Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 06:45 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 08:08 PM

Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism

 (Read 7442 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     OP - February 20, 2010, 08:20 PM

    After considering the records of early non-Muslim sources that reported on the Arab conquest or ancient writers who wrote about the caravan trade before or during the supposed time of Mohammed, a writer styling himself "Ibn al-Rawandi" 31 integrated those dates into his deep understanding of the Muslim sources for their version of Islamic history and concluded that

        Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive backreading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer (prophet) whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation; hence the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira, were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Muslim monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab the need for an exclusively Hijazi origin became pressing. It is at this point that Islam as we recognize it today - with an inner Arabian biography of the Prophet, Mecca, Quraysh, Hijra, Medina, Badr, etc. - was really born, as a purely literary artefact. An artefact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries. This scenario makes at least as much sense of the sources as the traditional account and eliminates many anomalies.

        From the vantage point of this skeptical analysis the narrative related in the Sira, that purports to be the life of the Prophet of Islam, appears as a baseless fiction. The first fifty-two years of that life, including the account of the first revelations of the Koran and all that is consequent upon that, are pictured as unfolding in a place that simply could not have existed in the way it is described in the Muslim sources. Mecca was not a wealthy trading center at the crossroads of Hijazi trade routes, the Quraysh werenot wealthy merchants running caravan up and down the Arabian peninsula from Syria to the Yemen, and Muhammad, insofar as he was anything more than an Arab warlord of monotheist persuasion, did his trading far north of the Hijaz; furthermore, Mecca, as a sanctuary, if it was a sanctuary, was of no more importance than numerous others and was not a place of pilgrimage.

    http://www.atheists.org/An_Atheist%27s_Guide_to_Mohammedanism
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #1 - February 20, 2010, 08:24 PM

    What is interesting is that Patricia Crone spoke about the area of Hijaz not being totally accurate if comparing with certain verses in the Quran. How can Mohammed talk about olives and pomegranates and so on. She thought it was somewhere else. But what I don't understand is the construct of Mecca and Kaaba.

    When did Kaaba become a major pilgrimage site then. When is the first time its noted down, by for example non-muslim historians.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #2 - February 20, 2010, 08:25 PM

    What do we actually know about Mohammed?

    Patricia Crone, 10 June 2008

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp

    It is notoriously difficult to know anything for sure about the founder of a world religion. Just as one shrine after the other obliterates the contours of the localities in which he was active, so one doctrine after another reshapes him as a figure for veneration and imitation for a vast number of people in times and places that he never knew.

    In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts. For all that, we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.

    There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

    Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded. The Muslim calendar was instituted after Mohammed's death, with a starting-point of his emigration (hijra) to Medina (then Yathrib) ten years earlier. Some Muslims, however, seem to have correlated this point of origin with the year which came to span 624-5 in the Gregorian calendar rather than the canonical year of 622.

    If such a revised date is accurate, the evidence of the Greek text would mean that Mohammed is the only founder of a world religion who is attested in a contemporary source. But in any case, this source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #3 - February 20, 2010, 08:26 PM

    the coolest trend in attacking Islam these days is claiming that Muhammed was a fictional figure.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #4 - February 20, 2010, 10:35 PM

    the coolest trend in attacking Islam these days is claiming that Muhammed was a fictional figure.


    Not the phedofile-argument? Smiley

    Well both Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and other prominent figures have been through such a skeptical lens. Personally there's a kernel to the story in case of Muhammad, but fx I'm not fully convinced that his name actually was Muhammad.  But the most coolest trend in attacking Islam is not claiming that Muhammad was a fictional figure. It is questioning the historicity of the Qur'an. This, from the laypersons perspective, is mainly centered around an article from Athantic Monthly (can't remember the year) where G.R. Puin is interviewed (or cited) in context of him questioning the traditional historicity of the Qur'an. An opinion which is mainly based on his personal research of the Sana'a manuscripts of early copies of parts of the Qur'an. That's the coolest trend. The historicity of Muhammad is not even close in 'coolness' Smiley.

    Other cool trends:
    - the foreign words in the Qur'an
    - the reliability and wakyness of the hadith and other traditional literature.
    - Muhammads medinan period
    - Muhammads alledged epileptical seizures
    - Muhammads need to have a verse when it's most needed Smiley
    and many more Smiley
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #5 - February 20, 2010, 10:37 PM

    Well there is no pedopile "trend" or "argument" with regards to Muhammad. Muhammad being a pedophile is a fact, period.

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #6 - February 20, 2010, 10:39 PM

    Ah! The Sana manuscripts! Where Puin said that *some* parts of it had *small* discrepancies to the current Quran... at a time when people used to make copies of the Quran by hand... BIG DEAL!

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #7 - February 20, 2010, 10:48 PM

    I doubt that's all he has to say on the subject, but I need to find out for myself:

    http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Origins-Islam-Research-History/dp/1591026342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266706086&sr=1-1

  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #8 - February 20, 2010, 10:50 PM

    For more books on the history of the Quran:

    http://www.amazon.com/Variant-Readings-Quran-Historical-Linguistic/dp/1565644204/ref=pd_sim_b_3

    One commentator:

    This book contains information and examples of abrogation, denial of neglected surahs, disputes among some of the Companions of Muhammad over length of few verses and order or revelations, and sayings that they thought they heard Muhammad say. There are also a few examples of Uthmanic manipulation of the Quran and reformatting of the Quran too. Even the distributed Qurans that were compiled by Uthman seemed to contain a bit of corruption (errors and interpolation).

    I need to purchase this book.

    He also says:

    Even little additions or eliminations or even disputes of abrogation imply that the Quran was not preserved perfectly. I believe the Quran was preserved very well and is reliable for acquiring the Islamic message, but it's not preserved Perfectly. Just like the Bible, Plato's writings, Archenemies, Euclid, Hippocrates, Shakespeare, the Hadith, and any other works that were popular and constantly copied before the Printing Press. Perfect preservation means not one single spelling error, not one single grammar error, not one single line or verse or word is added on, repeated, or left out (whether intentional or unintentional [come one even scribes mess up all the time]) and also no disagreements have occurred over the given text in question. All writings before the printing press fail on this standard of perfect preservation including the Quran.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #9 - February 20, 2010, 10:52 PM

    Ah! The Sana manuscripts! Where Puin said that *some* parts of it had *small* discrepancies to the current Quran... at a time when people used to make copies of the Quran by hand... BIG DEAL!


    Exactly. If you've read Bart D. Erhman's "Misquoting Jesus" you would know how devistating these 'small' discrepancies can have on manuscript-tradition. Most scholars of the New Testament argue that it's impossible to re-create the ur-New Testament. Could it be the same with the Qur'an? - i.e. that some scribes (how many professional Arab scribes was there in the 7th century?) might have made a small mistake - not intentionally? - could some scribes have had the opinion that a specific word or sentence should be different? Could one or two (or three or four) letters be mixed up together? Actually many muslim scholars throughout history have argued that there is a need of emendations of the canonized text.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #10 - February 20, 2010, 10:53 PM

    Ah! The Sana manuscripts! Where Puin said that *some* parts of it had *small* discrepancies to the current Quran... at a time when people used to make copies of the Quran by hand... BIG DEAL!


    Lets say in the magical future the Islamic world loosened up and archeologists and researchers were allowed to freely explore arabia. If they found evidence that showed the many parts of the Quran actually existed in pre-islamic poetry and cults in Arabia, would your admit Mo made it all up?

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #11 - February 20, 2010, 10:56 PM

    Ah! The Sana manuscripts! Where Puin said that *some* parts of it had *small* discrepancies to the current Quran... at a time when people used to make copies of the Quran by hand... BIG DEAL!


    Shakir
    15 (9) Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian.

    Abdel Haleem
    15 (9) We have sent down the Quran Ourself, and We Ourself will guard it. Even before you [Prophet],

    إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا ٱلذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُۥ لَحَٰفِظُونَ
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #12 - February 20, 2010, 10:57 PM

    http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.5305633/k.3B6/Has_the_Quran_Been_Perfectly_Preserved.htm

    Has the Qur'an Been Perfectly Preserved?

    By David Wood

    One of the most popular arguments for Islam is what we might call the “Argument from Perfect Preservation,” which claims that, since the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved for nearly fourteen centuries, God must have been miraculously preserving it. This argument is based on a verse of the Qur’an: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)” (15:9).i

    After quoting this verse, Muslim apologist Mazhar Kazi comments:

    Muslims and non-Muslims both agree that no change has ever occurred in the text of the Qur’an. The above prophecy for the eternal preservation and purity of the Qur’an came true not only for the text of the Qur’an, but also for the most minute details of its punctuation marks as well. . . . It is a miracle of the Qur’an that no change has occurred in a single word, a single [letter of the] alphabet, a single punctuation mark, or a single diacritical mark in the text of the Qur’an during the last fourteen centuries.ii

    Kazi’s claim is odd for two reasons. First, it’s certainly no miracle for a book to be preserved for fourteen centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls, copies of the Bible, and other writings have survived longer than fourteen centuries, so Muslims can hardly appeal to preservation as proof of divine inspiration. Second, it’s simply false to say that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved. When we turn to the early Muslim sources, we find that entire chapters of the Qur’an have been lost, that large sections of chapters are missing, that individual verses were forgotten, and that words and phrases were changed. Indeed, we know from Muslim reports that Muhammad’s most trusted teachers couldn’t even agree on which chapters were to be included in the Qur’an!

    I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE QUR’AN

    The first Qur’anic revelation came to Muhammad around the year 610. Muhammad delivered many more verses to his scribes and companions for memorization and recording over the next two decades. These verses were written on stalks of palm leaves, bones of dead animals, flat stones, and whatever else Muslims could find. There was no complete manuscript of the Qur’an during this time.          

    Qur’anic revelation ceased when Muhammad died. Shortly after Muhammad’s death, Caliph Abu Bakr needed to suppress a rebellion, and he sent many huffaz (people who had memorized portions of the Qur’an) to fight at the Battle of Yamama. Many of these huffaz died, and Muslim sources tell us that portions of the Qur’an were lost:

    Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them.iii

    Abu Bakr decided that it was time to gather what remained of the Qur’an in order to prevent more from being lost, and he appointed Zaid ibn Thabit to this task. After Zaid completed his codex around 634 AD, it remained in Abu Bakr’s possession until his death, when it was passed on to Caliph Umar. When Umar died, it was given to Hafsa, a widow of Muhammad.

    During Caliph Uthman’s reign, approximately 19 years after the death of Muhammad, disputes arose concerning the correct recitation of the Qur’an. Uthman ordered that Hafsa’s copy of the Qur’an, along with all known textual materials, should be gathered together so that an official version might be compiled. Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith worked diligently to construct a revised text of the Qur’an. When it was finished, “Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.”iv The Qur’an we have today is descended from this codex.

    II. DISPUTES AMONG MUHAMMAD’S SCHOLARS

    Not all Muslims approved of the new Qur’an. Indeed, some of Muhammad’s top teachers rejected Zaid’s version.

    Muhammad once told his followers to “Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Masud—he started with him—Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b.”v Interestingly, Ibn Masud (first on Muhammad’s list) held that the Qur’an should only have 111 chapters (today’s version has 114 chapters), and that chapters 1, 113, and 114 shouldn’t have been included in the Qur’an.

    Because of this (along with hundreds of other differences), Ibn Masud went so far as to call the final edition of the Qur’an a deception! He said, “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.”vi

    Should Muslims submit to this “deceit”? Not surprisingly, Ibn Masud advised Muslims to reject Zaid’s Qur’an and to keep their own versions—even to hide them so that they wouldn’t be confiscated by the government! He said:

    “O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man”—meaning Zaid bin Thabit—and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them.”vii

    But Ibn Masud wasn’t the only one of Muhammad’s trusted teachers who disagreed with Zaid’s Qur’an. Ubayy ibn Ka’b was Muhammad’s best reciter and one of the only Muslims to collect the materials of the Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime. Yet Ibn Ka’b believed that Zaid’s Qur’an was missing two chapters! Later Muslims were therefore forced to reject some of Ibn Ka’b’s recitation:

    Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.”viii

    Due to these disputes among Muhammad’s hand-picked reciters, Muslims are faced with a dilemma. If Muslims say that the Qur’an we have today has been perfectly preserved, they must say that Muhammad was horrible at choosing scholars, since he selected men who disagreed with today’s text. If, on the other hand, Muslims say that their prophet would know whom to pick when it comes to Islam’s holiest book, they must conclude that the Qur’an we have today is flawed!

    III. MISSING CHAPTERS

    Simply knowing the facts about such disputes is enough to dismiss the claim that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved. Nevertheless, we may go further by briefly considering certain other problems.

    When Ibn Umar—son of the second Muslim caliph—heard people declaring that they knew the entire Qur’an, he said to them: “Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran,’ for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what is extant thereof.’”ix

    One of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Musa, supported this claim when he said that the early Muslims forgot two surahs (chapters) due to laziness:

    Abu Musa al-Ash’ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur’an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.” And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it . . .x

    This shows that entire chapters of the Qur’an were forgotten.

    IV. MISSING PASSAGES

    We know further that large sections of certain chapters came up missing. For instance, Muhammad’s wife Aisha said that roughly two-thirds of Surah 33 was lost:

    A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].”xi

    According to Aisha, the collectors simply couldn’t find all of Surah 33. Why not? As we’ve seen, many huffaz were killed at the Battle of Yamamah. Apparently, no one who knew the entire chapter survived.

    V. MISSING VERSES

    Aisha also tells us that individual verses of the Qur’an disappeared, sometimes in quite comical ways:

    It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”xii

    The verses on stoning and breastfeeding an adult ten times are not in the Qur’an today. Why? Aisha’s sheep ate them.

    VI. MISSING PHRASES

    Since entire chapters, large portions of chapters, and individual verses of the Qur’an were lost, it should come as no surprise that short phrases were forgotten as well. Let’s consider two examples.

    First, Surah 33:6 declares that “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.” However, Ubayy ibn Ka’b and other early Muslims held that a phrase (“and he is a father of them”) is missing from this verse. Even the great translator Yusuf Ali admits this in his commentary. Ali writes: “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.’”xiii It seems that Muslims have been left with an incomplete verse.

    Second, if we open a modern edition of the Qur’an, we find that Surah 2:238 commands Muslims to “Guard strictly your (habit) of prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).” According to Aisha, however, Muhammad recited this verse as follows: “Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat, and Salat Al-Asr. And stand before Allah with obedience.” Hence, the phrase “and Salat Al-Asr” is missing from modern editions.

    VII. ASSESSMENT

    Obviously, the Qur’an has changed significantly over the years. The evidence shows that entire chapters were lost, that large sections of chapters came up missing, that individual verses were forgotten, and that phrases have been left out. Muhammad’s best teachers and reciters couldn’t even agree on which chapters were supposed to be in the Qur’an.

    This raises an obvious question. What’s the difference between a book that’s been perfectly preserved, and one that hasn’t been perfectly preserved? If Muslims are right, there’s no difference at all. The typical characteristics of a book that hasn’t been perfectly preserved are (1) missing phrases, (2) missing passages, (3) missing chapters, (4) disagreements about what goes back to the original, etc. But the Qur’an has all of these characteristics. Thus, Muslims who are aware of the evidence but who also want to maintain perfect perseveration of the Qur’an must say something like this: “Yes, the Qur’an has all the characteristics of a book that hasn’t been perfectly preserved, but it’s been perfectly preserved anyway.” Can anyone make sense of such a claim?

    It’s clear, then, that the Argument from Perfect Preservation fails, and that Muslims who want evidence for their faith will have to look somewhere other than the preservation of the Qur’an.


    --------------------

    i All Qur’an quotations are taken from Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an (Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1989).

    ii Mazhar Kazi, 130 Evident Miracles in the Qur’an (Richmond Hill: Crescent Publishing House, 1997), pp. 42-43.

    iii Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif.

    iv Sahih al-Bukhari 4987.

    v Sahih al-Bukhari 3808.

    vi Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444.

    vii Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104.

    viii Sahih al-Bukhari 5005.

    ix Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an.

    x Sahih Muslim 2286.

    xi Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an.

    xii Sunan Ibn Majah 1944.

    xiii Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, Note 3674.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #13 - February 20, 2010, 11:22 PM

    Lets say in the magical future the Islamic world loosened up and archeologists and researchers were allowed to freely explore arabia. If they found evidence that showed the many parts of the Quran actually existed in pre-islamic poetry and cults in Arabia, would your admit Mo made it all up?


    OF course! and I'd become a Deist again.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #14 - February 20, 2010, 11:23 PM

    Shakir
    15 (9) Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian.

    Abdel Haleem
    15 (9) We have sent down the Quran Ourself, and We Ourself will guard it. Even before you [Prophet],

    إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا ٱلذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُۥ لَحَٰفِظُونَ


    I was saying that sana manuscript could have been a bad copy of the Quran... so what?

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #15 - February 20, 2010, 11:27 PM

    http://www.amazon.com/Which-Koran-Manuscripts-Influence-Pre-islamic/dp/1591024293

    Few Muslims realize that there are several Korans in circulation in the Islamic world, with textual variations whose significance, extent, and meaning have never been properly examined. Ibn Warraq has here assembled important scholarly articles that address the history, linguistics, and religious implications of these not-trifling variants in Islam’s sacred book. In a lengthy introduction, Warraq notes that historical and linguistic evidence suggests that there was considerable confusion regarding what should be included in the Koran in the early years of Muslim history. Although the caliph Uthman canonized a specific text some fifteen years after the death of Muhammad, variant readings of certain passages have persisted to the present. This can be seen in discrepancies between the two main printed versions of the Koran available today (the Warsh transmission found in West and Northwest Africa and the Hafs transmission, stemming from Kufa, and widely available through the standard Egyptian edition of 1924). This, coupled with the fact that Muslim secondary literature (the Hadiths) discusses missing Koranic verses and even Muhammad’s sometimes faulty memory, strongly indicate that the Koran cannot be considered an inerrant revelation. Warraq organizes the articles in this volume into subsections dealing with the language of the Koran; pre-Islamic poetry and its possible influence on the writing of the Koran; influences from Jewish and Christian sources and from Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls); problems of obscure vocabulary and orthography; variant readings in different Koranic manuscripts; and questions surrounding the biography of the prophet Muhammad. As a visual aid, Warraq has compiled a unique and valuable chart of thirty-two Koranic variants found in Korans available in the Islamic world, along with remarks on their significance. In-depth yet accessible to nonspecialists interested in Islam, Which Koran? raises important questions about Islam’s holy book.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #16 - February 20, 2010, 11:30 PM

    Also I think the latest apologist trend is that words are not perfect. And the latest deist/theist apology is that God created the world imperfectly.

    Both of these arguments are an insult to God.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #17 - February 20, 2010, 11:47 PM

    @ BD

    Quote
    Also I think the latest apologist trend is that words are not perfect. And the latest deist/theist apology is that God created the world imperfectly.

    Both of these arguments are an insult to God.

     

    Well, both of these arguments are made in the Quran. 1- No words can describe God 2- This world is meant be imperfect and full of suffering.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #18 - February 21, 2010, 01:54 AM

    @ BD
     

    Well, both of these arguments are made in the Quran. 1- No words can describe God 2- This world is meant be imperfect and full of suffering.


    Sayng no words can't describe God is not the same as saying God can not write properly or can not send a message that is crystal clear. Basically the words of the Quran are God's. If the words are poorly devised this reflects on God. Should God not be the best of writers?

    2. This world is meant to be imperfect? Where is this verse?

    I seem to recall verses about God being the best of Creators. So we can complain about God's creation?

    You can see it as God creating this word in this manner or you can see it as there is no God and this world is imperfect because of its origins. If it had a Designer it wouldn't look the way it is.

    The Quran also tells us to look at creation and reflect. This is to make us appreciate God more. But what happens if I look at the bad things? The evil things? Disturbing stuff worthy of nightmares? All natural in this world. And then reflect over the nature of its creator. What does that tell me?
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #19 - February 21, 2010, 09:43 AM

    Exactly. If you've read Bart D. Erhman's "Misquoting Jesus" you would know how devistating these 'small' discrepancies can have on manuscript-tradition. Most scholars of the New Testament argue that it's impossible to re-create the ur-New Testament. Could it be the same with the Qur'an? - i.e. that some scribes (how many professional Arab scribes was there in the 7th century?) might have made a small mistake - not intentionally? - could some scribes have had the opinion that a specific word or sentence should be different? Could one or two (or three or four) letters be mixed up together? Actually many muslim scholars throughout history have argued that there is a need of emendations of the canonized text.


    Sorry folks, I just wanted to make a point here and add something to this discussion, without agreeing or taking sides.

    In Islam, writing etc is secondary. The reliance and alleged integrity of the transmission of the Quran is through the long line of hafiz. What is written down is checked against what is uttered by the hafiz.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #20 - February 21, 2010, 09:46 AM

    But the hafiz must have got it from one source. Also the history of hafiz is wonky. With so many of them dying and some remembering parts and others not. Some fighting over what parts are correct. I think the hafiz only began properly when quran was codified.

    Which means the source (the quran we have now) is the real source. So what happens if they check it against the hafiz? And they find discrepancies?
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #21 - February 21, 2010, 10:11 AM

    The recitation of the hafiz is the one that is taken as the credible one. If what is written doesn't match with what the hafiz recites, then the written one is discarded. The whole issue regarding the compilation etc, was used as a safeguard because the hafiz were dying in battle, so it was a deterrent against it being lost.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #22 - February 21, 2010, 10:12 AM

    omg oral transmission outweighs printed transmission? :S

    are they serious??

    honestly a cold chill just went down my spine.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #23 - February 21, 2010, 10:25 AM

    a chill down your spine?

    Anyway, when numerous diverse people recite the same thing, then it's actually not too hard to believe they can't be all wrong.


    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #24 - February 21, 2010, 10:29 AM

    Yeah a chill, because I would think the Muslim world would be at the very least a bit enlightened. Especially when I grew up being told we are the smartest and our religion is the best.

    No actually, its pretty hard to think that they are all right. The human mind is far from perfect. I don't trust oral transmission, that's what we have the printing press and digital storage for.
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #25 - February 21, 2010, 10:33 AM

    of course having printing press is *convenient* but when that's not available a large group of people passionately memorizing the same (small size) text works too.


    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #26 - February 21, 2010, 10:40 AM

    Sayng no words can't describe God is not the same as saying God can not write properly or can not send a message that is crystal clear. Basically the words of the Quran are God's. If the words are poorly devised this reflects on God. Should God not be the best of writers?

    2. This world is meant to be imperfect? Where is this verse?

    I seem to recall verses about God being the best of Creators. So we can complain about God's creation?

    You can see it as God creating this word in this manner or you can see it as there is no God and this world is imperfect because of its origins. If it had a Designer it wouldn't look the way it is.

    The Quran also tells us to look at creation and reflect. This is to make us appreciate God more. But what happens if I look at the bad things? The evil things? Disturbing stuff worthy of nightmares? All natural in this world. And then reflect over the nature of its creator. What does that tell me?


    there are verses that say man was created weak, others say he was created in suffering, etc.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism
     Reply #27 - February 21, 2010, 10:44 AM

    Sorry folks, I just wanted to make a point here and add something to this discussion, without agreeing or taking sides.


    You are fully entitled to make a point Smiley so need to be sorry.

    In Islam, writing etc is secondary. The reliance and alleged integrity of the transmission of the Quran is through the long line of hafiz. What is written down is checked against what is uttered by the hafiz.


    This is an important element of the transmission of the Qur'an, but it does not change the basic outline.

    Quote from: me with changes
    Could it be the same with the Qur'an? - i.e. that some who allegdelly memorized the Qur'an, hafiz, (how many professional Arab hafiz was there in the 7th century?) might have made a small mistake - not intentionally? - could some hafiz have had the opinion that a specific word or sentence should be different? Actually many muslim scholars throughout history have argued that there is a need of emendations of the canonized text.


    Personally I think it's very possible that this sort of transmission is part of the reason that we have different versions of the same stories in the Qur'an.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »