The Quran WAS Changed!

[Mark2020]

yes you are right, but you don't give me a proof that you are right
Actually no.

I've seen a lot before. I know of some but they would be insulting to you so I didn't post them.
If I find some ' non-insulting', I'll post them.

are you arab?

I can read Arabic very well.

 

[ConfusedKuri]

Pegg, Lol I cant say much for your posts, you obviously know very little about what you're talking, you cant be serious. Of all the topics, you should've atleast re-searched this one well, too bad, if you only knew. To put such a strong statement out there and then clearly show how little you even know of it, is just,

7 Qurans,? there you go pegg, there you go. I'd only advice to step a lil back and maybe read more about the Quran than you seem to have sifted from an extremely flawed propaganda website, so unhealthy for the mind.

AHAHHA that really made me LAUGH, considering your ignorance and misinformation about Shiites, Muslims who hold views different from your own, non-Muslims and western lifestyle.

 

[arcanum]

You know what strikes me as silly is this is not our permanent home and this is the realm of ignorance and misunderstanding. Was the Koran altered?, the torah? the new testament? perhaps all of them ...... but this is not our final home here, there is a spiritual home awaiting.

 

[Pegg]

The Quran had no versions dear, If you know arabic, it is a language of several dialects, if you say often with a 't' in britian and without a 't' in US, it doesn't change the meaning of the word, just pronounced differently. The Prophet in the hadiths that you have mentioned was simply pointing out the difference of accurate pronunciation. STop mis quoting ans posting hadiths out of context, whoever told you all this is probably laughing at you right now, or eating his nails.

the hadith i posted shows that it wasnt just 'pronunciation' that was different among those who taught the Quran...it was the sentences too. I dont need to take anything out of context. You can read the hadith for yourself and see the controversy.

Ok Look, Muslims do not have to claim that the bible got corrupted, it is christianity which itself gives that message out, more than 60 versions of bible and each different from the other?

why do muslims insist on believing that a bible 'version' means something different to the original???

The different versions are different 'translations' of the bible.

King James version is a translation made by a group of scholars for King James....the translation was made in the 16th century from the original language manuscripts into english language.

The American Standard Version is a 'translation' by a different group of scholars into english...hence why its called the American Standard Version.

different scholars make 'translations' into their own languages. Hence there are African versions, there are Greek versions, there are German versions..... it doesnt meant they are all different bibles.

Have you ever even seen the Quran? It is THE same, all over the world, has always been, and will always be, forever. There are No versions of the Quran and thats why its much easier to follow and a lot less complicated,

Yep you are right. The quran is the same today. But it wasnt always the same and the hadiths prove it.
Where is the Hafsah quran??? Why is that not available today?

What do you say about the Hadith called Sahih Bukhari in Volume 6 book 61 number 510 where Muslim soldiers are arguing over different versions of the Qur'an? What does it say???

• "Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an, so he asked 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur'an as Jews and the Christians did before."

Now after Uthman made the final copy of the Quran, it says that he gave the Hafsah codex back to Hafsah. And it calls the Hafsah codex the 'original' quran.

So where is that orginal Hafsah Quran today?

along with being extremely explanative in its concepts. No vague theories about trinity which are nowhere to be found in the bible but yet vehemently supported by the church.

this is not the issue. But I hope you are not claiming that Islam has no divergences in teachings or applications of teachings??? Because it seems that not all muslims agree with how the Quran is to be applied... so i'm not sure i agree with your argument here. Does islam not have sects and related groups who are not a part of mainstream Islam??

How do you know which version of the bible one's the real one? Have you seen the dead sea scrolls, do you know who filled the missing words and sentences in those scriptures? What was the original language of bible, why is it not read in its original language, if you love the bible so much and want to establish its accuracy, why not agree upon one version and memorize it completely, for starters at least.

the bible is still read in its original language. It was written in hebrew and christian scholars are able to read hebrew...anyone can learn the language and read the bible in its original tongue. There are concordances and lexicons to help others who dont read hebrew or greek to study the scriptures and understand what was meant by the writers.


And the bible manuscripts in their original languages number into their thousands... so we have many old and ancient manuscripts with which to compare our translated versions. To be able to read the bible in ones own language is a God given right. The bible was meant for all mankind and that is why it is so widely translated into all languages of the earth.

We dont have to agree on one translator... or on one language version. An african is not expected to learn greek to be able to read the bible...nor is an arab expected to learn hebrew to know what the scriptures say... God has made his word available in all languages and it has been the job of many thousands of translators to get the translations out into the world... and that is what they have done.

But i'll tell you what our translators DONT do when they use the original language manuscript to create a translation of it.... they dont destroy it so that no one can question their translation. The original language manuscripts are kept safe so that they can be used over and over and over again.

Of course Uthman didnt do that with the Quran. He made a new copy and then he destroyed all other copies...except for the Hafsah original... she would not let him destroy it. Sadly, when she died, they did destroy her copy of the Quran and one can only ask why they would do that.

 

[Starsoul]

looks like you know a lot more about Uthman , more than his own family, his own close companions, and all the people around him. And more than what 1.6 billion muslims know of him and their book. Great
I'm sorry but ignorance must have an end, don't embarrass yourself so much , honest advice

 

[islam abduallah]

looks like you know a lot more about Uthman , more than his own family, his own close companions, and all the people around him. And more than what 1.6 billion muslims know of him and their book. Great
I'm sorry but ignorance must have an end, don't embarrass yourself so much , honest advice

agree with this, most of non muslims here claim that they know more than us and they discover in islam what was absence for 1400 years

 

[Pegg]

agree with this, most of non muslims here claim that they know more than us and they discover in islam what was absence for 1400 years

we only know as much as the hadiths state

 

[Starsoul]

we only know as much as the hadiths state

Actually we know more than what the hadith states,( the hadith that you're grossly Misconstruing and misunderstanding) it is written in the Quran, in Sura Hijjr,

" Indeed it is we have sent down the Quran and indeed it is Us who shall preserve it."--

[15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

[15:10] We have sent (messengers) before you to the communities in the past.

[15:11] Every time a messenger went to them, they ridiculed him.

[15:12] We thus control the minds of the guilty.

[15:13] Consequently, they cannot believe in him. This has been the system since the past generations.

[15:14] Even if we opened for them a gate into the sky, through which they climb;

[15:15] they will say, "Our eyes have been deceived. We have been bewitched."

Read the whole sura hereThe Authorized English Translation of the Quran, Sura - 15 Al-Hijr Valley (Al-Hijr)-translated from the original by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.



[youtube]GXAZcDJcg9Q[/youtube]
why did the Quran still remain unchanged? - YouTube

 

[Pegg]

Actually we know more than what the hadith states,( the hadith that you're grossly Misconstruing and misunderstanding) it is written in the Quran, in Sura Hijjr,

" Indeed it is we have sent down the Quran and indeed it is Us who shall preserve it."--

you still dont seem to understand the argument being made

the Quran and its text is not the issue.

The issue is that before Uthman made a copy of the Quran, there were many copies of the Quran in the hands of Mohammads followers. Those Qurans were apparently slightly different and because of that, Uthman gathered them all up, made a new copy that he approved of, then burnt all the copies from the other muslims. The Hafsah manuscript was also later destroyed and that manuscript was the one held by, one of, Mohammads wive's...So the issue is why did he destroy all the copies of the quran?

because they were all slightly different. And that is the issue. The Quran you have now is absolutely the same as the one Uthman made... but it surely wasnt the same as the other Qurans that existed at the time.

 

[Photonic]

looks like you know a lot more about Uthman , more than his own family, his own close companions, and all the people around him. And more than what 1.6 billion muslims know of him and their book. Great
I'm sorry but ignorance must have an end, don't embarrass yourself so much , honest advice

Sorry, numbers still don't equal correctness.

1. It's actually 1.2-1.6 billion Muslims.

2. Christians have 1.9-2.1 billion. By numbers, they are more correct than you.

3. All of you are wrong, you just haven't figured it out yet.

 

[Woodrow LI]

For the record, Baha'is also stipulate that the Qur'an is intact and unchanged.

Peace,

Bruce

I am quite certain the Sikh and Yazidi also stipulate it is unchanged.

 

[islam abduallah]

we only know as much as the hadiths state

you are not understanding the hadiths, Bukhari himself who gathered those hadiths was one of the greatest Muslims scholars, if he saw that Islam was a wrong religion and the Quran was changed why he didn't leave islam, why he still commending Uthman and refute his Murders?

 

[islam abduallah]

Sorry, numbers still don't equal correctness.

1. It's actually 1.2-1.6 billion Muslims.

2. Christians have 1.9-2.1 billion. By numbers, they are more correct than you.

3. All of you are wrong, you just haven't figured it out yet.

atheism is the correct one?

 

[Photonic]

atheism is the correct one?

First it's not the point I'm making here.

And I never said that, I am not sure how you managed to come up with that other than personal bias towards atheists.

*Edit* kinda see how you might have arrived at that conclusion given my statement, but I mean you are all going to be wrong to each other. Not that atheism is correct (regardless of my stance).

 

[islam abduallah]

you still dont seem to understand the argument being made

the Quran and its text is not the issue.

The issue is that before Uthman made a copy of the Quran, there were many copies of the Quran in the hands of Mohammads followers.

not in mohamed's follower's hands, in the new converting muslims hands.

 

[Bismillah]

First of all I want to make sure that people understand that the ahruf is different from the Qira'at

"'Umar b. Khattab said: I heard Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam reciting Surah al-Furqan in a style different from that in which I used to recite it, and in which Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had taught me to recite it. I was about to dispute with him (on this style) but I delayed till he had finished that (the recitation). Then I caught hold of his cloak and brought him to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I heard this man reciting Surah al-Furqan in a style different from the one in which you taught me to recite. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) told (me) to leave him alone and asked him to recite. He then recited in the style in which I beard him recite it. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) then said: Thus was it sent down. He then told me to recite and I recited it, and he said: Thus was it sent down. The Qur'an was sent down in seven dialects. So recite what seems easy therefrom.."

As stated before, the ahruf used today is in the Qurayshi dialect, that of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It was never changed it remains the inerrant word of Allah. I have repeatedly posted hadith which detail the methodology of its compilation using physical evidence amongst a council of learned Muslims who had memorized the Qur'an by heart under the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

There are seven undisputed readings of the Qur'an (Qira'at) and three more readings that are held at a slightly lower standard. All readings of the Qur'an stem from one ahruf, the Qurayshi dialect. Furthermore, to be considered a valid Qira'at there are certain conditions that must be met.

The first condition was that the recitation have an authentic chain of narration in which the chain of narrators was continuous, the narrators were all known to be righteous and they were all known to possess good memories. It was also required that the recitation be conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of the chain of narration below the level of Sahaabah (the condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic chains but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted as explanations (Tafseer) of the Sahaabah but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur'an. As for the narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of narration, they were classified as Baatil (false) and rejected totally.

Note that without large numbers of secondary chains of people who had studied under the Sahaba the reading would be considered tafsir or exegis by the learned companions. It is interesting how the system of secondary chains works because it revolves around the concept of large numbers of narrators reporting the same thing would dismiss any possibility of corruption.

The seond condition was that the variations in recitations match known Arabic grammatical constructions. Unusual constructions could be verified by their existence in passages of pre-Islamic prose or poetry.

The third condition required the recitation to coincide with the script of one of the copies of the Qur'an distributed during the era of Caliph cUthmân. Hence differences which result from dot placement (i.e., ta'lamoon and ya'lamoon) are considered acceptable provided the other conditions are met. A recitation of a construction for which no evidence could be found would be classified Shaadhdh. This classification did not mean that all aspects of the recitation was considered Shaadhdh. it only meant that the unverified constructions were considered Shaadhdh.

The chain of narration for the authentic Qira'at are well known.

Recently there has been attempts by Christian missionaries to try and claim that the Qur'an, as a text, has several variations. This is based on Adrian Brockett's own work, however it is interesting to see what exactly Brockett says on the matter in his text.

In cases where there are no variations within each transmission itself, certain differences between the two transmissions, at least in the copies consulted, occur consistently throughout. None of them has any effect in the meaning.[23]

Brockett divides the Qur'an into two spheres, one being the written and the other being the oral.

On the graphic side, the correspondences between the two transmissions are overwhelmingly more numerous than differences, often even with oddities like ayna ma and aynama being consistently preserved in both transmissions, and la'nat allahi spelt both with ta tawila and ta marbuta in the same places in both transmissions as well, not one of the graphic differences caused the Muslims any doubts about the faultlessly faithful transmission of the Qur'an.[2]

It's important to understand this point because it explicitly rejects the notion of different texts. That is diatric markings are far and away similar except for specific cases, persevering in consistency even in odd grammatical structuring within the Qur'an itself.

Within the oral sphere Brockett states

On the vocal side, correspondences between the two transmissions again far and away outnumber the differences between them, even with the fine points such as long vowels before hamzat at-qat having a madda. Also, not one of the differences substantially affects the meaning beyond its own context... All this point to a remarkably unitary transmission in both its graphic form and its oral form.[26]

Brockett outlines the restrictions that protected the Qur'an from any external alteration

The definitive limit of permissible graphic variation was, firstly, consonantal disturbance that was not too major, then unalterability in meaning, and finally reliable authority.

The absence of one would again void the reading as reliable and at best it would be considered exegesis.

Brockett repeats the same point of preserving the text of the Qur'an

The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought.[28]

What is very important is that Brockett states

Such then is the limit of the variation between these two transmissions of the Qur'an, a limit well within the boundaries of substantial exegetical effect. This means that the readings found in these transmissions are most likely not of exegetical origin, or at least did not arise out of crucial exegetigal dispute. They are therefore of the utmost value for the textual history of the Qur'an.[29]

As in these readings were not interpretations of the companions of the Prophet nor did they arise out of debate over the writing itself. They are are a part of the textual history of the Qur'an itself. They are inestimably important in understanding the origins of the Qur'an and as another brother said before that is a miracle in itself.

Dr. Brockett confirms this when he states

ett]The limits of their variation clearly establish that they are a single text.[/u]

Brockett compares the Qur'an's unaltered line of textual history with that of other works within Islamic scholarship

Thus, if the Qur'an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as are seen in the hadîth and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as in the different transmissions of the original document of the constitution of Medina would be found. But neither is the case with the Qur'an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption.[31]

Brockett concludes

The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.[32]

It's odd that after scholars from both non-Islamic POV and learned Muslim scholars who mastered all 10 of the accepted Qira'at and recited each and every one of them did not find any textual incongruities within the Qur'an that would give evidence for variations of the Qur'an, you Mark would.

 

[England my lionheart]

Were the so called "Satanic verses" Sura 53 changed or omitted

 

[Woodrow LI]

Were the so called "Satanic verses" Sura 53 changed or omitted

Neither they never were part of the Qur'an. They were not a revelation.

According to what I understand; Some of the scribes wrote them down with the assumption Muhammad(PBUH) was repeating a revelation, but they were the words of Muhammad(PBUH) Himself and not of the revelation.

 

[Photonic]

Neither they never were part of the Qur'an. They were not a revelation.

According to what I understand; Some of the scribes wrote them down with the assumption Muhammad(PBUH) was repeating a revelation, but they were the words of Muhammad(PBUH) Himself and not of the revelation.

Were those words that were written the words of Muhammad (Was he the one that said they were false?) or was that just the scribe, omitting what he believed to be false? Or was it later omitted by someone else?

 

[Woodrow LI]

Were those words that were written the words of Muhammad (Was he the one that said they were false?) or was that just the scribe, omitting what he believed to be false? Or was it later omitted by someone else?

If I remember correctly when it was read back to Muhammad(PBUH) he stated they were not part of the revelation. Also the ones who went by memory and not written preservation did not memorize them and they were never found in the oral recitations. Apparently only one scribe had written those lines.