Quran is corrupt , please help me refute

[Medina83]

I was debating the bible on a Christian forum about its corruption and someone posted this:

All this talk of corruptible texts. The fact is they all have undergone changes. It doesn't matter which one one looks at this is the case and that includes the Quran. The fact that the earliest quranic inscriptions on the dome of the rock(80 odd years after Mohammeds reported death) differ from the texts of today is proof enough. The addition of diacritical dots to the Arabic texts is another issue.The earliest extant Quran is written in a style from a period many hundreds of years after the chronology attributed to Mohammed. Etc etc.

The primary difference is how the Quran is regarded by it's followers nowadays when compared to the Gospels/Bible/Torah. It is the start and end point. This was not always the case but the Gospels/Bible/Torah have been subjected to far greater historical and theological analysis than the Quran has ever been. That continues today.

The Quran has obviously been studied and studied intensely, but the start point is the infallibility of same not it's origin. That is not questioned by Quranic scholars. Many outside researchers have found different voices in the texts, inconsistencies and historical innacuracies. Mecca not being mentioned at all before the Islamic texts, yet those same texts claim it was a very important centre of trade(the Greeks and others make no mention of it until much later after Islam starts to make it's presence felt in the region). Indeed the Islamic histories admit that there were different versions that were excised, accepted and collated under the first caliph. That was inspired by God. Sound familiar? The difficulty also comes from the lack of secondary texts that exist from the time when compared to the other texts. Indeed a lack of historical data from neighbouring cultures is unusual, given the importance placed by Islamic sources of the movement. The other difficulty is the danger of historical research like this for the researchers.

Can you please help me refute these claims against the Quran?

 

[E'jaazi]

I'm searching for you. Please be patient and PM me if you haven't heard from me in awhile. I sometimes lose the thread and can't find them again.

 

[MuhammadRizan]

i think u should go to anweringchristianity.com
a lot of anti islamic allegiation been debunked there.:coolalien

 

[Malaikah]

The fact that the earliest quranic inscriptions on the dome of the rock(80 odd years after Mohammeds reported death) differ from the texts of today is proof enough.

Umm... so?! That is not the oldest copy, nor is it the official copy. If it differs to the official, does that mean the official is wrong, the copy? The official copy dates way earlier that 80 years after his (pbuh) death- it was only a few years, if not less!

It just goes to show how little this guy knows!

Indeed the Islamic histories admit that there were different versions that were excised, accepted and collated under the first caliph. That was inspired by God.

Who said it was inspired by God?! They didn't rely on 'inspiration' to compile the Quran, rather they set out strict guidelines!

And it was well knows that the Quran can be recited in different ways- and these are all authentic and accepted. So what is his point?

He is just spinning some nonsense together, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[جوري]

Try finding an answer in this post here!
further, I think he (the some guy) has made very general statements, it would be easier to refute specific points, if he can bring them forth... this is like the lawyers opening statements to the jury, very emotional, not at all factual, with any luck the facts unravel during the course of the trial, I mean he rants about how the quran is studied but not by Islamic scholars, are you supposed to take that at face value?
Most of the time I wouldn't bother with a reply even, as he is asserting an opinion ( not a fact), when people are emotionally charged about a topic, "historical proof" has very little to do with it...If he is a textual exegetical scholar then perhaps he can dive in with something other than a bombastic introduction?..

 

[vpb]

All this talk of corruptible texts. The fact is they all have undergone changes. It doesn't matter which one one looks at this is the case and that includes the Quran. The fact that the earliest quranic inscriptions on the dome of the rock(80 odd years after Mohammeds reported death) differ from the texts of today is proof enough. The addition of diacritical dots to the Arabic texts is another issue.The earliest extant Quran is written in a style from a period many hundreds of years after the chronology attributed to Mohammed. Etc etc.

The primary difference is how the Quran is regarded by it's followers nowadays when compared to the Gospels/Bible/Torah. It is the start and end point. This was not always the case but the Gospels/Bible/Torah have been subjected to far greater historical and theological analysis than the Quran has ever been. That continues today.

The Quran has obviously been studied and studied intensely, but the start point is the infallibility of same not it's origin. That is not questioned by Quranic scholars. Many outside researchers have found different voices in the texts, inconsistencies and historical innacuracies. Mecca not being mentioned at all before the Islamic texts, yet those same texts claim it was a very important centre of trade(the Greeks and others make no mention of it until much later after Islam starts to make it's presence felt in the region). Indeed the Islamic histories admit that there were different versions that were excised, accepted and collated under the first caliph. That was inspired by God. Sound familiar? The difficulty also comes from the lack of secondary texts that exist from the time when compared to the other texts. Indeed a lack of historical data from neighbouring cultures is unusual, given the importance placed by Islamic sources of the movement. The other difficulty is the danger of historical research like this for the researchers.

hahaha this guy doesn't know what he's talking about..

check this link,
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/

 

[Umar001]

Just abit confused, what is there actually to refute, the guy has jus made some general points, with no evidences. Ask him to be more specific and to make clear each point as he goes along.

 

[Nerd]

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy" (Surah: An-Nisa 4:82)

Why don't you ask him to show you discrepancies in The Holy Quran? If it indeed ain't the word of Allah he would find contradictions and discrepancies in bulk...

 

[Trumble]

Why don't you ask him to show you discrepancies in The Holy Quran? If it indeed ain't the word of Allah he would find contradictions and discrepancies in bulk...

Why? The works of Plato or Aristotle, say, are nearly a thousand years older than the Qur'an and they have no "contradictions and discrepancies", at least of the sort you mean. They weren't written by Allah. Avoiding contradiction and discrepancy doesn't need God, just a little care.

 

[vpb]

Why? The works of Plato or Aristotle, say, are nearly a thousand years older than the Qur'an and they have no "contradictions and discrepancies", at least of the sort you mean. They weren't written by Allah. Avoiding contradiction and discrepancy doesn't need God, just a little care.

do u understand the term of contradiciton???

the work of aristotel is not the work of God, and it can cointain contradictions wether at the time of aristotel or now, cuz we was a human and could make errors.
and is the the work of aristotel, preserved word by word exactly as he wrote????

 

[wilberhum]

do u understand the term of contradiciton???

Do you understand what he said? He never said or implide what you strike at.

 

[vpb]

Do you understand what he said? He never said or implide what you strike at.

'contradictions' can be independent of time. and I was not addressing the post to you.

 

[wilberhum]

'contradictions' can be independent of time.

He did not state otherwise.

I was not addressing the post to you.

If you won't want any other's input, try PMing.

 

[vpb]

Why? The works of Plato or Aristotle, say, are nearly a thousand years older than the Qur'an and they have no "contradictions and discrepancies", at least of the sort you mean. They weren't written by Allah. Avoiding contradiction and discrepancy doesn't need God, just a little care.

read the post again. pay attention to it. you will see why I made my statements.

 

[Trumble]

read the post again. pay attention to it. you will see why I made my statements.

I don't see why you made them. They make little sense in the context of what I said which I don't think you understood.

Of course man is capable of writing a book full of contradictions and discrepancies. He is also perfectly capable of writing one with none at all... as I said, God is not required for that then or now. In other words, absence of contradictions (which is debatable in this case, anyway) is no proof of divine authorship!

and is the the work of aristotel, preserved word by word exactly as he wrote

As far as we know, yes, to all intents and purposes, although there is no guarantee... we don't have his hand written copy. There is no dispute as to the text, even if there is still plenty as to the merits of his philosophy!

I'm afraid this idea that somehow, out of all 'old' texts, only the Qur'an has managed to survive unscathed from copying errors of any significance, omissions, and revision is a total myth, presumably intended to contrast the Qur'an beneficially with the Bible. There are a considerable number of books far older where neither is the text disputed, nor do " contradictions and discrepancies" abound, or indeed occur at all. The only difference is that they are not claimed to be revelations from God.

 

[vpb]

I don't see why you made them. They make little sense in the context of what I said which I don't think you understood.

Of course man is capable of writing a book full of contradictions and discrepancies. He is also perfectly capable of writing one with none at all... as I said, God is not required for that then or now. In other words, absence of contradictions (which is debatable in this case, anyway) is no proof of divine authorship!

All humans make mistakes, so no human can claim that their work doesn't contain contradictions.

As far as we know, yes, although there is no guarantee... we don't have his hand written copy. There is no dispute as to the text, even if there is still plenty as to the merits of his philosophy!

majority of the work of Artistotle is lost, also the dialogs of Plato are lost, and also his work were lost later found by alexander.

I'm afraid this idea that somehow, out of all 'old' texts, only the Qur'an has managed to survive unscathed from copying errors of any significance, omissions, and revision is a total myth, presumably intended to contrast the Qur'an beneficially with the Bible. There are a considerable number of books far older where neither is the text disputed, nor do " contradictions and discrepancies" abound, or indeed occur at all. The only difference is that they are not claimed to be revelations from God.

There are no changes made whatsoever in the Qur'an. You just haven't read about how the Qur'an was preserved. if you think it's a myth, than bring your proof and we'll discuss them.

There is no such book from human that have no contradicitions.

 

[Trumble]

All humans make mistakes, so no human can claim that their work doesn't contain contradictions.

Sometimes I wonder if we are reading the same forum!

Of course all humans can make mistakes, but that doesn't mean they always do. Writing an essay or book without 'contradictions' requires skill, but is perfectly possible for anybody with sufficient skill, let alone intellectual giants of the sort we are talking about. Especially if they had a good proof reader!

majority of the work of Artistotle is lost, also the dialogs of Plato are lost, and also his work were lost later found by alexander.

And your point is? Of course much of their work has been lost, they wrote an awfully long time ago. We are talking about that which wasn't.

There are no changes made whatsoever in the Qur'an. You just haven't read about how the Qur'an was preserved. if you think it's a myth, than bring your proof and we'll discuss them.

Please take the trouble to actually read my post. I did not say it was a myth that the Qur'an was preserved. I said it was a myth that it was the only book of that age, or older, to have been preserved.

There is no such book from human that have no contradicitions.

Rubbish. I'm typing this in a study that has shelves of them.

 

[vpb]

Of course all humans can make mistakes, but that doesn't mean they always do. Writing an essay or book without 'contradictions' requires skill, but is perfectly possible for anybody with sufficient skill, let alone intellectual giants of the sort we are talking about. Especially if they had a good proof reader!

I disagree.
Skillful people can write good piece of work, but they will for sure contain mistakes. We make mistakes everywhere. but anyways, I can see we have different beliefs.

And your point is? Of course much of their work has been lost, they wrote an awfully long time ago. We are talking about that which wasn't.

and my point is that we don't have their complete work, so you can't judge somebody's work without having his/her complete work. cuz one part might be right, the other part might be wrong.

Please take the trouble to actually read my post. I did not say it was a myth that the Qur'an was preserved. I said it was a myth that it was the only book of that age, or older, to have been preserved.

why , is there any other book that has been preserved , in its entirety, word for word???? any book that has been memorized by millions of people?? written by millions of people?? recited everyday by millions of people???

Rubbish. I'm typing this in a study that has shelves of them.

I can see we look at 'contradiction' in different ways.
ie. if you look at the Qur'an u can't find any contradiction in any field. A book which in one field does not have contradicitons, but the other , it does, I don't take it as a perfect book.

 

[wilberhum]

why , is there any other book that has been preserved , in its entirety, word for word???? any book that has been memorized by millions of people?? written by millions of people?? recited everyday by millions of people???

Proves nothing. But "written by millions of people"? I thought god wrote it.

 

[vpb]

Proves nothing.

We were talking about books other than Qur'an that have been preserved word by word exactly as written and given such importance as Qur'an was given. and I don't care whether it proves anything to u or not. there are enough evidences, but bc u reject them, that's different thing.

But "written by millions of people"? I thought god wrote it.

I meant write it on paper.