|
Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran" |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 17> |
| Author | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthnowcome 
Senior Member 
Joined: 05 April 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1045 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 20 September 2011 at 9:55pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As
Salaam mu alikum Islamispeace, I know you are doing great work on this site;
I don�t want to praise you in any way so that you may loose your blessing. I
hope and pray that Allah (S) bless and reward you tremendiously. I did brush true the article on wiki and
what amase me is how people who read it doesn�t recognize that the quran that
we have today is the original. As much as the Devil tried to distort the truth
it still remains there. Allah (S) told us so and so it is. We have, without
doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).
15:9 (Y. Ali) It
mentioned: But no, by your Lord, they can
have no faith until they make you judge in all dispute between them and find in
themselves no ristance againse your dicisition and accept (them) with full
submission. (Q.4:65) I will deal with it from a different angle let see if they can prove me wrong. If an author is going to write a book �
having all the information which he wants to preserve and publish he must first
have the material that he will put that information on. In the pass humans used stone to inscribe
their message, then scroles from animal skins and so on and then paper; now
they have move to compact disc and memory chip. It doesn�t matter if they store
it on paper pages book, compact disc or memory chip, if is a book we are
writhing it still remain a book. The difference is the one on the paper is
record solid and one on the cd and memory chip is record in the form of energy
(eletronically). Think about it, if we want a book all we do is purches it on
line and it will be delivered to our computers eletronically; how amaising! Mankind
has knowledge to built machine to store books for decade to come and
transmitted it from one place to another. Don�t you think the God Of this
entire universe has that capability to do so? Yes! He God Almight has built the most
sofisticated machine ever. The machine human built has to work with humans help
but the one that God Almighty built work atomatically and reproduce it self;
that machine is the humankind. The original author of the Quran told us
where he stores the Quran and he is the gurdian of it. He Allah (S) said: �Verily this is a revelation
from the Lord of the world: With
it came down the spirit of faith and truth (Rooh-ul-Amin).To thy heart.� (Q.26:192-194)
It was deliverad and store is the Heart of the most sufisticated machine ever built (Human)! In this case that human was the messenger of Allah (S); his Jobe was to delivered it and the author Allah (S) job was to guard it, protect it form lost and corruption so he had told us. 24:54 (Y. Ali)
Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him
and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear
(Message). We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We
will assuredly guard it (from corruption). 15:9 (Y. Ali) How did Allah (S) guard it? He put it on
the most sufisticated memory chip ever built and transmitted it from chip to
chip (heart to heart) until the last day. What was on the palm leaf and so on
is just a human idea of transmit it. If you read the article at wiki you see that
the Devil conforms that the book was memorize and is from that they used to
verryfied if those that was written if it was correct before the finally put it
on one book. So if the book was never put in writhings by anyone until this day
and now they decided to put it on paper it will still remain the original
because it was record in the most sifisticated chip ever built. The challenge Muslims put forward now is a
prof of that! if they destroy all the Quran that exsisted on the earth we Muslim
can bring it back into existance because it still remain on the most
sufisticated chip ever built. It was first written on Muhammed (S) heart and
now transmitted to thousands if not millions of hearts. Higher than light peake tecknology! You see the
light peake teck is information record and transmitted as light and not currant
as we are used today. In the heart it also record as light. TNC Edited by truthnowcome - 20 September 2011 at 9:57pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member 
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 September 2011 at 11:49am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Walaikum as-salaam brother Zainool. My sincere thanks to you for your prayers. You are absolutely right that I should not be praised for my efforts. I don't deserve such praise because all praise is due to Allah (swt) alone!
Also, you have presented a well-reasoned defense of the Quran's preservation. Even if every single copy of the Quran was to be destroyed, we would not lose it since it is present in the minds of millions of people! The same was true in the Prophet's time and after his death. Hundreds if not thousands of people had memorized the Quran, so there is no way it could have been corrupted or lost. The non-Muslims who conjecture that the "original" Quran has been lost cannot present any actual evidence but they also have no response to the obvious fact that the Quran has been memorized in every generation since the the Prophet first taught his followers. How then can they continue to insist that it has been "lost" or "corrupted". I suspect that the only reason they make such a claim is to find something to counter the Islamic claims of the corruption of the Bible, which incidentally is backed up by secular evidence. May Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 September 2011 at 12:33pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear truthnowcome,
I read your defense, and I am sorry to say that it does not convince me at all. The reason I am not convinced is due to the content of the article that Larry referred to (not the Wikipedia article). This article explains that there were four individuals that Muhammad had given the task especially of memorizing the Holy Qur'an and writing it down. These four collections did not entirely agree with each other. One became the major source for the Holy Qur'an under the authority of an unauthorized politician who then ordered it and the other three destroyed. This all creates a sense of intense suspicion. Your explanation does not address the issue of the 4 authorized individuals preserving versions of the Holy Qur'an which did not agree using the methode of memorization and recitation which you have spoken so highly of. As the contents of these 4 orriginal Holy Qur'ans were destroyed soon after the death of Muhammad, we have no way of verifying whether the current Holy Qur'an truly contains all these 4 orriginal Holy Qur'ans, or only parts of them, or even contains elements which were not even present in the 4 orriginals. Once there is this kind of doubt, we cannot truly accept the Holy Qur'an as accurate anymore without checking it out in other ways. Some of these methodes include what Hasan has suggested as a valid form of verrification: internal cohesion must be existant between the verses of the Holy Qur'an showing that there is not internal contradiction. There also must not be contradiction on issues where the New Testament and the Torrah are in agreement. Can you proove that this kind of internal cohesion and external side-by-side linear cohesion exists?
If you cannot, we must assume that the Holy Qur'an is an innaccurate version of the first 4 and accurate copies.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 September 2011 at 9:30pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response to "Is the Qu'ran Pure? Book Burning in Early Islam":
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
True, it was not yet in "book" form. It was memorized but also written down on leaves, parchment, stones, bones etc.
Just a small correction here. "The Quran" or "Al-Quran" does not mean "to recite". It means "The Recitation".
This is not a question of "possibility". The fact is that there is physical evidence that the verses were written down on bones, rocks etc. For example, here is a photograph of Surah al-Fatihah written on the shoulder bone of a camel:
This statement is deceiving. The "original Qur'an" was completed before the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Its first compilation into a "book" was done during the reign of Abu Bakr (ra).
One has to wonder why a "military battle" in which many of the Qurra (the reciters of the Quran) were killed is here labeled a "political process". It seems to me that the project to preserve the Qur'an after the deaths of the Qurra was simply the most practical thing to do. The Muslims did not want the legacy and memory of the Qur'an to be lost, as it happened to the past scriptures.
Exactly.
While the "Hafsah Codex", as the author refers to it, was destroyed during the reign of Marwan b. Hakam, what still needs to be kept in mind is that the Uthmanic Writ was based on the copy that Hafsah kept. Just because it was later destroyed does not mean there was some conspiracy against the original Qur'an. As Von Denffer relates: "'Uthman had many copies prepared from this
copy and sent them to various places in the Muslim world, while the original
suhuf were returned to Hafsa and remained with her until her death. Later,
Marwan b. Hakam (d. 65/684), according to a report in Ibn Abi Dawud, collected
it from her heirs and had it destroyed, presumably fearing it might become the
cause for new disputes. 'Uthman also kept one of the copies for himself. This
version of the text, also known as 'Mushaf 'Uthman in fact constitutes the
ijma'(consensus) of the sahaba, all of whom agreed that it contained what
Muhammad had brought as revelation from Allah." (Ulum al Qur'an, The Mushaf of 'Uthman) Two points need to be made here: 1.
There is no evidence that Marwan b. Hakam's decree to destroy Hafsah's
copy was met with opposition by the Islamic world, although Hafsah did
refuse his repeated requests to have the copy destroyed. However, his
reasoning was simple. He said: "'I
only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some
doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios.'" [GF Haddad, Hafsa's Qur'an Folios] If
it was indeed an attempt to alter the Qur'an, there would have been a
revolt, which there was not. Marwan was fearful of future
disagreements. This implies that there were no disagreements during his
time. 2. There was scholarly consensus that the Uthmanic Writ was agreed upon by the Sahaba. This is further elaborated on below.
The
author ignores the fact that once Uthman (ra) had completed the copies,
he returned the original copy to Hafsah (ra). Had "Muslim leaders
wanted to destroy [it]", they had the chance when Hafsah originally gave
the copy to Uthman. Therefore, the author's melodramatic question "why
did Hafsah not wish to have this most important manuscript of the
Qur'an to be burnt" seems to be more of an attempt to create an
atmosphere of suspense akin to a Hollywood movie than to actual
scholarship. Perhaps the answer is much simpler than the author
thinks. Perhaps Hafsah simply did not want to part with the copy which
had been in her possession for so many years and carried with it much
sentimental value.
There still has not
been any direct evidence given of any alterations. The author simply
continues to ask suspenseful questions so as to suggest the possibility
of a conspiracy to alter the Qur'an.
This is a complete fabrication by the author. There is no evidence that these soldiers were wondering whether the Qur'an was "pure" or not. The fact is that there were disagreements between the newer Muslims (who had never met the Prophet or were taught by him). These Muslims had been taught to recite the Qur'an in various ways in which it was revealed, depending on their teachers. These recitations were all valid. These ignorant people began to quarrel amongst each other because they thought that their recitation was the correct one, even though all of them were correct. This is confirmed by Dr. Ahmad Ali Al-Imam, who writes: "[a]t
this time, the qurra' (reciters of the Qur'an) began to argue over how
the Qur'an should be recited, for some of the Companions and the
Successors...were reciting it in different ways. In addition, the
Companions were reciting the Qur'an in the seven acceptable styles." ("Variant Readings of the Qur'an: A Critical Study of Their Historical and Linguistic Origins", p. 16)
Obviously,
the author is not aware that the Qur'an was recited in different ways.
These recitations were all valid. Like the ignorant Muslims in Iraq
who were quarreling for no reason about the different recitations, the
ignorant author assumes that different recitations meant different
Qur'ans. This only shows his/her ignorance on the subject.
Wrong. Hudhaifa (ra)
wanted to resolve the needless disputes and to prevent future ones. The
most practical solution was to produce a single master copy which would
become the standard for the entire Islamic world.
Nothing was wrong with them. They
were burnt so that there would not be any needless disputes in the
future by ignorant people (both Muslims and non-Muslims like our
anonymous author!) who did not know that different recitations was a
normal thing.
The
author has yet to prove any "political motivation" behind the
destruction of the personal codices. There has been a lot of
speculation but very little evidence.
Again, thus far, the author has only made several speculative claims but has not provided any actual evidence.
These "four different versions" were not different Qur'ans. They were different ways of reciting the Qur'an and were all valid since the meanings were the same and were taught by the companions of the Prophet (such as Ibn Mas'ud). Furthermore, the author neglects to mention that these "four versions" were only used in the newly conquered territories of the Muslim world. These territories were Kufah, Basra, Damascus and the rest of Syria. These versions were not being used in the Hijaz region of Arabia, which includes Mecca and Madina. According to Kazim Mudir Shanehchi: "In al-Tamhid, Abu Musa al-'Ash'ari and Miqdad ibn al-'Aswad are
mentioned among the compilers of the Qur'an. It adds that before the
standardization of the codices by the order of 'Uthman, the people of
Kufah recited according to the compilation of Ibn Masud, the people of
Basrah according to the codex of Abu Musa, the people of Damascus
according to the codex of Miqdad, while the rest of [the] Syrians recited
according to the codex of Ubayy ibn Ka'b." ("Some Old Manuscripts of the Holy Qur'an", Trans. by Mujahid Husayn) The
fact that these recitations were only being used by Muslims in the
newly conquered territories and that the disagreements only arose in
Iraq shows very clearly that these were not "different versions" but
rather different styles of recitation. Furthermore, other companions also had compiled their own manuscripts, and these included both Uthman and Zayd ibn Thabit. According to Dr. Al-Imam: "[t]he Prophet allowed several Companions to have their own manuscripts (collections of fragments) in addition to memorizing the Qur'an. The most famous of these people, who are said to have taught many others, were Uthman, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Abu al-Darda, Zayd ibn Thabit, Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, Abu Musa al-Ashari, Salim...and Mu'adh ibn Jabal." (Ibid., p. 14) Von Denffer mentions even more such people: "A list of Companions of whom it is related
that they had their own written collections included the following: Ibn Mas'ud,
Ubay bin Ka'b, 'Ali, Ibn 'Abbas, Abu Musa, Hafsa, Anas bin Malik, 'Umar, Zaid
bin Thabit, Ibn Al-Zubair, 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, 'A'isha, Salim, Umm Salama, [and]
'Ubaid bin 'Umar." (Ibid., The Masahif of the Companions) Notice
that this list includes three of the Prophet's wives (Hafsah, A'isha
and Umm Salama). So, there is no evidence to suggest that only four
people had compiled their own copies, nor is there any evidence that
these copies were different "versions" of the Qur'an.
As
previously mentioned, these disagreements were among the newer Muslims
in the newly conquered territories and were actually completely
unnecessary.
This is another
assumption made by the author. There is no reason to assume that the
Prophet (pbuh) allowed his followers to learn the Qur'an only from these
four companions. In fact, since many other companions had also
compiled their own copies (as mentioned above), the claim that only four
were authorized to teach the Qur'an is ludicrous. In addition, Ibn
Mas'ud had personally learned only 70 of the 114 total surahs from the
Prophet. So how can the author insist that Muslims who wanted to learn
the entire Qur'an were limited to Ibn Mas'ud and three others?
As previously
mentioned above, these recitations were widely used in certain
localities. Also, the four recitations mentioned were those of Ibn
Mas'ud, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Miqdad and Abu Musa and not of Ibn Mas'ud,
Salim, Ubayy and Muadh ibn Jabal (the four mentioned in the hadith from
Bukhari). This further shatters the argument that Muslims were allowed
to learn the Qur'an from these four only.
Actually, according to Dr. Al-Imam: "[t]he Companions, learned men, and leading figures, including Ali, all approved of this action [Uthman's decree to burn other copies]. Ali confronted those who rebelled and told them that Uthman burned only the copies that varied from the final revelation, kept that which was agreed upon, proceeded only after consulting the Companions and obtaining their unanimous consent, and that he would have done the same thing if he had been in Uthman's position. ...The
Muslims admired Uthman's actions...(with the exception of Ibn Mas'ud),
because Uthman united the material into its official book form, cleansed
it from any abrogated material, isolated reports, and any
interpretation that had added to the text (and could have been mistaken
for part of the Revelation)." (Ibid., pp. 16-17) In
light of this, one has to wonder at the veracity of the author's claim
of "bad feelings", but let us see what evidence he presents in his
defense.
We
shall see. However, it needs to be pointed out that many people at the
time knew the Prophet in person, including Uthman himself. Ibn Mas'ud
was not the only one.
"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I
recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I,"
asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the
Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14). Would Mas�ud accept the Qur�an of today as being pure since he refused to destroy his unique version?
Since Mas�ud did not want to have his unique version of the Qur�an
destroyed, it is doubtful that Mas�ud would honestly answer that the
Qur�an is pure. It is important to ask, "Why did Mas�ud refuse to give
in and destroy his version of the Qur�an?" The author
neglects to mention that Ibn Mas'ud eventually agreed to hand over his
personal copy. Therefore, he eventually agreed with the consensus. As
to the reason why he initially refused, the answer it again perhaps
simpler than the author thinks. Ibn Mas'ud probably did not want to
part with his personal copy which had been in his possession since the
early years of the Prophet's mission. Certainly, it is understandable
that he was hesitant to part with his copy. Furthermore, there is also
the possibility that Ibn Mas'ud simply felt insulted for not being
included in the committee formed by Uthman.
But
he was not the only one. Muhammad (pbuh) referred to Abu Bakr (ra) as
his friend and dearest Companion. Does that mean that all the other
Companions were not as important? Of course not.
While it is true that Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf did not have three of the surahs, the following points are also true: 1.
By Ibn Mas'ud's own admission, he only learned 70 surahs directly from
the Prophet (see the reference to the Kitab Al-Masahif provided by the
author above). Yet, his mushaf contained more than 70 surahs! From
whom did he learn these surahs from and why did he include them in his
mushaf? Obviously, he was not around the Prophet all the time and hence
was not present when many other surahs were revealed. Therefore, he
would have learned the other surahs from other Companions (Al-Imam, p. 51). 2. Ibn al-Nadim, a Shia scholar from the 10th century CE, wrote in his Kitab al-Fihrist
that he had seen a copy of Ibn Mas'ud's codex which did not contain
Surah al-Fatiha only, which means that in some copies of Ibn Mas'ud's
mushaf, surahs 113 and 114 were included (Von Denffer, The Masahif of the Companions). 3. In addition to point #1, just because these surahs were not included in the original codex does not mean they were not part of the Quran, as surahs like Al-Fatiha were so well-known that Ibn Mas'ud may simply have decided to not write them in (See Al-Imam, pp. 50-51). 4. The surahs which were omitted in Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf are mentioned in the hadith literature (Al-Imam, p. 52), such as Sahih Bukhari, which as the author mentioned above, is one of the most trusted sources in the Islamic world. I will provide one example for each surah: Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever does not recite Al-Fatiha in his prayer, his prayer is invalid." (Book #12, Hadith #723) Narrated 'Aisha: Whenever Allah's Apostle became sick, he would recite Mu'awwidhat (Surat Al-Falaq and Surat An-Nas) and then blow his breath over his body. When he became seriously ill, I used to recite (these two Suras) and rub his hands over his body hoping for its blessings. (Book #61, Hadith #535) Notice that Hazrat Aisha (ra) mentioned that Surah al-Falaq (#113) and Surah an-Nas (#114) were often recited together by the Prophet himself and she used to emulate this as well. Furthermore, no one can say that Aisha was not close to the Prophet. Her testimony proves conclusively that the two surahs are part of the Qur'an. Therefore, the authenticity of these surahs and their presence in the Qur'an are all supported by the evidence. Their absence from Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf does not prove that they were not part of the Qur'an. 5.
The picture provided above of Al-Fatiha written on the shoulder bone of
a camel is physical evidence of its importance and use by the early
Muslims. As Islamic tradition states, the followers of Muhammad (pbuh)
used to write the verses of the Qur'an on anything they could find,
including bones.
It doesn't contain them because they are not "additional chapters". The author fails to realize that these two additional "surahs" were actually a dua (supplication) and a saying of the Prophet, respectively. The first so-called "surah" is actually a supplication which the Prophet used to recite but which was not part of the Qur'an. Specifically, it is identified by scholars as the dua al-qunut, which is still recited in the Witr prayer, although it is not obligatory (Al-Imam, p. 51). The second so-called "surah" is translated as: "If the son of Adam was given a valley full of riches, he would wish a second one, and if he was given two valleys full of riches, he would surely ask for a third one. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam except dust, and Allah is forgiving to him who is repentant." When we look at Sahih Bukhari, we find an almost exact match to this saying as well as some additional information: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "If the son of Adam had money equal to a valley, then he will wish for another similar to it, for nothing can satisfy the eye of Adam's son except dust. And Allah forgives him who repents to Him." Ibn 'Abbas said: I do not know whether this saying was quoted from the Qur'an or not. 'Ata' said, "I heard Ibn AzZubair saying this narration while he was on the pulpit." (Book #76, Hadith #445) But it gets even more interesting: Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd: I heard Ibn Az-Zubair who was on the pulpit at Mecca, delivering a sermon, saying, "O men! The Prophet used to say, "If the son of Adam were given a valley full of gold, he would love to have a second one; and if he were given the second one, he would love to have a third, for nothing fills the belly of Adam's son except dust. And Allah forgives he who repents to Him." Ubai [Ibn Ka'b] said, "We considered this as a saying from the Qur'an till the Sura (beginning with) 'The mutual rivalry for piling up of worldly things diverts you..' (102.1) was revealed." (Book #76, Hadith 446) Amazingly,
we find here testimony from Ubayy himself that this saying was at first
considered to be part of the Qur'an by some of the Companions, but they
later understood that it was not part of the Qur'an. Therefore, the
evidence conclusively proves that the additional parts of Ubayy's mushaf
were not part of the Qur'an, and the Companions knew that at the time
of Uthman's reign. Ubayy may have simply put them in his personal copy
for his own use.
Whether he would have or not
is irrelevant at this point. The author has not provided conclusive
evidence of any deliberate alterations to the Qur'anic text.
The answer is a resounding 'yes!'
Probably because it had great sentimental value to her. The answers are usually simpler than thought.
Zayd (ra) was also one of the Prophet�s closest companions and his personal
scribe! He was also selected to be among the compilers of the
first copy under Abu Bakr (ra). Therefore, there is no reason to
question his credibility. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Uthman's
"version" (if we can call it that) was supported unanimously by the
Companions, including Ibn Mas'ud, who eventually agreed with the
decision.
This is a fabrication, as the evidence presented above has shown. The author claim "Muslims...became righteously angry" (that's Muslims
with an 's'), yet he only gave the example of Ibn Mas'ud, who initially
resisted giving up his personal copy but eventually agreed to do so.
The Companions were all in agreement. This fact shatters the ludicrous
claim that Uthman's decree was met with "righteous anger".
It only appears so to certain people who only gloss over certain accounts but ignore others. Had more thorough research been done by the author, he/she would not have come to this incorrect conclusion.
This is another fabrication. Dr. Al-Imam explains: "...the
copies ordered by Uthman include more than one style of recitation and
whatever the orthography could accommodate of the seven accepted styles
of recitation. [...] The written text has been recorded according to
one style of recitation, and permission to use the other styles is given
only for purposes of recitation...The printed copies of the Qur'an that
we have today represent the four dominant styles of recitation: those
of Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, and al-Duri" (p. 49). Conclusion: In this response, we have dealt with every single claim made by the anonymous author and have found that these claims are without merit. They are based primarily on speculation and can be compared more to a conspiracy theory (such as that American astronauts never went to the moon) than to scholarly investigation. With regard to the issue of the Quran's purity and preservation, I think Von Denffer says it best (quoting the scholar John Burton): "...even non-Muslim orientalists concede that 'no major
differences of doctrines can be constructed on the basis of the parallel
readings based on the 'Uthmanic consonantal outline, yet ascribed to mushafs
other than his. All the rival readings unquestionably represent one and the same
text. They are substantially agreed in what they transmit ..." (Ibid., Variety of Modes) And Allah (swt) knows best. Edited by islamispeace - 29 September 2011 at 3:43pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 September 2011 at 1:08pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear IslamisPeace,
I wish to respond to some of your posting. Your words writing is in black, and mine is in red:
Dr. Ahmad Ali Al-Imam, who writes: These "four different versions" were not different Qur'ans. They were different ways of reciting the Qur'an and were all valid since the meanings were the same and were taught by the companions of the Prophet (such as Ibn Mas'ud). Furthermore, the author neglects to mention that these "four versions" were only used in the newly conquered territories of the Muslim world. These territories were Kufah, Basra, Damascus and the rest of Syria. These versions were not being used in the Hijaz region of Arabia, which includes Mecca and Madina. According to Kazim Mudir Shanehchi: Who is Dr. Ahmad Ali Al-Imam and why should I consider him an authority on 4 books that were destroyed 1400 years before his birth? Did he study those coppies? Did he read them? Where did he get his information? And if one of the persons Muhammad authorized to recite the Qur�an and who collected Surra�s moved to a conquerred territory, how does that suddenly lessen the validity of the person�s work? Notice that this list includes three of the Prophet's wives (Hafsah, A'isha and Umm Salama). So, there is no evidence to suggest that only four people had compiled their own copies, nor is there any evidence that these copies were different "versions" of the Qur'an. There was no evidence, you say? If they were not different versions, why would it be necessary to destroy them? Another thing, there was a worldwide ruckus over a small time preacher in the United States burning a Qur�an last year. How could Uthman get away with destroying 4 copies of the Holy Qur�an if thier content, though differing in recitation, was valid content? Isn�t there something against altering or destroying a Qur�an in Islam? So how could he have gotten away with destroying them accept that maybe they truly were different �versions� and it just so happens that the powers that be (political) were on his side... Explain this one, IslamisPeace. IslamisPeace, the article you are rebutting is quoted as saying, "The four versions were written by people who knew Muhammad in person. Each person created their unique version of the Qur�an. Based on Muslims sources, the differences were serious enough to cause Muslims to be divided. The Islamic source "K. al Masahif" reports differences so serious as to cause one Muslim group to call another group heretics: During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif] " So a political decision was made to have only one Qur�an. This did not go over well with the original people who created their unique version of the Qur�an. Who were these chosen people? Your rebuttle: As previously mentioned, these disagreements were among the newer Muslims in the newly conquered territories and were actually completely unnecessary. IslamisPeace, you have shown no poof, only assertion and the words of a �Doctor� who speaks about the four �versions� he has never seen or examined, and who does not sight the evidence for his assertions. Actually, according to Dr. Al-Imam: "[t]he Companions, learned men, and leading figures, including Ali, all approved of this action [Uthman's decree to burn other copies]. Ali confronted those who rebelled and told them that Uthman burned only the copies that varied from the final revelation, kept that which was agreed upon, proceeded only after consulting the Companions and obtaining their unanimous consent, and that he would have done the same thing if he had been in Uthman's position. Yes, IslamisPeace, this is nice. Is this just Dr. Al-Imam talking again. I have listened to �Doctors,� extremely well educated men, at universities debate issues in their field of expertise that they couldn�t agree on. I�ve even heard �Doctors� say things that contradict centuries-old wisdom, and in the 20 years following my college career heard the same Doctors retract what they had formerly said. Point is, just because the man is a Doctor doesn�t mean he is speaking the truth. So Ali changed his mind and supported Uthman. What was done to change his mind? I am well aware or the techniques used by some to change the minds of individuals who are then made to speak to the public about their new enlightened understanding. Some of the techniques are considered by Jews and Christians to be immoral. What can you say to increase my trust and faith that the changing of the minds of those close to Muhammad who were formerly against burning the 4 orriginal versions was an authentic change of heart and not a forced one? ...The Muslims admired Uthman's actions...(with the exception of Ibn Mas'ud), because Uthman united the material into its official book form, cleansed it from any abrogated material, isolated reports, and any interpretation that had added to the text (and could have been mistaken for part of the Revelation)." (Ibid., pp. 16-17) Really! And Dr. Al-Imam has sworn statements from �The Muslims?� What proof can he offer us that this is truly the case, and not just his own conjecture? Here is the deal, IslamisPeace. Dr. Imam presents a simple, well reasoned explanation to justify history, but he does not offer proof, unless you accidentally left it out. Without proof, the Dr. is just another talking intellectual spouting off his own personal opinion and we are supposed to believe him because he has Dr. in front of his name. I don�t think so! Evidence is the name of the game. Show me the evidence! May Allah bless you, IslamisPeace,
Jack Catholic Edited by Jack Catholic - 26 September 2011 at 1:19pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 September 2011 at 2:33pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any comments/questions/concerns from anyone? I have a new topic idea so if everyone is content that this topic has been concluded, then let us move on.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
truthnowcome
Senior Member
Joined: 05 April 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1045 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 September 2011 at 8:19pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As Salaam mu alikum
Islamispeace, I think your reply is well recieved, you were very explisit, Alhamdullah! May Allah (S) increse your knowledge and bless you with more wisdom, and may He grant you your reward for your outstanding work in terms of dawah on this site. Just to repeat those two verses of truth: But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith until they make you judge in all dispute between them and find in themselves no ristance againse your dicisition and accept (them) with full submission. (Q.4:65) We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). 15:9 (Y. Ali) Wa Salaam! Br. Zainool |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jack Catholic
Senior Member
Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 September 2011 at 1:51pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Larry, I don't see that IslamisPeace has really provided any hard evidence to refute the assertion that there were more than one Qur'an. In fact, I find it interesting that one man can gather by force all of the versions of the Qur'an and combine them, then everyone say that the newer cobined version is authentic. This would be like saying that St. Paul gathered up all the Gospel versions written by the Apostles, rewrote them into one book, and then destroyed the other Gospels leaving his as the only one. Then truly the non-Christians who claim that our Holy Bible has been rewritten and tampered with would have something to lay claim to. In effect, this is what has happened to the Holy Qur'an, don't you think?
You are doing awesome on this string, Larry. I'm sure that Allah is blessing you through your questions and statements that demand the truth in love.
Keep up the great work. I won't heap too much praise upon you in case it might cause you to loose some of Allah's blessing. But hey, I know in advance that Allah will bless your efforts and you as well. Keep up the great work!
Jack Catholic
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 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 |
Topic Options
When
Muhammad died in 632 CE, the Qur�an had not been recorded and collected
into a book.