Hi everyone. I am just curious but has the Koran (Quran) been corrupted? :shrug:
Yes. Check this out: forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=3991038&postcount=3
As for those who wish to use the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy, here are links on the Bible: forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=5650138&postcount=3
Do you believe the Koran is actually the Word of God, that would pretty much answer your question?
The Qur’an is just a abridgment of the Bible with Muhammad’s own spin.
1972 Restoration of the Sana’a Masjid
Now obviously, some information from this article is completely false. There is no paper grave in Islam. In fact, the 3rd Caliph (ruler of Islam), Uthman (or Usman) bin Affan ordered that all fragments of the Quran be burned. The proper method for ridding a parchment with the name of Allah is to burn the paper.
Also, we do have the Quran that Uthman bin Affan was reading when he was martyred. The bloodstains are actually still on that version of the Quran. It must contain well over half of the Quran, and guess what? It is the same as today’s version.
When the Quran was completely revealed, the issue was not as much about the words. The problem was that there were 7 dialects of Arabic, but because the Quran was revealed in the Quraishi dialect, it had to be recorded. Literally every Muslim was basically a hafiz (memorizer) of the Quran, and there were around 100,000 Muslims after the death of the Prophet (sw).
great post Zaki
someone may ask why othman ordered that all fragments of the Quran be burned.
When Uthmaan became Khaleefah, Islaam had grown out of Arabia reaching into the far-flung areas of Byzantium and Iran. As people from new areas embraced Islam, they would learn the Qur’an from the Mujaahideen of Islam or from the traders because of whom they had found the blessing of Islam.
the Qur’an was revealed incorporating seven Huroof (versions of recitation), and different Companions had learnt it from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In accordance with different readings, therefore, every Companion taught the Qur’an to his disciples in accordance with that particular Huroof which they had themselves learnt from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In this manner, this difference in readings reached far out countries.
Until such time that people knew that the Qur’an had been revealed incorporating seven Huroof (readings) no harm was done by this difference. However, when this difference reached those far out countries, and the fact that the Qur’an had been revealed incorporating different readings was not fully publicized there, disputes among people started. Some people began to insist on their reading as correct and that of others as incorrect. On the one hand, these disputes posed the danger that people would fall into the grave error of declaring the reading of the Qur’an which have followed in uninterrupted succession as incorrect. On the other hand, there was no such standard copy available through out the Islamic world which could become the rallying authority for the entire Ummah, except, of course, the copy committed to writing by Zayd Ibne Thaabit which was there in Madeenah. Since other copies were written individually, and in them, there was no provision to incorporate all the readings, therefore, the only reliable method to resolve these disputes was that copies which incorporate all valid readings be spread out all over the Islaamic world, and then, by seeing them it could be decided as to which reading is correct and which is incorrect. Uthmaan accomplished this feat during the period of his Khilaafah.
**Details of this feat is given in Hadeeth narration’s as follows:**Huzayfah Ibne Yamaan was engaged in jihaad on the Armenian-Azerbaijaan front. There he noticed that differences were rising among people about readings of the Qur’an. So, on his return to Madeenah, he went straight to Uthmaan and once there, he pleaded, ‘O Ameer-ul Mu’mineen! Before this Ummah falls prey to differences in the Book of Allah like the Jews and Christians, you should do something about it.’ Uthmaan asked, ‘What is the matter?’ In reply, Huzayfah said, ‘I was on a jihaad mission fighting on the Armenian front. There I saw people of Syria following the reading of Ubayi Ibne Ka’b which would not be familiar to the people of Iraq, and the people of Iran following the reading of Abdullah Ibne Mas’ood which would not be familiar to the people of Syria. As a result of this, they are charging each other of being kaafirs.’
Consequently, Uthmaan gathered people together and delivered a sermon and in it he said, “You who live so close to me in Madeenah, if you can falsify each other and differ with each other in respect of the readings of the Qur’an, it is quite obvious that those who are far away from me will be indulging in falsification and disputation on a much larger scale. Therefore, let everyone get together and come up with a copy of the Qur’an following which becomes obligatory for all.”
No, I do not believe that the Koran is the Word of God. I ask my question simply because Muslims claim that the Koran has not been corrupted. So I am asking for evidence that it has been corrupted.
there is nothing wrong with this article scholars of your own religion testified to the veracity of this. If its wrong prove it wrong you have still failed to disprove the sana manuscripts with anything other than weak apologetics devoid of evidence. Th sana manuscripts prove without a doubt that the Koran has been seriously altered yet the bible is corrupted ? hahaha .
If the Koran has not been altered the original text of the sana manuscripts would not have been erased and it would not have possessed a drastically different form from later codices. Muslims have no answer for the sana manuscripts so they have to resort to putting them under lock and key yet all the time they hypocritically complain about the corruption of the New Testament yet they cant produce 1 verse which says the New Testament is corrupt. Go figure!
Please provide source link for this post.
Please provide source link for this post.
Even if the Qur’an is exactly the same today as the day Muhammad received the last of his “revelations” (which it isn’t, not in form nor in content), what is written in a supposedly authoritative and complete Qur’an is still absolutely and inexcapably false.
No. The Coran has not been corrupted.
The Coran IS corrupt and the product of spiritual corruption.
What do you expect a pedophile to come up with?
Actually my interpretation on his post is that he admits there were many versions (and therefore many corrupt versions) of the Koran. They simply picked one copy and destroyed the others, hoping to get lucky with the “uncorrupt” copy. Therefore it admits full out that the Koran has been corrupted.
That’s this non-Muslims take on it anyway.
If by “corrupt” you mean people added stuff in later, that would depend on who you speak to. The Shi’a claim entire passages were changed later. It’s a pity that famdigy doesn’t seem to post here as often, since he was a Shi’a Muslim and could explain it better than I could. I know many of the passages they claim were changed supposedly deal with Ali and his place in Islam. There is also the story of Abdullah ibn Masud, who was the top reciter of the Koran in Mohammad’s time and supposedly stated that entire surats did not belong in Uthman’s version.
If by “corrupt” you mean certain passages were changed or added in later, I would not say it was done maliciously, but that, contrary to popular Muslim belief, there are variations in the Koranic textual history, as well as the recitation of the book itself. One such textual variant exists in S. 33:6.
In some Qira’ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka’ab, occur also the words “and he is a father of them”, which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words “and his wives are their mothers”. [Abdullah Yusuf Ali, *The Meaning of the Holy Quran, 11th edition, Note #3674]
This variant, as Yusuf Ali writes, is from Ubayy ibn Ka’b, one of the top men (along with ibn Masud) entrusted to memorize the Koran.
'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur’an from four: ‘Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu’adh and Ubayy bin Ka’b.’ " [Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521]
It is very interesting that a textual variant sourced to bin Ka’b, one of Mohammad’s most trusted men to memorize the holy text, is not present in the current version of the Koran.
Some other variants mentioned, from the same source.
Notice that in the usual Arabic texts (that is, according to the Qira’ah of Hafs) the word qala is here and in 21:112 below, as well as in 23:112, spelt differently from the usual spelling of the word in other places (eg., in 20:125-126). Qul is the reading of the Basrah Qira’ah, meaning, “Say thou” in the imperative. [Abdullah Yusuf Ali, *The Meaning of the Holy Quran, 11th edition, Note #2666]
The Hafs reading is “Qala”, “He will say”. This follows the Kufah Qira’ah. The Basrah Qira’ah reads “Qul”, “Say” (in the imperative). [Abdullah Yusuf Ali, *The Meaning of the Holy Quran, 11th edition, Note #2948]
Now I recognize that some of these variants do not change the theological nature of Islam. However, this is not how Muslims (especially on this forum) argue, and when Christians often say this for the NT, let alone the Bible, it gets ignored. If a Muslim wishes to argue that there are textual variants but with no major theological differences between them, then I would be willing to accept that. However, if they are going to argue that there are no textual variants and that the Koran they have today is exactly the Koran Mohammad held (of which there is no evidence for), then that argument falls flat on its face given scholarly evidence.
One final note, in regards to Uthman’s handling of the Koran: what is humorous to me is that if the shoe was on the other foot, and the Emperor Constantine did exactly what Uthman had done and for the same motives/reasons…we would never hear the end of it from Muslims. They would never once entertain the “preservation and unification” argument, they would simply say, “Aha! He destroyed all manuscripts and transcriptions of the Bible! That means it’s tarnished!” Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence that Constantine did this, yet there is plenty of evidence that it was possible Uthman had done so. Yet Muslims expect us to believe (with no evidence) that Constantine did this while (with some evidence) it was possible Uthman had done so. This is, as always, inconsistency.
no different arabic dialects from different tribes and when arabia became unified as one under islam so did the language arabic-and therefore the Qurans that were not under the “normal” arabic after the change were burnt to avoid confusion
I’m sorry, I just have a hard time believing that all the manuscripts were gathered up and burnt because they were in a different dialect. Dialects don’t usually cause major confusion the bad grammar usually lets people know it is in a different dialect than they are used to. I also have a hard time believing that all of the Arabs went from different dialects to the same dialect. Something which could unite dialects probably wouldn’t allow them to separate again.
This is a non-argument if I’ve ever saw one. Unfortunately I no longer have access to them, but during my time as an undergrad in Linguistics one of our series of readings on dialectical variation was on Arabic, as it is very famous for the high degree of diglossia exhibited by its speakers. One aspect of the readings covered, in a respectful, impartial academic tone, the influence of the local/national varieties on Qur’anic recitation, in light of the claim of uniformity put forth by the speakers themselves. It found, using Egyptian as an example, that there were pronounced differences from a phonetic standpoint between Qur’anic recitation by Egyptians as compared to that of some others, and that these unique aspects had their roots in the local variety that underlies the speaker’s knowledge of the Qur’anic Arabic.
So what’s all this about “normal” Arabic?
Not to mention that Mohammad asked for the Koran to be in different dialects, and even today there are different recitation traditions of the Koran in various dialects.
Ubayy b. Ka’b reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) was near the tank of Banu Ghifar that Gabriel came to him and said: Allah has commanded you to recite to your people the Qur’an in one dialect. Upon this he said: I ask from Allah pardon and forgiveness. My people are not capable of doing it. He then came for the second time and said: Allah has commanded you that you should recite the Qur’an to your people in two dialects. Upon this he (the Holy prophet) again said: I seek pardon and forgiveness from Allah, my people would not be able to do so. He (Gabriel) came for the third time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur’an to your people in three dialects. Upon this he said: I ask pardon and forgiveness from Allah. My people would not be able to do it. He then came to him for the fourth time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur’an to your people in seven dialects, and in whichever dialect they would recite, they would be right. [Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1789; emphasis mine]
One must ask, of these seven dialects, which one was the “normal” Arabic? Why the need for one if all seven are right?
I’m going out on a limb here, I realize, but I’m going to take a wild guess and say…Muhammad’s?
Ha ha, well that was the one that Uthman differed to. What gets me is that Mohammad personally asked for the Koran to be recited in seven different dialects, and, as I said, even today in Muslim culture there are many different schools of recitation of the Koran. So…again, what is “normal” Arabic? Because according to what Mohammad asked for and what Islam is today, there doesn’t seem to be one.
It also doesn’t respond to the point I made earlier in the thread, where there is evidence to the companions of the prophet - companions that were entrusted in memorizing the Koran - who have variants on readings not compatible with Uthman’s.