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

Quran might predate Muhammad?

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

  • These days there is study of intertexuality of the Quran...and the study of the Quranic discourse as a "conversation" with other traditions around it....
    here is more info that might be of interest....


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqpYgNVzK2w

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Coins with Quranic writings on them dating from 685 AD (minted during the reign of Abd al-Malik), as well as inscriptions within the Dome of the Rock sanctuary (built in Jerusalem in 691 AD by Abd al-Malik), strongly indicate that the Qur'an has been subject to textual revisions. The quotations on the coins and especially in the Dome of the Rock, differ in detail from that which is found in the Qur'an today.

      Moreover, the evidence shows that a considerable portion of the Qur'an was lost and much of what is left has been substantially altered. The testimonies of Muhammad’s trusted friends and family (among them Ibn Umar, A’isha, Ubay ibn Ka’b and ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib) attest to this fact.

      Abdullah ibn Umar, a.k.a. ‘Ibn Umar al-Khattab, explicitly states that a large part of the Qur'an was missing: “Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur'an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur'an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of what is available.’”

      A’isha, Muhammad’s last wife and some times referred to as the "Mother of the Believers," corroborated this adding: “During the time of the prophet, the chapter or sura of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Koran, only the current (verses) were recorded” (73 verses).

      The same statement was made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the greatest of Muhammad's companions and highly regarded in the early Muslim community, as recorded in the Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an (Itqan for brevity's sake), by Suyuti: “This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the sura of the parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, “It used to be almost equal to the csura the cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death.’”[1]

      ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib the Fourth Caliph of the Muslims and Muhammad's cousin and later the son-in-law, also confirmed that dozens of verses from the “Chapter of the Parties” were lost.

      This same story and same dialogue is also recorded by Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd ibn Ḥazm (or just Ibn Hazm) in volume 8 of his Al-Muhalla (a.k.a. "The Sweetened" or "The Adorned Treatise"), to which he added the following note: “’Ali Ibn Abi Talib said this was a reliable chain of authority and the Zamakh-sharif also cited it in his book al-Kash-Shaf.

      The Itqan by Suyuti also relates in its first part that other portions of the Qur'an were lost stating “Malik says that several verses of Sura 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped from the beginning. Among them is ‘In the name of God, the passionate, the merciful’ because it was proven that the length of the Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow.” This means that this chapter has lost approximately 157 verses!

      The Itqan also states, as have other scholars, that that the copy of the Qur'an owned by Ubay and another of Muhammad's companions, Abdulla Ibn Mas’ud, included two suras called “The Hafad” and “The Khal” -- both of which are located after the sura of “The ’Asr.” Also, the Quranic copy of Ibn Mas’ud does not contain the suras of “The Hamd” and “The Mu’withatan” (Sura 113, 114).

      So what exactly happened to some of the missing parts? Would you believe the “my dog ate it,” or a similar schoolboy excuse has been presented? In volume 8 of the Al-Muhalla Ibn Hazm clearly states: “The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Quranic) copy. When Muhammad died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it.” Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book Al-Kashshaaf by Al-Zamakhshari, confirms this claiming that the tradition came directly from both Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha. This same incident is mentioned by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who heard it from Abdulla who had himself heard it from A’isha. So I guess, “my goat ate it” would probably be more correct.















      1. The same source also notes that, “During the collection of the Kora, people used to come to Zayd ibn Thabit (with verses they memorized). He shunned recording any verse unless two witness attested to it. The last verse of the chapter of Repentance was found only with Khuzayma Ibn Thabit. Zayd said, ‘Record it because the apostle of God made the testimony of Khuzayma equal to the testimony of two men.’ Umar came with the verse of the stoning but it was not recorded because he was the only witness to it.” Umar would later say “If it were not that the people would say ‘Umar has added to the book of God,’ I would have recorded the verse of the stoning.”
      But...

      What is to stop seeming variant texts being lapses of memory, or alterations of some other kind that do not affect the doctrine of the unchangedness of the text ? If a pre-Koranic text resembles the Koran, it is Koran-like, and nothing more. The Koran itself stays intact as a revelation to Muhammad. Things like it, cannot stop it being it. It could be argued that the text is evidence of a pre-Islamic "warner", whose message, not surprisingly, resemebled that of Mohammed. This suggestion would support what is said in the Koran, and would leave the legitimacy of Mohammed's mission unharmed. That something pre-Koranic is in some way Koran-like does not harm the Koran, its alleged origin, or anything else about it, in the slightest. It needs to be shown that Mohammed knew of this pre-Islamic text. Can that be shown ?

      One might argue that the "forgotten", sheep-ate-my-Sura text has the status of a forgotten hadith, that perished because it was not part of the Koran, and was not intended to be; that the Koranic text is exactly what is meant to be in the Koran. Therefore, the 73 missing verses, and the verse of stoning, need not bother Muslims. If they had been added to the text, that would have proved they were part of it. But they were not - so they aren't. What counts as the genuine Koranic text is what is in the Koran, and nothing else. Zayd ibn Thabit took the right approach. The final text is - on this hypothesis - what counts as the Koran, and the lost verses don't. Variations between editions of Korans show only that editors are fallible. The vagaries of the history of its pre-Uthmanic tradition are, it could be said, interesting, but not theologically significant. So, nothing to worry about.

      Any cancellations, and loss of text, can be accounted for by Sura 2.106: http://corpus.quran.com/translation....er=2&verse=106
      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 07-03-2017, 12:12 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
        But...

        What is to stop seeming variant texts being lapses of memory, or alterations of some other kind that do not affect the doctrine of the unchangedness of the text ? If a pre-Koranic text resembles the Koran, it is Koran-like, and nothing more. The Koran itself stays intact as a revelation to Muhammad. Things like it, cannot stop it being it. It could be argued that the text is evidence of a pre-Islamic "warner", whose message, not surprisingly, resemebled that of Mohammed. This suggestion would support what is said in the Koran, and would leave the legitimacy of Mohammed's mission unharmed. That something pre-Koranic is in some way Koran-like does not harm the Koran, its alleged origin, or anything else about it, in the slightest. It needs to be shown that Mohammed knew of this pre-Islamic text. Can that be shown ?

        One might argue that the "forgotten", sheep-ate-my-Sura text has the status of a forgotten hadith, that perished because it was not part of the Koran, and was not intended to be; that the Koranic text is exactly what is meant to be in the Koran. Therefore, the 73 missing verses, and the verse of stoning, need not bother Muslims. If they had been added to the text, that would have proved they were part of it. But they were not - so they aren't. What counts as the genuine Koranic text is what is in the Koran, and nothing else. Zayd ibn Thabit took the right approach. The final text is - on this hypothesis - what counts as the Koran, and the lost verses don't. Variations between editions of Korans show only that editors are fallible. The vagaries of the history of its pre-Uthmanic tradition are, it could be said, interesting, but not theologically significant. So, nothing to worry about.

        Any cancellations, and loss of text, can be accounted for by Sura 2.106: http://corpus.quran.com/translation....er=2&verse=106
        The underlined would be more threatening to Islam than you imagine. In fact one of the key arguments the Koran makes is that no one can possibly have written something like it, therefore it's from Allah. If someone had already written something like it, then Islam is false.

        And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call on your helper, besides Allah, if you are truthful.' (Sura 2:23)

        Say: "If men and Jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they cannot bring the like of it, though some of them help others. And certainly We have made distinct for men every kind of description but majority of men do not consent but denying (sic)". (Sura 17:88)

        This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt-from the Lord of the Worlds. Or do they say, 'He forged it'? Say: 'Bring a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!' (Sura 10:37-38)

        Given that this is the primary argument for the Koran, and from the Koran, the OP being decisive would utterly destroy the foundations of Islam. Although, given that the argument is one of the most illogical arguments ever, that's not a hard thing to do.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
          But...

          What is to stop seeming variant texts being lapses of memory, or alterations of some other kind that do not affect the doctrine of the unchangedness of the text ? If a pre-Koranic text resembles the Koran, it is Koran-like, and nothing more. The Koran itself stays intact as a revelation to Muhammad. Things like it, cannot stop it being it. It could be argued that the text is evidence of a pre-Islamic "warner", whose message, not surprisingly, resemebled that of Mohammed. This suggestion would support what is said in the Koran, and would leave the legitimacy of Mohammed's mission unharmed. That something pre-Koranic is in some way Koran-like does not harm the Koran, its alleged origin, or anything else about it, in the slightest. It needs to be shown that Mohammed knew of this pre-Islamic text. Can that be shown ?

          One might argue that the "forgotten", sheep-ate-my-Sura text has the status of a forgotten hadith, that perished because it was not part of the Koran, and was not intended to be; that the Koranic text is exactly what is meant to be in the Koran. Therefore, the 73 missing verses, and the verse of stoning, need not bother Muslims. If they had been added to the text, that would have proved they were part of it. But they were not - so they aren't. What counts as the genuine Koranic text is what is in the Koran, and nothing else. Zayd ibn Thabit took the right approach. The final text is - on this hypothesis - what counts as the Koran, and the lost verses don't. Variations between editions of Korans show only that editors are fallible. The vagaries of the history of its pre-Uthmanic tradition are, it could be said, interesting, but not theologically significant. So, nothing to worry about.

          Any cancellations, and loss of text, can be accounted for by Sura 2.106: http://corpus.quran.com/translation....er=2&verse=106
          A Pseudo-Scholar with the pen-name Luxenburg published his thesis that the Quran was a Syro-Aramaic prayer book. Other revisionists scholars such as Gunther Luling claimed there was an Ur-Koran and there was a Jewish scholar (forget his name...) who claimed it was a re-working/borrowing of Jewish works....etc. The underlying theme in revisionists works is that the "Islamic accounts" of events is a myth.

          Some people who have leaned towards revisionism are:-
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisi...slamic_studies
          The new movement originated at the SOAS, University of London by two publications of John Wansbrough: Quranic Studies (1977) und The Sectarian Milieu (1978). Among the students of Wansbrough are: Andrew Rippin, Norman Calder, G. R. Hawting, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. With their work Hagarism (1977) Patricia Crone and Michael Cook set a milestone in Islamic Studies, since by provocative theses they provided maximal attention in the academic community. Later, both distances themselves from their too far reaching theses in Hagarism. Yet they adhered to the basically new academic approach. Martin Hinds, too, studied at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. Robert G. Hoyland is a student of Patricia Crone.

          A second local focus of the new movement is at the Saarland University in Saarbrücken, Germany ("Saarbrücken School"). Since the 1970s there is a focus on the historical-critical research of the development of the Quran, by Günter Lüling und Gerd-Rüdiger Puin. Also in Saarbrücken, Karl-Heinz Ohlig developed in the 2000s together with Volker Popp, Christoph Luxenberg.

          Further representatives are: Hans Jansen from the Netherlands who in 2005/7 published a work showing in detail why the known accounts of Muhammad's life are legends only. Yehuda D. Nevo published in 2003 his work Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State in which he denies the historicity of Muhammad. James A. Bellamy is known for his textual criticism of the Quran and for his proposals of emendations, i.e. proposals to correct the traditional text of the Quran. Fred Donner published in 2010 the first well-founded hypothesis on the early time of Islam without excessive exaggerations which found public attention.

          Tom Holland studied history and became a renowned author of popular science publications on ancient history. With his work In the Shadow of the Sword (2012) Tom Holland contributed heavily to the popularization of the new research results.



          Some of these people may have the aim of "debunking Islam", others may simply want to make a "name" through sensationalism. A few such as Fred Donner are serious scholars and while revisionists, nevertheless take Islamic accounts seriously....

          The problem with the theories of Quran pre-dating the Prophet is that the Quran was interactive---that is, it answers some questions posed by the community/audience and it refers to events happening at the time. Therefore if it were to pre-date the Prophet---this would be difficult to explain unless the Quran is capable of time travel......in which case, one might as well stick with the Islamic account....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            The underlined would be more threatening to Islam than you imagine. In fact one of the key arguments the Koran makes is that no one can possibly have written something like it, therefore it's from Allah. If someone had already written something like it, then Islam is false.

            And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call on your helper, besides Allah, if you are truthful.' (Sura 2:23)

            Say: "If men and Jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they cannot bring the like of it, though some of them help others. And certainly We have made distinct for men every kind of description but majority of men do not consent but denying (sic)". (Sura 17:88)

            This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt-from the Lord of the Worlds. Or do they say, 'He forged it'? Say: 'Bring a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!' (Sura 10:37-38)

            Given that this is the primary argument for the Koran, and from the Koran, the OP being decisive would utterly destroy the foundations of Islam. Although, given that the argument is one of the most illogical arguments ever, that's not a hard thing to do.
            There are 2 points---The Surah has to be in Arabic (though not specified by the Quran) because the criterion to establish equal value is based on the linguistic characteristics of the Arabic Quran---this is because, as the Quran itself says, it is a book revealed in Arabic. Therefore beautiful poetry in another language such as the works of Rumi (in Persian) cannot compare.
            There are non-Muslim Arabic speakers and it has been 1400 years---the shortest Surah is around 4 or 5 verses, I think, If the challenge had been easy---it could have been done ages ago....It is unlikely an Arabic work of similar literary quality can be found pre-dating the Quran because the Quran refined the literary quality of Arabic language of the time....

            The compilation of the (Uthmanic) Quran was done under vigorous standards and these are known in the Islamic accounts. Also, the Asbab-ul Nuzul explains the "occassion of revelation" of the surahs and/or verses. However, the Quran is / was, primarily, an oral text and was memorized fully---and even today it is fully memorized, word for word, by many Muslims. Even if all the Quran in the world were destroyed---Muslims could still reproduce the exact Quran--word for word.

            It will take a lot more (far more) than speculative revisionism or sensationalist theories to dent the "foundations of Islam". However, many serious scholars are moving away from an Orientalist approach and instead trying to take the Quran, as a literary text, more seriously.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by siam View Post
              There are 2 points---The Surah has to be in Arabic (though not specified by the Quran) because the criterion to establish equal value is based on the linguistic characteristics of the Arabic Quran---this is because, as the Quran itself says, it is a book revealed in Arabic. Therefore beautiful poetry in another language such as the works of Rumi (in Persian) cannot compare.
              There are non-Muslim Arabic speakers and it has been 1400 years---the shortest Surah is around 4 or 5 verses, I think, If the challenge had been easy---it could have been done ages ago....It is unlikely an Arabic work of similar literary quality can be found pre-dating the Quran because the Quran refined the literary quality of Arabic language of the time....

              The compilation of the (Uthmanic) Quran was done under vigorous standards and these are known in the Islamic accounts. Also, the Asbab-ul Nuzul explains the "occassion of revelation" of the surahs and/or verses. However, the Quran is / was, primarily, an oral text and was memorized fully---and even today it is fully memorized, word for word, by many Muslims. Even if all the Quran in the world were destroyed---Muslims could still reproduce the exact Quran--word for word.

              It will take a lot more (far more) than speculative revisionism or sensationalist theories to dent the "foundations of Islam". However, many serious scholars are moving away from an Orientalist approach and instead trying to take the Quran, as a literary text, more seriously.

              Burning all previous manuscripts is a great way to keep a text reliable.

              Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479

              They also missed many verses, and one of the people Mohammed said was the most knowledgeable about the Koran, said that the Uthmanic text was "guilty of deceit". There were lost verses, lost surahs, and a lot of other problems. The Koran was not "perfectly preserved" as if often claimed.

              Narrated Masruq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' "
              - Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 61

              Abdullah bin Masud said the following.

              The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Quran. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Muhammad) whom I love more than that of Zaid Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah while Zaid was still a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.
              - Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 2, p.444

              To call it "deceit" means it was more than a small variance in how words are pronounced.

              Even if the "challenge" had not been met, and the Koran wasn't a garbled mess, it still wouldn't give us any reason to think it was from God. There is nothing about grammar, or literature that links certain ordering of words to God being the author. This "argument" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard used in support of anything. That people actually think it is persuasive is just saddening.

              The Koran took a lot of stories from other groups, and slightly modified them. Like Abraham in the fire, or the following verse.

              Surah 5:27. Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah.: It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "(Allah) doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.

              28. "If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds.

              29. "For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong."

              30. The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.

              32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

              The above is taken from the Talmud, so something "like it" already existed. Mohammed was accused of forgery because of how much he borrowed from others. This little bit is certainly longer than Surah 114. So, challenge met. He would have most likely been taking this information from Arabic versions of the Talmud, so it meets your altered challenge with the goal posts moved as well.

              Not to mention there are 26 Arabic Korans available today. Which one are we supposed to be making a "surah like it" for? Why didn't Allah have a new book revealed in English? I mean, the whole reason he revealed the Koran was so that the Arabs would have a book in their own tongue that confirmed what came from God previously. We can't even check the ones that were burnt, nor can we check many of the lost verses and surahs.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                There are 2 points---The Surah has to be in Arabic (though not specified by the Quran) because the criterion to establish equal value is based on the linguistic characteristics of the Arabic Quran---this is because, as the Quran itself says, it is a book revealed in Arabic.
                This claim that one can only properly understand the Qur'an in Arabic has always seemed peculiar, almost an excuse[1], since it really isn't the Arabic document that Muslims claim it to be.

                Now, while Muhammad declared that Arabic is the divine language (that is it is the language of Allah) and proclaimed on numerous occasions that the Qur'an was sent down in Arabic (suras 12:2; 13:37; 42:7), the fact is that there are many foreign words and phrases that are used in the Qur'an -- some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others that do. For example the Egyptian word for king, "Pharaoh," is used used nearly 50 times and the Accadian word for garden, "Eden" (which does have an Arabic equivalent -- "Janna"), is used something like two dozen times.

                Other words that have been borrowed from foreign languages include Assyrian (Abraham or Ibrahim, with an Arabic equivalent in "Abu Raheem), Aramaic, Greek, Persian, Syriac, Hebrew, and Christian Ethiopic.

                So why are these words borrowed? Why are these words from other languages found in the supposedly pure Arabic Qur'an? Was Allah unable to sufficiently express himself in the perfect language of Arabic?













                1. As in one designed to hand wave anything one finds difficult to explain since one can then argue that it can only be properly read and understood in Arabic.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  This claim that one can only properly understand the Qur'an in Arabic has always seemed peculiar, almost an excuse[1], since it really isn't the Arabic document that Muslims claim it to be.

                  Now, while Muhammad declared that Arabic is the divine language (that is it is the language of Allah) and proclaimed on numerous occasions that the Qur'an was sent down in Arabic (suras 12:2; 13:37; 42:7), the fact is that there are many foreign words and phrases that are used in the Qur'an -- some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others that do. For example the Egyptian word for king, "Pharaoh," is used used nearly 50 times and the Accadian word for garden, "Eden" (which does have an Arabic equivalent -- "Janna"), is used something like two dozen times.

                  Other words that have been borrowed from foreign languages include Assyrian (Abraham or Ibrahim, with an Arabic equivalent in "Abu Raheem), Aramaic, Greek, Persian, Syriac, Hebrew, and Christian Ethiopic.

                  So why are these words borrowed? Why are these words from other languages found in the supposedly pure Arabic Qur'an? Was Allah unable to sufficiently express himself in the perfect language of Arabic?













                  1. As in one designed to hand wave anything one finds difficult to explain since one can then argue that it can only be properly read and understood in Arabic.
                  I found this video to be a good explanation of why the Koran was revealed in Arabic.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Burning all previous manuscripts is a great way to keep a text reliable.

                    Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479

                    They also missed many verses, and one of the people Mohammed said was the most knowledgeable about the Koran, said that the Uthmanic text was "guilty of deceit". There were lost verses, lost surahs, and a lot of other problems. The Koran was not "perfectly preserved" as if often claimed.

                    Narrated Masruq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.' "
                    - Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 61

                    Abdullah bin Masud said the following.

                    The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Quran. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Muhammad) whom I love more than that of Zaid Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah while Zaid was still a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.
                    - Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 2, p.444

                    To call it "deceit" means it was more than a small variance in how words are pronounced.

                    Even if the "challenge" had not been met, and the Koran wasn't a garbled mess, it still wouldn't give us any reason to think it was from God. There is nothing about grammar, or literature that links certain ordering of words to God being the author. This "argument" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard used in support of anything. That people actually think it is persuasive is just saddening.

                    The Koran took a lot of stories from other groups, and slightly modified them. Like Abraham in the fire, or the following verse.

                    Surah 5:27. Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah.: It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "(Allah) doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.

                    28. "If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds.

                    29. "For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong."

                    30. The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.

                    32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

                    The above is taken from the Talmud, so something "like it" already existed. Mohammed was accused of forgery because of how much he borrowed from others. This little bit is certainly longer than Surah 114. So, challenge met. He would have most likely been taking this information from Arabic versions of the Talmud, so it meets your altered challenge with the goal posts moved as well.

                    Not to mention there are 26 Arabic Korans available today. Which one are we supposed to be making a "surah like it" for? Why didn't Allah have a new book revealed in English? I mean, the whole reason he revealed the Koran was so that the Arabs would have a book in their own tongue that confirmed what came from God previously. We can't even check the ones that were burnt, nor can we check many of the lost verses and surahs.
                    I posted something about this a couple years back
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Coins with Quranic writings on them dating from 685 AD (minted during the reign of Abd al-Malik), as well as inscriptions within the Dome of the Rock sanctuary (built in Jerusalem in 691 AD by Abd al-Malik), strongly indicate that the Qur'an has been subject to textual revisions. The quotations on the coins and especially in the Dome of the Rock, differ in detail from that which is found in the Qur'an today.

                    Moreover, the evidence shows that a considerable portion of the Qur'an was lost and much of what is left has been substantially altered. The testimonies of Muhammad’s trusted friends and family (among them Ibn Umar, A’isha, Ubay ibn Ka’b and ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib) attest to this fact.

                    Abdullah ibn Umar, a.k.a. ‘Ibn Umar al-Khattab, explicitly states that a large part of the Qur'an was missing: “Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur'an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur'an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of what is available.’”

                    A’isha, Muhammad’s last wife and some times referred to as the "Mother of the Believers," corroborated this adding: “During the time of the prophet, the chapter or sura of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Koran, only the current (verses) were recorded” (73 verses).

                    The same statement was made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the greatest of Muhammad's companions and highly regarded in the early Muslim community, as recorded in the Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an (Itqan for brevity's sake), by Suyuti: “This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the sura of the parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, “It used to be almost equal to the csura the cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death.’”[1]

                    ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib the Fourth Caliph of the Muslims and Muhammad's cousin and later the son-in-law, also confirmed that dozens of verses from the “Chapter of the Parties” were lost.

                    This same story and same dialogue is also recorded by Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd ibn Ḥazm (or just Ibn Hazm) in volume 8 of his Al-Muhalla (a.k.a. "The Sweetened" or "The Adorned Treatise"), to which he added the following note: “’Ali Ibn Abi Talib said this was a reliable chain of authority and the Zamakh-sharif also cited it in his book al-Kash-Shaf.

                    The Itqan by Suyuti also relates in its first part that other portions of the Qur'an were lost stating “Malik says that several verses of Sura 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped from the beginning. Among them is ‘In the name of God, the passionate, the merciful’ because it was proven that the length of the Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow.” This means that this chapter has lost approximately 157 verses!

                    The Itqan also states, as have other scholars, that that the copy of the Qur'an owned by Ubay and another of Muhammad's companions, Abdulla Ibn Mas’ud, included two suras called “The Hafad” and “The Khal” -- both of which are located after the sura of “The ’Asr.” Also, the Quranic copy of Ibn Mas’ud does not contain the suras of “The Hamd” and “The Mu’withatan” (Sura 113, 114).

                    So what exactly happened to some of the missing parts? Would you believe the “my dog ate it,” or a similar schoolboy excuse has been presented? In volume 8 of the Al-Muhalla Ibn Hazm clearly states: “The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Quranic) copy. When Muhammad died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it.” Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book Al-Kashshaaf by Al-Zamakhshari, confirms this claiming that the tradition came directly from both Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha. This same incident is mentioned by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who heard it from Abdulla who had himself heard it from A’isha. So I guess, “my goat ate it” would probably be more correct.









                    1. The same source also notes that, “During the collection of the Kora, people used to come to Zayd ibn Thabit (with verses they memorized). He shunned recording any verse unless two witness attested to it. The last verse of the chapter of Repentance was found only with Khuzayma Ibn Thabit. Zayd said, ‘Record it because the apostle of God made the testimony of Khuzayma equal to the testimony of two men.’ Umar came with the verse of the stoning but it was not recorded because he was the only witness to it.” Umar would later say “If it were not that the people would say ‘Umar has added to the book of God,’ I would have recorded the verse of the stoning.”

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      I found this video to be a good explanation of why the Koran was revealed in Arabic.

                      Ouch

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        This claim that one can only properly understand the Qur'an in Arabic has always seemed peculiar, almost an excuse[1], since it really isn't the Arabic document that Muslims claim it to be.

                        Now, while Muhammad declared that Arabic is the divine language (that is it is the language of Allah) and proclaimed on numerous occasions that the Qur'an was sent down in Arabic (suras 12:2; 13:37; 42:7), the fact is that there are many foreign words and phrases that are used in the Qur'an -- some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others that do. For example the Egyptian word for king, "Pharaoh," is used used nearly 50 times and the Accadian word for garden, "Eden" (which does have an Arabic equivalent -- "Janna"), is used something like two dozen times.

                        Other words that have been borrowed from foreign languages include Assyrian (Abraham or Ibrahim, with an Arabic equivalent in "Abu Raheem), Aramaic, Greek, Persian, Syriac, Hebrew, and Christian Ethiopic.

                        So why are these words borrowed? Why are these words from other languages found in the supposedly pure Arabic Qur'an? Was Allah unable to sufficiently express himself in the perfect language of Arabic?


                        1. As in one designed to hand wave anything one finds difficult to explain since one can then argue that it can only be properly read and understood in Arabic.

                        Why are there words in the Arabic language that are also used by other Semitic languages such as Aramaic and Hebrew? ---Because Arabic is also a Semitic language and therefore uses a similar 3 letter root word system as Hebrew.

                        This is also the case for languages that come from the Indo-European language family tree....

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
                        The Indo-European languages are a language family of several hundred related languages and dialects. There are about 445 living Indo-European languages, according to the estimate by Ethnologue, with over two-thirds (313) of them belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch.[2] The most widely spoken Indo-European languages by native speakers are Spanish, English, Hindustani, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, and Punjabi, each with over 100 million speakers, with German, French and Persian also having significant numbers. Today, about 46% of the human population speaks an Indo-European language as a first language, by far the highest of any language family.

                        All Indo-European languages are descendants of a single prehistoric language, reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European, spoken sometime in the Neolithic era. Although no written records remain, aspects of the culture and religion of the Proto-Indo-European people can also be reconstructed from the related cultures of ancient and modern Indo-European speakers who continue to live in areas to where the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from their original homeland.


                        The root-word system of Hebrew and Arabic (and probably Aramiac as well?) means that both the Torah and the Quran have a rich layer of meaning behind the words that are used. Understanding these layers of meaning makes these Wisdom Teachings multidimensional.



                        As for claims by some Christian missionaries against Islam, they do not impress me...but they have a right to their opinions---and if it makes them feel better/superior by saying Islam is false---they can.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by siam View Post
                          Why are there words in the Arabic language that are also used by other Semitic languages such as Aramaic and Hebrew? ---Because Arabic is also a Semitic language and therefore uses a similar 3 letter root word system as Hebrew.

                          This is also the case for languages that come from the Indo-European language family tree....

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
                          The Indo-European languages are a language family of several hundred related languages and dialects. There are about 445 living Indo-European languages, according to the estimate by Ethnologue, with over two-thirds (313) of them belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch.[2] The most widely spoken Indo-European languages by native speakers are Spanish, English, Hindustani, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, and Punjabi, each with over 100 million speakers, with German, French and Persian also having significant numbers. Today, about 46% of the human population speaks an Indo-European language as a first language, by far the highest of any language family.

                          All Indo-European languages are descendants of a single prehistoric language, reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European, spoken sometime in the Neolithic era. Although no written records remain, aspects of the culture and religion of the Proto-Indo-European people can also be reconstructed from the related cultures of ancient and modern Indo-European speakers who continue to live in areas to where the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from their original homeland.


                          The root-word system of Hebrew and Arabic (and probably Aramiac as well?) means that both the Torah and the Quran have a rich layer of meaning behind the words that are used. Understanding these layers of meaning makes these Wisdom Teachings multidimensional.



                          As for claims by some Christian missionaries against Islam, they do not impress me...but they have a right to their opinions---and if it makes them feel better/superior by saying Islam is false---they can.
                          You seem to be glossing over the usage of words from languages that are not that closely related such as Greek, Egyptian and Persian and not just other Semetic languages. Claiming that if you go back far enough all the languages used eventually originate out of a similar source is nothing but a blatant red herring that means utterly nothing.

                          And all of this ignores the central claim made by Muslims that Arabic is the only language by which the Qu'ran can be understood in. That it is the language used by God as in heaven. If that is truly so then why do they keep using words from inferior languages over and over -- especially in cases where there are Arabic words that could be used? The example I provided was the use of "Eden" where "Janna" is the Arabic equivalent, but there are many other examples.

                          Further, the qur'an tends to use the Greek names for Hebrew prophets which is peculiar in the extreme especially since Muhammad repeatedly proclaimed that it was sent down in Arabic. For instance, Jonah (which is Yonah in Hebrew) is rendered Yunus in the qu'ran. Yunus comes from the Greek Septuagint version of his name (Yunas). Why would Allah use the Greek version of a Hebrew name especially when the qu'ran repeatedly proclaims it was written in Arabic? The same is true for Elijah who is referred to as Ilyas or Ilyasin in the qu'ran which is how it is written in Greek versions of Scripture.


                          And nothing personal siam, you seem like you're a nice person and all, but I really don't care if you are "impressed" or not.
                          Last edited by rogue06; 07-06-2017, 01:25 PM. Reason: remove superfluous "Eden"

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            You seem to be glossing over the usage of words from languages that are not that closely related such as Greek, Egyptian and Persian and not just other Semetic languages. Claiming that if you go back far enough all the languages used eventually originate out of a similar source is nothing but a blatant red herring that means utterly nothing.

                            And all of this ignores the central claim made by Muslims that Arabic is the only language by which the Qu'ran can be understood in. That it is the language used by God as in heaven. If that is truly so then why do they keep using words from inferior languages over and over -- especially in cases where there are Arabic words that could be used? The example I provided was the use of "Eden" where "Janna" is the Arabic equivalent, but there are many other examples.

                            Further, the qur'an tends to use the Greek names for Hebrew prophets which is peculiar in the extreme especially since Muhammad repeatedly proclaimed that it was sent down in Arabic. For instance, Jonah (which is Yonah in Hebrew) is rendered Yunus in the qu'ran. Yunus comes from the Greek Septuagint version of his name (Yunas). Why would Allah use the Greek version of a Hebrew name especially when the qu'ran repeatedly proclaims it was written in Arabic? The same is true for Elijah who is referred to as Ilyas or Ilyasin in the qu'ran which is how it is written in Greek versions of Scripture.


                            And nothing personal siam, you seem like you're a nice person and all, but I really don't care if you are "impressed" or not.
                            It's not just that it claims to be Arabic, but "Arabic pure, and clear". Not exactly "pure" with foreign words in there.

                            We know indeed that they say,
                            "It is a man that teaches him."
                            The tongue of him they wickedly point to
                            is notably foreign,
                            while this is Arabic, pure and clear.
                            -- Sura 16:101-103

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              You seem to be glossing over the usage of words from languages that are not that closely related such as Greek, Egyptian and Persian and not just other Semetic languages. Claiming that if you go back far enough all the languages used eventually originate out of a similar source is nothing but a blatant red herring that means utterly nothing.

                              ..... but I really don't care if you are "impressed" or not.
                              From what I know, Semitic languages and Indo-European languages are structurally different....?....

                              Spanish has a lot of Arabic words in its language---some claim as much as 3,000 Spanish words are from Arabic. ---so what?....languages are used for communication and whatever gets the message across is useful...

                              Relieved to know you do not care if I am impressed or not---there are some who are impressed with the level of apologetics of David Woods, Nabeel Qureshi and the like, and assume I will be too. I prefer to listen to Christian scholars such as Miroslav Volf, Daniel Madigan....etc....

                              Some Christians (and Muslims) may need to figure out who they are by having an opposing imagery, and while that is ok, what impresses me are sincere Christians who love their religion and grapple with its complexities without resorting to attacking other religions....I think such Christians can be examples to other non-Christians....
                              https://vimeo.com/34040683

                              I also enjoy conversations with non-Muslims (such as Atheists) who ask interesting questions that I, as Muslim, never considered or thought about before---I think such questions can make us better believers because by questioning our faith, we can explore it deeper.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                                From what I know, Semitic languages and Indo-European languages are structurally different....?....

                                Spanish has a lot of Arabic words in its language---some claim as much as 3,000 Spanish words are from Arabic. ---so what?....languages are used for communication and whatever gets the message across is useful...

                                Relieved to know you do not care if I am impressed or not---there are some who are impressed with the level of apologetics of David Woods, Nabeel Qureshi and the like, and assume I will be too. I prefer to listen to Christian scholars such as Miroslav Volf, Daniel Madigan....etc....

                                Some Christians (and Muslims) may need to figure out who they are by having an opposing imagery, and while that is ok, what impresses me are sincere Christians who love their religion and grapple with its complexities without resorting to attacking other religions....I think such Christians can be examples to other non-Christians....
                                https://vimeo.com/34040683

                                I also enjoy conversations with non-Muslims (such as Atheists) who ask interesting questions that I, as Muslim, never considered or thought about before---I think such questions can make us better believers because by questioning our faith, we can explore it deeper.....
                                So, the ones that "impress" you are the ones who don't stand up against false beliefs and teachings?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 03-19-2021, 05:13 PM
                                18 responses
                                146 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Dan Zebiri  
                                Working...
                                X