> Debate Discussion on Preservation of the Qur'an

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Acid

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 .

Some points.

1. Of course I understand that the Qu'ran is memorised and it is true that Christian also memorise Bible verses and passages.

2. Most Muslims do not understand Arabic and in this case it is not modern Arabic so even if they Memorise it most do not actually know what it is saying or what they are saying in any real sense of the word. To know what they are saying they would have to look for example at a translation and I would be very very surprised if more than a tiny percentage do that

However, I do have Lane's well respected Lexicon so I can study any Arabic word in the Qu'ran and that is the best I can do and is likely far more than the majority of Muslims do. I also have a large number of Arab friends and often ask them for explanations where words/phrases are unclear even in the dictionary.

3. You assert that Biblical authors are unknown and in many cases that is true. The Bible was constructed over about 1,600 years so the cannon (list) of authentic and authoritative books came together slowly over time (not unlike you Hadith collections). I cannot see there is any issue here?

Where you get this information of people coming along to a council and having their say from I have no idea. There were many councils but the Biblical books existed before these councils, they were not as you seem to suggest produced afterwards. If what you say is true then how did these councils get all the manuscripts copies together and then somehow produce a new collection - it is not credible is it? I suggest you read an authoritative author on this topic so may I point you to Chapter 8 of Prof F. F. Bruce's book "The Books and The Parchments'

I have said this before but using Thomas Paine's unassailable argument; let us suppose that something has been revealed to a certain person (prophet Mohammed), and not revealed to any other person, so it is a revelation only to that person. It follows it is hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe. In contrast the Bible was revealed through many many people from Adam to Jesus and so is therefore more trustworthy because there are far more witnesses to God Speaking.

[Assad]

1. Of course I understand that the Qu'ran is memorised and it is true that Christian also memorise Bible verses and passages.

Finally glad that you understood this. But I doubt If even the Pope knows entire bible word by word as Muslims know the Quran. Now please stop talking about thickness of book If you have that in mind.

2. Most Muslims do not understand Arabic and in this case it is not modern Arabic so even if they Memorise it most do not actually know what it is saying or what they are saying in any real sense of the word. To know what they are saying they would have to look for example at a translation and I would be very very surprised if more than a tiny percentage do that

Again, that's something from you like many times before. --- totally irrelevant. Ofcourse not all non-arab Muslims know the meaning of entire Quran but they have teachers called Qaris or they see translations and read the meaning of the Glorious Quran. But we all read and memorise the Quran in arabic because it is its original language. This is one of the proof of our examplary preservation. If you are to burn all Qurans today,then within hours we can make a new copy totally from our heart. Just as a side note, If you lose your some available manuscripts than there would hardly be some scholars who would know the greek bible or hebrew text. But again If Non-arab Muslims understood the meaning of ALL QURAN or not has got hardly to do anything with preservation of Quran as in anyway non-Arab Muslims memorise the Quran in its original and pure language.

However, I do have Lane's well respected Lexicon so I can study any Arabic word in the Qu'ran and that is the best I can do and is likely far more than the majority of Muslims do. I also have a large number of Arab friends and often ask them for explanations where words/phrases are unclear even in the dictionary.

Good for you

3. You assert that Biblical authors are unknown and in many cases that is true. The Bible was constructed over about 1,600 years so the cannon (list) of authentic and authoritative books came together slowly over time (not unlike you Hadith collections). I cannot see there is any issue here?

I wouldnt talk about Hadith preservation unless,If you want than you can open a new thread. Your logic is contradictory. Bible was written as said, in unknown places, by unknown people and unknown time and over a period of about 1600 years so you can never know over all those years what decisions were made and who were the people who made this decision and came up with an "authentic list of books" ? There is no authority by which the Bible came as a final book. Anyone could have said anything. Many different beliefs coverged for example the the belief of Roman pagans of those time who were polytheists made an influence of Christianity and docrtine of Trinity was hence incorporated to give these pagans an element of polytheism in the religion i.e. 3 Gods. But as Christians wanted one God as they were monotheists, It was decided to make this a 3 in 1 and a 1 in 3 God and hence trinity. It can be confirmed from the fact that no prophet before Jesus taught the doctrine of trinity, never did Jesus at any time of his ministry introduced the doctrines of trinity. The word trinity is not even once used in the Bible. But it is deduced by Christians or interpreted by Christians for the reasons mentioned above.

So you never know what happened in these 1600 years compiliation of bible. All you know is that it lead to an authentic list of books and thats just your belief and nothing more than that.

Where you get this information of people coming along to a council and having their say from I have no idea.

You need to do some homework then. I am sure reading about the council of nicaea would give you some idea of what I am talking about.

There were many councils but the Biblical books existed before these councils, they were not as you seem to suggest produced afterwards. If what you say is true then how did these councils get all the manuscripts copies together and then somehow produce a new collection - it is not credible is it? I suggest you read an authoritative author on this topic so may I point you to Chapter 8 of Prof F. F. Bruce's book "The Books and The Parchments'

Firstly, Bible, in the form in which it is today, was only available after around 1600 years after Jesus Christ. Before the Bibical council there were many manuscripts as you jsut agreed and some of them were rejected and some accepted. Those who were rejected were rejected on the basis that they did not fit the belief of those who were attending the council or maybe because it did not fit the political system which was being envisaged. So in anycase we dont know what these manuscripts before the council contained. There is no proof whatsover.

I have said this before but using Thomas Paine's unassailable argument; let us suppose that something has been revealed to a certain person (prophet Mohammed), and not revealed to any other person, so it is a revelation only to that person. It follows it is hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe. In contrast the Bible was revealed through many many people from Adam to Jesus and so is therefore more trustworthy because there are far more witnesses to God Speaking.

You dont need to repeat your points in your every posts! This has already been answered here. Answering it again and again would be a waste of time.

Allah is the Greatest

[SilverLJ]

[Quote] from Silver
Most Muslims do not understand Arabic and in this case it is not modern Arabic so even if they Memorise it most do not actually know what it is saying or what they are saying in any real sense of the word. To know what they are saying they would have to look for example at a translation and I would be very very surprised if more than a tiny percentage do that

By Acid - Again, that's something from you like many times before. --- totally irrelevant. Of course not all non-arab Muslims know the meaning of entire Quran but they have teachers called Qaris or they see translations and read the meaning of the Glorious Quran.

Silver Response - I am not sure what you are trying to say here, that you agree with what I said in the quote so how can it be ‘totally irrelevant’?

By Acid - But we all read and memorise the Quran in Arabic because it is its original language. This is one of the proofs of our exemplary preservation.

Silver Response - How can it be a proof of preservation that you memorise it. Does this mean you don’t do it by reading the text? In any case if you accept this as proof then if I memorise the Bible it is also a proof of its preservation.

By Acid If you are to burn all Qurans today, then within hours we can make a new copy totally from our heart. Just as a side note, If you lose your some available manuscripts than there would hardly be some scholars who would know the Greek bible or Hebrew text. But again If Non-Arab Muslims understood the meaning of ALL QURAN or not has got hardly to do anything with preservation of Quran as in any way non-Arab Muslims memorise the Quran in its original and pure language.

I have heard this argument many times but, I think you underestimate how much of the Bible Christians know in translated form plus how widely scholars know the Greek and Hebrew Bibles. In any case you supposed scenario is so impossible it’s not worth considering and proves nothing other than the Qu’ran has been memorised. You talk about its ‘original and pure language’ but it was ordinary Arabic 1400 years ago. Also it is rather odd that there is another thread led by you related to a Fabricated Qu’ran so Muslims it seem cannot even agree what is the Qu’ran

[SilverLJ]

from Silver. You assert that Biblical authors are unknown and in many cases that is true. The Bible was constructed over about 1,600 years so the cannon (list) of authentic and authoritative books came together slowly over time (not unlike you Hadith collections). I cannot see there is any issue here?

Salma - I wouldn't talk about Hadith preservation unless, if you want than you can open a new thread. Your logic is contradictory.

By Silver. My point about Hadith is that there are a huge number of them and not all are authentic – it’s an illustration that is all.

By Acid Bible was written as said, in unknown places, by unknown people and unknown time and over a period of about 1600 years so you can never know over all those years what decisions were made and who were the people who made this decision and came up with an "authentic list of books"

Silver Comment - As I said in my illustration on Hadith, books emerged and were recognised as God Inspired and gradually an accepted list was arrived at. What you must understand is that the copies of the OT/NT were not all in one place, they were spread over the then known world as every community needed its own copies for obvious reasons. In practical terms these communities came to their own conclusions about what was or was not acceptable and typically this is the same as what we accept today. This in principle is no different from the Qu’ran and Hadith, it has to be accepted or not it had no automatic rights that everyone had to accept it.

[salman]

@Mr. Silver

We've told you before that please use the built in quote functionality to make your response more easy to follow and readable for everyone. So, could you kindly please follow that piece of advice?

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

my name is same as my username but it seems you failed to read,

Originally Posted by Salman

As I mentioned at the start of the article, this article is a compiled version of my notes

It is not rocket science to figure out from the above sentence who is the author but given that you actually read what people say

As far concerning his side of story, read all of your 84 posts and you'll figure out. If you don't trust me, then I never asked you to. Search for the arguments on the google and you may come across the actual debate.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

I believe I can label atheist as a non-Muslim and the reason for using this word is obvious as those arguments were borrowed from Christian Missionary websites...google it

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

Mr. Silver, please do bother reading your own arguments and my responses. So far, you've only trolled the forum with same arguments. I wonder, why repeat same argument again and again even though they've been responded. You even attacked my personality when you couldn't think of anything else.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

Another straw man! Mr. Silver, have you got anything else other than a straw man? When did I say that only non-Muslims make mistakes but Muslims don't? Those who call themselves or known as "scholars" or "Islamic experts" and attack Islam should at least have the basic knowledge of Islam because we expect them to do! If a person acting as an "Islamic expert" but don't know the meaning of the word "Qur'an", a very basic knowledge in Islamic world, then what can we conclude other than fact that he/she lacks basic knowledge of Islam! Why don't you ask the Muslims to confirm what I said?

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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?

It is not a mere assertion, Mr. Silver! We've been told in the Qur'an and in Islamic world, it is well known that Qur'an is Speech of Allah Ta'ala. It was revealed to us and we've it written down and memorized by millions. Hence, the word "Qur'an" refers to the text that we've preserved in the books and that which millions of Muslims have memorized!

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

again, read the argument carefully and ponder upon what it implies and mean, rather than randomly throwing bunch of guesses and attacking with straw man. The argument is whether the Qur'an was completed during the life of Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) Ta'ala or not. The WHOLE Qur'an was PERFECTLY memorized and written down when the Prophet (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) was alive but it was compiled into one book during the life of Abou Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) - the first Caliph, and it happened within a year after Prophet's (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) death.

I never said or implied that the Qur'an was continuously memorized for 100 or years or Muslim should only memorize the Qur'an. The WHOLE Qur'an is recited every year in every single Mosque on this planet during the month of Ramadhan and this has been continuously practiced till the time of the Prophet (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam). As far concerning the order of the Surahs, it was ijtihad of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them). It doesn't matter in which order we recite a Surah!

Now, please tell me where does the 100 of years later myth come from? Before it was 200 and now 100!

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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

yet again, another straw man! Indeed, this shows the weakness in my argument, right? Read carefully what I said: "blame yourself for acting unintelligent". Let me remind you that there's a difference between being an idiot and acting like an idiot at a certain situation.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

duh...who doesn't know that? The whole argument is whether it was completed during his (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) life time or not. We do know that the WHOLE Qur'an was recited twice in the last year of his life during the month of Ramadhan and it was completely memorized and written down.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

This is sheer nonsense! They're historical accounts and testable as they have been authentically reported. Are you telling me that history is not a testable evidence? What testable evidence do you have to prove the existence of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him)?

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

how does this prove that the Qur'an was not completed during the life of the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam)?

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

duh...If you want people to disbelieve in something, people expect you to provide convincing arguments to disapprove their belief. And you're telling me that you're seeker of the truth when you troll the forum with your repetitive arguments? How it is hateful to tell a person that his arguments are weak as they misunderstood something or doesn't have the basic knowledge when they're trying to act as an "Islamic expert"? I mean seriously, do you even make any sense!?

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

Mr. Silver, please make some sense. We don't tackle an argument about an apple with an argument about an orange, it maybe Christians habit. This thread is about the preservation of the Qur'an, it is not about the teachings of the Qur'an.

[Yanal]

Very interesting debate keep it up brother Acid and salman and may Allah bless you.

[salman]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

3. You assert that Biblical authors are unknown and in many cases that is true. The Bible was constructed over about 1,600 years so the cannon (list) of authentic and authoritative books came together slowly over time (not unlike you Hadith collections). I cannot see there is any issue here?

1 - thank you for accepting the fact that many of Biblical authors, specifically the NT, are unknown. When this is the case, how can you trust these people? How do we know they were trustworthy?

2 - If the authentic Bible came over the period of 1600 years, does it mean some parts of the Bible were not authentic at some period of time before 1600th year?

3 - Do you know anything about the science of hadith? The authenticity pf ahadith have been continuously checked for 1400 years by the scholars of hadith

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

My point about Hadith is that there are a huge number of them and not all are authentic – it’s an illustration that is all.

well, we never say that all of them are authentic and many being unauthentic doesn't prove anything! And I don't understand why would you bring it up knowing what we believe in?

[Yanal]

Firstly we must know what authentic means well what does it? After my question is answered or no one replies I will answer my own question and will counter hit the quote brother Salman took from silver and help brother Acid and Salman to keep this debate up. InshAllah.

[SilverLJ]

Sorry, I think I may have posted this in the wrong thread

Originally Posted by salman

1 - thank you for accepting the fact that many of Biblical authors, specifically the NT, are unknown. When this is the case, how can you trust these people? How do we know they were trustworthy?

2 - If the authentic Bible came over the period of 1600 years, does it mean some parts of the Bible were not authentic at some period of time before 1600th year?

3 - Do you know anything about the science of hadith? The authenticity of ahadith have been continuously checked for 1400 years by the scholars of hadith

well, we never say that all of them are authentic and many being unauthentic doesn't prove anything! And I don't understand why would you bring it up knowing what we believe in?

Firstly, it has never been a secret anywhere or any time that many Biblical authors are not known with certainty. This is not special to the NT it applies to the whole Bible. However, almost all books have been attributed to an author; it's just that in some case there is debate.

Secondly, why should it be necessary to know the author to make a book contain authentic revelations from God? That seem to be a rule you have invented. Suppose, I dug up a book and it said it was by Prophet Mohammed, would you accept it just because his name is on it - of course not, you would want more proof than that. We know a Biblical book is authentic because of its teachings and the way it links with and supports other books. Indeed that is a strong argument because the Bible has a unity about it that is unmistakable.

One might contrast this with the Qu'ran where we only as far as I know have one witness to its content and logically it is therefore less trustworthy as a true revelation from God than the Bible which has about 40.

With regard to authenticity, books appeared over a period of time and most think this about 1,600 years although writing as you probably know goes back 5,000 years but copies had to be made continually because papyri and such do not last long when in use. As books were produced they were discussed and added or not added to the cannon. So yes some books were argued over but the Bible cannon we have today was well accepted at a very early date. The OT for example was translated into Greek about 200 BC so we know from copies of that that the OT cannon was also solid from then. I can write to you more extensively if you wish. I cannot see any issues here. For example, you may have heard of the Yemeni fragments and it may well turn out that extra verses for the Qu'ran are found - well suppose that did happen what would you do?

As it happens I do know a little about the science of hadith as one of my past students explained it in detail to me and indeed some years back I used Bhukari's method as an illustration of a method of research. In principle it is not all that different to the methods used in Biblical research and in the same way the Bible has been poured over right back as far as we can know. So there is nothing particularly special about the study of hadith as a scholarly idea.

[Yanal]

Your first point says it all. That the bible has authors while we have god as our author therefore you religion is not the right one.