When was the bible corrupted?

To discuss Islam topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18134
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 437 times
Been thanked: 671 times
Contact:

When was the bible corrupted?

Post #1

Post by JehovahsWitness »

I have discussed scripture with a lot of Muslims who tell me that while the bible is indeed the result of divine revelation but that it was corrupted. My question is:


1 Is this an "official" teaching of Islam?
and

2 About when (which century) did this corruption begin for...

a) the hebrew bible
b) the Christian Greek Scriptures

references would be greatly appreciated.

JW

User avatar
Jacob Simonsky
Apprentice
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:24 am
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Post #21

Post by Jacob Simonsky »

NMSquirrel wrote:
James Simmons wrote: I am Muslim now. All Muslims use exactly the same Quran no matter if they are of different groups. There is only one Quran in the world. I do wish the same could be said for the Bible.
i am not convinced the quran is corrupt proof..
the only argument that i have gotten for a corrupt proof quran is 'because it say so'

and that is not a valid argument..


What do you expect, a certificate of authenticity? You would not accept that either.

There have been times when people attempted to change the quran but they were thoroughly rejected and those efforts failed.

We Muslims say that our Quran exists right now in exactly the way it was written. A way to demonstrate the truth or falsity of this claim is to simply compare the two. The original is in existence and so so are the new copies of it. Because Arabic is a complicated language with sometimes as many as eighty meanings for a single word this comparison must be in an Arabic.

In addition as a, preface, to each translation of the Quran the author goes to great lengths to talk about the work involved in translation. This is due to reasons previously stated. No translation is ever done by someone who is not a language scholar. An ordinary cleric will never attempt such.

I claim that this is true. If I did the work of verification for you then you would reject it therefore you are the one who must do the comparing. But you must learn and become fluent in Arabic first.

But there is another, more important, issue. Is the Quran true? Is it, indeed, the Word of God? It seems to me that this must be answered first. Few Christians will agree that it is. It seems it is always they who are so determined to find that only the Bible is of God and nothing else in the world can possibly be as well. This is like saying that we are exclusively privy to God, an inside access of sorts, and no others on the earth enjoy anything like what we have.

I personally believe that all scriptures are the Word of God and that is for us, in our weakness and imperfection, to sort it all out. When be begin by creating divisiveness by insisting that only we are correct then God takes a second place and has to wait for us to finish squabbling with each other. God is not shallow, vain or petty and has no insistence upon anything except that all of us live proper decent lives treating each other as bothers. This, we cannot do, if we are pre-occupied with religious competing and trying to get others to convert to our religion.

If God spoke to people on another planet and they recorded it all would it be the same as the Bible or the Quran? Of course not. God does not do dictation. Every single thought that comes to us from God, through a messenger has also to pass through a human brain which is fallible. Thus there are no perfect religions on the planet earth. None. However the Quran has never been changed. That is certain.

Blessing to us all and maybe some day we'll wake up and realize that we behave like jealous children when we should be spiritual adults like Jesus was.
Please do not ask me to provide evidence of what I claim. I have no interest in persuading anyone to believe as I do.

Jew, Christian and Muslim... all equal in G-d's eye.

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Post #22

Post by bernee51 »

James Simmons wrote: We Muslims say that our Quran exists right now in exactly the way it was written. A way to demonstrate the truth or falsity of this claim is to simply compare the two. The original is in existence and so so are the new copies of it. Because Arabic is a complicated language with sometimes as many as eighty meanings for a single word this comparison must be in an Arabic.

'The original'? Which original would that be?

As I undsretsand it the traditional account claims that the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, written down in bits, and not collated before Muhammad's death.

Ibn Warraq (in The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book) notes:

There is the Abu Bakr collection
Abu Bakr was caliph from 632-634. There are several incompatible traditions describing a collation during his reign.

'Umar was worried that bits of the Koran would be lost after many Muslims were killed at the Battle of Yamama. Therefore he commissioned Zaid ibn Thabit to collect the Koran and write it down?

Or was it Abu Bakr's idea? Or maybe 'Ali's?

There are several other difficulties: Could this have been accomplished in only two years? The Muslims were fighting the Battle of Yamama (in Central Asia), why had these new converts memorised the Koran but the Arab converts had not? Why was this collation not an official codex but rather the private property of Hafsa?

The Collection of the Koran

'Uthman was caliph from 644-656. He was asked for an official codex by one of his generals because the troops were fighting over which reading of the Koran was correct. Zaid was once again commissioned, with the help of three others. But…

The Arabic of the Koran was not a dialect.

There are variations between the number and names of the people working with Zaid. (One version lists somebody already dead at that time!)

In these stories there is no mention of Zaid's involvement in an earlier rescension.
Most scholars assume that the 'Uthmanic rescension is correct and the Abu Bakr rescension is fictitious, but they have no valid reasons for preferring it over the latter, as the same reasons for dismissing the Abu Bakr story (biased, unreliable, late sources, attempts to credit the collector etc…) can be applied to the 'Uthman story as well.

One major (and often un-addressed) question is – how much can we rely upon the memories of the early Muslims?
Can we assume that they not only remembered everything perfectly, but that they heard and understood Muhammad perfectly in the first place?

Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added
Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.

.......

Not quite cut and dried is it?


James Simmons wrote:

But there is another, more important, issue. Is the Quran true? Is it, indeed, the Word of God? It seems to me that this must be answered first. Few Christians will agree that it is. It seems it is always they who are so determined to find that only the Bible is of God and nothing else in the world can possibly be as well. This is like saying that we are exclusively privy to God, an inside access of sorts, and no others on the earth enjoy anything like what we have.

I personally believe that all scriptures are the Word of God and that is for us, in our weakness and imperfection, to sort it all out. When be begin by creating divisiveness by insisting that only we are correct then God takes a second place and has to wait for us to finish squabbling with each other. God is not shallow, vain or petty and has no insistence upon anything except that all of us live proper decent lives treating each other as bothers. This, we cannot do, if we are pre-occupied with religious competing and trying to get others to convert to our religion.
And I say that all scripture, all religious proscription, is an attempt to codify a personal spiritual experience and as such remains just that - personal.

To apply a 'broad brush' approach - the one size suits all - is a wish to have the same spiritual experience, or for others to have, the same experience as the originator.

Sure it can be used as a guide...but that is all.

You want a 'god' experience? Do the experiment.

In order to find god, you must first lose god.

James Simmons wrote: However the Quran has never been changed. That is certain.
That is an unsupported and unsupportable claim.
James Simmons wrote: Blessing to us all and maybe some day we'll wake up and realize that we behave like jealous children when we should be spiritual adults like Jesus was.
And how do YOU discern spiritual maturity?

I hold that 'spirit', if it exists, is like all else in existence - it is evolved and evolving.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

NMSquirrel

Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Post #23

Post by NMSquirrel »

James Simmons wrote: The original is in existence and so so are the new copies of it.
i had asked that before, thanks for the answer..

But there is another, more important, issue. Is the Quran true? Is it, indeed, the Word of God? It seems to me that this must be answered first. Few Christians will agree that it is. It seems it is always they who are so determined to find that only the Bible is of God and nothing else in the world can possibly be as well. This is like saying that we are exclusively privy to God, an inside access of sorts, and no others on the earth enjoy anything like what we have.

I would believe the quran as i believe the bible, it is for finding wisdom/God not as a tool to control ppl.

I personally believe that all scriptures are the Word of God and that is for us, in our weakness and imperfection, to sort it all out. When be begin by creating divisiveness by insisting that only we are correct then God takes a second place and has to wait for us to finish squabbling with each other. God is not shallow, vain or petty and has no insistence upon anything except that all of us live proper decent lives treating each other as bothers. This, we cannot do, if we are pre-occupied with religious competing and trying to get others to convert to our religion.
i agree with that 100% except that i am not a bother, brother..;)
If God spoke to people on another planet and they recorded it all would it be the same as the Bible or the Quran? Of course not. God does not do dictation. Every single thought that comes to us from God, through a messenger has also to pass through a human brain which is fallible. Thus there are no perfect religions on the planet earth. None. However the Quran has never been changed. That is certain.
funny..most christians i ask say UFO's are demons or say if they did exist they would loose their faith..
not me..i would see it as a confirmation of God.
other than that again i agree 100%
(see, God doesn't want a world of clones)
(see, we are all messed up)
(see, no such thing as perfection)
Blessing to us all and maybe some day we'll wake up and realize that we behave like jealous children when we should be spiritual adults like Jesus was.

Amen brother

Murad
Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Australia - Sydney

Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Post #24

Post by Murad »

bernee51 wrote: 'The original'? Which original would that be?

As I undsretsand it the traditional account claims that the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, written down in bits, and not collated before Muhammad's death.

Ibn Warraq (in The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book) notes:
Wikipedia on Ibn Warraq:
Conversely, in reviewing Ibn Warraq's compilation The origins of the Koran, religious studies professor Herbert Berg has labelled him as "polemical and inconsistent" in his writing.[34] In reviewing Ibn Warraq's essay in his Quest for the Historical Muhammad (2001) Fred Donner, a professor in Near Eastern studies, notes his lack of specialist training in Arabic studies, citing "inconsistent handling of Arabic materials," and unoriginal arguments, and "heavy-handed favoritism" towards revisionist theories and "the compiler’s [i.e. Ibn Warraq's] agenda, which is not scholarship, but anti-Islamic polemic."[35]
You are quoting from a beautiful source, arn't you ?
All of Ibn Warraq's claims have been previously addressed, i will re-state them.

bernee51 wrote: There is the Abu Bakr collection
Abu Bakr was caliph from 632-634. There are several incompatible traditions describing a collation during his reign.

'Umar was worried that bits of the Koran would be lost after many Muslims were killed at the Battle of Yamama. Therefore he commissioned Zaid ibn Thabit to collect the Koran and write it down?

Or was it Abu Bakr's idea? Or maybe 'Ali's?
There are different hadiths that seem to give different assertions, its generally accepted that it was Abu Bakr's idea, but all of this is absolutely irrelevant. What does matter is, the Quran was compiled under Abu Bakr's authority whom was one of the closest disciples of the Prophet himself. The prophet himself authenticated the oral recitations of the Quran & these were then recorded down into text by numerous scribes for example Zayd bin Thabit.


bernee51 wrote: There are several other difficulties: Could this have been accomplished in only two years? The Muslims were fighting the Battle of Yamama (in Central Asia), why had these new converts memorised the Koran but the Arab converts had not?
The Arabs were the ones that taught the non-arabs the Quran, so how could they not know... lol.

bernee51 wrote: Why was this collation not an official codex but rather the private property of Hafsa?
Hafsa(r.a) is the wife of the Prophet, this fact itself is enough evidence that the Quran we have today is closest to the source as possible.


bernee51 wrote: The Collection of the Koran

'Uthman was caliph from 644-656. He was asked for an official codex by one of his generals because the troops were fighting over which reading of the Koran was correct. Zaid was once again commissioned, with the help of three others. But…
The Quran that Uthman(r.a) authenticated is what we have today, the manuscripts of Hafsa.
Image

Please visit: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/
All the allegations by "www.answering-islam.org" are thoroughly explored & debunked.


bernee51 wrote: There are variations between the number and names of the people working with Zaid. (One version lists somebody already dead at that time!)
No doubt there are variations in the names of the scribes, & that makes the Quran corrupt because?

bernee51 wrote: In these stories there is no mention of Zaid's involvement in an earlier rescension.
Most scholars assume that the 'Uthmanic rescension is correct and the Abu Bakr rescension is fictitious, but they have no valid reasons for preferring it over the latter, as the same reasons for dismissing the Abu Bakr story (biased, unreliable, late sources, attempts to credit the collector etc…) can be applied to the 'Uthman story as well.
Who on earth thinks that the "Abu Bakr" compilation is fictious (within the muslims)? Common name a few, you did quote a source that said "Most scholars" so it should be easy. Even the Shia sect of Islam, that view the first 3 caliphs negatively, they have no objection in accepting their compilations, so by what grounds is this assertion made?

1) Abu Bakr compiled the Quran, from absolutely authentic sources.
2) Throughout arabia, minor discrepancies started to emerge within the Quran.
3) Thus, Umar [Second Disciple](r.a) re-compiled the Quran, from the authentic manuscripts of Hafsa, & ordered all other "Qurans", which differentiated from the most authentic source, to be burned. Thus the Quran we have today, is the Quran Umar(r.a) compiled from the manuscripts of Hafsa(r.a).

bernee51 wrote: One major (and often un-addressed) question is – how much can we rely upon the memories of the early Muslims?
Can we assume that they not only remembered everything perfectly, but that they heard and understood Muhammad perfectly in the first place?
The Quran was a revelation of knowledge, there was no "Stone Tablets" given to Muhammad(pbuh) like there was to Moses(pbuh). Secondly, there were numerous Quran memorisers & i do mean numerous, dozens of muslims that are considered "Sahaba" which means "Companions" of the Prophet (Because they learnt the Quran directly from him). Thus lets say, you have 50 students of teacher X, & the 50 agree with what teacher X taught them, do you have any reason besides the usual skepticism, to assume their memory was all of a sudden 'corrupt'?

bernee51 wrote: Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added
Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.
False.
There is a tradition within a sect of the Shia sect (a sect of a sect), that believe the Quran of Ali(r.a) had several additional verses. This "myth" is absolutely no reason to believe the Quran we have today has been changed.

bernee51 wrote: Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.
Dr Zakir Naik:
Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs

The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.
bernee51 wrote: Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.
A bit of info about the Kharijites:
Wiki wrote: Kharijites (Arabic: خوارج‎ Khaw�rij, literally "those who went out";[1] singular, Kh�riji) is a general term embracing various Muslims who, while initially supporting the authority of the final Rashidun Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, later rejected his leadership. They first emerged in the late 7th century AD, concentrated in today's southern Iraq, and are distinct from Sunni Muslims and Shiʿa Muslims.

From their essentially political position, the Kharijites developed extreme doctrines that further set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir, whereby they declared other Muslims to be unbelievers and therefore deemed them worthy of death.
They have different & extreme doctrines compared to mainstream 'ahlus sunnah' & they are not considered 'muslims' by mainstream muslims. Thus why on earth will you present their 'myth' as an argument against the Qurans authenticity. If you have any reason to believe the Quran was corrupted, provide tangible or objective evidence.

bernee51 wrote: .......

Not quite cut and dried is it?
The Quran is authentic, without a doubt, beyond doubt.
Further reading:
http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/AuthenticQuran.html


bernee51 wrote:
James Simmons wrote: However the Quran has never been changed. That is certain.
That is an unsupported and unsupportable claim.
The claims that it was changed have been refuted, over & over again, you have no idea on how many times Christian missionaries bring the same points as you have, in the attempt to degrade the Quran. In logic, if anyone disagrees with an established historical precedent, that the Quran has not been changed, that person must present their evidence to justify their assertion. Since it hasn't been proved that the Quran has been changed, its safe to say, the Quran has not been changed & there is no good reason or objective evidence to believe it has.
The Quran we have today, is exactly the same as the manuscripts of hafsa(r.a) which was compiled by one of the closest disciples of the Prophet, Umar (r.a).

Further reading:
Dr Zakir Naik wrote: One of the most common myths about the Qur’an, is that Usman (r.a.), the third Caliph of Islam authenticated and compiled one Qur’an, from a large set of mutually contradicting copies. The Qur’an, revered as the Word of Allah (swt) by Muslims the world over, is the same Qur’an as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It was authenticated and written under his personal supervision. We will examine the roots of the myth which says that Usman (r.a.) had the Qur’an authenticated.


1. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an

Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (R.A. – Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) – May Allah be pleased with him who would also memorize it. The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh).


2. Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired

The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.

Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.

It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.


3. Qur’an copied on one common material

The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The verses however, were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost.


4. Usman [aka Uthman] (r.a.) made copies of the Qur’an from the original manuscript

Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third Caliph Usman (r.a.).

Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet (pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centres of Muslims.

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman (r.a.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.


5. Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs

The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.


6. Allah Himself has promised to guard the Qur’an

Allah has promised in the Qur’an :
"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]

SOURCE
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.

(Quran 29:2-3)

----
Why Jesus is NOT God
---

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Post #25

Post by bernee51 »

Murad wrote:You are quoting from a beautiful source, arnt you ?
Ad homs noted...that you don't like the source is also noted.
Murad wrote:
bernee51 wrote: There is the Abu Bakr collection
Abu Bakr was caliph from 632-634. There are several incompatible traditions describing a collation during his reign.

'Umar was worried that bits of the Koran would be lost after many Muslims were killed at the Battle of Yamama. Therefore he commissioned Zaid ibn Thabit to collect the Koran and write it down?

Or was it Abu Bakr's idea? Or maybe 'Ali's?
There are different hadiths that seem to give different assertions, its generally accepted that it was Abu Bakr's idea, but all of this is absolutely irrelevant. What does matter is, the Quran was compiled under Abu Bakr's authority whom was one of the closest disciples of the Prophet himself.
generally accepted from hadithds written down how long after the fact?
Murad wrote: The prophet himself authenticated the oral recitations of the Quran & these were then recorded down into text by numerous scribes for example Zayd bin Thabit.
Or so it is claimed.

Murad wrote:
bernee51 wrote: There are several other difficulties: Could this have been accomplished in only two years? The Muslims were fighting the Battle of Yamama (in Central Asia), why had these new converts memorised the Koran but the Arab converts had not?
The Arabs were the ones that taught the non-arabs the Quran, so how could they not know... lol.
Ignoring the point does nothing for your credibility.

LOL back at you.
Murad wrote:
bernee51 wrote: The Collection of the Koran

'Uthman was caliph from 644-656. He was asked for an official codex by one of his generals because the troops were fighting over which reading of the Koran was correct. Zaid was once again commissioned, with the help of three others. But…
The Quran that Uthman(r.a) authenticated is what we have today, the manuscripts of Hafsa.
Image

Please visit: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/
All the allegations by "www.answering-islam.org" are thoroughly explored & debunked.
Just as all the allegations regarding the bible are thouroughly debunked by christian apologists...

Murad wrote:
bernee51 wrote: There are variations between the number and names of the people working with Zaid. (One version lists somebody already dead at that time!)
No doubt there are variations in the names of the scribes, & that makes the Quran corrupt because?
Just another nail....
Murad wrote:
bernee51 wrote: In these stories there is no mention of Zaid's involvement in an earlier rescension.
Most scholars assume that the 'Uthmanic rescension is correct and the Abu Bakr rescension is fictitious, but they have no valid reasons for preferring it over the latter, as the same reasons for dismissing the Abu Bakr story (biased, unreliable, late sources, attempts to credit the collector etc…) can be applied to the 'Uthman story as well.
Who on earth thinks that the "Abu Bakr" compilation is fictious (within the muslims)? Common name a few, you did quote a source that said "Most scholars" so it should be easy. Even the Shia sect of Islam, that view the first 3 caliphs negatively, they have no objection in accepting their compilations, so by what grounds is this assertion made?
Not my assertion...I was merely quoting those of another. An why only 'within the muslims'?
Murad wrote: 1) Abu Bakr compiled the Quran, from absolutely authentic sources.
2) Throughout arabia, minor discrepancies started to emerge within the Quran.
3) Thus, Umar [Second Disciple](r.a) re-compiled the Quran, from the authentic manuscripts of Hafsa, & ordered all other "Qurans", which differentiated from the most authentic source, to be burned. Thus the Quran we have today, is the Quran Umar(r.a) compiled from the manuscripts of Hafsa(r.a).

bernee51 wrote: One major (and often un-addressed) question is – how much can we rely upon the memories of the early Muslims?
Can we assume that they not only remembered everything perfectly, but that they heard and understood Muhammad perfectly in the first place?
The Quran was a revelation of knowledge, there was no "Stone Tablets" given to Muhammad(pbuh) like there was to Moses(pbuh). Secondly, there were numerous Quran memorisers & i do mean numerous, dozens of muslims that are considered "Sahaba" which means "Companions" of the Prophet (Because they learnt the Quran directly from him). Thus lets say, you have 50 students of teacher X, & the 50 agree with what teacher X taught them, do you have any reason besides the usual skepticism, to assume their memory was all of a sudden 'corrupt'?

bernee51 wrote: Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added
Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.
False.
There is a tradition within a sect of the Shia sect (a sect of a sect), that believe the Quran of Ali(r.a) had several additional verses. This "myth" is absolutely no reason to believe the Quran we have today has been changed.

bernee51 wrote: Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.
Dr Zakir Naik:
Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs

The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.
bernee51 wrote: Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.
A bit of info about the Kharijites:
Wiki wrote: Kharijites (Arabic: خوارج‎ Khaw�rij, literally "those who went out";[1] singular, Kh�riji) is a general term embracing various Muslims who, while initially supporting the authority of the final Rashidun Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, later rejected his leadership. They first emerged in the late 7th century AD, concentrated in today's southern Iraq, and are distinct from Sunni Muslims and Shiʿa Muslims.

From their essentially political position, the Kharijites developed extreme doctrines that further set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir, whereby they declared other Muslims to be unbelievers and therefore deemed them worthy of death.
They have different & extreme doctrines compared to mainstream 'ahlus sunnah' & they are not considered 'muslims' by mainstream muslims. Thus why on earth will you present their 'myth' as an argument against the Qurans authenticity. If you have any reason to believe the Quran was corrupted, provide tangible or objective evidence.

bernee51 wrote: .......

Not quite cut and dried is it?
The Quran is authentic, without a doubt, beyond doubt.
Further reading:
http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/AuthenticQuran.html


bernee51 wrote:
James Simmons wrote: However the Quran has never been changed. That is certain.
That is an unsupported and unsupportable claim.
The claims that it was changed have been refuted, over & over again, you have no idea on how many times Christian missionaries bring the same points as you have, in the attempt to degrade the Quran. In logic, if anyone disagrees with an established historical precedent, that the Quran has not been changed, that person must present their evidence to justify their assertion. Since it hasn't been proved that the Quran has been changed, its safe to say, the Quran has not been changed & there is no good reason or objective evidence to believe it has.
The Quran we have today, is exactly the same as the manuscripts of hafsa(r.a) which was compiled by one of the closest disciples of the Prophet, Umar (r.a).

Further reading:
Dr Zakir Naik wrote: One of the most common myths about the Qur’an, is that Usman (r.a.), the third Caliph of Islam authenticated and compiled one Qur’an, from a large set of mutually contradicting copies. The Qur’an, revered as the Word of Allah (swt) by Muslims the world over, is the same Qur’an as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It was authenticated and written under his personal supervision. We will examine the roots of the myth which says that Usman (r.a.) had the Qur’an authenticated.


1. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an

Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (R.A. – Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) – May Allah be pleased with him who would also memorize it. The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh).


2. Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired

The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.

Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.

It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.


3. Qur’an copied on one common material

The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The verses however, were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost.


4. Usman [aka Uthman] (r.a.) made copies of the Qur’an from the original manuscript

Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third Caliph Usman (r.a.).

Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet (pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centres of Muslims.

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman (r.a.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.


5. Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs

The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.


6. Allah Himself has promised to guard the Qur’an

Allah has promised in the Qur’an :
"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]

SOURCE
[/quote]

User avatar
Jacob Simonsky
Apprentice
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:24 am
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Post #26

Post by Jacob Simonsky »

Blessing to us all and maybe some day we'll wake up and realize that we behave like jealous children when we should be spiritual adults like Jesus was.[/quote]

And how do YOU discern spiritual maturity?

I hold that 'spirit', if it exists, is like all else in existence - it is evolved and evolving.[/quote]



That which you relate was a political argument of the day which had to do with a disagreement of several issues most important of which was the question of succession after Muhammad. All of those issues to which you refer have been long since resolved.

The topic here is "When was the bible corrupted?". If you like we can make a new topic entitled "When was the Quran corrupted?" First though, let's finish with the bible.
Please do not ask me to provide evidence of what I claim. I have no interest in persuading anyone to believe as I do.

Jew, Christian and Muslim... all equal in G-d's eye.

NMSquirrel

Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Post #27

Post by NMSquirrel »

James Simmons wrote: The topic here is "When was the bible corrupted?". If you like we can make a new topic entitled "When was the Quran corrupted?" First though, let's finish with the bible.
there is no 'finish' when ppl discusses the bible..

it is my opinion that in order for it to be from God it must apply to both the bible and the quran.
IOW what God made the bible, he had also made the quran,
i have said that maybe the bible was allowed to be corrupted to make it so we would not worship a book, in order for this to be true then it must apply to the quran also,

God wants our attention on him not a book, the books just helps us to find him.

like the bible, i view the quran as valid because there are lessons/opinions/attitudes that line up with what i believe God has taught me.
but that does not mean either is inerrant..

NMSquirrel

Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Post #28

Post by NMSquirrel »

Murad wrote: The Quran that Uthman(r.a) authenticated is what we have today, the manuscripts of Hafsa.
Image
every one needs a copy of this for their coffee table..

MSCONFIG
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:46 pm

Post #29

Post by MSCONFIG »

Murad you are saying that there are traces of God's word in the Bible:
Murad wrote:we acknowledge that 'Gods Word' does exist within them, how or to what extent, we dont know:
The hebrew bible contains:
* The Words of God
* The Words of the Prophets
* The Words of Historians

But you contradict your statement when you say:
"The “Gospels According To� are not the words of God – they are the perceptions of men."

How can the Bible (NT) be the Word of God as well as the perceptions of men?
It is either one or the other.

Secondly,
Murad wrote:The Quran refers to the Gospel of Jesus, which was not a writing, rather as i said, a revelation of divine knowledge.
"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." [Quran 4:46]
Am I correct in understanding that the people around Jesus wrote the 'revelation of divine knowledge' given to Jesus down and said "This is from Allah" were wrong in doing so according to the Quran? How is this fair?

If I was living at Jesus' time and he came with God's revelation, I would be the first to write it down and say "This is from Allah", why would I be wrong for doing so?

Thank you.

MSCONFIG
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:46 pm

Post #30

Post by MSCONFIG »

Murad you are saying that there are traces of God's word in the Bible:
Murad wrote:we acknowledge that 'Gods Word' does exist within them, how or to what extent, we dont know:
The hebrew bible contains:
* The Words of God
* The Words of the Prophets
* The Words of Historians

But you contradict your statement when you say:
"The “Gospels According To� are not the words of God – they are the perceptions of men."

How can the Bible (NT) be the Word of God as well as the perceptions of men?
It is either one or the other.

Secondly,
Murad wrote:The Quran refers to the Gospel of Jesus, which was not a writing, rather as i said, a revelation of divine knowledge.
"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." [Quran 4:46]
Am I correct in understanding that the people around Jesus wrote the 'revelation of divine knowledge' given to Jesus down and said "This is from Allah" were wrong in doing so according to the Quran? How is this fair?

If I was living at Jesus' time and he came with God's revelation, I would be the first to write it down and say "This is from Allah", why would I be wrong for doing so?

Thank you.

Post Reply