a general comment it is speaking of the Yemeni fragments which have been tentatively dated as 7/8 century (so maybe the earliest know manuscripts) but in a simple way it show that the Qu'ran is not the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God as of orthodox belief. Just as Azami does it is easy to find quotes, for example,

"The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt," says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, who is at the forefront of Koranic studies today. "Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."

 

[جوري]

This just shows that you are selective in what you say and did not even state the reference. The section says on p12

The reference was given by you in the previous post and incorrectly classified for something other than what it is. You say there is a PDF version, then why aren't you man enough to excerpt directly, what are you afraid of?

"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qu'ranic fragments do not differ from those in Museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qu'ran itself, but a rather differences in the way words are spelled"

indeed that is what I have quoted from the book directly. You could have done that if you wanted to display some intellectual integrity from the get go!

So this is not a general comment it is speaking of the Yemeni fragments which have been tentatively dated as 7/8 century (so maybe the earliest know manuscripts) but in a simple way it show that the Qu'ran is not the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God as of orthodox belief. Just as Azami does it is easy to find quotes, for example,

Original manuscripts are found and dated to Uthmanic era, it says so in the book, please do read it in totality at some point, it includes photos and references to names and places and as an aside the Quran has ALWAYS BEEN AND STILL Is AN ORAL TRADITION. If you take away every last copy of the Quran between three members here it can be constructed anew the same as it was first revealed and multiply that by the millions of hafith out there you really don't and never have withstood a chance.. and that is precisely why you oscillate between two facts neither which you can prove.
1- the importance of preservation
2- and so what if it preserved.
when offered sound reason for both, you regurgitate and circulate your original objections, then they are refuted and you jump to the other point, refuted, you go back to the original. It is so incredibly tedious and pedantic!

Now, how are different ways to spell words denote change to word or denotes different meaning of word do you mind showing me from the Quran itself as I have done so above by quoting in Arabic directly?
and just as an example do you find:

fetus not to be the same thing as foetus?
color to be something different than colour?
favorite to be different than favourite?
gray to be different than grey?
criticize to be different from criticise?
plow to be different from plough?
tire to be different from tyre?

etc etc. etc etc.

"The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt," says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, who is at the forefront of Koranic studies today. "Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."

Rather than quoting another under-educated ill informed orientalist simply to quell yourself into your personal beliefs show us how the readings and meanings are construed differently-- In fact I challenge you to!

all the best

 

[IAmZamzam]

Hugo, if you wrote a letter to someone in certain parts of the U.S. where they don't use the word "catsup" and might not know it, and the person you sent it through changed the word to "ketchup" so that they would get it, would you get on their case for "altering what you'd said"?

 

[Rabi Mansur]

do you find:

fetus not to be the same thing as foetus?
color to be something different than colour?
favorite to be different than favourite?
gray to be different than grey?

Great point Ukhti!

The best they can do is find evidence at some point that Ibrahim and Qur'an have variant spellings in Arabic? Well no duh! Give me a break.

 

[جوري]

Great point Ukhti! The best they can do is find evidence at some point that Ibrahim and Qur'an have variant spellings in Arabic? Well no duh! Give me a break.

Jazaka Allah khyran.. in fact I own several copies of the Quran with old archaic manuscript and different calligraphy and can read it just the same. I would take his challenge more seriously if he actually presented evidence that proves that different spellings produced different meanings or different words.. what amazes me is after several books which he is so apt at misquoting and a 38 page spread where all his queries (which are dishonest in nature) were addressed one by one he comes on again and does the same thing over.. it makes me very angry to waste my time in such a fashion, but if you don't reply you run the risk of others of his kind believing his brand of deception.

language, poetry and calligraphy are embodied in Islamic art, it is a pinnacle of literature, beauty and pretty much the basis on which the last miracle given to mankind was based upon..

 

[CosmicPathos]

This just shows that you are selective in what you say and did not even state the reference. The section says on p12

"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qu'ranic fragments do not differ from those in Museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qu'ran itself, but a rather differences in the way words are spelled"

So this is not a general comment it is speaking of the Yemeni fragments which have been tentatively dated as 7/8 century (so maybe the earliest know manuscripts) but in a simple way it show that the Qu'ran is not the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God as of orthodox belief. Just as Azami does it is easy to find quotes, for example,

"The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt," says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, who is at the forefront of Koranic studies today. "Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."

you quote some Jewish prof Rippin at some obscure university in Canada (Uni of Calgary, lol), whose voice is not taken seriously by majority of oriental scholars of religious studies all across the Western academia.

 

[جوري]

you quote some Jewish prof Rippin at some obscure university in Canada (Uni of Calgary, lol), whose voice is not taken seriously by majority of oriental scholars of religious studies all across the Western academia.

He can quote whomever he pleases and he has been known to do so and leave footers without citations that is never the problem.. the problem is he can't substantiate any of it and is so keen on consuming and wasting time and web space on utter repetitive empty drivel!

 

[Hugo]

you quote some Jewish prof Rippin at some obscure university in Canada (Uni of Calgary, lol), whose voice is not taken seriously by majority of oriental scholars of religious studies all across the Western academia.

If you read my post I just use this as an example to show that Azami or anyone else can always find quotes that suit a particular purpose. Just look through the board and see how often the Gospel of Barnabas is quoted by Muslims who seem to be the only ones who take it seriously because one supposes it props up their case.

Even here you show your bias by saying "Jewish Professor" as if that tells us much of value about their work - I might as well discount Dr Al AZami's work by saying it is of no value as he is a Muslim - would that be acceptable to you? Have a look what http://www.campus-watch.org/recommends.php says about Professor Rippin and many others in the field of Middle East Studies or tell us how you decide who is acceptable?

 

[Hugo]

Great point Ukhti! The best they can do is find evidence at some point that Ibrahim and Qur'an have variant spellings in Arabic? Well no duh! Give me a break.

Do you understand why this might be true? Well I will tell you Usman and thousands of companions of the prophet burned the very manuscripts that the prophet himself verified - why would they do that?

 

[جوري]

Even here you show your bias by saying "Jewish Professor" as if that tells us much of value about their work - I might as well discount Dr Al AZami's work by saying it is of no value as he is a Muslim - would that be acceptable to you? Have a look what http://www.campus-watch.org/recommends.php says about Professor Rippin and many others in the field of Middle East Studies or tell us how you decide who is acceptable?

You seem to miss the point entirely. This ISN'T NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN about the credentials of a particular scholar it is about the validity of content. So how about you do just that instead of an odd list of laureates of which only you as a person seem to be impressed? I have seen you deliberately misquote scholars to serve your purpose and sadly deflect away from your own shortcomings by projecting exactly what it is you do-- Go ahead and back up what you say not by the quote of the author but by the content and cover all your basis so it is more than mere hearsay!

all the best

 

[IAmZamzam]

Just look through the board and see how often the Gospel of Barnabas is quoted by Muslims who seem to be the only ones who take it seriously because one supposes it props up their case.

Not all of us take that forgery seriously. I mean, for crying out loud, there were no knights in ancient Palestine. Would you like for us to list off spurious sources that Christians cite for no other reason than that it supports their views?

 

[Hugo]

Hugo, if you wrote a letter to someone in certain parts of the U.S. where they don't use the word "catsup" and might not know it, and the person you sent it through changed the word to "ketchup" so that they would get it, would you get on their case for "altering what you'd said"?

What would they make of it if it read "ctsp" or "ktchp" as would have been the case in early Arabic? But the point that is being made that the transmission is not the perfect unchangeable text and if what is said about the Yemeni fragments is correct we have also differences in verses order. Now I don't know what is implied by what you say here but if you mean that nevertheless meaning can be preserved then I might well agree with you - is that what you mean?