Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran" |
Post Reply | Page <1234 17> |
Author | |||
Larry
Senior Member Male Joined: 16 April 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 632 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
islamispeace,
As to the first link, I am not sure how to list the link so that it can be clicked on to go to the article. Maybe you can help me with that. As to the wikipedia link I find it amusing that you simply dismiss it as a "hodge-podge of material written by anonymous people, which is why I don't use Wikipedia (and my college professors warned their students against using for research purposes). In any case, which part(s) of the article are you concerned about?" I'm not "concerned" by any part of the article, I think it speaks for itself. I assume that you can read, I would be interested in having you point out the errors you find in the Wikipedia article? I found the article to be very informative and backed up by extensive research that is provided in the sources, footnotes and bibliographies listed at the end. Your "sources" such as your "Coptic Christian" person who told you that Coptic Christians "believe Jesus to be a man, not God or Son of God", are not exactly university-grade "research" material themseleves but merely anecdotal stories about what you hear from others. It seems that you apply restrictions on what other people post but ignore them when they suit your purposes. The question stands, what parts of the Wikipedia article do you disagree with and why? Larry Edited by Larry - 19 September 2011 at 1:11am |
|||
Kish
Guest Group Joined: 07 July 2011 Status: Offline Points: 237 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
As if your research is to die for and I�m here to impress someone. And number 1, whether it is research that you staunchly disagree with, so be it your opinion, nevertheless it is still research, the Quran is very, very old news so no need to reinvent the wheel. Number 2, you also take a shallow position in assuming who I am (Jehovah�s Witnesses) and where this information comes from, (answering Islam) a very defensive and cowardly move to gain a strategic advantage and to cause conflict and division amongst Christ�s followers, typical though from what I�m seeing of your posts.
Interestingly enough, you only quoted what I already quoted, which was already found on the internet and there we have it a reinvention of the wheel, stay with me this time. The fact still remains as you try to distract from the question at hand, why do the different Qur'ans also have a different understanding of the Basmalah, some accepting it as part of the Qur'an while others do not? Also, no one accepts all of these versions as authentic, why are some accepted and others rejected? In fact, they are judged in the same way that the Hadith are judged for their authenticity.
Friend, just because someone memorized a book doesn�t make it truth although it could be accurately false! If I have seven copies of a book and I only agree with one out of the seven copies to be the truth and then have you memorized that one copy �I� think to be truth, how do you know if that is the copy polluted with errors? Case and point: The original scripts of the Quran were written on small stones, pieces of leather and wood, etc which were burnt! Also, the Quran�s verses were gathered together during the time when Abu Bakr was the Caliph. They too were burnt! Plus, the original one consisted of �yazmas� (manuscripts) copied during the time when Othman was the Caliph. They do not exist anywhere in the world! You want people to believe that today�s Quran is the same as when Muhammad recited it although they were burnt? �All that was written in the original Quran was conveyed into the �Mushafs� (later copies of copies of the Quran) by Othman, so there was no need for the original one. If it had not been burnt, some suspicions would have arisen and the doubts around the �Mushafs� would not have ceased. I was afraid of that, so I had the original scripts burnt.� (Ref.: ıb Ebi Davud, Leiden 1937, pub., p.243-Suphi e's-Salih Mebahis Fi ulum-il Kuran)Also, the Sura �The Opening�, which is a basic one, does not take place in Ibn Mesud�s Mushaf. Neither do the Suras �The Dawn� and �The Confederate Tribes�. The order of the Suras in Ali�s Mushaf is not the same as in today�s Quran. Suyuti points out in his book that the Suras �The Cow� and �The Clans� are the same length. (See Suyuti, el ıtkan, 2/32) Yet, in today�s official Quran, �The Cow� has 286 verses whereas �The Confederate Tribes� has only 73.No wonder Islam researcher Dr. Suphi e�s-Salih asks in his book, �Well, where is the official copy that was made in the time of Othman now?�Suspicion, that�s the least of your worries! |
|||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Larry, this topic was your idea. I would think that you would be prepared to discuss it. Giving me a couple of links and then asking for my "comments" does not make it appear as if you are well-prepared. Furthermore, the fact that you referred to an article from Wikipedia of all places shows that you have not researched this topic that well. By research, I mean looking at actual academic sources. I am sorry to break it to you but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You will have noticed that whenever I provide references, they are usually from books written by well-known scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Geza Vermes. I have in the past advised you to read a scholarly book on this topic. It is called "Variant Readings of the Quran" by Ahmad Ali Al-Imam. That would be a good place for you to start if you are really interested in the subject. Therefore, my sources are not written by anonymous individuals who may or may not have any academic credentials on the subject. As far as the "Coptic Christian person" is concerned, you are confusing me with brother Hasan. That individual was not my acquaintance. In any case, how is a personal acquaintance the same as an article you found on a less than reputable website written by God knows who? I am sorry, but they are not the same. As far as the actual article is concerned, one of the things which stood out to me is the reference to scholars like Patricia Crone. I don't know if you are aware of her works, but she is well known for having posited the theory that the early history of Islam is nothing like what has been revealed by Islamic sources. She essentially argued that none of the Islamic sources are reliable. Her theory, known as "Hagarism", has since been rejected by most scholars. One would think that if this article on Wikipedia is so reliable and factual, the reference to Crone would not have been made. This is just one example of why I don't use Wikipedia. So, now that we have moved past Wikipedia (hopefully), do you have any actual arguments to raise against the authenticity of the Quran? Again, don't give me a bunch of links to read. I don't have that much time on my hands. I work full time and I also go to graduate school. So, if you want to discuss this subject, I suggest you read up on it and then bring any questions you may have. Your original question of whether there were "versions" of the Quran was a good start. I answered that question using evidence from the Hadiths. Do you have a follow-up question? |
|||
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||
Jack Catholic
Senior Member Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Dear Larry,
I did read the non-wikipedia article and have used it over the past year as a source of data in my posts. It is very clear that the modern Holy Qur'an isn't the orriginal. Very clear and concise.
Excelent, and ALLh Bless,
Jack Catholic
|
|||
Larry
Senior Member Male Joined: 16 April 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 632 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
islamispeace,
I appreciate the fact that you are willing to comment on the articles I submitted. I look forward to your replies and having polite and respectful discourse with you and others on this topic. Larry Edited by Larry - 20 September 2011 at 5:51pm |
|||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Larry, I was finally able to retrieve the first link (the so-called "Harvard House" link). Even though I still feel that giving me links to read is not the best way to discuss these issues, I have decided to write a response to the claims made in the article, so as to clear up the misconceptions and assumptions. God willing, it should be ready in a few days.
Edited by islamispeace - 20 September 2011 at 4:23pm |
|||
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||
Larry
Senior Member Male Joined: 16 April 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 632 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Jack,
Thanks for the comment! Larry Edited by Larry - 20 September 2011 at 5:47pm |
|||
Larry
Senior Member Male Joined: 16 April 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 632 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
islamispeace,
Patricic Crone is only one of many sources listed in the Wikipedia bibliography for this topic. I think that any respectable publication will have a mix of opinions on any given subject so that the reader may have access to opinions and academic work for all sides of an issue. In this case there are divergent views represented by traditionalist and secular scholars. Larry Edited by Larry - 20 September 2011 at 6:01pm |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234 17> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |