Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A Superbly Flawed Quran..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dan Zebiri
    replied

    There are scholarly materials available on the Net written by Dr.Shady H. Nasser from BRILL - a MUSLIM Quranic and manuscript historical-critical scholar, you can download these PDFs for free and/or pay for download. Excellent stuff that exposes the evolution of the Koran in contradiction of muslim propogandists' lame and false polemics claiming "perfect preservation of the Koran" -

    https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sh...r_bf_22.07.pdf

    "The Second Canonization of the Quran" -- https://brill.com/view/title/55138

    "The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qurʾān" - https://brill.com/view/title/22618

    Any objection from Muslims that textual sceptics and critics of the Quran are mostly non-Muslims who do not understand the Koran properly, are now soundly debunked and dismissed as not deserving any merit.

    The Quran and its transmission is shown to be not preserved properly at all and is an unreliable source of factual information to guide knowledge and faith.

    Enjoy all the excellent reading by this muslim Harvard scholar on the Quran's evolution & transmission! Most muslims are scared and apprehensive to critically study and appraise its textual and narrative history!




    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    Even the well known Muslim intellectuals and researchers into “Koranic preservation” admit such a claim is rather impossible to prove factually and that “the standard narrative has holes in it.”

    This is the narrative of proper and ''perfect Koranic preservation.'' Which then turns out finally into a myth.

    Dr. Yasir Qadhi of Houston Texas, himself admits in his lectures that the Koran’s qiraats and ahruf have differences, not only in readings (recitings) but also in whole letters and words.

    Dr. Shady Hekmat Nasser is more straightforward in his lecture and admits that the readings / qiraats have different VOCABULARY, sentences, words structure and recitings. Such different vocabulary and words only mean differences in meanings in the same verses & passages.

    He also disclosed that during one of the stages of Koranic canonization, seven qiraats / styles were chosen arbitrarily from 40-50 different ones by ibn Mujahid in 936 A.D.

    Then, over 490 years later in 1429 AD, another three qiraats were further taken from the remaining unchosen styles by ibn al-Jazari who conducted the Koran’s third canonization. Making a total of TEN different qiraats/readings. Which one(s) of the above cherry-picked ones is/are actually, the authentic & original Koran “sent down to Muhamed”??

    Why were seven, and then ten chosen over the fifty pre-existing DIFFERENT readings & qiraats? Did ANY of these 2 canonizers follow a divine order or authenticated guidelines to select these 7, then 10 variant qiraats over the OTHER 40-plus to ensure real originality? What’s so special of these 10+ selected qiraat over the other 30-40 qiraat that did NOT get chosen?

    These points were brought to public attention by Dr.Shady Hekmat Nasser, a Muslim scholar at Harvard and NOT by a westener, non-muslim "kafir" or infidel in Muslims' eyes!




    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    Even the well known Muslim intellectuals and researchers into “Koranic preservation” admit such a claim is rather impossible to prove factually and that “the standard narrative has holes in it.”

    This is the narrative of proper and ''perfect Koranic preservation.'' Which then turns out finally into a myth.

    Dr. Yasir Qadhi of Houston Texas, himself admits in his lectures that the Koran’s qiraats and ahruf have differences, not only in readings (recitings) but also in whole letters and words.

    Dr. Shady Hekmat Nasser is more straightforward in his lecture and admits that the readings / qiraats have different VOCABULARY, sentences, words structure and recitings. Such different vocabulary and words only mean differences in meanings in the same verses & passages.

    He also disclosed that during one of the stages of Koranic canonization, seven qiraats / styles were chosen arbitrarily from 40-50 different ones by ibn Mujahid in 936 A.D.

    Then, over 490 years later in 1429 AD, another three qiraats were further taken from the remaining unchosen styles by ibn al-Jazari who conducted the Koran’s third canonization. Making a total of TEN different qiraats/readings. Which one(s) of the above cherry-picked ones is/are actually, the authentic & original Koran “sent down to Muhamed”??

    Why were seven, and then ten chosen over the fifty pre-existing DIFFERENT readings & qiraats? Did ANY of these 2 canonizers follow a divine order or authenticated guidelines to select these 7, then 10 variant qiraats over the OTHER 40-plus to ensure real originality? What’s so special of these 10+ selected qiraat over the other 30-40 qiraat that did NOT get chosen?

    These points were brought to public attention by Dr.Shady Hekmat Nasser, a Muslim scholar at Harvard and NOT by a westener, non-muslim "kafir" or infidel in Muslims' eyes!



    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    Actually it is not only the divine source of the Quran that is dubious and hence, questionable. When it was allegedly "received here" (piecemeal) on earth, there were even bigger problems which the primitive & early muslims admitted to and tried to resolve on their own plane!

    Ibn Khaldun the orthodox muslim scholar, in his celebrated work "Muqadimmah", admitted to major issues of language and orthography which throws the Quran into grace doubt and unreliability.

    Here, ibn Khaldun comments on the incompetence of the Arabic scribes and tge relationship to muhammad islam's "prophet"-

    "Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not (even) of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts.

    "One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur'an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in their own script which was not of a firmly established, good quality. Most of the letters were in contradiction to the orthography required by persons versed in the craft of writing…

    "Consequently, the Qur'anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where (this is noticeable).

    "No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that the men around Muhammad knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la 'adhbahannahU 'I shall indeed slaughter him' as indication that the slaughtering did not take place (lA 'adhbahannahU).


    The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin 'with hands (power),' they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to assume such things is their belief that their explanations would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing."

    (Muqqadimah, Ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p.382)

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied

    Actually it is not only the divine source of the Quran that is dubious and hence, questionable. When it was allegedly "received here" (piecemeal) on earth, there were even bigger problems which the primitive & early muslims admitted to and tried to resolve on their own plane!

    Ibn Khaldun the orthodox muslim scholar, in his celebrated work "Muqadimmah", admitted to major issues of language and orthography which throws the Quran into grace doubt and unreliability.

    Here, ibn Khaldun comments on the incompetence of the Arabic scribes and tge relationship to muhammad islam's "prophet"-

    "Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not (even) of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts.

    "One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur'an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in their own script which was not of a firmly established, good quality. Most of the letters were in contradiction to the orthography required by persons versed in the craft of writing…

    "Consequently, the Qur'anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where (this is noticeable).

    "No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that the men around Muhammad knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la 'adhbahannahU 'I shall indeed slaughter him' as indication that the slaughtering did not take place (lA 'adhbahannahU).


    The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin 'with hands (power),' they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to assume such things is their belief that their explanations would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing."

    (Muqqadimah, Ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p.382)

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied


    WHEN Simple, Open Questions are asked of Muslims for honest clarification - like the ones BELOW, they will abdicate, avoid and run away, just like Siam did after more than two weeks, isn't that a crying shame for the propogandists and dawagandists of islam?!

    HOWEVER, there are valid hadith proofs that there are Koran verses and ayats THAT WERE NOT TAWATUR Nor Mutawatir (“wide spread and well known through multiple lines of transmission”) THAT are in the Koran.

    The fath al-bari reports :

    “I found the last verse of sura al Tawba in the possession of Abu Khuzaima al Ansari, having found it WITH NO ONE ELSE, ‘There has now come to you…’ to the end of the sura.

    - p.119, Ahmad b.Ali b. Muhd.Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari,” 13 vols. Cairo, 1939/1348 vol.9, p.9 - The Commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari’s hadith.

    This is an example of a verse that IS NON-TAWATUR ie. Not Mutawatir whasoever. Sura 9/128 & 129 were ONLY FOUND With Abu Khuzaima and NOBODY ELSE. Its provenance and reliability is therefore doubted and invalidated by the tawatur criterion!

    And YET it became a Quran verse in spite of not complying with and defying the orthodox criteria of mutawatir – which 9/128 & 129 is clearly not tawatur as recorded by al-Bukhari himself!

    Dr. Shady H. Nasser considers this as proof of non-tawatur verses in the Quran, inserted unscrupulously by MAN and not by God for sure.

    If the so-called “whole community had memorised the koran” like you propagandize, they won’t find sura 9/128-129 ONLY WITH ABU KHUZAIMA! But with other reciters as well! There were NONE as the records prove. Where were the others to make 9/128-129 tawatur??? Where..???

    If there are TWO such verses – AS IN sura at-tawba 9 VERSES 128 & 129, There could very well be OTHER SUCH words, verses and whole chapters inserted into the koran THAT ARE NOT TAWATUR OR MUTAWATIR!

    Just HOW Many more of such have been inserted – not by Allah or Jibril, but by the human manufacturers of the Quran?

    As if the koran could really benefit humanity? How can it do so, when..?-

    1. Sura 9/30 - blatantly curses Christians – for taking Jesus Christ as THE SON OF GOD, and Jews ALSO for doing that to “Ezra”. Vilification and baseless defamations ARE NOT A BENEFIT! Especially when they’re all baseless and LIES.

    2. sura 9/29 Sanctions and commands for attacks and killings upon the “people of the Book” ie – Christians and Jews BY MUSLIMS just FOR NOT BELIEVING in muhamed, his Allah and koran “FIGHT ie KILL (Qatala’) against the People of the Book WHO DO NOT BELIEVE in Allah..” (and islam obviously)..

    These people of the Book were not fighting against muslims. They were ONLY refusing to believe in the lies of Muhamed and islam! That was enough to get them killed! What a non-blessing to Humanity..

    The justification that islam and muslims “only fight in self-defence” here is destroyed and demolished.

    The killing against them only "stops" when these people of the book pay the Poll Tax called JIZYA - which is really a bribe and protection money so they will not BE KILLED, as demanded by the pernicious Quran.

    3. Sura 4/3 – Muslim men can happily take four wives, while the women can only have 1 husband each.

    Just HOW IS THAT a benefit to humanity?? Today, polygamy is shown to be outdated and a curse on family life.

    Sura 4/3 – Muslim men CAN ALSO have sex with the females “that their right hand possess”! This shameless permission is valid even today. These are captives of war or kept women or even single women who work for their perverted Muslim male bosses.

    Don’t these sex perverts just love this ayat sura 4/3 that permit them free sex with such kept women?!? – these are NOT their 4 official wives..but all their unofficial kept women of muslim men that the koran favors with such “rights”

    JUST HOW CAN Point 3. Above ever be a benefit to humanity???

    4. Sura 4/34 – Muslim men MUST BEAT THEIR so-called “DISOBEDIENT WIVES How can that ever be a benefit to women – who make up one-half of Humanity?

    Verse 34 says (of muslim men dealing with ‘offending wives’): “you may admonish them..refuse to share beds with them AND BEAT THEM..” in Arabic the word is ‘daraba’ which the Pickthall koran translates as “SCOURGE them

    JUST HOW CAN Point 4 above from sura 4/34 EVER BE a “benefit to humanity”???

    Going by these koran verses ALONE and the criteria of “benefitting humanity” THE KORAN HAS FAILED MISERABLY AND horribly – It can never be of ANY benefit whatsoever, let alone any blessing to any one in the world.

    KINDLY ANSWER The Questions posed to you above, Siam?




    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    And so, after nearly a month of silence and ignorance our "friend" siam has disappeared and refused to address any of our questions posed above.

    I suspect he / she is incapable and unable to answer them. Also proving that it was only for muslim missionary activity that he made all his posts.

    what a shame!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    And so, after nearly a month of silence and ignorance our "friend" siam has disappeared and refused to address any of our questions posed above.

    I suspect he / she is incapable and unable to answer them. Also proving that it was only for muslim missionary activity that he made all his posts.

    what a shame!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    And here, this Jordanian Islamic scholar and well-known "sheikh" from the Arab world - sheikh Abu Abdul Rahman al-Zahiri, writer, thinker and researcher, teacher and student of the Koran - has lost his faith in the "original and authentic sources of Islam". That obviously includes the Koranic sources, sunnah and traditional sources for orthodox Islam today:-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jKd8z8thF8

    For muslims and propogandists of islam - get real and honest with yourselves, friends!

    If Arab speaking Muslims and scholars themselves now cannot accept the early sources of islam as authentic, how can you expect us - the non-Muslims, to ever do the same?


    Thinking Muslims and islamic scholars are rapidly leaving behind their traditional concepts and notions of Islam today - by the thousands.


    Look at Iran, Indonesia and now, the Arab Muslims themselves. scholars mind you, NOT mere lay people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    Here are some more recent admissions and honest discussions about the major problems of the Koran's preservation (that it is far from perfect or even early in its historical development).

    Al-Fadi [a fluent-speaking Arab], Yasir Qadhi and Mohd Hijab [south asians]- ALL three of them muslims, except the first one Al Fadi, who WAS a muslim, before leaving and abandoning Islam to become a born-again Christian according to the words and teaching of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John Chapter 3 in the Holy Bible.

    In this fascinating, eye-opening interview with Dr.Jay Smith and David Wood (all with PhDs), they unpack for muslims like Siam and his friends, why Dr.Yasir Qadhi confessed that the "standard narrative (for the Koran) has HOLES IN IT"!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_i3jzvgBhY

    It is worthwhile to remember that these scholars and academicians making this admission of the less than perfect preservation of the Koran comes from eastern scholars of Islam and who are all Muslims - like Dr. Yasir Qadhi.

    The ground is removed from muslim propogandists like Siam who had claimed that it was just the western Koranic scholarship who are making these claims. We now see muslim learned people and scholars who are NOT FROM the western world, but from the eastern hemisphere who confirm the dubious and unreliable nature of the Koran today!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    Siam, you asked and I gave you the links requested. I gave them weeks ago but all you can do siam, is to keep quiet. Naturally, because the facts I shared are not made up.

    The Muslim Ali Dashti's findings about the Koran:

    https://1400years.org/books/twentythreeyearsEN.pdf

    Dashti said that the language and forms of the verses/ayats of your Koran has already been replicated by other Arab speakers. In many places they have superseded the koranic quality.

    It is worth downloading and it is FREE!

    Here is another link to an example for that:

    https://www.amazon.com/True-Furqan-A.../dp/1579211755

    Called "The True Furqan" . So has the challenge of the Koran's inimitability and "beautiful forms" been met?

    Of course it has! And been superseded too. In grammar, vocabulary, style and poetic quality.



    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    Some Muslims are beginning to denounce Islam due to the recent Quranic preservation conflict between Dr. Yasir Qadhi and Mohd.Hijab, as expected.

    Hijab's deletion of 25-minutes of his discussion with Dr.Qadhi arouses Muslim suspicions of destruction of evidence, some say damning kind:-

    https://youtu.be/d09ru0SksTY

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    Some Muslims are beginning to denounce Islam due to the recent Quranic preservation conflict between Dr. Yasir Qadhi and Mohd.Hijab, as expected.

    Hijab's deletion of 25-minutes of his discussion with Dr.Qadhi arouses Muslim suspicions of destruction of evidence, some say damning kind:-

    https://youtu.be/d09ru0SksTY



    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    Why did Mohd Hijab a preacher for Islam
    intentionally DELETE 25 minutes of his interview with Dr.Y. Qadhi? What is there to hide?

    Abdullah Sameer, an ex-muslim analyses the response of Mohd.Hijab's reaction about the unreliable preservation of the Koran. Very interesting development. ☝️

    https://youtu.be/Z_8Zv1sB4Aw

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    Why did Mohd Hijab a preacher for Islam
    intentionally DELETE 25 minutes of his interview with Dr.Y. Qadhi? What is there to hide?

    Abdullah Sameer, an ex-muslim analyses the response of Mohd.Hijab's reaction about the unreliable preservation of the Koran. Very interesting development. ☝️

    https://youtu.be/Z_8Zv1sB4Aw

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    Yes, it is not only the clips by Jay Smith and Hatun Tash which are worth book-marking to learn about the mutiple korans and the confused and sorry state of Koranic documentary studies today - exemplified by the open conflicts that recently happened between Muslims Mohd.Hijab and Yasir Qadhi.

    Muslims like Al-Fadi of Saudi Arabia and Rachid of Morocco have also exposed the very late and now questionable traditional sources of Islam, like the Sira of Ibn Hisham and ibn Ishaq, al-Bukhari's hadith (and other hadith collections) and the various manuscripts of the Koran itself. They have since left Islam and converted to Christianity after an extended time of searching.







    Originally posted by Trucker View Post
    Jay Smith has much to say about Islam.

    Try this one:
    : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EaopH_EPfc

    Very thought provoking, eh what?

    I suggest bookmarking it and taking notes.The inquisitive may wish to watch it more than once.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trucker
    replied
    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    An eastern Muslim scholar like Yasir Qadhi shouldn't have gone to Yale university in the USA to get an M.Phil followed by a PhD in islam and koranic studies.

    Here, Dr.Jay Smith analyses an interview between Y.Qadhi and Mohd.Hijab, an aggressive muslim evangelist and da'i. The outcome is unsatisfactory much to M.Hijab who kept pressing Qadhi for a clear answer which Qadhi kept resisting and even waffles many times.

    https://youtu.be/vstGbZkjUcw

    Eastern muslim scholars are already embracing western scholastic conclusions about the Qiraat, ahruf, masahif and other aspects of koranic analysis and studies.

    In the tradition of Ali Dashti and even ibn Khaldun, there are brave modern muslim scholars who are unsure of the preservation and reliability of their Koran AND are saying so, themselves.
    Jay Smith has much to say about Islam.

    Try this one:
    : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EaopH_EPfc

    Very thought provoking, eh what?

    I suggest bookmarking it and taking notes.The inquisitive may wish to watch it more than once.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    An eastern Muslim scholar like Yasir Qadhi shouldn't have gone to Yale university in the USA to get an M.Phil followed by a PhD in islam and koranic studies.

    Here, Dr.Jay Smith analyses an interview between Y.Qadhi and Mohd.Hijab, an aggressive muslim evangelist and da'i. The outcome is unsatisfactory much to M.Hijab who kept pressing Qadhi for a clear answer which Qadhi kept resisting and even waffles many times.

    https://youtu.be/vstGbZkjUcw

    Eastern muslim scholars are already embracing western scholastic conclusions about the Qiraat, ahruf, masahif and other aspects of koranic analysis and studies.

    In the tradition of Ali Dashti and even ibn Khaldun, there are brave modern muslim scholars who are unsure of the preservation and reliability of their Koran AND are saying so, themselves.


    Originally posted by Trucker View Post
    That would just be standard operating procedure if my experience dealing with Muslims is any indication! Misrepresent and attack Christianity and all it stands for while keeping the discussion away from any factual, realistic historical Islam. Simply S.O.P.!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Trucker
    replied
    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    You know, Trucker, I've got a not-so-strange hunch that siam will again, run away and ignore the above questions posed to muslims.

    Either that, or he'll avoid answering them truthfully and try to proffer some deflecting non-answer of irrelevance by saying Christians are hateful and the Bible has such things too..

    It's a typical cowardly escape from missionaries of that religion. Just so pathetic and sad!
    That would just be standard operating procedure if my experience dealing with Muslims is any indication! Misrepresent and attack Christianity and all it stands for while keeping the discussion away from any factual, realistic historical Islam. Simply S.O.P.!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Zebiri
    replied
    You know, Trucker, I've got a not-so-strange hunch that siam will again, run away and ignore the above questions posed to muslims.

    Either that, or he'll avoid answering them truthfully and try to proffer some deflecting non-answer of irrelevance by saying Christians are hateful and the Bible has such things too..

    It's a typical cowardly escape from missionaries of that religion. Just so pathetic and sad!


    Originally posted by Trucker View Post
    Great "tell it like it is" post, sir!!!

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X