• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can Authenticity of Quran be proven?

Samael_Khan

Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
LOL.. You have never set foot in Arabia like most of the pundits.

  1. Top 10 Historic Places In Saudi Arabia You Must Visit
    https://expatbio.com/historic-places-in-saudi-arabia
    Dec 17, 2019 · These historic places in Saudi Arabia do get merit attention from the tourist, because of the fascinating and unique appeals that it offers to the eye. Here Is the Look at the Top 10 Historic Places in Saudi Arabia. 1.Al-Hijr

  2. Historic Sites in Saudi Arabia - Trip Historic
    https://www.triphistoric.com/explore/articles/historic-sites-in-saudi-arabia
    There's a host of top Historic Sites in Saudi Arabia to visit and among the very best are the al-Haram Mosque and Fort Al Faqir. Our database of Historic Sites in Saudi Arabia is growing all the time, but we may not cover them all. So, if you know of other Saudi Arabian cultural places

  3. List of World Heritage Sites in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Saudi_Arabia
    The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention that was established in 1972, is concerning with the protection and preservation of cultural or natural heritage. There are 5 UNESCO World Heritage Sites in …

I never claimed to have set foot in Saudi Arabia.

Thanks for the links.

Your links don't counter the case that the Saudi Government is destroying historical sites though. In fact site number 9. The Jawatha mosque in your first link, says that many of the old mosques have disappeared because of the heavy construction, supporting the claim. The claim isn't that all the sites are destroyed but that a large amount of historical sites from early Islam are are:


The photos Saudi Arabia doesn't want seen – and proof Islam's holiest relics are being demolished

In the links I have sent you they even mention the sites:

Saudi destruction of holy and historical sites

Why is Saudi Arabia destroying the cultural heritage of Mecca and Medina?

So it seems that certain sites are not touched at all while other sites are being destroyed mainly to accommodate pilgrims who visit for Hajj and to turn Saudi into a modernized country. None of the UNESCO world heritage sites in Saudi Arabia are from early Islamic history as well.

So then it seems that the complaint is not that they are destroying historical sites in general but the complaints are specifically about the destruction of early Islamic heritage sites.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There is no way to see what any of the other copies of it said, because they were all ordered to be burned by the caliphate Uthman in 650 AD because there were multiple, conflicting versions of the Quran in circulation. The only copy that remains is the one he decided shouldn't be burnt up in fire. He wanted to see a single version of the Quran for the sake of ending debates among Muslims with different texts. So, no, there are no checks and balances, comparing later versions with early ones. They're all gone. All Muslims have is the one Uthman decided should survive. Is the Qur'an Pure? Book Burning in Early Islam

I see it kind of like Christians believing that God gave them the Bible, when in reality it was a later decision of church leaders of what to keep and what to throw out. If one wishes to believe that was divinely directed, that's purely on faith alone. The same is true here as well.

Completely untrue. I think you should read that hadith again, carefully. Even if you believe this hadith is historical fact, yet you have not read the story properly so you have derived a lot of erroneous ideas.

Please read.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Completely untrue. I think you should read that hadith again, carefully. Even if you believe this hadith is historical fact, yet you have not read the story properly so you have derived a lot of erroneous ideas.

Please read.
Tell me where you think I got it wrong.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I never claimed to have set foot in Saudi Arabia.

Thanks for the links.

Your links don't counter the case that the Saudi Government is destroying historical sites though. In fact site number 9. The Jawatha mosque in your first link, says that many of the old mosques have disappeared because of the heavy construction, supporting the claim. The claim isn't that all the sites are destroyed but that a large amount of historical sites from early Islam are are:


The photos Saudi Arabia doesn't want seen – and proof Islam's holiest relics are being demolished

In the links I have sent you they even mention the sites:

Saudi destruction of holy and historical sites

Why is Saudi Arabia destroying the cultural heritage of Mecca and Medina?

So it seems that certain sites are not touched at all while other sites are being destroyed mainly to accommodate pilgrims who visit for Hajj and to turn Saudi into a modernized country. None of the UNESCO world heritage sites in Saudi Arabia are from early Islamic history as well.

So then it seems that the complaint is not that they are destroying historical sites in general but the complaints are specifically about the destruction of early Islamic heritage sites.

Diraya is early Islam as is Habla in Asir.. Others predate Islam .. Madain Saleh is before Islam. Other sites are early Nestorian.. they had a bishopric ..

And, there are early sites at Najran. I have been all over Arabia.

Making room to safely accommodate the pilgrims is imperative. The Saudis are zealous about the safety of foreigners including Americans and Europeans.
 

Samael_Khan

Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Diraya is early Islam as is Habla in Asir.. Others predate Islam .. Madain Saleh is before Islam. Other sites are early Nestorian.. they had a bishopric ..

And, there are early sites at Najran. I have been all over Arabia.

Making room to safely accommodate the pilgrims is imperative. The Saudis are zealous about the safety of foreigners including Americans and Europeans.

Yeah, so then they are destroying historical sites to make room for pilgrims. And because they are early Islamic sites, they are destroying islamic history which could be essential to understanding the history of Islam from an archaeological perspective.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Can Authenticity of the Quran be proven logically and scientifically? Can it be proved it is all what Muhammad had said, and it was written as Muhammmad had said, and remained unchanged? Or is this just a belief held by those who believe in the Quran?


Note: As a Bahai, I believe the Quran is Authentic and a revelation from God, because Bahai Scriptures confirms this.

However In our modern day, to prove authenticity of a document, it has to be signed by the Author, or the handwriting of author can be verified to match with the original script. None of these are available regarding the Quran (to the best of my knowledge) as there is no Quran in handwriting of Muhammad, nor, Muhammad ever signed or sealed a copy of Quran to confirm it.

The Quran's authenticity is dubious at best.

Yes, I know, typically people mark Islam as part of history, but the really odd thing is that the closer one gets to the time of Muhammad, the less the story makes sense.

Did Muhammad Exist? [A Book Review]

Here's why:
  1. Robert Spencer notes that neither the Muhammad nor the Quran existed at the time mentioned. In the former case, Muhammad was a later invention, and served the same purpose as the folk heroes of ancient China, to be good propaganda for their national identity. As for the Quran, the reason it repeated and/or contradicted itself was because it had multiple authors, after observing as culture that most of Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc had power precisely because they had a strong cultural religion. Since this area kinda lost its way, they made something up.
  2. What would be proof for this? Well, absence of evidence. The first Bible was written 60 years later, and this was mainly because it was possibly difficult to compile when people were being persecuted. The Muslims had no such excuse as they were actively converting others, yet somehow it took 300 years for the first Quran to show up.
  3. The Quran, particularly the earliest verses, appear to be plagiarized based on Judeo-Christian source material. The later passages appear to give Muhammad, and to a lesser degree Arabs license to invade and/or oppress other cultures, holding up this man as an example. In other words, it's the religious equivalent of Calvin and Hobbes, where Hobbes is able to eat tuna at first but then demands swordfish steaks. That is, the Arab people needed a prophet so they invented one who had license to do whatever they wanted to do.
  4. In fact the primary purpose of the Quran, rather than a divinely inspired text (much less the infallible word of Allah), appears to be to undermine or usurp Christianity and/or Judaism. It very much does exactly what Galatians 1:8 warns against. In fact, this book, rather than an account of a man's encounter with an angel, actually mentions Muhammad only four times, and three of those are using the name as a title ("praised one"). Instead, most of what is known of Muhammad is because of a history (legend) composed by Ibn Ishaq, two hundred years later. And their coins don't mention Islam or the Quran for nearly six centuries. Nor was Mecca an actual mecca that it was described to be in the Quran.
  5. Robert Spencer ultimately concludes, “as a prophet of the Arabs who taught a vaguely defined monotheism, (Muhammad) may have existed. But beyond that, his life story is lost in the mists of legend.” However, "“as the prophet of Islam, who received (or even claimed to receive) the perfect copy of the perfect eternal book from the supreme God, Muhammad almost certainly did not exist.”
So no, Muhammad's name didn't really exist for a good 200-300 years after he supposedly lived. Not on coins, not in a book, not anywhere. That's a no.

Yeah, so then they are destroying historical sites to make room for pilgrims. And because they are early Islamic sites, they are destroying islamic history which could be essential to understanding the history of Islam from an archaeological perspective.

Actually, they are destroying pre-Islamic Mesopotamian and Persian history sites "to make room for pilgrims" but actually to suppress the real history and culture of places.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member
There is no way to see what any of the other copies of it said, because they were all ordered to be burned by the caliphate Uthman in 650 AD because there were multiple, conflicting versions of the Quran in circulation. The only copy that remains is the one he decided shouldn't be burnt up in fire. He wanted to see a single version of the Quran for the sake of ending debates among Muslims with different texts.
Thanks.
I was already convinced that the Koran is not 100% authentic, but this is to me another good confirmation.

Still lots of good stuff in the Koran, I just don't believe it blind to be all from God.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
Robert Spencer notes that neither the Muhammad nor the Quran existed at the time mentioned. In the former case, Muhammad was a later invention, and served the same purpose as the folk heroes of ancient China, to be good propaganda for their national identity. As for the Quran, the reason it repeated and/or contradicted itself was because it had multiple authors, after observing as culture that most of Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc had power precisely because they had a strong cultural religion. Since this area kinda lost its way, they made something up.

Well. Spencer is wrong. There are enough and more Quran manuscripts dated to the 7th century.

What would be proof for this? Well, absence of evidence. The first Bible was written 60 years later, and this was mainly because it was possibly difficult to compile when people were being persecuted. The Muslims had no such excuse as they were actively converting others, yet somehow it took 300 years for the first Quran to show up.

First Bible? Wrong phrase.

Quran is easily fully datable to the 1st century hijri. I mean the full Quran. That is early manuscripts as a collection making up the whole Quran.

Manuscript evidence can be dated to early 7th century. That is some number of folios.

If manuscript evidence is your criteria, the earliest new testament manuscript is dated 100 to 125 after Jesus, and is a small fragment of 2 or 3 inches. Its Papyrus 52.

  1. The Quran, particularly the earliest verses, appear to be plagiarized based on Judeo-Christian source material. The later passages appear to give Muhammad, and to a lesser degree Arabs license to invade and/or oppress other cultures, holding up this man as an example. In other words, it's the religious equivalent of Calvin and Hobbes, where Hobbes is able to eat tuna at first but then demands swordfish steaks. That is, the Arab people needed a prophet so they invented one who had license to do whatever they wanted to do.
  2. In fact the primary purpose of the Quran, rather than a divinely inspired text (much less the infallible word of Allah), appears to be to undermine or usurp Christianity and/or Judaism. It very much does exactly what Galatians 1:8 warns against. In fact, this book, rather than an account of a man's encounter with an angel, actually mentions Muhammad only four times, and three of those are using the name as a title ("praised one"). Instead, most of what is known of Muhammad is because of a history (legend) composed by Ibn Ishaq, two hundred years later. And their coins don't mention Islam or the Quran for nearly six centuries. Nor was Mecca an actual mecca that it was described to be in the Quran.
  3. Robert Spencer ultimately concludes, “as a prophet of the Arabs who taught a vaguely defined monotheism, (Muhammad) may have existed. But beyond that, his life story is lost in the mists of legend.” However, "“as the prophet of Islam, who received (or even claimed to receive) the perfect copy of the perfect eternal book from the supreme God, Muhammad almost certainly did not exist.”
So no, Muhammad's name didn't really exist for a good 200-300 years after he supposedly lived. Not on coins, not in a book, not anywhere. That's a no.

Robert Spencer is no scholar. He doesnt know the subject.

Anyway, there are Quran manuscripts with Muhammeds name dating much earlier than that. Anyway, though you are trying to turn this into a Muhammed discussion, the topic is Quran. But yet, even in that subject you are absolutely wrong.

If you want evidence for any of my claims, ask specifically and i will provide easily.

Peace.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Thanks.
I was already convinced that the Koran is not % authentic, but this is to me another good confirmation.

Still lots of good stuff in the Koran, I just don't believe it blind to be all from God.

With all due respect, that comment you responded to above is with many errors. No disrespect intended.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
With all due respect, that comment you responded to above is with many errors. No disrespect intended.
Thank you for the reminder, I did not double check the information (Google info I usually check a few times, I thought this RF info was reliable).

For me personally, it's not a big deal if Koran is 95% correct or 100% correct. 95% does not make God nor Koran nor Muhammad any less IMO
Even if there were big errors in Koran, this would only make God bigger to me. God trusts us enough to still have Faith, even with errors present

For me the Spiritual journey is like getting a degree, only this time a "Spiritual Degree". The only degree I find interesting
Hypothetical: If I were God, I would have put in some minuscule errors for the smart guys and some big errors for the rest
(What is the fun in Spiritual Life, if there are no tests and exams; no obstacles to take)

God is perfect. So His Scriptures must be perfect. Even "seemingly" errors will be perfect in His Plan
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
Thank you for the reminder, I did not double check the information (Google info I usually check a few times, I thought this RF info was reliable).

For me personally, it's not a big deal if Koran is 95% correct or 100% correct. 95% does not make God nor Koran nor Muhammad any less IMO
Even if there were big errors in Koran, this would only make God bigger to me. God trusts us enough to still have Faith, even with errors present

For me the Spiritual journey is like getting a degree, only this time a "Spiritual Degree". The only degree I find interesting
Hypothetical: If I were God, I would have put in some minuscule errors for the smart guys and some big errors for the rest
(What is the fun in Spiritual Life, if there are no tests and exams; no obstacles to take)

I understand what you say.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
THE CHRISTIANS REGARD the Bible as their Sacred Scriptures, where the words of God are written. For true Christians, the Bible is the sole basis of their faith. Muslims also regard Qur’an as their Sacred Scriptures, where the words of God are written. So, what the differences between the two books?

source.gif


PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES

The Bible is a library (a collection) of sixty-six (66) books. Written in a span of 1,500 years (Genesis, the first book, was written about 1447-1407 BC, and Revelation, the last book, was written about 90-95 AD). The Bible is written by more than forty (40) inspired writers.

Qur’an is a single book. It is comparable in length with the New Testament. The “standard Qur’an” was done by a single man.

Take note that if you going to read the whole Bible, you can see that it seems it was written by a single writer in particular period or time because of its unity. Remarkable for the Bible is not a single book but a collection of 66 books, written by 40 men in a span of 1,500 years. If there is a unity in Qur’an, what’s remarkable about that for it was done by a single man in a particular time or period?


ON DIVINE INSPIRATION

The Christians firmly believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. The Muslims also claim that Qur’an is divinely inspired. “Divine inspiration” means that the one who wrote was truly inspired by God as prophet or apostle.

The Bible is divinely inspired for the those who wrote the books are the inspired prophets and apostles themselves. The first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) are written by the inspired prophet Himself, Prophet Moses. The Book of Joshua was written by Joshua, The books of Samuel written by the prophets Nathan and Gad, the Book of Isaiah written by Isaiah, and so on.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not Muhammad who wrote Qur’an, and he never wrote anything. The book called “Qur’an” never existed during his lifetime. That Qur’an was written during the lifetime of Muhammad was only a claim of Muslims today, but their hadith and sahih don’t agree with it. Let us first quote the admission of modern Muslims. In a book entitled, “Islam in Focus” this is what they admitted

“…he consulted (Abu Bakr) the leading authorities and then entrusted Zayd Ibn Thabit, Muhammad’s Chief Scribe of Revelations, to compile a standard and complete copy of the Book...” (Islam in Focus, p. 219)

This book authored and published by Muslims admitted that the “standard Qur’an” was done by Zayd Ibn Thabit who Abu Bakr commissioned to do so. Abu Bakr was the “first caliph” (he succeeded Muhammad). Thus, Qur’an was done after the death of Muhammad. But did Zayd only “collected” and “compiled” those already written during the lifetime of Muhammad? This is what Sahih Al-Bhukari admitted (Sahih Al-Bhukari, together with Sahih Al-Muslim, these two are considered by many Muslims as semi-canonical books, these are collections of Hadith or Islamic traditions):

“Accordingly, I sought out the Qur’an: I gather it together from leafless palm-branches and thin white stones and men’s breasts.” (Sahih Al-Bhukari, Book 66, Hadith 8)

According to the testimony of Zayd himself, when he was requested by Abu Bakr to search out the various Qur’an and gather it together, he responded “I sought out the Qur’an: I gather it together from leafless palm-branches and thin white stones and men’s breasts.”

Remember that the “Qur’an” they were referring was not the “book” called Qur’an, but “Qur’an” that recited by Muhammad as “divine revelations” revealed to him. He seek out those “ur’an” and what he found were those in “leafless palm-branches, thin white stones and men’s breasts.” Divine revelation of God written in “leafless palm-branches and thin white stones”? Are these reliable and credible? Actually great numbers came from “men’s breasts” as we will see later.

Now, let us first see why the sudden move of collecting the “Qur’an” that resulted in having a “standard written Qur’an”? This is what the Islamic traditions tell us:

“Abu Bakr sent someone to call me when Yamama people were killed. Umar was there with him. Abu Bakr said: ‘On the day of Yamama, Umar came to me and said that the reciters of the Qur’an were killed. He was afraid that others might be killed elsewhere. This indicates the loss of much of the Qur’an. He suggested that I command that the Qur’an be compiled.’ I asked Umar: ‘How would you do something that the Prophet of Allah did not do?’ Umar kept telling me to think about it until Allah made my heart cheerful. I took on Umar’s perspective. Abu Bakr said to me: ‘We do not doubt that you are a wise young man. You used to write down the revelation for the Prophet of Allah. So trace the Qur’an and compile it.’ I said: ‘By Allah, if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an. I argued: ‘How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?’ He replied: ‘By Allah, this is good!’ Therefore, I continued compiling it from palm branched, thin stones, and the chests of men....The leaves (suhuf) were with Abu Bakr until he died; then they were handed down to Umar, then to Hafsah, Umar’s daughter.” (Sahih Al-Bhukari, Book 66, Hadith 8)

Let us be reminded that the “Qur’an” compiled by Zayd were not “written Qur’an.” The book “Qur’an” were not written or it does not exist during the lifetime of Muhammad. If there are “revelations” of Muhammad that were put in writing during his lifetime, very few, a small fraction. Great numbers were found in “men’s breast” or “memorized” only in their hearts by Muhammad’s companions and followers. As a proof, when Abu Bakr commanded Umar to tell Zayd the task of compiling the “Qur’an”, he replied “How would you do something that the Prophet of Allah did not do?

When Abu Bakr said to Zayd that “We do not doubt that you are a wise young man. You used to write down the revelation for the Prophet of Allah. So trace the Qur’an and compile it.” Zayd answered, “By Allah, if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an…How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?” Take note that if Zayd have been written all or many of the “revelations” recited by Muhammad during the latter’s lifetime, he would not say such words, “if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an.” Zayd again said, “How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?” This only proves that “Qur’an was not written and compiled during the lifetime of Muhammad.” The book called "Qur'an" does not exist during the lifetime of Muhammad. The Qur’an was put in writing after Muhammad’s death by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr, named Zayd Ibn Thabit.

Why did Abu Bakr commissioned Zayd to make the book that is now called Qur’an? During the Battle of Yamama many Muslims were killed. Abu Bakr said, “‘On the day of Yamama, Umar came to me and said that the reciters of the Qur’an were killed. He was afraid that others might be killed elsewhere. This indicates the loss of much of the Qur’an.” This proves (1) many “revelations” recited to them by Muhammad were not put in writing during his lifetime but only memorized by his followers, and (2) and not all recited by Muhammad were included in the book made by Zayd (thus refuting the alleged “perfect preservation" of Muhammad’s revelations or of Qur’an).

Although the Lord Jesus Christ did not wrote any book in the Bible, however, the writers of the New Testament books were apostles and ministers of the Gospel, like Apostle John, Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter. Was Zayd Ibn Thabit “an apostle of Allah”? Apostle Paul said, “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.” (II Corinthians 5:20, NKJV) Can Zayd Ibn Thabit say the same for Muhammad?

Therefore, if the books of the Bible were written by the prophets and the apostles themselves, the Qur’an was not written by the prophet of Islam, not written by Muhammad himself, but only by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr when Muhammad was already dead. So, the books of the Bible claimed “divine inspiration” because the writers of the book were the divine prophets and apostles themselves. How about Qur’an? How can it claim “divine inspiration” if it is not written by Muhammad himself but by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr? Was Zayd himself an inspired prophet or apostle of Allah?

Truly, there are great differences between the Bible and Qur’an. The basis of the Bible’s divine inspiration is greater than the basis (if they have) of the Qur’an’s divine inspiration.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
THE CHRISTIANS REGARD the Bible as their Sacred Scriptures, where the words of God are written. For true Christians, the Bible is the sole basis of their faith. Muslims also regard Qur’an as their Sacred Scriptures, where the words of God are written. So, what the differences between the two books?

source.gif


PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES

The Bible is a library (a collection) of sixty-six (66) books. Written in a span of 1,500 years (Genesis, the first book, was written about 1447-1407 BC, and Revelation, the last book, was written about 90-95 AD). The Bible is written by more than forty (40) inspired writers.

Qur’an is a single book. It is comparable in length with the New Testament. The “standard Qur’an” was done by a single man.

Take note that if you going to read the whole Bible, you can see that it seems it was written by a single writer in particular period or time because of its unity. Remarkable for the Bible is not a single book but a collection of 66 books, written by 40 men in a span of 1,500 years. If there is a unity in Qur’an, what’s remarkable about that for it was done by a single man in a particular time or period?


ON DIVINE INSPIRATION

The Christians firmly believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. The Muslims also claim that Qur’an is divinely inspired. “Divine inspiration” means that the one who wrote was truly inspired by God as prophet or apostle.

The Bible is divinely inspired for the those who wrote the books are the inspired prophets and apostles themselves. The first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) are written by the inspired prophet Himself, Prophet Moses. The Book of Joshua was written by Joshua, The books of Samuel written by the prophets Nathan and Gad, the Book of Isaiah written by Isaiah, and so on.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not Muhammad who wrote Qur’an, and he never wrote anything. The book called “Qur’an” never existed during his lifetime. That Qur’an was written during the lifetime of Muhammad was only a claim of Muslims today, but their hadith and sahih don’t agree with it. Let us first quote the admission of modern Muslims. In a book entitled, “Islam in Focus” this is what they admitted

“…he consulted (Abu Bakr) the leading authorities and then entrusted Zayd Ibn Thabit, Muhammad’s Chief Scribe of Revelations, to compile a standard and complete copy of the Book...” (Islam in Focus, p. 219)

This book authored and published by Muslims admitted that the “standard Qur’an” was done by Zayd Ibn Thabit who Abu Bakr commissioned to do so. Abu Bakr was the “first caliph” (he succeeded Muhammad). Thus, Qur’an was done after the death of Muhammad. But did Zayd only “collected” and “compiled” those already written during the lifetime of Muhammad? This is what Sahih Al-Bhukari admitted (Sahih Al-Bhukari, together with Sahih Al-Muslim, these two are considered by many Muslims as semi-canonical books, these are collections of Hadith or Islamic traditions):

“Accordingly, I sought out the Qur’an: I gather it together from leafless palm-branches and thin white stones and men’s breasts.” (Sahih Al-Bhukari, Book 66, Hadith 8)

According to the testimony of Zayd himself, when he was requested by Abu Bakr to search out the various Qur’an and gather it together, he responded “I sought out the Qur’an: I gather it together from leafless palm-branches and thin white stones and men’s breasts.”

Remember that the “Qur’an” they were referring was not the “book” called Qur’an, but “Qur’an” that recited by Muhammad as “divine revelations” revealed to him. He seek out those “ur’an” and what he found were those in “leafless palm-branches, thin white stones and men’s breasts.” Divine revelation of God written in “leafless palm-branches and thin white stones”? Are these reliable and credible? Actually great numbers came from “men’s breasts” as we will see later.

Now, let us first see why the sudden move of collecting the “Qur’an” that resulted in having a “standard written Qur’an”? This is what the Islamic traditions tell us:

“Abu Bakr sent someone to call me when Yamama people were killed. Umar was there with him. Abu Bakr said: ‘On the day of Yamama, Umar came to me and said that the reciters of the Qur’an were killed. He was afraid that others might be killed elsewhere. This indicates the loss of much of the Qur’an. He suggested that I command that the Qur’an be compiled.’ I asked Umar: ‘How would you do something that the Prophet of Allah did not do?’ Umar kept telling me to think about it until Allah made my heart cheerful. I took on Umar’s perspective. Abu Bakr said to me: ‘We do not doubt that you are a wise young man. You used to write down the revelation for the Prophet of Allah. So trace the Qur’an and compile it.’ I said: ‘By Allah, if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an. I argued: ‘How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?’ He replied: ‘By Allah, this is good!’ Therefore, I continued compiling it from palm branched, thin stones, and the chests of men....The leaves (suhuf) were with Abu Bakr until he died; then they were handed down to Umar, then to Hafsah, Umar’s daughter.” (Sahih Al-Bhukari, Book 66, Hadith 8)

Let us be reminded that the “Qur’an” compiled by Zayd were not “written Qur’an.” The book “Qur’an” were not written or it does not exist during the lifetime of Muhammad. If there are “revelations” of Muhammad that were put in writing during his lifetime, very few, a small fraction. Great numbers were found in “men’s breast” or “memorized” only in their hearts by Muhammad’s companions and followers. As a proof, when Abu Bakr commanded Umar to tell Zayd the task of compiling the “Qur’an”, he replied “How would you do something that the Prophet of Allah did not do?

When Abu Bakr said to Zayd that “We do not doubt that you are a wise young man. You used to write down the revelation for the Prophet of Allah. So trace the Qur’an and compile it.” Zayd answered, “By Allah, if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an…How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?” Take note that if Zayd have been written all or many of the “revelations” recited by Muhammad during the latter’s lifetime, he would not say such words, “if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an.” Zayd again said, “How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?” This only proves that “Qur’an was not written and compiled during the lifetime of Muhammad.” The book called "Qur'an" does not exist during the lifetime of Muhammad. The Qur’an was put in writing after Muhammad’s death by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr, named Zayd Ibn Thabit.

Why did Abu Bakr commissioned Zayd to make the book that is now called Qur’an? During the Battle of Yamama many Muslims were killed. Abu Bakr said, “‘On the day of Yamama, Umar came to me and said that the reciters of the Qur’an were killed. He was afraid that others might be killed elsewhere. This indicates the loss of much of the Qur’an.” This proves (1) many “revelations” recited to them by Muhammad were not put in writing during his lifetime but only memorized by his followers, and (2) and not all recited by Muhammad were included in the book made by Zayd (thus refuting the alleged “perfect preservation" of Muhammad’s revelations or of Qur’an).

Although the Lord Jesus Christ did not wrote any book in the Bible, however, the writers of the New Testament books were apostles and ministers of the Gospel, like Apostle John, Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter. Was Zayd Ibn Thabit “an apostle of Allah”? Apostle Paul said, “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.” (II Corinthians 5:20, NKJV) Can Zayd Ibn Thabit say the same for Muhammad?

Therefore, if the books of the Bible were written by the prophets and the apostles themselves, the Qur’an was not written by the prophet of Islam, not written by Muhammad himself, but only by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr when Muhammad was already dead. So, the books of the Bible claimed “divine inspiration” because the writers of the book were the divine prophets and apostles themselves. How about Qur’an? How can it claim “divine inspiration” if it is not written by Muhammad himself but by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr? Was Zayd himself an inspired prophet or apostle of Allah?

Truly, there are great differences between the Bible and Qur’an. The basis of the Bible’s divine inspiration is greater than the basis (if they have) of the Qur’an’s divine inspiration.

Your whole thesis is not based on the Quran, or historical evidence. Your whole thesis is from what people said in the modern era, about what people said at least three centuries after the Quran was originally written down. That too, completely based on indirect comments that is not based on scholarship but evangelism. Its not valid.

Go into the details of every single claim.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
Your whole thesis is not based on the Quran, or historical evidence. Your whole thesis is from what people said in the modern era, about what people said at least three centuries after the Quran was originally written down. That too, completely based on indirect comments that is not based on scholarship but evangelism. Its not valid.

Go into the details of every single claim.

Sometimes the reality hurts.

giphy.gif
 

Niblo

Active Member
Premium Member
The Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) over a period of twenty-three years.

The IDP Research Division write:

‘There is no doubt that the Qur'an was not only transmitted orally by many Muslims who had learned parts or the whole of it, but that it was also written down during the lifetime of the Prophet. The well-known report about 'Umar's conversion shows that large passages of the revelation had already been written down even at a very early time, in Makka, long before the hijra, when the Prophet was still in the house of Arqam.’ (‘Understanding the Qur'an – Its History and Compilation’).

There is an expression: ‘jam' al-qur'an’. It’s general meaning is to 'bring together the Qur'an'.

While the Qur’an was written down – in its entirety – during the life of the Prophet, it had not been brought together in a single book. Abū Bakr assigned this task to Zaid bin Thabit; a young man in his early twenties, and one of the Prophet’s most notable scribes. Zaid was a ḥāfiẓ (a ‘guardian’ or ‘memoriser’ of the Qur’an; someone who knew the Qur’an by heart).

M.M. Al-Azami informs us that:

‘Zaid would accept only those materials which, according to the sworn testimony of two others, had been written in the Prophet's very presence. Ibn Hajar's statement affirms this view, that "Zaid was unwilling to accept any written material for consideration unless two Companions bore witness that the man received his dictation from the Prophet himself.” His contribution, we can summarise, was to collect all first-hand Qur'anic fragments, then scattered about Madinah, and arrange for their transcription into a master volume.

‘Once complete, the compiled Qur'an was placed in the ‘state archives’ under the custodianship of Abū Bakr.

‘In serving the Qur'an Abū Bakr acquitted himself most admirably, heeding its mandate of two witnesses for establishing authenticity, and applying this rule to the Qur’an’s own compilation. The result, though written on rudimentary parchments of varying size, constituted as sincere an effort as possible to preserve the Words of Allāh.’ (‘The History of the Qur’anic Text).

There is a word ‘qira'at’ (meaning ‘styles of recitation’). The qira'at are a way of pronouncing the Qur’anic text; and there are seven authoritative schools of qira'at. An example of the differences between two qira'at can be seen in the sūrah ‘Al-Fatiha’ (‘The Opening’):

‘In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy! Praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy, Master (māliki) of the Day of Judgement. It is You we worship; it is You we ask for help. Guide us to the straight path (l-ṣirāṭa): the path of those You have blessed, those who incur no anger and who have not gone astray.’

Some qira'at recite ‘māliki’ with a long ‘a’ (as in the planet ‘Mars’); while others say ‘maliki’, with a short ‘a’ (as in ‘cat’). In every case, the meaning (‘Master’) is the same.

The word ‘l-ṣirāṭa’ can also be rendered ‘as-sirata’. Again, both pronunciations have the same meaning of ‘path’ or ‘way’.

In the time of 'Uthman the order of sūrahs (and of the verses within each sūrah) had been fixed. However, differences in ‘qira'at’ had become a problem. There were disputes about the correct manner of recitation. Certain tribes boasted that their method of recitation was better than others!

'Uthman’s solution was to borrow the Qur’an of Abū Bakr (at that time, in the possession of Hafṣah bint ʿUmar; a wife of the Prophet, and ‘Mother of the Believers’). He then ordered four Companions – among them Zaid bin Thabit – to reproduce the entire script in perfect copies. This they did.

According to some reports Kufa, Basra and Syria each received a finished copy of the Qur’an; with one being sent to Madinah. Other reports add Mecca, Yemen and Bahrain. It is also said that 'Uthman retained a copy for himself. It must be noted that no copy was sent without a qāri (a ‘reciter’), whose task it was to recite the Qur’an in the manner he had learned through authenticated, multiple channels going back to the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam): ‘Insofar as these channels lay in complete agreement with each other and (conformed with) the Qur’an’s consonantal skeleton’ (Al-Azami: ‘The History of the Qur’anic Text).
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Can Authenticity of the Quran be proven logically and scientifically? Can it be proved it is all what Muhammad had said, and it was written as Muhammmad had said, and remained unchanged? Or is this just a belief held by those who believe in the Quran?


Note: As a Bahai, I believe the Quran is Authentic and a revelation from God, because Bahai Scriptures confirms this.

However In our modern day, to prove authenticity of a document, it has to be signed by the Author, or the handwriting of author can be verified to match with the original script. None of these are available regarding the Quran (to the best of my knowledge) as there is no Quran in handwriting of Muhammad, nor, Muhammad ever signed or sealed a copy of Quran to confirm it.

This is a really interesting topic,obviously you don't need to be literate to be an author but I think the surahs and hadith's were orally transmitted in the beginning.

It's is also interesting how the Quran was composed,it's neither prose or rhyme but even before Islam orally transmitted stories like the 1001 nights or Arabian nights were popular and written in prose,imru Al quais who is regarded as the father of Arabic poetry shows how popular poetry was too.

So regarding how popular poetry and prose was it's no surprise then that the Qurans surahs were composed the way they were,however if we look at the surahs of mecca and compare them with those of Medina/Yathrib we can see a Stark contrast in content,in mecca it was peace and love but in Medina it was war and law and the rules of jihad.

Because the Qurans surahs are not in chronological order,this isn't apparent by just reading the Quran,the dividing page in the book imo is the hijrah,the journey from mecca to medina and arguably the birth of a Nation but it is possible to differentiate between the mecca or medina surahs and easily researched,some have suggested that the medina surahs were by a different author.

Did Muhammed author the book?,this is purely my opinion,I would say some of it and most of it was already available,I also think there is a strong human element in his story,the so called satanic verses where he tried to get acceptance using the old gods/esses of Arabia to gain popularity but this went to far and was blamed on Satan.

I think the greatest stretch of humans using religion to get what they want is the Mi'raj or night flight to Jerusalem on a winged mule like creature to lead prayer with all the prophets but imo it was really to lay claim to Jerusalem,you could do this back then,same as the first crusade when they miraculously found the spear of destiny that pierced Jesus while he was on the cross,religion is imo a great conduit for good bad but above all power.
 
Last edited:
Top