> Debate Discussion on Preservation of the Qur'an

[SilverLJ]

Regarding the article mentioned by Salman may I offer a comment on its first section as its far to long to deal with in one post. Has Qur'an been Preserved? - Qur'an.

Article - 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.

No clear references are given here as to who these ‘non Muslims’ are and in fairness if you quote sources in your response you should do so here also so we can see the full, let us call it non Muslims argument.

Article Muslim Response - This misconception is only raised due to lack of basic knowledge.

This is a typical Muslim response and one sees it everywhere: lack of knowledge yet the writer of the article does not as far as I can see go beyond saying ‘atheist’. Why not suggest eminent and respected writers on this subject such as Ibn Warraq so we can see a full and scholarly argument by a non-Muslim.

This is much in the vein used all the time by Muslim apologists to any criticism: do not understand the context, source is not reliable, words are twisted, logic is flawed, you know nothing about Islam etc.

Article - 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.

This is another ploy to avoid the argument, why is it that someone who has a different view must be seen and called an ‘attacker’ rather than a person with honest doubts, reservation and criticisms. Is it the case that one can only come to Islam with a faith already fully intact?

Article - 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".

In what sense is the ‘creed’ correct, was it part of the revelation or did it come later?

Article - 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.

Does this mean that every Muslim must memorise the Qu’ran and somehow we need assurance that a billion Muslims are all saying the same things? Also if this is true why bother with a written Qu’ran at all? Or does this mean what Christians talk about when they speak of the ‘word’, meaning the Bible teaching are in their hearts and minds and outworked in their lives?

Article - Allah Ta'ala says in the Qur'an: "this day have I perfected your deen for you". 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.

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).


If I have read this correctly, the argument (not a proof?) is that the Qu’ran was completed at the time of the prophet because:

1. Non Muslims don’t know enough?
2. It is an aural text and the text itself says it is complete?
3. It was recited many times and twice in the year the Prophet died?

Frankly, I cannot see this is as a strong argument and its hearsay one at that and seems to rest on the idea that memories were perfect for say 200 years until someone wrote in down but I know of no tradition that says the transmission was like that.

[salman]

o my, I'm stunned, Mr. Silver great arguments, you got me there, someone help me please!

[salman]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

No clear references are given here as to who these ‘non Muslims’ are and in fairness if you quote sources in your response you should do so here also so we can see the full, let us call it non Muslims argument.

Mr. Silver, let's not try to play smart and I'm the writer of that article just in case if you didn't pick it up

1 - It is singular - Non-Mulims's not non-Muslims - see the difference. If yours was a typo then you're pardoned

2 - Why no reference? a) I said at the beginning of the article "my notes from a debate". In the notes neither you type the exact argument nor make a reference, you write the overall summary. If I've said "full debate", then you could have a leg to stand on. b) it is a very common argument, every other non-Muslim out there, including you, use it.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

This is a typical Muslim response and one sees it everywhere: lack of knowledge yet the writer of the article does not as far as I can see go beyond saying ‘atheist’. Why not suggest eminent and respected writers on this subject such as Ibn Warraq so we can see a full and scholarly argument by a non-Muslim.

it is typical because you people make the same mistake from time and time. If you didn't realize the original argument, it is a straw man. Not single Muslim believe that Qur'an refers to the written copies of the Qur'an i.e. Uthmani Mushaf. In addition, as I mentioned in the BEGINNING of the article, I debated with an atheist and thus sharing the notes of that debate not the full debate. Is it just me or you're blinded by hatred to read and realize what it actually says?

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

This is much in the vein used all the time by Muslim apologists to any criticism: do not understand the context, source is not reliable, words are twisted, logic is flawed, you know nothing about Islam etc.

well, blame yourself for making all those mistakes. It is the most basic knowledge in Islam that Qur'an refers to the written text, which is direct Words of Allah Ta'ala, not the mushaf (the written copies). Any Muslim should expect you people to know this and don't attack us with straw man.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

This is another ploy to avoid the argument, why is it that someone who has a different view must be seen and called an ‘attacker’ rather than a person with honest doubts, reservation and criticisms. Is it the case that one can only come to Islam with a faith already fully intact?

how is that ploy Mr. Silver, when I directly addressed the argument? I debated the person, I know whether he was a truth seeker or an attacker. and mind you no sane person, seeking the truth, comes up with those sort of questions/arguments. There's a difference between the two, which you failed to realize.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

In what sense is the ‘creed’ correct, was it part of the revelation or did it come later?

it is found within the Qur'an, so it was part of original revelation.

Article - 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.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Does this mean that every Muslim must memorise the Qu’ran and somehow we need assurance that a billion Muslims are all saying the same things? Also if this is true why bother with a written Qu’ran at all? Or does this mean what Christians talk about when they speak of the ‘word’, meaning the Bible teaching are in their hearts and minds and outworked in their lives?

let's not attack me with another straw man! When did I say or imply that every Muslim should memorize the Qur'an? I'm talking about the meaning of the word "Qur'an", not the text of the Qur'an. Did you even read what the whole conversation is about?

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

If I have read this correctly, the argument (not a proof?) is that the Qu’ran was completed at the time of the prophet because:

1. Non Muslims don’t know enough?
2. It is an aural text and the text itself says it is complete?
3. It was recited many times and twice in the year the Prophet died?

blame yourself for acting unintelligent but for the benefits of others let me lay down the argument and response in few lines:

Argument: The Qur'an was written down after the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) died; therefore, there was no Qur'an at his time - source Muslim accounts

Response: How can this be possible when the Prophet (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) used to recite the whole Qur'an during the month of Ramdhan and many of his companions memorized the whole Qur'an? If no Qur'an existed during his life, what in the world were they reciting and memorizing? Hence, the misconception is raised due to misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "Qur'an". I explained that the word "Qur'an" refers to the text and proved that the text of the Qur'an was completed during his (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) life time - source Muslim accounts.

now, blame yourself for attacking blindly by not grasping the arguments

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Frankly, I cannot see this is as a strong argument and its hearsay one at that and seems to rest on the idea that memories were perfect for say 200 years until someone wrote in down but I know of no tradition that says the transmission was like that.

you've yet to show that the first time the Qur'an was compiled into a book was after 200 years of Prophet's (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) death! Just because an earliest written manuscript is found to be dated 200 years (supposedly) after his death, doesn't mean it was this time when the first copy of the Qur'an was written. Too bad for you, that even the west scholars don't agree with your view on the memory of the Arab at that time.

[Yanal]

:
Lets not get carried away with debating against our own people as it hurts our imaan which the shytaan takes control of constantly.

[salman]

^Wa'alaykum As-Salam

brother Mr. SilverJ is a Christian, just in case if you haven't noticed.

[Yanal]

:
In that case I apologize dear brother Salman.

[SilverLJ]

: Salman. Originally Posted by SilverLJ
No clear references are given here as to who these ‘non Muslims’ are and in fairness if you quote sources in your response you should do so here also so we can see the full, let us call it non Muslims argument.

Salman - Mr. Silver, let's not try to play smart and I'm the writer of that article just in case if you didn't pick it up.

Silver - I am not sure that that I said anything about the writer though I don't think you name is mentioned in the article (but of course I don't know what your name is). My comment was about the 'atheist', who he might be that we might check his side of the story.

Salman - 1 - It is singular - Non-Muslims's not non-Muslims - see the difference. If yours was a typo then you're pardoned

Silver - If I missed your apostrophe then I am sorry but there are many grammatical errors in the article so I think I can be forgiven for mistaking what you meant and assuming it was just another small mistake in grammar. If I may say so it is not an altogether good idea in terms of clarity to call the person you debated with 'atheist' in one place and 'non-Muslim' elsewhere. My impression was therefore that you were making a more general point about non-Muslims based on your notes of the debate.

Salman - Why no reference? a) I said at the beginning of the article "my notes from a debate". In the notes neither you type the exact argument nor make a reference, you write the overall summary. If I've said "full debate", then you could have a leg to stand on. b) it is a very common argument, every other non-Muslim out there, including you, use it.

I stated above what I meant by 'reference' and you being fallible, just like me misunderstood it. In fact your article does have many references so I cannot quite see what you are trying to say here but it implies by your own arguments that these are more than notes - but I have no issues with that.

I am not keen on being thought of as 'playing smart' as if this is just a game and I feel it was unjust and unfair for you to jump to such a conclusion.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ
This is a typical Muslim response and one sees it everywhere: lack of knowledge yet the writer of the article does not as far as I can see go beyond saying ‘atheist’. Why not suggest eminent and respected writers on this subject such as Ibn Warraq so we can see a full and scholarly argument by a non-Muslim.

Salman - It is typical because you people make the same mistake from time and time. If you didn't realize the original argument, it is a straw man. Not single Muslim believe that Qur'an refers to the written copies of the Qur'an i.e. Uthmani Mushaf. In addition, as I mentioned in the BEGINNING of the article, I debated with an atheist and thus sharing the notes of that debate not the full debate. Is it just me or you're blinded by hatred to read and realize what it actually says?

There is a certain level of arrogance here if I may say so because you assume that 'you people', meaning I suppose non-Muslims, make mistakes but YOU do not as if only Muslims can know about Islam. Even in your article you do not say 'not a single Muslim' which is impossible to verify, but in a much more circumspect manner talk about 'sound Muslim' though how one can tell a sound one from a non sound one I have no clear idea.

Your assertion is that the Qu'ran is the 'speech'of Allah so being as pedantic as you what do we call the book I have in front of me now called 'The Qu'ran'? I am not Muslim so what should I believe?

I think your argument is based on Hadith that say it (Qu'ran) was recited regularly but of course it was for most of those 23 years never complete so most of the time whatever recitation went on was only partial and in practical terms it would take several hours at a time, what order where the books in etc. Your argument about regular recitation is possible but its not compelling as one would have to believe that these recitations were carried out all over the place without error for 100s of years and one would wonder if this is such a strong argument why Uthman went to such length to write it down.

In short you saying what you believe is not an argument about preservation or completeness that can be tested as far as I can see.

[Assad]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Does this mean that every Muslim must memorise the Qu’ran and somehow we need assurance that a billion Muslims are all saying the same things? Also if this is true why bother with a written Qu’ran at all? Or does this mean what Christians talk about when they speak of the ‘word’, meaning the Bible teaching are in their hearts and minds and outworked in their lives?

I dont know what you would ever proof by this but as usual as bro Salman rightly put the word "attacker". Anyway, Yes Muslim should memorise the Quran and Muslims do memorise the Quran. If you need assurance that billions of Muslims are reading the same Quran than buy a copy of Quran from an Islamic center or ask any Muslim. Because the Mushaf of Qurah what we have today in the heart and on the tounge of every Muslim.

As far as the Bible, It was written by unknown authors and and at unknown times and places and years after Jesus death. So nothing is directly memorised from Jesus. But a book was written and a council was held and various guys bought various people bought various doctrines to be voted upon and later the book was circulated and was called The Bible. To be specific, I am talking about council of Nicea.

For the moment, I have only addressed this point .

[SilverLJ]

Salman - Blame yourself for acting unintelligent but for the benefits of others let me lay down the argument and response in few lines:

Here again you show unwarranted arrogance, everyone else is an idiot but you and making such remarks only show weakness in your argument.

Salman - Argument: The Qur'an was written down after the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) died; therefore, there was no Qur'an at his time - source Muslim accounts

This is NOT an argument it is an assertion, it is someone posing a question. It is obvious that one cannot construct an argument that something does not exist so in effect it is asking you for proof that the Qu’ran was complete and available at the time of the Prophets death.

Salman - Response: How can this be possible when the Prophet (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) used to recite the whole Qur'an during the month of Ramdhan and many of his companions memorized the whole Qur'an? If no Qur'an existed during his life, what in the world were they reciting and memorizing? Hence, the misconception is raised due to misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "Qur'an". I explained that the word "Qur'an" refers to the text and proved that the text of the Qur'an was completed during his (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) life time - source Muslim accounts.

I might say three things here:

1. The Qu’ran one supposes was revealed in sections over 23 years so one might argue with certainty that it was incomplete for most of the time these recitations went on.

2. You cannot PROVE the text was complete by saying it was recited and then your only evidence is that someone 1400 years ago said so. It is, however, perfectly acceptable to believe this but that does not make it proof as it cannot be tested.

3. One might also add that there is no single spoken Qu’ran and there are many ways it can be recited as you must know and that to me weaken your case.

It saddens me when you say as you do almost everywhere that anyone who does not agree or offers and argument lack knowledge, is blind, does not understand the argument, is hateful – I just wonder where you are coming from and if you have any interests in knowing or finding the truth.

I also wonder why this argument is important to you, is it a condition of faith that you believe the Qu’ran was complete, perfect, error free because none of these assertions can be proved in any acceptable and sceptical manner. Even if it could be proved what would it matter as in the end it’s what it teaches that makes it God given. Obviously, we need to look for authenticity but in contrast Christians are 100% focused on Bible teachings and working them out in their lives but I never see that offered as some kind of proof in this or other Islamic boards.

When I read this board it often feels like you are saying the Qu'ran is so poor in content that you have to find other ways to show it is special.