[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
Is it not a historical fact that a current Qur'aan in this day and age is exactly the same as the first Qur'aan? Not one omission or addition has been made.
[/QUOTE]
Historically (leaving faith aside), i'd say that's difficult to prove given that we don't have "the first Qur'aan".
You didn't answer my question about who would be the judge if someone were to come forward claiming to have produced a surah like it?
GupGuppy
Read the ayats I posted earlier on.
Bear in mind, people have been trying for 1400 years to meet the challenge. Like I said before, you be the judge!
Secondly, just for the record, the oldest full copies of the Qur'aan which were standardised by Uthman, exist in Tashkent and Istanbul today! The same is true for documents preserved in Europe (there are fragments in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris which, according to the experts, date from the Eighth and Ninth centuries A.D.
Go and do the comparisons with the Tashkent copy and then come back and tell us your findings?
We will then determine if it is impossible or possible.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
Like I said before, you be the judge!
[/quote]
How can i be the judge, i am a Muslim, so wouldn't i be biased?
[quote]
Secondly, just for the record, the oldest full copies of the Qur'aan which were standardised by Uthman, exist in Tashkent and Istanbul today! The same is true for documents preserved in Europe (there are fragments in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris which, according to the experts, date from the Eighth and Ninth centuries A.D.
[/quote]
Already you are beginning to move the goal posts! You began by talking about the "first Qur'aan" and have now quickly shifted to "the oldest full copies". Hardly the same thing is it? The Qur'an wasn't revealed to Uthman, may Allah be well pleased with him, as you know. His standardisation is at best a copy or more likely a copy of a copy. That doesn't give us the "first Qur'aan".
Also, the Tashkent manuscript isn't a full copy since about half of the Qur'an is missing, so how are you going to use it to show that not "one omission or addition has been made"?
p.s. I got this from the net...
"According to A. Shebunin, writing in 1891, as reported by Donaldson in
"The Moslem World," 1940, this is a list of what is present in the [Tashkent] mus-haf:
2:6-172, 175-183, 209-214, 231-233, 257-274, 282-end; 3:31-96, 91-97, 101-141, 148-end; 4:1-33, 37-46, 74-79, 83-92, 94-144; 5:88-end; 6 complete; 7:1-103; 11:44-122; 12:19-23; 14:41-46; 15:7-86; 16:7-103, 115-120; 17:1-51, 58-end; 18:1-76, 81-105; 19:2-45, 53-end; 20:1-135; 26:63-117, 130-142, 155-202; 27:1-22, 28-34, 44-82; 36:11-end; 37:1-73, 89-end; 38:1-28; 39:8-11; 40:4-7, 54-59, 63-83; 41:4-39; 42:20-end, 43:1-10"
Gupguppy
Being a Muslim, I'm surprised you took the stance that you did. Nevertheless, the ayats I quoted already have the answers for you.
Secondly, the goalposts are not being moved at all. If you want to get nitty gritty, then the first Qur'aan was completed via memory only of which the first Hafiz was the Prophet SAW. At the time of the death of the Prophet SAW, there were approximately 22 Hafiz of the Qur'aan from the Companions.
If the challenge was pushed to this level, our contemporaries would use this as a baseless challenge and argue for written evidence. Therefore, for clarifications sake I should of stated the first written standardised Qur'aan.
Even here you dispute the Uthmany Qur'aan in Tashkent, whereas few serious scholars, even from Islam’s opponents, have tried to dispute the Qur’an’s historical authenticity . The Tashkent copy is a complete copy of the Qur’an written by one of the Prophet’s scribes, Zayed ibn Thabit, upon the order of the first Caliph Abu Bakr within two years of the Prophet’s death. The manuscript in Tashkent is a copy of that first manuscript, also written by the hand of the same Zayed, but some twelve years later under the order of ‘Uthman bin Affan, the third Caliph, with the consensus of over fifty companions of the Prophet who also had written portions of the Qur’an, and also others who had memorised it in toto. This "Uthmanic" Qur’an, as it later came to known, was accepted without exception by the surviving companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, as being one and the same that was revealed by Allah to his Final Messenger Muhammad SAW.
Like I said before, one can take any copy of any Qur’an, from any masjid anywhere in the world and compare it with the mushaf of Zayed, and find it exactly the same - word for word. It is even recited in the same accent in which the Prophet, peace be upon him, recited it. Furthermore Arabic, the language of the Qur’an, is a living language, and the Book has always been in the hands of the people - not merely the domain of a few priests.
However, if you believe that the challenge should be extended to the first Qur'aan vis a vis, then be my guest.
Gupguppy
Just for future reference, ancient manuscripts found in the Library of Congress in Washington, the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland, the London Museum, as well as Museums in Tashkent, Turkey and Egypt, from all periods of Islamic history, have been compared. The result of all such studies confirm that there has not been any change in the text from its original writing. For example, the “Institute fur Koranforschung” of the University of Munich, Germany, collected and collated over 42,000 complete or incomplete copies of the Qur’aan.
After some fifty years of study, they reported that in terms of differences between the various copies, there were no variants, except occasional mistakes of copyists, which could easily be ascertained. The institute was destroyed by American bombs during the Second World War.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
the ayats I quoted already have the answers for you.
[/quote]
I asked a very simple question which you are ignoring for reasons best known to you. I'll repeat it for the last time, perhaps you can attempt to articulate an answer this time instead of pointing to verses on the assumption that everyone else understands what you are trying to say:
If someone comes forward claiming to have "produced a surah like it" who will be the judge as to whether the challenge has been met?
[quote]
Therefore, for clarifications sake I should of stated the first written standardised Qur'aan.
[/quote]
There you go... didn't i tell you the goal posts were moving!? ;-)
[quote]
The Tashkent copy is a complete copy of the Qur’an...
[/quote]
I've already listed the verses that purportedly survive in the Tashkent manuscript. If that is the case it is far from a "complete copy".
[quote]
The manuscript in Tashkent is a copy of that first manuscript...
[/quote]
Yes, like i said, we don't have the "first Qur'aan" as you now here admit so your argument completely falls down. The best "historical" case you are capable of putting forward is to show that the Qur'an we have today is the same as the Tashkent copy but you can't even really do that because the Tashkent copy is incomplete.
[quote]
Just for future reference, ancient manuscripts found in the Library of Congress in Washington, the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland, the London Museum, as well as Museums in Tashkent, Turkey and Egypt, from all periods of Islamic history, have been compared. The result of all such studies confirm that there has not been any change in the text from its original writing. For example, the “Institute fur Koranforschung” of the University of Munich, Germany, collected and collated over 42,000 complete or incomplete copies of the Qur’aan.
After some fifty years of study, they reported that in terms of differences between the various copies, there were no variants, except occasional mistakes of copyists, which could easily be ascertained. The institute was destroyed by American bombs during the Second World War.
[/quote]
NONE of this proves, from a purely "historical" perspective, that these Qur'ans are the same as the "first Qur'aan" simply because we don't have the "first Qur'aan" as a comparison. If you now want to forget about the first Qur'an and say they are the same as the "first written standardised Qur'aan" then what are you going to do about all the missing surahs (mostly from around surah 44 onwards) in the Tashkent copy?
I thought you wanted to look at this from a "historical" perspective but you've completely lost yourself along the way it seems...
Gupguppy
Unfortunately, you leave me no choice.
I honestly did not want to be sidetracked from the original post, especially with a fellow Muslim at the amusement of the non Muslim gupsters. However, since stubborness seems to be your strong point, let me see if I can clear this up for you once and for all.
Firstly, for you to look for a judge in relation to the Qur'aanic challenge even though the answer is right in front of you, indicates that either, you do not understand the Qur'aan with Tajweed or you do not accept the challenge to be viable, thus not accepting this part of the Qur'aan. I was giving you ample opportunity to be the judge, but you refused.
The witnesses, helpers and judge will be anyone but Allah.
When the Quraish first received the challenge, they had no problem in attempting the challenge as they knew that mankind would be the judge. They did not believe in Allah at the time thus were called non believers! Therefore like I stated to you before, let mankind be the judge. Only Non Muslims use the argument about who will be the judge citing a non viable criteria, no judge, no consensus, no rules and regulations etc etc.
Read and digest the ayat again and again:
2:23 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.
Surah Al- Baqarah, which is where the first challenge is quoted in the Qur'aans current chronological order is the first Madani Surah. With the exception of a few ayat dealing with Riba (usury) revealed in the last year of the Prophet SAW life, and the ayat 284-286 revealed earlier at Makkah, the rest of the entire Surah was revealed at Madinah during he first 2 years of Al- Hijrah. I can give you a deeper Synopsis, but I think this is not required for now.
To convince the opponents of Islam that the Qur'aan is a revealed Book, inimitable and matchless in it's literary excellence and subject matter, a challenge is given to the whole of mankind to produce a Surah like that of the Qur'aan. Not identical, but similar (min mislihi) is the Arabic term used here in Surah Al-Baqarah. verses (23-24). This challenge is again repeated in Surah Yunus 10:38-39, Surah Hud 11:12-14, Surah Al-Isra 17:88 and Surah At-Tur 52:33-34.
Secondly, The Qur'aan was not revealed in Book form as we know it. It was revealed as a Scripture from the Holy Tablet and recorded in a Book form so that it would be easier for Muslims like you and me to understand and also for it's preservation unlike some of the previous Scriptures. For example, the Injeel was never recorded by Jesus in his lifetime, but acted upon, therefore the first copy of the Bible appeared years later, even though corrupted. It is for these reasons, the Qur'aan was recorded in Book form and personally guarded by Allah..
Thirdly, you believe that the Tashkent copy is only partial on the basis of evidence by A. Shebunin as reported by Donaldson.
Whereas I believe it to be a full copy on the basis of evidence by the Islamic Heritage Society Kuwait, Sheikh Mohammed Shaibani, an expert on ancient Arabic manuscripts. This Tashkent copy is thought by most of the Muslim Scholars to have been the personal copy of the Caliph as it still contains stains of his blood, which was shed when he was murdered whilst reading it!
The second copy is in Topkapi museum, Istanbul, Turkey.
Even for arguments sake, if you still do not accept these two versions as the oldest full and complete copies on earth. Why don't you move the era by hundreds of years and grab copies from either the 12th, 13th, 17th, or even the 19th Century and do a comparative. I'm being more than kind to you.
If you do not believe the Challenge in the Qur'aan to be viable for your own personal reasons or lack of knowledge/understanding, you've got no-one to blame but yourself.
Wa' Salaam
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
Whereas I believe it to be a full copy on the basis of evidence by the Islamic Heritage Society Kuwait, Sheikh Mohammed Shaibani...
[/QUOTE]
Before i reply to the rest of your post can you please show me and everyone else where Sheikh Mohammed Shaibani said the Tashkent manuscript is "a full copy"?
Gupguppy
As a matter of fact, you can have the actual contact for the Sheikh and actually ring the Institute and confirm your doubts in person. This would be far more convincing than a cut 'n' paste for you.
Islamic Heritage Society
Phone 5329176 - 5339071
Fax 5339067
P.O.Box 5585 Safat
Postal Code 13056
Address: Qortoba, Block 5, opposite to traffic vision inspection.
Additional to the Sheikh, Professor Hamidullah in his French translation of the Qur'an attributes the copies to Uthman in Tashkent.
Ahmad Von Denffer, Ulum Al-Qur'an in The Islamic Foundation also attributes the copy the Uthman
The Muslim World, vol. 30 (1940), pp. 357-8 also attributes the copy to Uthman.
Yusuf Ibrahim al-Nur, Ma' al-Masaahif, Dubai: Dar al-Manar also attributes the copy to Uthman.
Bilal Philips, Usool at-Tafseer, Sharjah: Dar al-Fatah also attributes the copy to Uthman.
A facsimile of the mushaf in Tashkent is available at the Columbia University Library in the USA.
The list can go on and on and on.
It is an irrefutable fact acknowledged by the orientalists, that any copy of the Qur’an found in any part of the world at any time will be exactly the same.
It's just a shame that a Muslim like you tends to disagree.
Finally, the 1600 or more Qur'aans found in the first volume of the Arabic catalogue are preserved in the Topkapi Palace Library Istanbul, as rare books. Among these are seven believed to be inscribed by Khaliph Osman (RA), nine accredited to Khaliph Ali (RA), two ascribed to Hasan and Hussein (RA) as well as many translations. There are twenty-one Turkish translations, thirty-nine Farsi translations, twenty-one Chagatay translations and one Uygur. These date back to the 7th - 19th centuries in Arabia,India, Maghrib (North Africa) and the lands dominated by the Seljuks and Ottomans.
Those of the 9th -11th centuries are inscribed on thick dark paper with sepia ink using delicate kufic lines and the collection prepared in North African cities such as Ceuta and Marrakech between the 12th and 16th centuries are written on parchment on thick dark paper in Maghribi kufic with gilded frontispiece, illuminated surah headings, surah titles, marginal rosettes and sajdah marks.
Now that I have honoured your request, I have one of my own.
Can you please prove that there is no Qur'aan dating back to early Islam in it's original format thus a historical cmparative cannot be made and why in your opinion, the Challenge of the Qur'aan is not viable?
After this, we can put the issue to rest and move on.
One of the fundamentals of Ramadhan is to change our ways and not just refute food and drink for a set period. Our actions must change. I am trying very hard.
Wa' Salaam
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
As a matter of fact, you can have the actual contact for the Sheikh and actually ring the Institute and confirm your doubts in person. This would be far more convincing than a cut 'n' paste for you.
Islamic Heritage Society
Phone 5329176 - 5339071
Fax 5339067
P.O.Box 5585 Safat
Postal Code 13056
Address: Qortoba, Block 5, opposite to traffic vision inspection.
[/quote]
LOL. I thought you'd avoid a direct answer (as usual!). So is this what you did, you rang the Sheikh and he confirmed it to you personally that it's a full copy? If not, let's have the cut-and-paste that you found so convincing.
[quote]
Additional to the Sheikh, Professor Hamidullah in his French translation of the Qur'an attributes the copies to Uthman in Tashkent.
Ahmad Von Denffer, Ulum Al-Qur'an in The Islamic Foundation also attributes the copy the Uthman
The Muslim World, vol. 30 (1940), pp. 357-8 also attributes the copy to Uthman.
Yusuf Ibrahim al-Nur, Ma' al-Masaahif, Dubai: Dar al-Manar also attributes the copy to Uthman.
Bilal Philips, Usool at-Tafseer, Sharjah: Dar al-Fatah also attributes the copy to Uthman.
A facsimile of the mushaf in Tashkent is available at the Columbia University Library in the USA.
[/quote]
ALL irrelevant. Do you always confuse yourself so easily? We are talking about whether the Tashkent Qur'an is complete, if it isn't your argument falls at the very first hurdle.
Coming back to something you said earlier...
[quote]
Even for arguments sake, if you still do not accept these two versions as the oldest full and complete copies on earth. Why don't you move the era by hundreds of years and grab copies from either the 12th, 13th, 17th, or even the 19th Century and do a comparative. I'm being more than kind to you.
[/quote]
Here we see the goal posts moving again, as they tend to do each time you reply. You confidently began by talking about the "first Qur'aan", then when refuted quickly forgot all about that and shifted instead to proving "the oldest full copies" (you haven't yet shown these to be "full" copies by the way), and now by talking about moving the era forwards by "hundreds of years" you just show that you are clueless as to the point you began trying to prove. Some advice: Go back and read your FIRST question to Seminole.
[quote]
The list can go on and on and on.
[/quote]
The only reason you are going on and on with text after text is to conceal the fact that you haven't yet managed to answer the very specific and direct questions asked of you.
Here's one of them... let's have that quote from Sheikh Mohammed Shaibani please!
Gupguppy
Please do not throw 'red herrings' at your convenience. Even after literally giving you the answers time after time, you still refuse to take heed and keep sticking to the same point, hoping to buy some time for yourself. Show me this, show me that, show me this, show me that. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind, therefore you are not getting a link.
If you had checked my posts, I have discussed the Tashkent Qur'aan on this Forum over 2 years ago, giving a detailed breakdown of it's history and preservation. You're not getting it again, as it's about time you gave something constructive back to this subject.
As far as your requests are concerned, the onus is now on you to produce a Surah similar to that of the Qur'aan and you disprove the Qur'aan in light of historical facts! Leave Seminole out for now and you pick up the batton.
I'm giving you text after text in order to educate you.
You being a 'Muslim' doubt the Qur'aanic ayat and it's challenge and you also doubt that a Qur'aan actually exists which is older than 500 years or so. This profile made on the basis of your responses. You have not answered one question posed to you and neither have you disproved the claims I made. This leaves two scenarios. Either you are not a Muslim as you claim or you follow sectarian divides, thus not accepting the Uthmany Qur'aan. You decide.
An article of Faith for Muslims states that they accept the Qur'aan in it's totality and not bits and bobs:
4:136 O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His Messenger., and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.
17:46 And We put coverings over their hearts (and minds) lest they should understand the Qur'an, and deafness into their ears: when thou dost commemorate thy Lord and Him alone in the Qur'an, they turn on their backs, fleeing (from the Truth).
Finally, as we are now locked into a debate and you are not backing down despite being asked to do so, let's get our credentials into the open so that we know where each one is coming from:
Islamically, I hold a Degree in Islamic Studies from the London Open College and have been studying Comparative Religion since 1993. Non Islamically, I studied for the Institute of Housing Degree specialising in Housing Law & hold a Masters in Business Studies.
So you see not everyone here is illiterate or a wannabe graduate come politician. Some of us actually do have an education, have spent years studying and can debate and agree to disagree. If you had bothered, to check my history, you would have noticed that I tend to float on and off this Forum when time permits and can be away for months on end pressing ahead with far more important issues.
Getting back to the post, show me your credentials, so that I know how easy or hard to be with you.
Please don't make up some wishy washy excuse as you have been doing so on previous posts. If you cannot debate intellectually, then please don't waste my time.
Saala Baat Karta Hai!
Wa'Salaam.
^ Well, there you have it! About as pathetic a reply as you are ever likely to see. Hey, everyone, you can't question me because i've got degrees in this and that!
Next time, don't make claims that you are obviously incapable of defending and thereby not only making yourself look a complete fool but also giving the impression that Islam's foundation is weak.
You started with, "Is it not a historical fact that a current Qur'aan in this day and age is exactly the same as the **first Qur'aan?"
And very quickly realised that you couldn't ever prove this, so moved the goal posts to try and see if you were able to show from a historical perspective that a current Qur'an in this day and age is exactly the same as the "first written standardised Qur'aan." whilst pointing to the Tashkent manuscript.
In order for your argument to have any worth, you need to show that the Tashkent copy is a complete copy. You haven't done that as anyone reading this thread can see. Had you a worthwhile quote from Sheikh Shaibani to put forward you would have obviously done so instead of avoiding the simple and direct question. Is this what you would have said to a non-Muslim enquiring about the Qur'an? Go and find out for yourself, i'm not telling you anything and what i do tell you i'm not going to prove but instead i'm going to ask you to show me your credentials so i can decide whether you are worthy of my time!
I don't doubt anything from the Qur'an. I believe everything it tells me. What is doubtful however is whether Muslims, any Muslim, should put forward claims about Islam which they can't substantiate. You'll only look silly...
Argument from historical perspective:
SHOLAY: All Qur'ans today are the same as the very first Qur'an!
ANYONE: Okay, show us the first Qur'an for comparison.
SHOLAY: Err, sorry, we don't have it.
ANYONE: Huh!?.
SHOLAY: Actually, all Qur'ans today are the same as the very first standardised Qur'an.
ANYONE: Okay, is that a complete Qur'an?
SHOLAY: Yes. Sheikh Mohammed Shaibani said so.
ANYONE: Can you show me what he said and where he said it?
SHOLAY: Err... you'll have to phone him yourself.
ANYONE: Well, if you already have what he said can't you just let us see?
SHOLAY: Err, no! Here's his number i have to go i've spoken about this before and i've got degrees and things to back me up... bye...
Gupguppy
Thanks for your response.
Like I said, no wishy washy excuses and hey presto, that's exactly what we got!
Next time stick to Personal Opinions rather than Religion.
You are not learned in Islam including Islamic Creed (Aqeedah)
The Qur’an and its Science, The Sunnah and its Sciences, The Principles of Jurisprudence (Usool Al-Fiqh), Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh), History and Civilization & The Arabic Language, but you want to be a judge in the Qur'aanic challenge and dispute the authenticity of the Qur'aan.
Please.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
but you want to be a judge in the Qur'aanic challenge...
[/QUOTE]
It was you who kept insisting i be the judge! ;-) You can't even seem to agree with yourself... :D
I've been meaning to ask this question for quite a while now (btw i didn't read any thing in this thread besides the first post so don't get mad if this question has already been answered). We believe that god sent a book with jesus right (injeel)? So what is injeel in the bible?? It cant be the gospels as they are written by matthew, mark, luke and john. It cant be the epistles as they written by humans aswell (which is prett obvious). Infact it can't be anything in the new testament as most of it is about the life of jesus, which couldn't be written even before he spent his life. It can't be the old testament as that book was already present before his birth. So what is injeel? Did catholics completely neglect that book??
and also, as muslims, do we believe that Mary was aroud 14 when she gave birth to jesus, that she and jesus moved to egypt when jesus was really young (before his bar mitzwah atleast) and that mary was john the baptist's mother's sister (sorry forgot her name). Please clear these things for me.
and also, according to our belief, did jesus travel to china, tibet, and india when he was around 20 or about that age???
Another question.. A contradiction between the Bible and Koran is the following...
Do we turn the other cheek as in Christianlty... Or are we allowed to hit back, revenge but to an equal degree as in Islam?
What parts of the Bible do Muslims accept as truth?
I think it all depends on the situation, Since jesus lived in the time of Pax Romana, one didnt have to fight back, better to turn the other cheek. But in the time and place where Islam was revealed, turning the other cheek was not an option considering the nature of the society.
So I think it may be better to turn the other cheek whenever possible, but not in all situation... Any commenets?
Thus some laws, perhaps all of Islam can only be understood in the context of the society where its be applied.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by I'm Kool: *
and also, according to our belief, did jesus travel to china, tibet, and india when he was around 20 or about that age???
[/QUOTE]
Some people have said that he was influenced by Buddhist... Might make sense but unlikely, since there is no real evidence of it.