[Aj12]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Actually, from a secular perspective, the Qur'an is considered the least likely religious book to have been altered. Rather the evidences are in more favor that it hasn't been altered (since the time of Muhammad(pbuh)).

"Few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words". - Peters, F. E. (Aug., 1991) "The Quest of the Historical Muhammad." International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 291-315.

Talking about Western circles here, Muslims of course have no doubts.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542162

I suggest reading that article. Efforts were made to standardise the Quran by destroying other copies but its known there there have been different versions.

[philistine]

As a work of fiction, perhaps. When I read a Jules Verne novel, for example, I try to pretend that everything is real.

It makes things much more exciting.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.economist.com/node/21542162

I suggest reading that article. Efforts were made to standardise the Quran by destroying other copies but its known there there have been different versions.

Yes, I have read that long time ago when it was first published, and it changes nothing.

The "other versions" which were found were small variant changes that never changed the actual meaning of the verse.

Rather, when they were discovered it was a great thing, as it confirmed that the hadiths are true, which already stated their existence long before they're found.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, this time from a known Islamic critic -

What we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of Muhammad - J. Burton, The Collection Of The Qur'an, 1977, Cambridge University Press, pp. 239-240.

And -

"Modern study of the Quran has not in fact raised any serious question of its authenticity. The style varies, but is almost unmistakable." - Bell's introduction to the Qurʼān By Richard Bell, William Montgomery Watt, p. 51

I mean, it's good to see a western audience try and critique the Qur'an, since Muslims would never be able to do that (it's like asking a Christian to critique the Bible or an Atheist to critique the existence of God), bias would always exist.

And even though bias still exists from the Non-Muslim academia, despite all its attempts to penetrate, nothing has been shattered or found against what Muslims believe is the "Literal word of God".

I'll conclude by giving you an insight of why it's difficult to hold doubt to the Qur'an's authenticity without any real counter evidence -

"The Quranic Revelation has a history which is fundamentally different from the other two. It spanned a period of some twenty years and, as soon as it was transmitted to Muhammad by Archangel Gabriel, Believers learned it by heart. It was also written down during Muhammad's life. The last recensions of the Quran were effected under Caliph Uthman starting some twelve years after the Prophet's death and finishing twenty-four years after it. They had the advantage of being checked by people who already knew the text by heart, for they had learned it at the time of the Revelation itself and had subsequently recited it constantly. Since then, we know that the text has been scrupulously preserved. It does not give rise to any problems of authenticity." - Bucaille, Dr. Maurice (1977). The Bible, the Quran, and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge

ps. I remember that article you linked didn't even know that Uthman(ra) was the 3rd Caliph, not the 4th.

[TheHansa]

Yes

Our legal code and secular morality is derived from religious texts.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Yes, I have read that long time ago when it was first published, and it changes nothing.

The "other versions" which were found were small variant changes that never changed the actual meaning of the verse.

LOL the logic of the 'islamic scholar' - how exactly would you know the other original versions of the quran were found 'small variant changes ' if they were banned form use and desotryed by uthman in favour of his own version

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
LOL the logic of the 'islamic scholar' - how exactly would you know the other original versions of the quran were found 'small variant changes ' if they were banned form use and desotryed by uthman in favour of his own version

^Usually I wouldn't even bother replying to someone who's dumb enough to think Islam teaches the Earth is 6000 years old because of some Ahmadiyya saying it. But I feel sorry for you.

So;

With the expansion of Islam, people started reciting the Qur'an in different dialects to the 7 that were originally allowed by the Prophet(pbuh). For example, Syrian Dialect, Persian and so on. This wouldn't change the meaning of a verse, but rather the style of it, and how it's pronounced and some phrases. So to avoid this, Uthman decided to burn all the Qur'ans except for the Standardized version.

And if you think it's "Islamic Scholar logic" then go read what some hindu Academia (if they exist) says on the subject, rather than making yourself look stupid here. I mean, it's all a conspiracy when even critics admit the Qur'an is still in it's original today and there's a major consensus that there's hardly any real doubt on its authenticity.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
^Usually I wouldn't even bother replying to someone who's dumb enough to think Islam teaches the Earth is 6000 years old because of some Ahmadiyya saying it. But I feel sorry for you.

So;

With the expansion of Islam, people started reciting the Qur'an in different dialects to the 7 that were originally allowed by the Prophet(pbuh). For example, Syrian Dialect, Persian and so on. This wouldn't change the meaning of a verse, but rather the style of it, and how it's pronounced and some phrases. So to avoid this, Uthman decided to burn all the Qur'ans except for the Standardized version.

And if you think it's "Islamic Scholar logic" then go read what some hindu Academia (if they exist) says on the subject.

lol Isnt an amadiya a muslim?

so if mohammed was allowed, and allowed himself, to propagate 7 different versions of the quran, why do you suggest wiping 6 of them out of existence so that only one (of the choice of a self appointed 'king'called Uthman) was left to exist was what was intended?

and again the question you are avoiding - how do you know the other original versions were all exactly the same to what you read today , if they were all destroyed long before you were even born lol?

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe)
Whats wrong with them being modified? Humans arent perfect, translations can go wrong and may later need to be corrected. Whats the big issue?

As the bible stands currently, whats the problem with it? Is there something wrong with forgiveness of sin? Does turning your other cheek sound immoral? Is loving your enemy a bad thing?

If anything my question is why shouldnt the bible be followed? Its not as if it teaches us to be criminals, immoral or evil. Quite the opposite infact.


Posted via TSR iPhone App

YES. Got it in one! Firstly, the definition of sin is archaic and ridiculous. Secondly, the idea that you should be damned for eternity for what Christians consider sin is sickening. Thirdly, the fact that Christians believe they can do whatever they like and as long as they utter "I'm sowwy" with doe eyes, they won't get spanked for it.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
YES. Got it in one! Firstly, the definition of sin is archaic and ridiculous. Secondly, the idea that you should be damned for eternity for what Christians consider sin is sickening. Thirdly, the fact that Christians believe they can do whatever they like and as long as they utter "I'm sowwy" with doe eyes, they won't get spanked for it.

Firstly, you are not the authority on sin so your opinion on its ridiculousness is useless.

Secondly, Christians haven't defined sin. It was defined was us by God, all we are doing is following his definition. Additionally I should mention, who are you to pass moral judgement on what the right punishment is? think about it, our criminal system often imprisons weed smokers for very long time...do you think it matters to them what a peon like you thinks? If mere humans don't care about you...who do you think you are to challenge God's way of doing things?

Thirdly, that's not how Christianity works. We believe that God can see the purity of heart. If we knowingly do sin, with the thought that we will just repent at the end, then we'd be foolish. Do you know why? Here I'll regale you with some logic.

No one knows when they will die. We don't see death approaching us and we certainly don't have "time" to beg God for forgiveness before we pass away. So putting hope in that is automatically stupid.

Secondly, as i said, God can see the purity of heart so if you are just trying to cheat God, it won't work. So there goes you "doe eyes" theory of gibberish.

Thank you, come again.

[Lawriew]

(Original post by .eXe)
As the bible stands currently, whats the problem with it? Is there something wrong with forgiveness of sin? Does turning your other cheek sound immoral? Is loving your enemy a bad thing?

If anything my question is why shouldnt the bible be followed? Its not as if it teaches us to be criminals, immoral or evil. Quite the opposite infact.


Posted via TSR iPhone App

Exactly why shouldn't homosexuals and those who commit adultery be stoned to death? Where is the problem with the moral teaching of the Biblical story in which Lot's daughters have sex wit him in his sleep? Why don't more of us follow the teachings in the story where a beleiver sent his sife and daughter to be gangraped all night to ensure the safe passing of God's priest? I have many more examples of the morals in the Bible which I'm sure we all wish were still followed today! The moral teachings of the Bible are fantastic

Oh that was sarcasm.

[Mighty Moe]

It should be taken seriously as a piece of fiction, as opposed to a piece of non-fiction.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Lawriew)
Exactly why shouldn't homosexuals and those who commit adultery be stoned to death? Where is the problem with the moral teaching of the Biblical story in which Lot's daughters have sex wit him in his sleep? Why don't more of us follow the teachings in the story where a beleiver sent his sife and daughter to be gangraped all night to ensure the safe passing of God's priest? I have many more examples of the morals in the Bible which I'm sure we all wish were still followed today! The moral teachings of the Bible are fantastic

Oh that was sarcasm.

Yes, Christians are going wild stoning adulterous people and homosexuals and having sex with their daughters in their sleep.

Spoiler:

Show

this was also sarcasm young one

That's definitely what's happening right now.

Yes let's blame the bible for problems that don't even exist. When's the last time you turned on the TV and saw a story on BBC about Christians stoning an adulterer?

Never you say?

exactly.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe)
Firstly, you are not the authority on sin so your opinion on its ridiculousness is useless.

I don't need to be an expert on homeopathy to tell you it doesn't work, and the Christian definition of sin has about the same amount of credibility.

(Original post by .eXe)
Secondly, Christians haven't defined sin. It was defined was us by God, all we are doing is following his definition. Additionally I should mention, who are you to pass moral judgement on what the right punishment is? think about it, our criminal system often imprisons weed smokers for very long time...do you think it matters to them what a peon like you thinks? If mere humans don't care about you...who do you think you are to challenge God's way of doing things?

It doesn't matter who set up a moral system, if we think it's immoral we should challenge it. Following beliefs blindly is a path to being dissatisfied and wrong about things.

I am a human, who is free to think, and I will think and I will tell people what I think. That is what gives me the right to express my opinion about it. People can choose to ignore it, or listen to it and either agree or disagree, but my sole point in doing so is to bring about a better state of affairs. I don't even believe god exists, as you obviously know, I'm wrestling against the archaic form of morals many people attempt to follow through religion.

(Original post by .eXe)
Thirdly, that's not how Christianity works. We believe that God can see the purity of heart. If we knowingly do sin, with the thought that we will just repent at the end, then we'd be foolish. Do you know why? Here I'll regale you with some logic.

Oh, it is. A murderer who repents will be forgiven. Yes, they have to repent honestly, but forgiveness will come. I should think murderers will never be forgiven and should never have a crutch to lean on, able to be forgiven.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by .eXe)
Yes, Christians are going wild stoning adulterous people and homosexuals and having sex with their daughters in their sleep.

Spoiler:

Show

this was also sarcasm young one

That's definitely what's happening right now.

Yes let's blame the bible for problems that don't even exist. When's the last time you turned on the TV and saw a story on BBC about Christians stoning an adulterer?

Never you say?

exactly.

Bible condones it.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Bible condones it.

No actually the Bible (and Jesus) condones "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone"

Gamed? Yep.

Cya.

[Lawriew]

(Original post by .eXe)
Yes, Christians are going wild stoning adulterous people and homosexuals and having sex with their daughters in their sleep.

Spoiler:

Show

this was also sarcasm young one

That's definitely what's happening right now.

Yes let's blame the bible for problems that don't even exist. When's the last time you turned on the TV and saw a story on BBC about Christians stoning an adulterer?

Never you say?

exactly.

No offence but you seem unable to sustain an argument in your first post you say;
"If anything my question is why shouldnt the bible be followed?"
So first you say we should Bible more closely, then defend your opinion by saying "That's definitely what's happening right now"
So which is it? You think we should follow it more closely or keep it as it is?
The Bible states all those things about are morally correct, to kill homosexuals, adulterers and incest is fine with your father, so just to clarify the Bible is wrong?

Actually, there are large groups of Christians in America who support the death penalty for homosexuality and claim aids and the death of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq is the penalty for America for tolerating homosexuals.

What a lovely religion

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by T-Toe)
This question is directed mainly at religious people.

The bible has been modified consistently for centuries. There were bound to have been errors along the way. Also, the Bible was not directly written by God or Jesus. It consists of the recollective accounts from man (who I believe are imperfect, therefore prone to making errors). The messages from God or Jesus were likely to have been misconstrued, or heavily influenced by culture.

I tend to really respect non-religious good people. They discriminate less frequently and seek to be good without expecting an everlasting reward. That demonstrates an act of selflessness. Surely God should appreciate that more?

So long as you retain integrity and remain a good person. What's the issue?

Now back to revision...

As with anything, the Bible should be read whilst using one's common sense, as well as discernment of the spirits, imho

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
lol Isnt an amadiya a muslim?

1. No. And even if you wanted to consider them Muslim, your statement was that Islam taught it, not Muslims believed it.

2. The Scholar you quoted isn't even accepted by Ahmadiyyas themselves. That's how messed up you have it.

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
so if mohammed was allowed, and allowed himself, to propagate 7 different versions of the quran, why do you suggest wiping 6 of them out of existence so that only one (of the choice of a self appointed 'king') was left to exist was what was intended?

There were 7 Dialects/Ahruf (not versions, again acting dumb), and this was so that this challenge -

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]

could be fairly met by all the tribes at that time. No tribe (who were at the time like Shakespeares) could come and say; "oh, it's not in my dialect, so this challenge is unfair" (even though it still would've been, since dialects were so similar at that time). It only further proved Muhammad(pbuh)'s truthfulnes, being an illiterate he could still produce all 7 ahrufs.

Here's the reasons why it was reveaeld in 7 Ahruf -

1) To facilitate the memorisation of the Qur’aan. This is the only benefit that is explicitly narrated in the hadeeth. The Arabs did not all speak Arabic in the same way; each tribe and locations had slight variations and peculiarities unique to it. If the Qur’aan had only been revealed in one harf, it would have been difficult for the many different Arab tribes to memorise the Qur’aan properly. However, since the Qur’aan was revealed in seven ahruf, this greatly eased its memorisation. This was of primary importance in its preservation and propagation.

2) To prove the miraculous nature of the Qur’aan. For despite all of these differences, the meanings of the ahruf did not contradict one another, but rather were complementary.

3) To prove the truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), for despite the fact that he was illiterate, the revelation of the Qur’aan occurred in different tribal dialects and different words, all of which consisted of the most fluent and eloquent speech of his time.

4) To honour the ummah of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and show its superiority over all other nations. No other nations had been given its book in such a manner, in varying ahruf, to ease the process of preservation. Thus, the revelation of the Qur’aan showed the unique status that the Prophet (PBUH), and his ummah, occupied over other nations. In one hadeeth, the Prophet (PBUH) remarked, “The earlier books would be revealed from one door (of heaven), in one harf, but the Qur’aan was revealed from seven doors (of Heaven), in seven ahruf.” ^source

Evidence from hadith;

Ibn ‘Abbaas reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “Jibreel recited the Qur’aan to me in one harf, and I recited it back to him, but I requested him to increase (the number of harf) and he continued to increase it for me, until we stopped at seven ahruf.” Ibn Shihaab az-Zuhree (d. 124 A.H.), one of the narrators of the hadeeth, said, “It has reached me that these seven ahruf are essentially one (in meaning), they do not differ about what is permitted or forbidden.”

As for why Uthman(ra) didn't make usage of the other six, then this is why;

“The seven ahruf were revealed by Allaah during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) to facilitate the memorisation of the Qur’aan, since the dialects of the Arabs were many. This facilitation (i.e., the ahruf) was not necessary to preserve, and eventually there was no need of it. In fact, it became the cause of dissension amongst the Muslims, as those people new to Islaam began arguing over the differences in the recitation of the Qur’aan. Therefore, Allaah inspired 403 ‘Uthmaan to discard the other six ahruf and collect the Qur’aan in one harf, so that the ummah would be united in its recitation. The Companions agreed to this action of his, and the agreement of the Companions is binding on the ummah.” - Ubaydaat, p. 162.

The ahruf chosen was that of the Qureyshy Dialect, which the majority of the Arabs became accustomed with, which inevitably was the dialect of the Prophet(pbuh) himself (his mother toungue basically).

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
and again the question you are avoiding - how do you know the other original versions were all exactly the same to what you read today , if they were all destroyed long before you were even born lol?

You're not making any sense, if it was an original version, then it would not have been destroyed. There was only one original version that Uthman had standardized, the others were either incomplete, personal usage/tribal based scripture that were in different dialects.

[Paperhouse]

i dont think its a question we have the right to answer

[T-Toe]

(Original post by Paperhouse)
i dont think its a question we have the right to answer

Er, if a couple of blokes gave us a book to us to apply to our everyday lives I think we do.