> Debate Discussion on Preservation of the Qur'an

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Abu Sayyad

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.

This is the most silly argument I have ever heard and there is no possible way you can show that it can be true. Even then it presupposes that God exists and you cannot show that either. If you wish to live in a delusion and make your own small mind the measure of all things then that is a matter for you but it need not be like that.

Christians believe the Bible contains Gods revelation given through many authors over many 100s of years and in many ways and styles but all with a perfect unity.

In contrast consider all you have is one man's word, NOTHING else and a book that mostly contains stories that can ALL be found elsewhere in other texts long before Mohammed time. So is God a plagiarist or was it someone else?

[TheBoxer]

Could someone explain to me which verse was the last to be revealed?

[salman]

^if my memory serves me right, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars

[TheBoxer]

Originally Posted by salman

^if my memory serves me right, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars

So, what are the differences of opinion, and which ones seem to have the strongest evidence in their favor?

Also, I have some questions about the article in the first post:

1. When was 5:3 revealed?

2. If Muhammad was illiterate, how could he verify that people had recorded his recitations correctly since it has been claimed that everything was written down prior to his death? At that point, aren't we having to put our faith in the honesty of the Companions who were not infallible prophets?

3. Why is Imam ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Fathul Bari a trustworthy source regarding the rules of Quranic preservation, but it is not a trustworthy source in regards to the allowance of dolls among Muslim females?

4. Just because Zaid described that he found the last verse of sura 9 with only one person, that doesn't mean he had been specifically looking for it. Perhaps that man was the last person he spoke to, and when the man recited that verse, Zaid realized that here was a verse no one else had given him. I mean, isn't that a possible scenario? It seems like Muslims are ASSUMING that Zaid knew about the verse but was looking for confirmation from someone else. That seems a little nutty. I mean, what if no one had been able to confirm it because they were all dead? Does that mean the verse would have been discarded or would Zaid have included it anyway?

5. Why are the claims of a modern-day scholar considered proof of anything that may have happened 1400 years ago?

6. Since Abdullah bin Masud only memorized seventy suras and was considered one of the best, how can it be claimed that he knew all of the Quran? With over 6000 verses in no particular order being partially memorized by various people, how is that a guarantee that a verse was not forgotten or altered? Were those people considered infallible and prophets too?

[salman]

do you wanna start another debate boxer?

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

So, what are the differences of opinion, and which ones seem to have the strongest evidence in their favor?

I do not know exactly, but I remember vaguely reading somewhere that the scholars differed which ayah was the last one. Wait for more knowledgeable members to confirm this.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

1. When was 5:3 revealed?

as far I can remember the well known opinion is that this was the last ayah to be revealed and it happened during the last Hajj the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) performed which was about 3 months before his death; so, roughly 12 AH.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

If Muhammad was illiterate, how could he verify that people had recorded his recitations correctly since it has been claimed that everything was written down prior to his death? At that point, aren't we having to put our faith in the honesty of the Companions who were not infallible prophets?

It was verified every year and twice in last year of his (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) life by angel Jibreel (peace be upon him). Secondly, if someone would have tried anything stupid Allah would have told the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam). Thirdly, yes, we trust the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and the religion they passed down to us. One will have to prove that they were not trustworthy or they distorted Islam: the burden of proof is on the shoulder of the claimer!

Why do you Christian have problem with this when you believe that some unknown authors wrote down your bible? Are you not having faith in these unknown infallible authors?

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

3. Why is Imam ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Fathul Bari a trustworthy source regarding the rules of Quranic preservation, but it is not a trustworthy source in regards to the allowance of dolls among Muslim females?

and where did you get this from?

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

4. Just because Zaid described that he found the last verse of sura 9 with only one person, that doesn't mean he had been specifically looking for it. Perhaps that man was the last person he spoke to, and when the man recited that verse, Zaid realized that here was a verse no one else had given him. I mean, isn't that a possible scenario? It seems like Muslims are ASSUMING that Zaid knew about the verse but was looking for confirmation from someone else. That seems a little nutty. I mean, what if no one had been able to confirm it because they were all dead? Does that mean the verse would have been discarded or would Zaid have included it anyway?

all this has been clarified in the article. Do not accuse us of assumptions when you are doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

5. Why are the claims of a modern-day scholar considered proof of anything that may have happened 1400 years ago?

elaborate please

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

6. Since Abdullah bin Masud only memorized seventy suras and was considered one of the best, how can it be claimed that he knew all of the Quran? With over 6000 verses in no particular order being partially memorized by various people, how is that a guarantee that a verse was not forgotten or altered? Were those people considered infallible and prophets too?

there is more than enough evidence which shows that the whole Qur'an was perfectly memorized and written down during the life of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and then it was perfectly preserved and passed down by the latter generations. We have mutwatir narrations confirming this. Like I said before, burden of proof is on the shoulder of the claimer to prove that discrepancies happened by the hands of the companions deliberately or in-deliberately (i.e., ayaat were altered, forgotten etc.).

[TheBoxer]

salman,

You wrote:

do you wanna start another debate boxer?

**shrug** They're just questions.

as far I can remember the well known opinion is that this was the last ayah to be revealed and it happened during the last Hajj the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) performed which was about 3 months before his death; so, roughly 12 AH.

The funny thing is that there seems to be a difference of opinion even among the Companions.
　
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 67: Narrated Ibn Abbas: The last Verse (in the Quran) revealed to the Prophet was the Verse dealing with usury (i.e. Riba).
　
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 129: Narrated Al-Bara: The last Sura that was revealed was Bara'a, and the last Verse that was revealed was: "They ask you for a legal verdict, Say: Allah's directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs." (4.176)
　
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 130: Narrated Tariq bin Shihab: The Jews said to 'Umar, "You (i.e. Muslims) recite a Verse, and had it been revealed to us, we would have taken the day of its revelation as a day of celebration." 'Umar said, "I know very well when and where it was revealed, and where Allah's Apostle was when it was revealed. (It was revealed on) the day of Arafat (Hajj Day), and by Allah, I was at Arafat" Sufyan, a sub-narrator said: I am in doubt whether the Verse:-- "This day I have perfected your religion for you." was revealed on a Friday or not.
　
If everything was memorized perfectly, you'd think they'd have at least known which verse was revealed last.

It was verified every year and twice in last year of his (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) life by angel Jibreel (peace be upon him). Secondly, if someone would have tried anything stupid Allah would have told the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam). Thirdly, yes, we trust the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and the religion they passed down to us. One will have to prove that they were not trustworthy or they distorted Islam: the burden of proof is on the shoulder of the claimer!

Okay, so what you are telling me is that you trust in the Companions of Muhammad just as much as you trust in Muhammad. You trust that the angel was in fact Gabriel and sent by God. You trust Muhammad when he said the angel was Gabriel, and you trust that everything he recited was from God and not himself. You trust that his Companions were successful in perfectly memorizing the Quran. You trust the scribes were successful in perfectly recording the Quran. You trust that Uthman was correct when he burned those different versions. And you believe they were perfectly perserved because they said they perfectly preserved it and the Quran says it was perfectly perserved.

Have I got that right?
　

Why do you Christian have problem with this when you believe that some unknown authors wrote down your bible? Are you not having faith in these unknown infallible authors?

Oh, I never said I had a problem with it. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the Islamic faith. And I don't believe the gospel authors were infallible. Where did you get that crazy idea?

3. Why is Imam ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Fathul Bari a trustworthy source regarding the rules of Quranic preservation, but it is not a trustworthy source in regards to the allowance of dolls among Muslim females?
and where did you get this from?

Well, it seems like Muslims completely discard his comment regarding dolls when it comes to proving Aisha's prepubescence. And this is going way off-topic, but my point is that it seems Muslims will take the words of a scholar as authoritative when it fits the belief they want to hold.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 7, Number 151: Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baaree (Fath al-Baaree, no. 6130, Kitaab: al-Adab, Baab: al-Inbisaat ilaa an-Naas): This Hadith has been used as a proof for the permissibility of possessing (suwar - of) dolls and toys for the purpose of the little girls playing with them. This has been especially exempted from the general prohibition of possession of images (suwar).

(I found a great Islamic website with a very informative fatwaa about this.)
　
If this interpretation is wrong, then that would mean little girls who played with dolls have been sinning for over 1000 years. And I know what the usual excuse is: "But those dolls were shapeless, and therefore not in the image of an animate object"...except that Aisha had dolls that were not formless. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4914 describes a horse doll with rags as wings.
　
So, is the Fath al-Baaree not a trustworthy source for this? The other opinions cited in the book simply describe how some Muslims thought the Hadith had been abrogated.
　

5. Why are the claims of a modern-day scholar considered proof of anything that may have happened 1400 years ago?
elaborate please

lol I can't remember now.
　

there is more than enough evidence which shows that the whole Qur'an was perfectly memorized and written down during the life of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and then it was perfectly preserved and passed down by the latter generations. We have mutwatir narrations confirming this. Like I said before, burden of proof is on the shoulder of the claimer to prove that discrepancies happened by the hands of the companions deliberately or in-deliberately (i.e., ayaat were altered, forgotten etc.).

It seems a bit....I don't know what the word would be for this but....I mean, all of your "proof" comes from what the people responsible for preserving the Quran said. There's no outside proof. It would be like this: An old lady dies surrounded by her family and friends. A few months later they come together and produce her last will and testament. They each testify that they had memorized her words and recorded them perfectly. Her last will and testament benefits all of them and legitimizes their claim to her house and property. Is a judge going to consider that evidence proving the trustworthiness of the will and testament? I mean, I'm not claiming that they are lying or anything, but there is just never any external evidence. It's always evidence provided by people whose best interest is to make Islam look like it was sent from God.
　
And Islamic scholars seem to go to great lengths to verify the isnaads for simple narrations about how to pray and whatnot...and yet there is no such scrutiny applied to the Quran. Everything Uthman provided as the final, completed, perfected Quran is what we have. We don't know which Companion recited which verse to which scribe.
　
And where did the Verse of the Rajam go? Why isn't the verse in the Quran? It's in the Hadith, sure, but the Hadith are not the actual words of God, are they? I mean, if they were, wouldn't they be in the Quran where scholars don't have to go around verifying the authenticity and strength of the isnad? (Because at that point, the word of God could become lost just because a chain of transmission was deemed 'fabricated' or 'corrupted.')
　
From Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:
'Umar said: "Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession."


~TheBoxer

[al-boriqee]

Shaykh Salman, where the heck is the article. I did not see a link or anything in the first post

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

So, what are the differences of opinion, and which ones seem to have the strongest evidence in their favor?

the two difference from what I know is the verse
"This day I have perfected your religion and chose for you Islam......".

the other opinion is the surah nasr which is chapter 110, it is only 3 or 4 versus long.

Also, I have some questions about the article in the first post:

1. When was 5:3 revealed?

i don;t know. please quote the verse when quoting. No one remembers numbers, but they can remember much more easily the text. In the realm of academics, it is usually the burden upon the one making the claim or even stating a question to present what they have. To make the one being inquired about at fault in terms of trying to look up the material is academically unfair.

2. If Muhammad was illiterate, how could he verify that people had recorded his recitations correctly since it has been claimed that everything was written down prior to his death?

because it was recited to him.

At that point, aren't we having to put our faith in the honesty of the Companions who were not infallible prophets?

we are talking about a people who if someone would have made an honest mistake, they would have been severely reprimanded by other companions who have not mads a mistake. And if the person even minutely gave off the vibe that they were trying to alter the text, his head would have been chopped off. This is not no fuddy duddy business.That is why its preservation has been administered within a conglomeration of companions to ensure perfect execution. If one made a mistake (and they didnt) then the others would have corrected it without any need to worry.

3. Why is Imam ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Fathul Bari a trustworthy source regarding the rules of Quranic preservation, but it is not a trustworthy source in regards to the allowance of dolls among Muslim females?

3 things
because
1. your question makes absolutely no sense with regard to the topic
2. because every scholar is a human, and every human has a pitfall.
3. because that is a subsidarrary aspect of the law that does not concern you. You have a much greater problem to worry about than a mere scholar who had a position on dolls, like for example, having to face your Lord as to how He gave you a brain and you wasted it on believing that His servant, Jesus alaihi salam was one whom you can direct your supplication and worship to.

4. Just because Zaid described that he found the last verse of sura 9 with only one person, that doesn't mean he had been specifically looking for it. Perhaps that man was the last person he spoke to, and when the man recited that verse, Zaid realized that here was a verse no one else had given him. I mean, isn't that a possible scenario? It seems like Muslims are ASSUMING that Zaid knew about the verse but was looking for confirmation from someone else. That seems a little nutty

quote me the text your talkin about because I have no idea what your talking about and if my hunch is correct, you most likely misconstrued the matter.

. I mean, what if no one had been able to confirm it because they were all dead? Does that mean the verse would have been discarded or would Zaid have included it anyway?

it just means that he would have been correct elsewhere. bring the text in question.

5. Why are the claims of a modern-day scholar considered proof of anything that may have happened 1400 years ago?

please elaborate.

6. Since Abdullah bin Masud only memorized seventy suras and was considered one of the best, how can it be claimed that he knew all of the Quran? With over 6000 verses in no particular order being partially memorized by various people, how is that a guarantee that a verse was not forgotten or altered? Were those people considered infallible and prophets too?

firstly, bring the proof where he only had 70 surahs (i never heard of this in my entire life).
allow me to explain the arab climate for you.
we are talking about a people who if a 100 verse poem was recited to them only once, and they had to repeat it, it would be repeated word for word. It was as if they had a copy n paste mechanism in their minds.

thirdly, they were constantly reminded of these versus through their lives. Your depiction of their lives makes it sound like after it was first revealed, it was merely memorized and thats it. They lived, breathed, and slept the Qur'an. they would pray five times a day, having long prayers in morning and night prayers. They must have heard each verse at least a 100 times and many of the versus easily exceeding a thousand times.

Lastly, and more impotantly, I hope you listen here because this directly pertains to you.

Our religion is a religion where it is based on ijmaa i.e. consensus of the community. Our religion, had it not had this, then our religion would have been lost, much like your religion.

for example, the reason for the perfection and the flawless execution of the preservation of the Qur'an (and even hadeeth to later on) is because we had ijmaa. In other words if someone either mistakenly or deceitfully wanted to try to alter a word of the Qur'an, it would have been exposed because everything was under the scope of the community. Had your religion had this system from the beginning, Paul would have never made it anywhere. WHY? because his theology was in contradistinction with everyone of Jesus's disciples. In other words, Pauls radical new doctrine was rejected by the consensus of Jesus's direct community. Had your religion had this basic system trait, it would have never innovated anything like trinity, and if it happened, then the masses of people would have recognized such a movement to be heretical, and not the orthodoxy to be heretical, as how your religion has portrayed the true followers of Jesus alaihi salam

[TheBoxer]

al-boriqee,

**do not repeat already addressed points, either prove your case or stop bringing it again and again**

3 things
because
1. your question makes absolutely no sense with regard to the topic
2. because every scholar is a human, and every human has a pitfall.
3. because that is a subsidarrary aspect of the law that does not concern you. You have a much greater problem to worry about than a mere scholar who had a position on dolls, like for example, having to face your Lord as to how He gave you a brain and you wasted it on believing that His servant, Jesus alaihi salam was one whom you can direct your supplication and worship to.

1. It does make sense, because I'm trying to figure out why he is such a trustworthy source regarding Quranic preservation but not in regards to the maturity level of girls who play with dolls. If he can't get such a trivial thing as dolls relayed accurately, then how can we trust him with something as important as the preservation of the Quran?
2. But why would this particular scholar definitely not have a pitfall in this subject but does have one in the other subject?
3. This doesn't even merit a response.

quote me the text your talkin about because I have no idea what your talking about and if my hunch is correct, you most likely misconstrued the matter.

If you had read the article, you'd know what I was talking about.

I mean, what if no one had been able to confirm it because they were all dead? Does that mean the verse would have been discarded or would Zaid have included it anyway?
it just means that he would have been correct elsewhere. bring the text in question.

Okay, that answer makes no sense.

firstly, bring the proof where he only had 70 surahs (i never heard of this in my entire life).
allow me to explain the arab climate for you.
we are talking about a people who if a 100 verse poem was recited to them only once, and they had to repeat it, it would be repeated word for word. It was as if they had a copy n paste mechanism in their minds.

Then why did they have to write things down on leaves, bones, and rocks?

thirdly, they were constantly reminded of these versus through their lives. Your depiction of their lives makes it sound like after it was first revealed, it was merely memorized and thats it. They lived, breathed, and slept the Qur'an. they would pray five times a day, having long prayers in morning and night prayers. They must have heard each verse at least a 100 times and many of the versus easily exceeding a thousand times.

Wow. How did they get anything done? Didn't they have to work to feed their families? Or was it just a few men responsible for such a task as Quran memorization?

Lastly, and more impotantly, I hope you listen here because this directly pertains to you.

Our religion is a religion where it is based on ijmaa i.e. consensus of the community. Our religion, had it not had this, then our religion would have been lost, much like your religion.

How does a religion get lost when the religion has maintained the same basic faith tenent for 2000 years? Atenism, lost. Ancient Egyptian religions, lost. Aztec religion, lost. Christianity? No. Christianity is still based on the belief that Christ Jesus' was crucified and resurrected on the third day. Come now, Christians are called "CHRISTians" for a reason. Jews weren't called Moses-tians were they? Muslims don't call themselves Muhammad-ians do they? And yet Christians have always been called ( Χριστιανός ) Christians--literally meaning followers of Christ.

for example, the reason for the perfection and the flawless execution of the preservation of the Qur'an (and even hadeeth to later on) is because we had ijmaa. In other words if someone either mistakenly or deceitfully wanted to try to alter a word of the Qur'an, it would have been exposed because everything was under the scope of the community. Had your religion had this system from the beginning, Paul would have never made it anywhere. WHY? because his theology was in contradistinction with everyone of Jesus's disciples. In other words, Pauls radical new doctrine was rejected by the consensus of Jesus's direct community. Had your religion had this basic system trait, it would have never innovated anything like trinity, and if it happened, then the masses of people would have recognized such a movement to be heretical, and not the orthodoxy to be heretical, as how your religion has portrayed the true followers of Jesus alaihi salam

So, it sounds like your religion is highly dependent on the reliability and faithfulness of its constituents. The funny thing is that Christianity has something known as Apostolic Succession and Church tradition, and yet neither of these things are necessary for Christians to become Christians. These things are not necessary for a Christian to remain strong in their walk with God. But then again, in Islam there is no walking with God. It's simply God marking a path and leaving you to negotiate the obstacles.
　
It is the Gospel that is the foundation of Christianity, and this Gospel was preached throughout the Roman empire, recorded on thousands of ancient manuscripts in different languages, and then spread throughout the world. There was no need to guard it ferociously and viciously punish anyone who worded it a bit differently. The Gospel has always been and always will be the glad tidings of redemption through the expiatory offering of Jesus Christ for one's sins. In other words, "Repent and believe in the salvation from God through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The gospels have preserved this message. The epistles have preserved this message. The apostles, saints, and church traditions have preserved this message. It has never been, and never will be, lost.

~TheBoxer

[salman]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

**shrug** They're just questions.

ah really? no, you are not getting benefit of doubt from me specially what we have seen from you.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

The funny thing is that there seems to be a difference of opinion even among the Companions.

lol, and you say you just wanted to ask few questions. Tell me what was the purpose of your question when you already knew about the difference? Like I told you before, we know and in and out of you people more than yourselves; so, there is no need for hide and seek.
　

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

If everything was memorized perfectly, you'd think they'd have at least known which verse was revealed last.

how does the difference on which was the last ayah prove that it was not perfectly memorized? In order to prove your argument, you will have to prove that the historical accounts (mutwair narrations) are not authentic and good luck doing that - maybe seek some help from your holy ghost.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Okay, so what you are telling me is that you trust in the Companions of Muhammad just as much as you trust in Muhammad. You trust that the angel was in fact Gabriel and sent by God. You trust Muhammad when he said the angel was Gabriel, and you trust that everything he recited was from God and not himself. You trust that his Companions were successful in perfectly memorizing the Quran. You trust the scribes were successful in perfectly recording the Quran. You trust that Uthman was correct when he burned those different versions. And you believe they were perfectly perserved because they said they perfectly preserved it and the Quran says it was perfectly perserved.

Have I got that right?

yes, because unlike you we got more than enough textual evidence with complete science of authenticating the historical accounts (mutwatir narrations and ijmaa - two concepts alien to you)
　

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Oh, I never said I had a problem with it. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the Islamic faith.

lol, right

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

And I don't believe the gospel authors were infallible. Where did you get that crazy idea?

straw man - when did I say you believe that. In a way they have to be because they were inspired by your god-nongod holy ghost.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Well, it seems like Muslims completely discard his comment regarding dolls when it comes to proving Aisha's prepubescence. And this is going way off-topic, but my point is that it seems Muslims will take the words of a scholar as authoritative when it fits the belief they want to hold.

this is something you should be learning about, instead of other things which you are pretending to be ignorant off, if you really want to learn about Islam and not display sheer ignorance.

1 - Ibn Hajr (rahimahullah) never said that, he was simply narrating the opinion of al-Khattabi.

2 - Every average Muslim, like you see on this board, are obliged to ask the people of knowledge; however, we are obliged to follow haqq (truth) and not the errors of scholars. Thus, how can you say we take from scholars only when it is convenient to us? That is a straw man btw. The understanding of Islam (the Qur'an and the Sunnah) is based upon the understanding of the companions (radiAllahu anhuma) and the people from two generations after them who followed the understanding of the companions (radiAllahu anhuma); in short they are known as Salaf (rahimahumullah).

3 - Main Islamic sources are 3: the Qur'an, the sahih Sunnah. Yes, the other sources are ijmaa, qiyas, and ijtihaad; however, everything goes back to the primary core sources. Becuase the latter three sources are based on the primary sources

4 - Opinions of scholars divided into many categories but mainly known as: invalid, valid, minority, majority, well known, odd, no basis from shari'ah, based on ijmaa, based on qiyas etc. The doll opinion is a loner opinion which comes from or narrated by those who have already error in the whole issue of adhulthood. It goes against that which is a well known opinion in addition to fact that it has no shari' evidence.

for more Islamic sources and how we understand this whole issue, ask akhee boriqee, he can explain this better and direct you to one of his old posts on this issue. Look for response to SilverLJ's posts or bro optimist, he explained it there in bit detail.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

It seems a bit....I don't know what the word would be for this but....I mean, all of your "proof" comes from what the people responsible for preserving the Quran said. There's no outside proof.

what a load of rubbish! So we should ask the chinese or hindus who did not even know? So we should ask the kuffaar whether Qur'an is preserved? If I want to know about whether Jesus (peace be upon him) existed should I go ask the atheists who deny it? Do you have any historical proof of his existence outside of the holy ghost inspiring biblical authors?

See this is the problem with you haters, you are picking straws here and there to construct your argument.

I have repeated twice already and this is the third time: the burden of proof is on the shoulder of the claimer: You need to prove that the companions were not trustworthy, they had some alter motives, they distorted the Qur'an, and the accounts in favour of Qur'anic preservation are not authentic.

Further discussion on any of the points, which have been answered, will be removed without any warning. If you do not like our answers then that is fine but you cannot turn it into on-going beating around bush debate.
　

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

And Islamic scholars seem to go to great lengths to verify the isnaads for simple narrations about how to pray and whatnot...and yet there is no such scrutiny applied to the Quran. Everything Uthman provided as the final, completed, perfected Quran is what we have. We don't know which Companion recited which verse to which scribe.

WHAT! Are you for real? What sheer ignorance! The whole Islam is preserved by the science of hadith. Do you think we give higher priority to fiqihi issues over the Qur'an when applying this science!? Do you know anything about mutwatir narrations and ijmaa? The Qur'an is based upon these two: no ayah of the Qur'an can be accepted to be part of the Qur'an unless it has been come via mutwatir (mutliple chains of trustworthy reliable, honest etc. transmitters) narrations and there is an ijmaa on it among the companions (radiAllahu anhuma).
　
Issue of Rajam is already covered in other article and thread is available as well so discuss it there

[amar_labedi]

Assalamalaikum warahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Mashallah nice efforts in spreading the message brother

Is there any scripture till date preserved/ unchanged other than Quran....