The decline of traditional religion in the West

[firedragon]

I read through the first 121 pages of 435 of "Creating the Quran" by Dr. Stephen Shoemaker, it is pretty solid on evidence so far.

What evidence does it give to prove that the Qur'an post dates Muhammed, and why do you accept it?

You asked whether I believed Muhammad said it, answering no and explaining why was hardly random.

But that's not in the Quran. So you are just bringing in a topic you just want to discuss randomly. Irrelevant. If you don't know the answer, be a gentleman and say you don't. And of course you have no clue. You mentioned bayhaqi because some website said his name. That's it. So shallow.

You are dismissing Dr shoemaker who is deeply learned in the field of scriptural studies because you don't like his conclusion

You read some 120 pages of one book and are making statements as if you had studied the subject. Putting it on one author as if I am dismissing an author is just a red herring to hide your pretence. Another red herring to answer your earlier red herring. Such cheap tactics for no reason. You will not gain anything in real life by doing this.

So what does shoemaker claim about the dating of the Qur'anic writing which was your claim, whats the evidence he gives, and why do you adopt it?

 

[danieldemol]

So what does shoemaker claim about the dating of the Qur'anic writing which was your claim, whats the evidence he gives, and why do you adopt it?

Shoemaker concludes that the canonical text of the Qur’an was most likely produced only around the turn of the eighth century.

It would be a bit beyond me to sum up 400 pages give or take of evidence in a single post, but I can certainly give you a taste test.

Referring to competing codexes of the Quran that had developed in isolation and were in circulation amongst the early believers of Islam and how they were divergent Dr Shoemaker says

'These circumstances, it should be noted, are not merely hypothetical.
Rather, the earliest traditions about the origins of the Qur’an from the early
eighth century, whether from Sayf’s account or the canonical Sunni
tradition possibly going back to al-Zuhrī, consistently relate that it was an
initial diversity and divergence that necessitated the eventual
standardization of the Qur’anic text. Although such reports about the
variations of these codices that have come down to us suggest only relatively
minor differences from the canonical text, there is no reason to assume that
this was in fact the case.

To the contrary, the urgency and fear ascribed to
Ḥudhayfa concerning the divisions that these competing versions were
breeding among Muhammad’s followers suggest something more, as does a
sacred text titled Lubāb al-fu’ād (Purity of the heart). As de Prémare rightly
observes, the variants that have been preserved from these early versions
represent only “what survived from such collections after a selection that
was more drastic than has been acknowledged.”

One of the most important
collector of such variants, Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī, even stated explicitly
that he had deliberately omitted “those variants where there is too wide a
divergence from’ the standard text of ʿUthmān.”

The variants that have
come down to us have clearly passed through a
filter of censorship that has
removed the most divergent qualities of these competing codices.'

So according to my understanding there were rival sacred texts in early Islam which developed after the time of Muhammad in isolation from each other. These texts were divergent and caused friction amongst the early believers, and were consequently subject to censorship.

In my opinion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect ideas about science, now included in all Western education, can't be helpful to supernatural beliefs; but that's been increasing true since the Enlightenment. Discoveries in geology by the end of the 18th century were already putting pressure on biblical explanations and timelines, and by the 1830s, in England first, more slowly in the US, skepticism of the bible as literal truth in such matters was common among the educated. With the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species 1859 the scientific critique of such matters made the debate far more general (far more middle-class, if you like).

The modern process, I think, likely begins with the coming of TV after WW2, which allowed people, single or families, to stay home for their entertainment, up a clear notch from radio. A declining participation in community service organizations like Rotary, Lions &c was already noticed by the latter 1960s.

I think the net, for email, news and general information, and the cell phone, have much further altered the social landscape and brought in a new mindset as a second generation, or third, grows up taking such communications for granted.

So physical gathering, the old idea of community, is much more rarely anyone's chief means of communication or source of information ─ that, along with the easier diffusion of skeptical viewpoints.

I think that auto-centric land development also played a role... mostly after WWII like you suggested.

At one time, everyone - or at least everyone of each given denomination - would go to the one church in walking distance. This made a parishoner's neighbours - and likely their family - "accountability buddies" for going to church.

With the rise of the car, suddenly people had more choice in where they go to church, which also meant that their neighbours and family wouldn't necessarily expect to see them at the same church they went to... which helped to give cover to people not attending at all.

This increase in choice also meant an increase in competition, and just as we saw the rise of the mall at the expense of main street shopping, we also saw the rise of the megachurch at the expense of older churches in older neighbourhoods where their main selling point was the fact that they were walking distance from the area where their parishoners used to be.

 

[firedragon]

Shoemaker concludes that the canonical text of the Qur’an was most likely produced only around the turn of the eighth century.

It would be a bit beyond me to sum up 400 pages give or take of evidence in a single post, but I can certainly give you a taste test.

Referring to competing codexes of the Quran that had developed in isolation and were in circulation amongst the early believers of Islam and how they were divergent Dr Shoemaker says

'These circumstances, it should be noted, are not merely hypothetical.
Rather, the earliest traditions about the origins of the Qur’an from the early
eighth century, whether from Sayf’s account or the canonical Sunni
tradition possibly going back to al-Zuhrī, consistently relate that it was an
initial diversity and divergence that necessitated the eventual
standardization of the Qur’anic text. Although such reports about the
variations of these codices that have come down to us suggest only relatively
minor differences from the canonical text, there is no reason to assume that
this was in fact the case.

To the contrary, the urgency and fear ascribed to
Ḥudhayfa concerning the divisions that these competing versions were
breeding among Muhammad’s followers suggest something more, as does a
sacred text titled Lubāb al-fu’ād (Purity of the heart). As de Prémare rightly
observes, the variants that have been preserved from these early versions
represent only “what survived from such collections after a selection that
was more drastic than has been acknowledged.”

One of the most important
collector of such variants, Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī, even stated explicitly
that he had deliberately omitted “those variants where there is too wide a
divergence from’ the standard text of ʿUthmān.”

The variants that have
come down to us have clearly passed through a
filter of censorship that has
removed the most divergent qualities of these competing codices.'

So according to my understanding there were rival sacred texts in early Islam which developed after the time of Muhammad in isolation from each other. These texts were divergent and caused friction amongst the early believers, and were consequently subject to censorship.

In my opinion

Thanks for the post.

Yet, you have not said why you accept his thesis. Could you please explain?

Thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

Thanks for the post.

Yet, you have not said why you accept his thesis. Could you please explain?

Thanks.

Because I'm already a quarter of the way through the book and I think even in the first quarter Shoemaker has presented enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the traditional narrative and to support Shoemaker's alternative hypothesis.

And because he is an actual expert in applying the historical critical method to scriptural studies.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Because I'm already a quarter of the way through the book and I think even in the first quarter Shoemaker has presented enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the traditional narrative and to support Shoemaker's alternative hypothesis.

And because he is an actual expert in applying the historical critical method to scriptural studies.

In my opinion.

See, when someone asks why you believe a so called scholar about a so called historic book or as the scholar calls it "an ancient book", and you reply saying "because he gives evidence", the general outcome of that is that you have not investigated the evidence. Your statement is too vague. You have put your "faith" in him. That's all. Let's see if you have investigated or put "blind faith' on an author just because you wish to, and you found a tool, so you brought in an irrelevant

Nevertheless,

1. you say, that he says the Qur'an was 8th century work right? How do you respond to the Qur'an manuscripts like the Birmingham manuscript and the Arabe 328, rabe 331, Sotheby's, Marcel and others?

2. You claim he changed the traditional narrative, but what he says is that the traditional narrative is "not so authoritative". Not directly that it's false. And issue with YOUR "narrative" is that almost all of shoemakers "narratives" are "traditional narratives". Do you understand the dilemma in your statement and the actual book? He begins and ends with traditional narratives.

3. He quotes Uthman from hadith, which according to "Him" took place in 650 but you claim that shoemaker says the Quran was compiled in the 8th century. How do you reconcile that discrepancy?

4. Shoemaker says that the "Quran’s collection sanctioned by the Sunni tradition is itself largely the handiwork of Buhari". Where does he get that from? What's the direct source?

5. He also claims that Buhari is the foremost and most esteemed scholar of ahadith. According to which scholar of the time is that? Which school of thought? When did that emerge for him to make such an authoritative statement? He even takes from Buhari based on this premise right? So when did Buhari emerge as he claims, and why is he using a "traditional narrative" to debunk a "traditional narrative"? If he is to debunk a so called traditional narrative, he should use historical narratives as he promises to do. Can you clarify?


Just some of the most basic questions. Nothing complicated. Since this is right in the beginning of the book, and you have read this part, and since you are so confident in the outcome, can you respond point by point?

Thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

See, when someone asks why you believe a so called scholar about a so called historic book or as the scholar calls it "an ancient book", and you reply saying "because he gives evidence", the general outcome of that is that you have not investigated the evidence. Your statement is too vague. You have put your "faith" in him. That's all. Let's see if you have investigated or put "blind faith' on an author just because you wish to, and you found a tool, so you brought in an irrelevant

Nevertheless,

1. you say, that he says the Qur'an was 8th century work right? How do you respond to the Qur'an manuscripts like the Birmingham manuscript and the Arabe 328, rabe 331, Sotheby's, Marcel and others?

2. You claim he changed the traditional narrative, but what he says is that the traditional narrative is "not so authoritative". Not directly that it's false. And issue with YOUR "narrative" is that almost all of shoemakers "narratives" are "traditional narratives". Do you understand the dilemma in your statement and the actual book? He begins and ends with traditional narratives.

3. He quotes Uthman from hadith, which according to "Him" took place in 650 but you claim that shoemaker says the Quran was compiled in the 8th century. How do you reconcile that discrepancy?

4. Shoemaker says that the "Quran’s collection sanctioned by the Sunni tradition is itself largely the handiwork of Buhari". Where does he get that from? What's the direct source?

5. He also claims that Buhari is the foremost and most esteemed scholar of ahadith. According to which scholar of the time is that? Which school of thought? When did that emerge for him to make such an authoritative statement? He even takes from Buhari based on this premise right? So when did Buhari emerge as he claims, and why is he using a "traditional narrative" to debunk a "traditional narrative"? If he is to debunk a so called traditional narrative, he should use historical narratives as he promises to do. Can you clarify?


Just some of the most basic questions. Nothing complicated. Since this is right in the beginning of the book, and you have read this part, and since you are so confident in the outcome, can you respond point by point?

Thanks.

Your questions suggest you have not read the book.

Which is fine of course, but it would have made a more illuminating discussion if you had an idea what you are discussing.

Take point number 1 for example.
The date ranges for early Quran manuscript pages range from long before Muhammad is alleged to have began His prophetic mission to after it.

However there is evidence that the writing on the pages is newer than the pages themselves.

So in order to maintain that the Quran certainly does not predate Muhammad's alleged prophetic mission you already have to acknowledge the possibility that the paper sat around for a long time before it was written on.

Therefore calibrated radiocarbon dating of manuscripts must always be carefully aligned with further evidence, such as that of paleographic, stylistic or internal nature.

It would be a bit beyond me to fit chapter 3 into a single post but it is that type of evidence which is discussed in chapter3 which indicates a latter dating to the imperial courts of Abd al-Malik.

Will try to address your other points time permitting either tomorrow or on the weekend.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Your questions suggest you have not read the book.

Not an answer. If you don't know the answers to my questions that's fine but don't make absurd claims. Even you have not read the book. I am asking questions based on what YOU CLAIMED, and what the book says.

Take point number 1 for example.
The date ranges for early Quran manuscript pages range from long before Muhammad is alleged to have began His prophetic mission to after it.

So now you claim that it predates Muhammed? Not 8th century? Lol. Daniel. If the date range predates Muhammed, and post dates Muhammed by 13 years of the Birmingham manuscript, does not mean it can be 70 years later than the latter date in statistical probability. Also, all the manuscripts I gave are not Birmingham manuscript alone so you are posing the same absurd unscholarly nonsensical apologetics done by some Christian evangelists on the internet and applying to every manuscript I have stated.

However there is evidence that the writing on the pages is newer than the pages themselves.

Every single writing on any page in the history of the world is newer than the page. What a nonsensical statement. You buy a book, you start writing, the book is older than your writing.

Also Daniel, this is why you get philology and in Arabic studies in Fusha Atthuraath. The Maail of the writing and the curve in the Gain all indicate the dating of the writing. Read your GOd scholar you have embraced without analysis and his book. He says in it that he does not get into philology. Why do you people make such basic errors while pretending you know subject so well, tell others that they don't know what they are talking about?

Therefore calibrated radiocarbon dating of manuscripts must always be carefully aligned with further evidence, such as that of paleographic, stylistic or internal nature.

There is enough evidence mate. Just that you are absurdly unaware.

It would be a bit beyond me to fit chapter 3 into a single post but it is that type of evidence which is discussed in chapter3 which indicates a latter dating to the imperial courts of Abd al-Malik.

Cmon. How do you date based on abdal Malik? What nonsense are you talking about? You said the Quran is from the 8th century. Abdal Malik lived in the 7th century. The Gain in the script of the manuscripts I gave you already predate his time of death, and he predates the 8th century. He supposedly died in 705, and was not doing anything with Quran manuscripts in the 8th century. And why do you believe in ahadith while also rejecting it? Is not that hypocrisy?

Why don't you truly answer the questions I asked with some honesty?

Where is the response to the other questions I asked? None? You don't know what to do? Or do you want to drop them, and get into new questions? No problem. Just say you wish to drop them.

 

[firedragon]

@danieldemol

You have started a topic on the dating of the Quran claiming it's form the 8th century based on a book by Shoemaker. It's an irrelevant topic.

But let's discuss it in a new thread. You can bring the whole book after reading it fully since you said you had only read some 120 pages or something. Then, it's a fruitful discussion to learn something out of.

I will tag you.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Some countries in the West including New Zealand where I live and the USA where many people on this forum live, are witnessing an unprecedented decline in religion. The process of declining numbers are more pronounced in New Zealand. Only a third of our population identify as Christian whereas over 100 years ago it was more than 90 percent. The decline is accelerating here, not slowing down. Our most recent census in 2018 recorded 37% Christian whereas only 5 years previously it was 48%.

Religion in New Zealand - Wikipedia

On the other hand the numbers of those who identified as having no religion have risen dramatically. 49% identify as having no religion in 2018 compared to 42% in 2013.

What are the forces at play for such a seismic shift? Is it because religion has fallen into disrepute? Will the USA follow other Western countries like New Zealand with an unprecedented exodus from religion?

In my opinion, it has to do with the world being opened up with the advent of the internet and more wide spread availability of knowledge and communication with different points of view than those within a person’s close circle of social and cultural relations.

Religions tend to rely on controlling pathways to information among an in group, and warning against alternative views as being sacrilegious or dangerous.
They tend to rely on social and cultural peer pressure to help contain their “flock”.

Since education began to be more universally available and when the internet became more ubiquitous, it has allowed more availability of knowledge from outside the “flock” to begin to permeate among it’s members, leading to many understanding that there are alternative paths.

Previous to all this, travel was seen as a way to expand ones point of view.
Which led Mark Twain to observe:
“It liberates the vandal to travel — you never saw a bigoted, opinionated, stubborn, narrow-minded, self-conceited, almighty mean man in your life but he had stuck in one place since he was born and thought God made the world and dyspepsia and bile for his especial comfort and satisfaction.”

Now, in the industrialized world, one can “travel” in there skivvies on the couch at minimal expense and effort.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Every religion’s own scriptures foretell it’s decline. Today nothing short of world inclusiveness will work in bringing peace.

Assuming that “peace” is an attainable goal;
Have you ever considered that the decline of religions and dissipation of fervent beliefs would go a long way towards dispersing divisions that foster the animosities that prevent that goal from being attained?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Assuming that “peace” is an attainable goal;
Have you ever considered that the decline of religions and dissipation of fervent beliefs would go a long way towards dispersing divisions that foster the animosities that prevent that goal from being attained?

Yes and I think you are correct because it is my personal view that there is a distinct difference between religion and true religion. And that the religions of today have all sorts of man made ideas and doctrines that cause more harm than good. So if they decline it’s good for humanity.

For example. Christ originally taught humility. We don’t ever want humility to decline. But today many or even likely most religionists teach superiority that they are superior to others. Such an attitude breeds prejudice and bigotry and wars so to be without religions which are teaching superiority would be of great benefit to world peace don’t you think?

 

[danieldemol]

So now you claim that it predates Muhammed? Not 8th century? Lol. Daniel. If the date range predates Muhammed, and post dates Muhammed by 13 years of the Birmingham manuscript, does not mean it can be 70 years later than the latter date in statistical probability. Also, all the manuscripts I gave are not Birmingham manuscript alone so you are posing the same absurd unscholarly nonsensical apologetics done by some Christian evangelists on the internet and applying to every manuscript I have stated.

No, your initital question was something along the lines of how do I respond to early manuscripts of the Quran, a more correct response to your question probably should have been what about them specifically, but instead I assumed you were talking of the carbon dating of the pages they were made upon.

Logically if a Quran were found which definitely predated Muhammad's time of Prophethood, then even if other copies were found which post dated his time they would simply be copies of the original and we could say logically that the Quran was too early to have been the product of Muhammad's prophethood, however this was not the point I was making. The point I was making is that you can't date the Quran using carbon dating alone because the carbon dating only gives the ages the trees which made the paper were cut down under ideal circumstances, not the age of the actual writing on the pages itself, especially if the paper sat around for generations before being used, or if for example it was made to produce an initial version of the sacred text then this version of the Quran was blotted out to have another modified version of the Quran written over it.

Every single writing on any page in the history of the world is newer than the page. What a nonsensical statement.

It can't be both true AND nonsensical, so which is it?

Also Daniel, this is why you get philology and in Arabic studies in Fusha Atthuraath. The Maail of the writing and the curve in the Gain all indicate the dating of the writing. Read your GOd scholar you have embraced without analysis and his book. He says in it that he does not get into philology. Why do you people make such basic errors while pretending you know subject so well, tell others that they don't know what they are talking about?

Are "Maail" and "Gain" terms that english speaking western academics who study philology would use? Just asking because I couldn't seem to find any reference to them using a quick google search.

Also what Shoemaker seems to mean when he says he doesn't get into the philology of the Quran (to use your paraphrasing of his actual words) is that he doesn't attempt to say what the Quran does or should mean. He explains this on page 17 of the PDF.

Cmon. How do you date based on abdal Malik? What nonsense are you talking about?

It is the style of production that is suited to the imperial courts of Malik as opposed to the more primitive means available to early believers. I'm trying not to rip off too much of Shoemaker's copyright, but basically to sum it up borrowing a sentence,
'In her dissertation, Fedeli demonstrates that the
Birmingham Qur’an, much like the Tübingen Qur’an, bears the marks of
production at a relatively later stage in the history of the Qur’anic text.'

In my opinion

You said the Quran is from the 8th century. Abdal Malik lived in the 7th century. The Gain in the script of the manuscripts I gave you already predate his time of death, and he predates the 8th century. He supposedly died in 705

Isn't 705 part of the eighth century? 'The 8th century is the period from 701 (DCCI) through 800 (DCCC) in accordance with the Julian Calendar.' Source: 8th century - Wikipedia

and was not doing anything with Quran manuscripts in the 8th century.

So you claim.

And why do you believe in ahadith while also rejecting it? Is not that hypocrisy?

No, I believe in the crucifixion of Jesus even though it is handed down to us via church tradition because there is external corroborating evidence.
Like wise with the tradition of Abd al-Malik's court's production of the finalised Quran.

As Shoemaker says,

'Certainly, in such circumstances, it would be a grave mistake to accept as
historically factual the report of ʿUthmān’s collection of the Qur’an in the
absence of anything else that could confirm even its most basic elements. Yet
not only is such corroboration lacking, but this account is contradicted by
the many other traditions of the Qur’an’s origins in the early Islamic
tradition itself, most of which also will have been signicantly altered, or
invented, during decades of oral transmission. As we already noted, the
Qur’an is notoriously absent from early Islamic culture and also from any of
the reports about Muhammad’s followers and their religious faith in the
contemporary sources. The tradition of ʿUthmān’s collection of the Qur’an is
therefore not only weak; given the unreliability of oral transmission, as well
as the historical improbability in general that ʿUthmān could have
accomplished what is attributed to him, it is highly suspect. The same is not
true, however, of the tradition that ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ḥajjāj supervised
the composition of the Qur’an into its canonical form around the turn of the
eighth century. Not only were the historical circumstances highly favorable
for ʿAbd al-Malik to accomplish the publication of a canonical version of the
Qur’an, but we find external confirmation of this tradition in multiple
sources close to the events in question.

Why don't you truly answer the questions I asked with some honesty?

Loaded question.

Where is the response to the other questions I asked? None? You don't know what to do? Or do you want to drop them, and get into new questions? No problem. Just say you wish to drop them.

I believe I just exposed the ignorance or dishonesty of question number 2 of post #166 where you claimed, "He begins and ends with traditional narratives." with the quote from Shoemaker above referring to external corroborating evidence and contemporary sources which Shoemaker mentioned in detail earlier on in the book.

I'll try and look at the other questions when time permits, I'm not a professional apologist with unlimited time on my hands, I have a life outside of RF

 

[KWED]

What are the forces at play for such a seismic shift?

In a word, "education".
(Obviously there are other factors and the explanations more complex, but that is essentially what it boils down to)

 

[KWED]

So to you, truth is understanding the workings of the material world? There is no higher, or deeper truth than that?

I think you are referring to "opinion" or "belief" or "hope" there, rather than "truth" in the sense of something being verifiably correct.

 

[KWED]

And people might wonder why they are so lacking in culture, why they struggle with their sense of identity, and are so desperate to find meaning in their lives.

Which people are these? Certainly no one in my social group.
I suppose that if you are raised to believe that you are somehow lacking, and yet you have some special place and purpose in the universe, it could lead to confusion, self doubt and a need for the approval of authority.

 

[KWED]

True. But also you should note, atheism as a whole has been seeing a decline. In the early 20th century atheism grew exponentially. Just swept across. But since the 70's it has slowed down like a cart on a hill. PEW predicts Atheism will keep declining for a long time.

What do you mean by "as a whole"? In most developed nations, the proportion of the population who do not follow a religion or believe in a god has been increasing for some time.
In developing nations with very high birth rates and rates of religiosity, official figures on atheism can be pretty meaningless - especially if admitting it can lead to exclusion, discrimination or even death.

An interesting stat from a recent worldwide Gallup poll on religiosity concerned Saudi Arabia. Despite it being offically 100% Muslim, the poll showed 19% "not religious" and 6% "considered atheist".

 

[KWED]

Most people in Europe say they are Christian, but that means something different than it does in the US. Christian means just being a good person, not worshiping in church, praying or Bible reading. Europeans tend to go to church to get married or buried.

In the last UK census, a question asked "What religion are you?" and gave a list to pick from, including "none". Over 60% picked Christian.
When the same group were asked "are you religious, over 60% said "no".
Religion is often a cultural label rather than a considered belief.

 

[firedragon]

No, your initital question was something along the lines of how do I respond to early manuscripts of the Quran,

No. Try your best not to make things up.

I have given specific manuscripts. Specific.

Logically if a Quran were found which definitely predated Muhammad's time of Prophethood

Yeah. That's a hypothetical nonsensical "if". So pathetic cannot respond to that kind of preaching.

carbon dating only gives the ages the trees

Err. So? How about the writing mate? Did you miss it? I asked you specific questions and gave you specific information. Valiant, but a seriously dishonest effort in your part. Go back and read.

Isn't 705 part of the eighth century?

Lol. that's when he died. Grow up. And this guy is irrelevant to all the 7th century manuscripts I have given. Absurd.

So you claim.

Of course I do. So go ahead and prove that the Quran is 8th century material.

No, I believe in the crucifixion of Jesus even though it is handed down to us via church tradition because there is external corroborating evidence.
Like wise with the tradition of Abd al-Malik's court's production of the finalised Quran.

As Shoemaker says,

'Certainly, in such circumstances, it would be a grave mistake to accept as
historically factual the report of ʿUthmān’s collection of the Qur’an in the
absence of anything else that could confirm even its most basic elements. Yet
not only is such corroboration lacking, but this account is contradicted by
the many other traditions of the Qur’an’s origins in the early Islamic
tradition itself, most of which also will have been signicantly altered, or
invented, during decades of oral transmission. As we already noted, the
Qur’an is notoriously absent from early Islamic culture and also from any of
the reports about Muhammad’s followers and their religious faith in the
contemporary sources. The tradition of ʿUthmān’s collection of the Qur’an is
therefore not only weak; given the unreliability of oral transmission, as well
as the historical improbability in general that ʿUthmān could have
accomplished what is attributed to him, it is highly suspect. The same is not
true, however, of the tradition that ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ḥajjāj supervised
the composition of the Qur’an into its canonical form around the turn of the
eighth century. Not only were the historical circumstances highly favorable
for ʿAbd al-Malik to accomplish the publication of a canonical version of the
Qur’an, but we find external confirmation of this tradition in multiple
sources close to the events in question.

Nice cut and paste. Great effort.

But provide evidence that the Qur'an is 8th century.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Yes and I think you are correct because it is my personal view that there is a distinct difference between religion and true religion.

That’s the very problem of which I speak.
YOU think YOURS is a “true religion” and others are presumably “not true”.
THEY think THEIR’S is a “true religion” and YOUR’S is “not true”……
Thus the division.

But today many or even likely most religionists teach superiority that they are superior to others.

Did you not say:

And that the religions of today have all sorts of man made ideas and doctrines that cause more harm than good. So if they decline it’s good for humanity.

That sure sounds to me as though you are saying that your religion is “superior to others”.
Do you seriously not hear yourself?
Pot meet kettle.

Such an attitude breeds prejudice and bigotry and wars so to be without religions which are teaching superiority would be of great benefit to world peace don’t you think?

Absolutely correct!
What you seem to be missing is the fact that yours
is among them.