Interesting find - Christians please comment

[Hugo]

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?

I am sure you are right but the point I was making is that it is all too easy for anyone of us to just look for stuff that props up our own view or as it is sometimes characterised - drawing the target after we have shot the arrow.

 

[جوري]

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?

vowels don't exist in Arabic all together thus rendering your analogy moot. You can browse any modern day Quranic script and find many verses written in the old style without tashkeel. A fragment is just that and precisely the reason why the Quran was compiled and not rendered in fragment forms. However, that which you deliberately and purposefully ignore hoping it would go away, is that the Quran has always been and will always be an oral tradition and when written down it was so done in the presence of witnesses and superimposed on the already existing Quran in Hafsah's possession!

Do you get tired of posing the same already addressed questions?

 

[IAmZamzam]

Do you get tired of posing the same already addressed questions?

Apparently not.

 

[Hugo]

vowels don't exist in Arabic all together thus rendering your analogy moot. You can browse any modern day Quranic script and find many verses written in the old style without tashkeel. A fragment is just that and precisely the reason why the Quran was compiled and not rendered in fragment forms. However, that which you deliberately and purposefully ignore hoping it would go away, is that the Quran has always been and will always be an oral tradition and when written down it was so done in the presence of witnesses and superimposed on the already existing Quran in Hafsah's possession!

Do you get tired of posing the same already addressed questions?

Are there vowel signs in Arabic and are they used in a modern Qu'ram? Most early Semitic languages just used consonants and the whole idea of alphabetic languages was to write the sound of the word and most sounds come from the range of consonants and recognising a word is much much easier if one uses just consonants rather than just vowels. Of course as vocabulary increases it becomes more difficult for obvious reasons and that is why one supposes diacritical marks were introduced which then makes the language more difficult to wrote down - this in fact was perhaps the major reason Arabic was replaced as the language of Science and philosophy by Latin scripts, it was just too difficult for early printing machines to cope

 

[جوري]

Are there vowel signs in Arabic and are they used in a modern Qu'ram? Most early Semitic languages just used consonants and the whole idea of alphabetic languages was to write the sound of the word and most sounds come from the range of consonants and recognising a word is much much easier if one uses just consonants rather than just vowels. Of course as vocabulary increases it becomes more difficult for obvious reasons and that is why one supposes diacritical marks were introduced which then makes the language more difficult to wrote down - this in fact was perhaps the major reason Arabic was replaced as the language of Science and philosophy by Latin scripts, it was just too difficult for early printing machines to cope

Arabic was replaced by Latin due mostly to the invasion of the Mongols burning libraries and massive literature plus an intricate under ground water and piping system that hasn't really been recovered until the 20th c but that is no matter, for even with the unfortunate raid by the Mongols, and their corroboration with the crusaders. Islam still reigned/reigns supreme and its literature/ and collection of work very much untouched. Islam is the religion of conquered and conqueror alike as noted by the Mongol conversion to Islam and their subsequent spread of Islam to Asia. Again there are no vowels in Arabic, there are however diacritic symbol. In wiriting, those symbols are usually omitted, since the native speakers can usually guess from the context the meaning and pronunciation.

Hope that this will help you for the hundredth time around!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

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?

And yet, yo have not been able to propose any viable explanation as to why the qur'an fully memorised by millions of muslims are exactly the same, and in sync with the written text.
Had there been very slight variations even during the prophet Muhammad SAW (when multiple people also fully memorised the Qur'an), those slight variations would have been carried on, mutiplied, and magnified throughout the centuries, resulting in muslims reciting and memorising different sets of qur'an.

Hope that this will help you for the hundredth time around!

One would hope, but I don't think it will.

 

[Hugo]

And yet, yo have not been able to propose any viable explanation as to why the qur'an fully memorised by millions of muslims are exactly the same, and in sync with the written text. Had there been very slight variations even during the prophet Muhammad SAW (when multiple people also fully memorised the Qur'an), those slight variations would have been carried on, mutiplied, and magnified throughout the centuries, resulting in muslims reciting and memorising different sets of qur'an.

But if you care to read what has been said you would know that there were slight variations from the standard Cairo text you have now and the Yemeni fragments which may be the oldest known copies (70 years after Mohammed died) show this without doubt - that is the nearest textual evidence is 70 years after the supposed revelations. I don't think any sane scholar thinks otherwise or be surprised at such a circumstance and the only thing of importance is whether meaning is affected in any way. For example, modern Qu'ran's for 37:103 Say ..."both submitted their wills (became Muslims) " while the Tashkent Arabic manuscript I am told says the exact opposite - "they did not submit.." I don't find this strange or worrying and as long as one has several manuscripts the correct reading is I think easy found.

 

[جوري]

But if you care to read what has been said you would know that there were slight variations from the standard Cairo text you have now and the Yemeni fragments which may be the oldest known copies (70 years after Mohammed died) show this without doubt - that is the nearest textual evidence is 70 years after the supposed revelations. I don't think any sane scholar thinks otherwise or be surprised at such a circumstance and the only thing of importance is whether meaning is affected in any way. For example, modern Qu'ran's for 37:103 Say ..."both submitted their wills (became Muslims) " while the Tashkent Arabic manuscript I am told says the exact opposite - "they did not submit.." I don't find this strange or worrying and as long as one has several manuscripts the correct reading is I think easy found.

The 'Variations' are nothing more than different styles of writing.. it is called calligraphy, we have already demonstrated the difference quoting directly from the Quran. Something you are yet to do to cement your views. Again, I challenge as per your conjectures to prove what you are saying rather than simply asserting it.

all the best

 

[Hugo]

The 'Variations' are nothing more than different styles of writing.. it is called calligraphy, we have already demonstrated the difference quoting directly from the Quran. Something you are yet to do to cement your views. Again, I challenge as per your conjectures to prove what you are saying rather than simply asserting it.

Two questions

1. What would you accept as proof - I guess you reject the Yemeni fragments and the Tashkent manuscript so what is it that you want?

2. Is your view that the transmission of the Qu'ran was perfect in every way - that Mohammed and every companion had perfect memory, that the 60 scribes we are told wrote the messages down never made a single mistake, that when Usman made a copy it was perfect in every way and the thousands of companions who witnessed the burning of the prophets verified fragments had checked every one of them against Usmans 4 (or was it 7 copies) none of which n ow exist - where exactly do you stand?

 

[جوري]

Two questions

1. What would you accept as proof - I guess you reject the Yemeni fragments and the Tashkent manuscript so what is it that you want?

seeing both Arabic texts from both scrolls and examining it for myself, secondly a complete consensus from linguists, historians and theologians alike that what you conjecture has some basis in reality!

2. Is your view that the transmission of the Qu'ran was perfect in every way - that Mohammed and every companion had perfect memory, that the 60 scribes we are told wrote the messages down never made a single mistake, that when Usman made a copy it was perfect in every way and the thousands of companions who witnessed the burning of the prophets verified fragments had checked every one of them against Usmans 4 (or was it 7 copies) none of which n ow exist - where exactly do you stand?

I don't care to dignify base unfounded sarcasm with a response. See if you can fulfill the obligation as requested in my previous statement and if you have a genuine desire to understand the history and preservation of Quranic text, then we suggest you read the book in your possession without lying about content, as I again remind you that we have a copy and though sick of cleaning up after you are very capable of doing it!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

For the following blah blah blah, you haven't offered yet explanation as to why and how the qur'an fully memorised by millions of muslims are exactly the same, and in sync with the written text, if indeed there were slight variations as you charged between "standard cairo text" and the yemeni fragments, as surely if there were slight variations from the very beginning, the qur'an would have mutated into countless versions throughout the centuries.
Does the word "bible" ring a bell?

But if you care to read what has been said you would know that there were slight variations from the standard Cairo text you have now and the Yemeni fragments which may be the oldest known copies (70 years after Mohammed died) show this without doubt - that is the nearest textual evidence is 70 years after the supposed revelations. I don't think any sane scholar thinks otherwise or be surprised at such a circumstance and the only thing of importance is whether meaning is affected in any way. For example, modern Qu'ran's for 37:103 Say ..."both submitted their wills (became Muslims) " while the Tashkent Arabic manuscript I am told says the exact opposite - "they did not submit.." I don't find this strange or worrying and as long as one has several manuscripts the correct reading is I think easy found.

Hugo, I have two qur'ans in my room written in two different calligraphy, one is in madinah style, the other is in south africa style. Are they the same in style and calligraphy ? no. are they the same in total pages? no.
Do they both have the exact number of surah and verses? yes.
Are the sequences exactly the same? yes
do both qur'an contain all exact verses with exact words and meanings? yes.


Now tell me, are these two following sentences the same or different:

Hugo would think these two sentences are completely different, not just in the style of letters

Hugo would think these two sentences are completely different, not just in the style of letters

 

[Hugo]

seeing both Arabic texts from both scrolls and examining it for myself, secondly a complete consensus from linguists, historians and theologians alike that what you conjecture has some basis in reality!

I don't care to dignify base unfounded sarcasm with a response. See if you can fulfill the obligation as requested in my previous statement and if you have a genuine desire to understand the history and preservation of Quranic text, then we suggest you read the book in your possession without lying about content, as I again remind you that we have a copy and though sick of cleaning up after you are very capable of doing it!

I asked two questions because it is obvious they are connected and necessary. If you take the view that the Qu'ran has been transmitted with a total perfection in the areas I mention in my post then all I or any one has to do is find a single imperfection and your thesis is shown to be false; if you don't take that view then I have nothing to prove do I?

 

[Hugo]

For the following blah blah blah, you haven't offered yet explanation as to why and how the qur'an fully memorised by millions of muslims are exactly the same, and in sync with the written text, if indeed there were slight variations as you charged between "standard cairo text" and the yemeni fragments, as surely if there were slight variations from the very beginning, the qur'an would have mutated into countless versions throughout the centuries.

The explanation one supposes is that you are all now using the same text but that in no way shows that it was as you now have it from the beginning because you have no originals. Surely, it must be obvious to you that when your read about transmission that there was a huge emphasis on writing it down because it is obvious that is the only way to assure preservation so the question remains which you cannot answer is why did Usman burn all existing copies he could find and who verified his copies - why not for once answer these questions and tell us plainly if you subscribe to the view that the transmission was in every way totally perfect? THen we can move on to what is more useful and discuss what it actually says. You keep on about the Bible but can I ask have you ever read any of it for yourself? For example, if you read the Gospel of Mark in any translation can you find totally different stories or not?

Hugo, I have two qur'ans in my room written in two different calligraphy, one is in madinah style, the other is in south africa style. Are they the same in style and calligraphy ? no. are they the same in total pages? no. Do they both have the exact number of surah and verses? yes. Are the sequences exactly the same? yes. do both qur'an contain all exact verses with exact words and meanings? yes.

Fine I have no reason to doubt what you say but here you are arguing from the particular to the universal and that is fallacious logic. You are also committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent because in effect you are saying because you have two identical Qu'rans then every possible Qu'ran ever written is identical.

 

[جوري]

I asked two questions because it is obvious they are connected and necessary. If you take the view that the Qu'ran has been transmitted with a total perfection in the areas I mention in my post then all I or any one has to do is find a single imperfection and your thesis is shown to be false; if you don't take that view then I have nothing to prove do I?

None of your questions are relevant, sensical or even necessary-- if you'd done the reading and proper research you'd not be asking such inane questions.
I notice that you answer no questions, and your best methodology in dealing with things that challenge your core beliefs are either to reply back with platitudes or deflect from the topic all together.. for instance, the thread is about a christian find and here you are objecting to historical finds that have to do with another religion all together with drivel that is neither historically accurate nor logically sound.

I truly pity you if this is the way you have to go through life to make belief that god is his own grandfather!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

The explanation one supposes is that you are all now using the same text but that in no way shows that it was as you now have it from the beginning because you have no originals.

From which text/copy?
You keep on saying things that yo have failed to back up.
You keep on throwing your baseless accusations against the authenticity, perfect transmission and veracity of the Qur'an, and we have kept refuting you each time, and then after a while you re-cycled those accusations. It is very apparent to anyone search your earlier posts in this comparative religion section and to those who are familiar with your tactic. It is very obvious that you want to divert even casual look at the state of your own scripture and that you are in so much denial about your faith and your delusions about the veracity, transmissions and authenticity of bible, and you do that by clinging to every false accusation you can google about the Qur'an.

You proposed before (a few posts earlier) that all of us in the world (more than billion muslims) now recite and memorise the qur'an based on early 1900 cairo copy, which in itself is absurd but I refuted nevertheless, and of which you then were silent about.

Now, your offer at explanation as to why all muslims memorise one exact qur'an above clearly demonstrate that you have absolute lack of knowledge about Islam and The Qur'an, because from your statement above (and the previous one about cairo copy), you seem to imply that muslims only started to read and memorise the Qur'an a century ago.

But this can't be possible, can it? because you have participated in more than a few discussions (pardon my understated phrase) about Islam and the Qur'an in this forums alone. Or... unless you never read any of those thousand posts by muslims members in response to you? So which one is it?

In summary, you have not yet offer viable explanation how/why more than a billion muslims recite the same qur'an, millions fully memorise the same qur'an, and the qur'an memorised and recited is in full sync with the written text. And this after more than 1,400 years after its revelation.

Surely, it must be obvious to you that when your read about transmission that there was a huge emphasis on writing it down because it is obvious that is the only way to assure preservation

It must be obvious to you that maybe, just maybe, after hundreds and maybe thousands of explanations of the qur'an method of preservation, one day you will finally understand.
And hopefully by then, you will also be able to understand that God cannot be human, and to worship another human as God is the biggest mistake a human can make.

why did Usman burn all existing copies he could find and who verified his copies - why not for once answer these questions and tell us plainly if you subscribe to the view that the transmission was in every way totally perfect?

Funny, I remember you asked this before (a lot more than once), and other members have answered it each time. It was not in this thread of course.
You seem to be getting very forgetful by the day. Maybe it is time for you to make a visit to a doctor?
let me remind you again a few of those:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/134299020-islam-has-copied-say-christians-jews-17.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/134290668-possible-prove-quran-very-words-god-17.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/134299020-islam-has-copied-say-christians-jews-25.html

You keep on about the Bible but can I ask have you ever read any of it for yourself?

yes, I have. A couple of jehovah Witness missionaries gave a bible to me when I was studying in Australia. Unless you don't consider New World Translation as a bible?
By the way, you have not answered that also, "do you or the pope consider NWT as the bible?"

Fine I have no reason to doubt what you say but here you are arguing from the particular to the universal and that is fallacious logic. You are also committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent because in effect you are saying because you have two identical Qu'rans then every possible Qu'ran ever written is identical.

I did not say that, do not put words into my mouth, just like early gospel writers put words into Jesus pbuh mouth.
Yo are the one who need to prove that there are more than one qur'an used by muslims, because that is the heart of your every accusations.