Is The Quran Superior?

[Tomef]

So you believe in ahadith right?

Alright. Have read this same hadith properly? I mean to believe it was historical fact, you would have read it properly correct? It does not say what you say mate. Read it again and come back.

No, it’s just basic history of the Quran, undisputed by anyone with a basic knowledge of the records kept by the people involved. Here’s a very PC BBC version of it:

The origins of the Koran: From revelation to holy book - BBC News

Following claims that the world's oldest Koran has been discovered, Behman Sadeghi traces the origins of Islam's holy book.

www.bbc.com

Any controversy is around the same kind of issues people raise about the Bible. Why was this or that part left out, added, what about the editing and so on.

 

[danieldemol]

why people get so tied up with superiority and competition. Why see other religions as adversaries?

So if you were in charge of a bunch of children would you send them to be indoctrinated in Mormonism or Ahmadiyya? No? Could it be because they are competing religions?

 

[1213]

I think there is a great contradiction in the Bible, it emphasizes on who God chooses, but then also de-emphasizes on them and shows they can be be corrupted and even die a pagan as did Solomon per the Bible.

Hmmm... so you think a person can't become corrupted, if he was chosen by God? Why do you think so?

And please give the scripture, where it is said Solomon became a pagan?

 

[loverofhumanity]

You did not answer the question.

Here it is again.

"Is punarbhava or punarjeeva "truth" or false? Because Christianity, Judaism and Islam opposes it but Hinduism embraces it. So are they in conflict or are they all absolute truth?"

Don't avoid it. Don't brush it off saying "I have no problem with it". That's not an answer. I have showed a simple and obvious contradiction which h one cannot reconcile. Tell me how exactly you do.

Peoples understanding differ from one another I know that but it doesn’t have to.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, you don't.

That’s for God to judge not you.

 

[firedragon]

No, it’s just basic history of the Quran, undisputed by anyone with a basic knowledge of the records kept by the people involved. Here’s a very PC BBC version of it:

The origins of the Koran: From revelation to holy book - BBC News

Following claims that the world's oldest Koran has been discovered, Behman Sadeghi traces the origins of Islam's holy book.

www.bbc.com

That's a non-answer. Just admit that you never even read the hadith you are referring to, and that you are not even willing to. So you have blind faith in what someone told you, and paraphrased it to suit your personal agenda.

That's not objective neither is it epistemic honesty.

Any controversy is around the same kind of issues people raise about the Bible. Why was this or that part left out, added, what about the editing and so on.

Irrelevant.

Anyway. I will cut and paste the hadith since you are a hyper staunch hadith believer when it suits you but reject other ahadith because it does not suit your agenda.

Read that one? It speaks about the older manuscript being with Hafza. According to the other hadith you are quoting by of course cherry picking it, but still not reading it, it speaks of Uthman taking Hafsa's manuscript, making it the basis, and returning it to Hafza.

So what you said is cherry picked, intentionally misleading, on purpose. Read the following which you ignored, and you having never read this you don't even know.

So you were absolutely wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Peoples understanding differ from one another I know that but it doesn’t have to.

Non-answer to my question.

Anyway, as before you will not address the question honestly, so that should end this discussion.

Cheers.

 

[Link]

Hmmm... so you think a person can't become corrupted, if he was chosen by God? Why do you think so?

And please give the scripture, where it is said Solomon became a pagan?

I think exalted souls paths are known by God when they pledged to him. He knew they would be truthful. I believe there is a category of exalted souls above great souls, and followers of exalted souls can't reach them.

I believe it's rational to believe God transcends exalted souls in exaltation, but that exalted souls are holy, pure, and guaranteed to remain righteous.

Islam is a middle ground between worshiping such souls or belittling them. The middle ground is we exalt them, and not fall short of that nor go ahead beyond it. This is the middle path.


I found this link:

Did King Solomon die in a state of broken fellowship with God?

Solomon drifted away from God because of his wives. It is questioned if Solomon died in a state of broken fellowship with God or if he came back to Christ.

www.neverthirsty.org

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, neither shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. For it came about when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 1 Kings 11:1-4 (NASB)

Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded. So the LORD said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant.” 1 Kings 11:9-11 (NASB)

 

[Tomef]

That's a non-answer. Just admit that you never even read the hadith you are referring to, and that you are not even willing to.

I have no clue what you are on about. I didn’t refer to any Hadith. Once again, there were various versions of the Quran in circulation, Uthman collected them, decided on an official version and had the rest burned. That is as much as matter of basic historical record as anything else that happened that century.

Irrelevant

Irrelevant to what?

Legitimate questions about the authenticity of Quran codices are of course entirely relevant to discussions about the origins of the Quran.

 

[Link]

I have no clue what you are on about. I didn’t refer to any Hadith. Once again, there were various versions of the Quran in circulation, Uthman collected them, decided on an official version and had the rest burned. That is as much as matter of basic historical record as anything else that happened that century.


Irrelevant to what?

Legitimate questions about the authenticity of Quran codices are of course entirely relevant to discussions about the origins of the Quran.

My perspective from reading hadiths of Ahlulbayt (a) and reading historical hadiths that hadiths were forbidding to be written and were burned, Uthman collected copies of Quran to get rid of commentary that people wrote from hadiths into Quran as a way of preserving hadiths.

Uthman wanted to hide all that. Remember hadiths were forbidden to be written for a long time. Ahlulbayt (a) never the less told their followers to write hadiths down even during this time. Not to pass them by memorization but by writting.

For Sunnis memory of a narrator is important because they passed the hadiths orally.

 

[Tomef]

My perspective from reading hadiths of Ahlulbayt (a) and reading historical hadiths that hadiths were forbidding to be written and were burned, Uthman collected copies of Quran to get rid of commentary that people wrote from hadiths into Quran as a way of preserving hadiths.

Uthman wanted to hide all that. Remember hadiths were forbidden to be written for a long time. Ahlulbayt (a) never the less told their followers to write hadiths down even during this time. Not to pass them by memorization but by writting.

For Sunnis memory of a narrator is important because they passed the hadiths orally.

As with any religious book, there are the academic views, based on careful scholarship and so on. The BBC article quoted above puts that view on the Quran quite carefully and non-controversially, and there are the views of individual believers, rooted in faith and in what makes sense to them personally. We can all take our pick, but it’s important for the sake of intellectual honesty not to confuse the two. A Christian, for example, cannot have both the understanding of the NT as a heavily redacted text of contrived doctrine, which literary criticism and other academic approaches reveal it to be, and also believe it issued directly from the mind of God as is.

 

[Link]

As with any religious book, there are the academic views, based on careful scholarship and so on. The BBC article quoted above puts that view on the Quran quite carefully and non-controversially, and there are the views of individual believers, rooted in faith and in what makes sense to them personally. We can all take our pick, but it’s important for the sake of intellectual honesty not to confuse the two. A Christian, for example, cannot have both the understanding of the NT as a heavily redacted text of contrived doctrine, which literary criticism and other academic approaches reveal it to be, and also believe it issued directly from the mind of God as is.

The forbidding of hadiths being written can be found in many Sunni hadiths and historical references as well. It should be kept in mind.

 

[Tomef]

The forbidding of hadiths being written can be found in many Sunni hadiths and historical references as well. It should be kept in mind.

Sure ok. What I’m talking about is the basic process by which the existing codices came to be.

 

[Link]

Sure ok. What I’m talking about is the basic process by which the existing codices came to be.

I know, what you are not realizing is that Quran was preserved on mass, everyone had copies and knew it at the end of Mohammad (s) life. What Uthman did was get rid of commentaries and hadiths in the name of getting one version of the Quran in terms of letters. It was a lie that didn't make sense and still does not make sense.

 

[firedragon]

I have no clue what you are on about. I didn’t refer to any Hadith.

In that case, you have no clue what you are even referring to. Hence, I was right, you never even read the hadith that you are in fact referring to. You have third party blind faith.

Read the ahadith I gave you. Of course you can see right? Since you are typing, I am sure you can see. So you have been spoon fed with the exact ahadith whoever you are worshiping for your anti islamic information has "misread" and "mislead" you.

So read them and read what I said.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tomef]

In that case, you have no clue what you are even referring to. Hence, I was right, you never even read the hadith that you are in fact referring to. You have third party blind faith.

Read the ahadith I gave you. Of course you can see right? Since you are typing, I am sure you can see. So you have been spoon fed with the exact ahadith whoever you are worshiping for your anti islamic information has "misread" and "mislead" you.

So read them and read what I said.

Have a nice day.

Keep your hair on. What I have quoted is established historical record. What in the BBC article do you disagree with? It’s the same account I’ve read in various academic books, certainly more reliable than you, in any case, and put quite tactfully too. What is your view? That the Quran is a perfectly preserved record of the words of Mohammed, written exactly as spoken and never altered? If so, what is your evidence?

 

[Link]

Keep your hair on. What I have quoted is established historical record. What in the BBC article do you disagree with? It’s the same account I’ve read in various academic books, certainly more reliable than you, in any case, and put quite tactfully too. What is your view? That the Quran is a perfectly preserved record of the words of Mohammed, written exactly as spoken and never altered? If so, what is your evidence?

The evidence of Quran being preserved is self-referential. But there are Museums in Iran of old Qurans even one from Salman Farsi translating it. There are old Qurans. This is a lie that there are not any. Academics pretending these don't exist have an agenda. Simply as that.

But in true reality you can't prove it to a person outside of faith. But if you know Mohammad (s) is the seal of the Prophets and see the plan of God with his family and the Mahdi in the Quran and Sunnah, then it's easily seen why Quran had to be preserved by God.

If Quran was not preserved than Mohammad (s) would not be the the final Nabi, and his family would have been Prophets, and the Quran would have been more explicit starting off regarding many matters including the Welayat of Ali (a).

If we define a Nabi as channeling scripture from God, if Quran is not preserved, a person correcting distortions and alterations would have to be by definition a Nabi even it's simply correcting an older scripture. He would still be channeling scripture.

Therefore if you do believe Mohammad (s) is the final Nabi, you have to believe God would preserve the Quran. Otherwise, it's disbelief in the station and place of Nubuwa.

 

[Pawpatrol]

That’s for God to judge not you.

That's like saying the fact that 1+1=2 is for God to judge. God gave us brains.

 

[Tomef]

This is a lie that there are not any. Academics pretending these don't exist have an agenda. Simply as that.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at there, as I think I said at some point I know there are a number of old codices. Is there someone who claims no ‘old Qurans’ exist? I’ve never heard that.

 

[Tomef]

The evidence of Quran being preserved is self-referential. But there are Museums in Iran of old Qurans even one from Salman Farsi translating it. There are old Qurans. This is a lie that there are not any. Academics pretending these don't exist have an agenda. Simply as that.

But in true reality you can't prove it to a person outside of faith. But if you know Mohammad (s) is the seal of the Prophets and see the plan of God with his family and the Mahdi in the Quran and Sunnah, then it's easily seen why Quran had to be preserved by God.

If Quran was not preserved than Mohammad (s) would not be the the final Nabi, and his family would have been Prophets, and the Quran would have been more explicit starting off regarding many matters including the Welayat of Ali (a).

If we define a Nabi as channeling scripture from God, if Quran is not preserved, a person correcting distortions and alterations would have to be by definition a Nabi even it's simply correcting an older scripture. He would still be channeling scripture.

Therefore if you do believe Mohammad (s) is the final Nabi, you have to believe God would preserve the Quran. Otherwise, it's disbelief in the station and place of Nubuwa.

By preserved do you mean an absolute and complete record only of exactly what was said?

Some people have similar beliefs like that about the bible. People can believe whatever they like. I think it’s a lost opportunity though not to permit wider scholastic access to all available texts. Understanding of the bible has been greatly enhanced through many years of critical scholarship. These books are part of our shared human heritage, everyone should be allowed to benefit from the full gamut of scholarly views on them.