While I respect that this is your position, I think it's important to recognize that not all people want to wait and see. There are people who don't believe in the day of judgement, there are some who don't want to wait and see anyway, and there are some who are unable to respect that God will crown a winner on that day.
Mathloom, I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make with this OP, but I make my case against the specific example you gave (what you pompously dubbed "minimum dosage") by asking you a very simple question: have you read the ensuing verses after 103? specifically 105? It says: "'Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!' - thus indeed do We reward those who do right. " Now how in the hell would it make sense that "they DIDN'T submit" considering this verse? Hell, don't even read the ensuing verses, just read 103 carefully. "Falamma aslama w tallahu liljabeen" meaning "and when they submitted AND HE LAID HIM [ISHMAEL] ON HIS FOREHEAD IN PREPARATION FOR SACRIFICE". If it was "wa ma aslama.....", it would directly contradict the fact that he laid him and prepared to slay him in sacrifice. NOW, it's easy to see how "Falamma" and "wa ma" can be confused when read in arabic without tankeet (dotting). the F starting the sentence is identical to an m, but with a dot on top, and the L in "falamma" is a subtle vertical line. Point being, there is absolutely no doubt that the quran has been preserved word for word, letter for letter as it was first revealed to Mohammed. God himself made that promise: "inna na7n nazzalna el zikra w inna lahu la7afizoon", and this is supported by the vast empirical evidence we have. A knowledge of the culture in the arabian peninsula back then makes it very easy to see how the quran was preserved: Poetry was pretty much a big deal back then. Poets were known to memorize and recite by heart poetry that exceeded thousands of verses. The quran was no different, there were hundreds of people (sa7aba) who memorized the quran directly from Mohammed, and those passed it on to their children, and their children's children, etc... Until Uthman appointed abu el aswad el du2ali to scribe it and he he wrote several copies and sent them to several areas of the islamic state back in the day, many of which exist until today. But what kept the quran in tact was those who memorized it by heart and passed it on, and those people exist until today (I know a couple of them actually). It's worth noting that angel gabriel fully reviewed the quran with Mohammed every Ramadan of the prophet's life, and twice in the last year of his life. Mohammed would in turn do the same with the sa7aba, so it's pretty damn safe to say that the quran is untouched, unedited, unchanged, and exists today 100% the same way it was sent to the prophet, and it will remain this way until the end of times.
on the subject of the "72 virgins", this is an awesome awesome video. This lady is a jewish agnostic who is analytically studying the quran. Very much worth 9 minutes of your time: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O7yaDlZfqrc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O7yaDlZfqrc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I've considered what you're saying here. But where is the Laam and the Waaw, even if we ignore the F? That's what I didn't understand from your reasoning. Wamaa FaLamma What is your rationale for the difference?
Here are some simple examples that illustrate this phenomenon: elimination of letters- often times the original Uthmani script eliminated certain alifs that have since been added. So, for example, a word like 'rahman' would have been written without an alif. Over time, the alif (or some other indicator) was added so that the pronunciation of the word would be clear. Adding silent letters: a word like 'salaat' would be written with a silent wow. Over time, the wow was either eliminated or written in a way where its silence would be more clear. Merging words: places where min and maa appear would be replaced with mimmaa. In a sense, the precision with which the Quran is written today is a response to both Islam spreading to lands predominantly non-Arab and the decline in native Arab lands when it comes to understanding classical Arabic. One of the unfortunate realities today is that in religious circles, and often times even in non religious ones, there is a strong sense of Arab exceptionalism with the Quran; somehow an Arab native inheres in him/herself an authenticity not afforded to non-Arabs, and the absurdity of this gets exposed at a much more serious level when one learns classical Arabic. I'm not a native Arab- I was born in Houston and have grown up in the US my whole life. But I've studied classical Arabic intently and can read/write/speak classical Arabic. al itqaan speaks to this issue and how companions wrote portions of the Quran on bones, etc. For example, it is conceivable that one could write 'kataba' and in a given context, everyone would understand it to be 'kitaab' at the time....as in, it was obvious to them, but not intuitive to outsiders. It's called writing in shorthand. As for the fragmented pieces completely unorganized, I dont see why thats an issue of controversy. Absent the printing press, why would you expect many people to have access to the entire book? The number of copies that Uthman distributed have been an issue of debate, some say 4, others say as many as 7, but with a following of millions, 4-7 copies are hardly going to suffice the masses, and it was common for people to have portions of the Quran. His credibility is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The broader point was that his arguments werent addressed with the same fervor or attention given to others since he had little to no following. Yup, and I'm not so sure why you dismiss oral transmission as being a very unreliable method of transmission- Firstly, in a society where the overwhelming majority of people dont read or write, you'll find people rely more heavily on their memory, and as a result, their memory is much stronger. As a basic example of this, before cell phones were around I had the phone numbers of just about every friend/family member committed to memory. Secondly, memory operates like ones muscles. The more you use it, the stronger it becomes. The less you use it, the weaker it becomes. It's conceivable that traditionally, their memory was stronger than ours is today. Thirdly, every memorizer of the Quran is reciting it on a daily basis, in prayers and outside of it. They are revising with other memorizers, and generations upon generations are memorizing it directly from them. Fourthly, there are places today where the majority people are Muslims who dont read or write, but have transmitted the Quran for generations orally in exactly the same way. I'll search for it and see if I can get a hold of it. I have a printed version but no longer have access to jstor and never downloaded an electronic copy. Modarrisie's arguments focus more on early compilation as opposed to later distortion/editing. I think you're presupposing a lot based on the Teshkant manuscripts (or other manuscripts like it). I havent studied them, but even a cursory glance lends itself to a number of possibilities: why the assumption of maa an-nafiyah? maa has different meanings in different contexts, and has appeared as maa al istifhaam, ismal ishaarah, and maa masdariyyah. Also, why the assumption that the Teshkant manuscript is original? Unfortunately, in many of the same regions where these manuscripts exist, you'll find people claiming that they have sandals of the Prophet, or his hair, or an item of clothing...and sometimes its even more bizarre. I know someone who said that he traveled to that same region (Samarqand) and found people claiming they had the staff of Moses. Lastly, and perhaps most likely, is that although it was written in one way, it was recited in another....and the text was modified to reflect its recitated form more accurately. As for the topic of insecurity, I dont necessarily think its a matter of insecurity as much as it is a matter of interest. How many people are familiar with the nuances of mustalah al hadith? Even skeptics/critics know little when it comes to actually understanding the terminology and science of hadith preservation, and its why their rejection is more often than not relegated to textual rejection (e.g. 'this doesnt make sense to me') rather than a true assessment of text, chains of transmission, etc. Totally agree on an unfortunate system that stymies initiative and learning, that preaches blind reliance rather than active engagement, and that results in widespread ignorance, not enlightened adherents.
lol Moving the goal posts, huh? Because there are some transliteration errors, the Qur'anic manuscripts from 1,300 years ago cannot be the Qur'an? In that case, the Dead Sea Scrolls is not really the Old Testament because there are changes between books in the Dead Sea Scrolls (book of Exodus/Samuel) and the Old Testament we have today. It's absurd to think that because different scripts (Kufi vs Hijazi vs North African) and no diacritical marks caused reading errors, the entirety of the Qur'an in those times were not really "the" Qur'an. Remember, you said the Qur'an is only 600 to 700 years old. Do you know what the definition of Qur'an is? It means "the recitation". Either way, your earlier statement was completely baseless ("the" Qur'an is "new" and only 600 to 700 years old). I mean, the are manuscripts that show your claim as being completely false. When Umar ibn Khattab converted, it was because he caught his sister reading the text of Surah TaHa on parchment. Again, your initial claim was that the Qur'an was a creation of the 14th century. You provided no proof for it. You provided absolutely nothing to substantiate that assertion. Do not get upset at me for providing evidence that falsifies your statements.
The Quran is supposed to be the recitation from God. Any deviation from that means it's not the Quran. Therefore the Quran you have in your house today can't really be called the Quran and is not 1300 years old. Again, are you somehow aware that the manuscript is accurate?
Wow, eloquently worded and fantastic video, ATW if you get a chance to see this, interested in hearing your thoughts. cheers
It is much older because a lot of it is just taken from the mythology that came before Mohammed. Just like the bible, it borrowed from previous religions. DD
jeaa boi God said no sex till marriage and the guy wrote lol. This is evidence that the Koran is the word of god. It predicted lol 1,000 years before it became famous.
No there's a key difference. The bible is the story of Jesus PBUH through the eyes of his closest followers. That's similar to the hadith. The Quran is supposed to be the word of God through the angel Gabriel with Muhammad's lips acting only as a transmitter. If there is a difference between my Quran and the Quran which was used 1,300 years ago, then IMO neither of them can be the Quran because one of the definitions of the Quran is that it can't be altered. If the rationale is that there were different dialects, then the Quran can be edited linguistically and maintain the definition of 'Quran' > that's absurd IMO given the insistence on the Quran being in Arabic and prayer being done in Arabic. I know your interest is in saying that it's all regurgitated and that Muhammad PBUH just collated a bunch of stuff together, but that's not the topic here - that's the period BEFORE what we're discussing. The topic is > does MY Quran contain exactly what Muhammad PBUH recited? IMO since there is a break in the chain, and I don't know where the original manuscript for my version of the Quran is, the answer is either NO or I DONT KNOW. I'm indifferent to either of those answers, they achieve the same result for me.
The Old testament is not about Jesus, that is the New Testament...the bible contains both, and both the bible and Torah, and Koran are all written down mythologies from previous religions. All of them begged, borrowed or stole from the sayings passed down by the people that went before them. You can find ties in every one of them to previous religions.......which is one of the biggest reasons, I have no belief in any of them. And you can narrowly discuss the topic as to whether Mohammed's words were written down verbatim, that's fine. The words he spoke were passed down from previous generations, which to me makes them part of the same mythology, so arguing about whether they are accurately represented is not really the point. DD
Minor correction, with the exception of maybe the gospel of John, I don't think the gospels are meant to be direct accounts of Jesus given by his closest followers (if that's what you meant). All the gospels were written down years after Jesus died, and many scholars do not think that it was the disciples that wrote them. Also, I thought the old testament and Quran have very similar parts?
Out of curiosity, what implication do these answers have for Muslims? Just wondering what your larger point is with regard to establishing the age/accuracy of the Quran.
When you're a Muslim, you accept that the Quran contains a knowledge that in many cases has yet to be proven by humans or will never be proven by humans. You accept this because you believe that God knows everything. So when there's a dent in the accuracy, that implies human tampering. If there is proven tampering in one place, then you can't rule out that it happened in other parts of the Quran but can't be proven due to cover-ups and what not. Now the whole system changes. Before: "pork is bad for you, and humans will idiotically believe that there are ways to consume it cleanly, but over a period of infinity the ultimate proof will show that you never should have eaten any pork. I know this because God knows the final answer to everything." After: "pork is forbidden, but it may just be what the brightest humans at the time came up with and included in the written Quran. Since I don't know that this knowledge is divine, I'm essentially 'free' to make a rational and conscious decision based on currently available evidence about whether it's ok to eat pork or not." For your mainstream Muslim, Sharia law sits above any other law because it is allegedly from God. But if it's not absolutely certain that it's divine law, then it should be subject to the same scrutiny as man-made law. This is also why conversion into Islam is steady, while conversion OUT of Islam is extremely low. It's difficult to go from a book that is divine to a book that does not even claim to be directly of divine nature. That's why I mentioned previously that the structure of the bible is similar to the hadith. Compiled hundreds of years late, and no evidence that God intended it to be written in the EXACT words.
Ah, so you are saying that technically, the Quran used today by definition has to be 700 years old? From a non-Muslim perspective that is not trying to fit the current Quran into the predefined definition that you want to maintain, given its historical precedence, wouldn't it be more likely that the 1,300 year old manuscripts are the real Quran? Or at least "realer" than the copy used today.
