[Morganite]

The problems posed by the scripta defectiva of early versions of the Koran inevitably led to the growth of different centers with their own variant traditions of how the texts should be pointed or vowelized. Despite ‘Uthman’s order to destroy all texts other than his own, it is evident that the older codices survived.

Charles Adams says, "It must be emphasized that far from there being a single text passed down inviolate from the time of ‘Uthman’s commission, literally thousands of variant readings of particular verses were known in the first three (Muslim) centuries. These variants affected even the ‘Uthmanic codex, making it difficult to know what its true form may have been."

Some Muslims preferred codices other than the ‘Uthmanic, for example, those of Ibn Mas’ud, Uba ibn Ka’b, and Abu Musa. Eventually, under the influence of the great Koranic scholar Ibn Mujahid (died 935), there was a definite canonization of one system of consonants and a limit placed on the variations of vowels used in the text that resulted in acceptance of seven systems.

But other scholars accepted ten readings, and still others accepted fourteen readings. Even Ibn Mujahid’s seven provided fourteen possibilities since each of the seven was traced through two different transmitters, viz,

1. Nafi of Medina according to Warsh and Qalun

2. Ibn Kathir of Mecca according to al-Bazzi and Qunbul

3. Ibn Amir of Damascus according to Hisham and Ibn Dakwan

4. Abu Amr of Basra according to al-Duri and al-Susi

5. Asim of Kufa according to Hafs and Abu Bakr

6. Hamza of Kuga according to Khalaf and Khallad

7. Al-Kisai of Kufa according to al Duri and Abul Harith

In the end three systems prevailed, those of Warsh (d. 812) from Nafi of Medina, Hafs (d. 805) from Asim of Kufa, and al-Duri (d. 860) from Abu Amr of Basra.

At present in modern Islam, two versions seem to be in use: that of Asim of Kufa through Hafs, which was given a kind of official seal of approval by being adopted in the Egyptian edition of the Koran in 1924; and that of Nafi through Warsh, which is used in parts of Africa other than Egypt.

As Charles Adams reminds us:

It is of some importance to call attention to a possible source of misunderstanding with regard to the variant readings of the Quran. The seven (versions) refer to actual written and oral text, to distinct versions of Quranic verses, whose differences, though they may not be great, are nonetheless substantial. Since the very existence of variant readings and versions of the Quran goes against the doctrinal position toward the Holy Book held by many modern Muslims, it is not uncommon in an apologetic context to hear the seven (versions) explained as modes of recitation; in fact the manner and technique of recitation are an entirely different matter.

Guillaume also refers to the variants as "not always trifling in significance." For example, the last two verses of sura LXXXV, Al Buraj, read: (21) hawa qur’anun majidun; (22) fi lawhin mahfuzun/in. The last syllable is in doubt.

If it is in the genitive -in, it gives the meaning "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet"—a reference to the Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. If it is the nominative ending -un, we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." There are other passages with similar difficulties dealing with social legislation.

If we allow that there were omissions, then why not additions? The authenticity of many verses in the Koran has been called into question by Muslims themselves. Many Kharijites, who were followers of ‘Ali in the early history of Islam, found the sura recounting the story of Joseph offensive, an erotic tale that did not belong in the Koran.

Hirschfeld questioned the authenticity of verses in which the name Muhammad occurs, there being something rather suspicious in such a name, meaning ‘Praised’, being borne by the Prophet.

The name was certainly not very common. However the Prophet’s name does occur in documents that have been accepted as genuine, such as the Constitution of Medina.

Most scholars believe that there are interpolations in the Koran; these interpolations can be seen as interpretative glosses on certain rare words in need of explanation.

More serious are the interpolations of a dogmatic or political character, which seem to have been added to justify the elevation of ‘Uthman as caliph to the detriment of ‘Ali.

Then there are other verses that have been added in the interest of rhyme, or to join together two short passages that on their own lack any connection.

Bell and Watt carefully go through many of the amendments and revisions and point to the unevenness of the Koranic style as evidence for a great many alterations in the Koran:

There are indeed many roughness of this kind, and these, it is here claimed, are fundamental evidence for revision. Besides the points already noticed—hidden rhymes, and rhyme phrases not woven into the texture of the passage—there are the following:

Abrupt changes of rhyme
Repetition of the same rhyme word or rhyme phrase in adjoining verses
The intrusion of an extraneous subject into a passage otherwise homogeneous
A differing treatment of the same subject in neighbouring verses, often with repetition of words and phrasesbreaks in grammatical construction which raise difficulties in exegesis
Abrupt changes in length of verse
Sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on
The juxtaposition of apparently contrary statements; the juxtaposition of passages of different date, with intrusion of fare phrases into early verses.


In many cases a passage has alternative continuations which follow one another in the present text. The second of the alternatives is marked by a break in sense and by a break in grammatical construction, since the connection is not with what immediately precedes, but with what stands some distance back.

The Christian al-Kindi (not to be confused with the Arab, Muslim philosopher) writing around 830 C.E. criticized the Koran in similar terms:

The result of all this (process by which the Quran came into being) is patent to you who have read the scriptures and see how, in your book, histories are jumbled together and intermingled; an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked. Are such, now, the conditions of a revelation sent down from heaven?


Is such a book trustworthy?




MORGANITE

[rkim291968]

Not just Koran...
I don't find any religious book trustworthy becase there are so many different ways to interpret. Stupid, evil people have done that to their liking and have caused so much death and grief throughout the history. It is still happening today.

[Morganite]

Not just Koran ...
I don't find any religious book trustworthy becase there are so many different ways to interpret. Stupid, evil people have done that to their liking and have caused so much death and grief throughout the history. It is still happening today.

That is a very interesting take.

Can you be more specific and give examples of as many sacred books as posslble and explain how you believe they have contributed to mankind's ills?




MORGANITE


:)

[rkim291968]

That is a very interesting take.

Can you be more specific and give examples of as many sacred books as posslble and explain how you believe they have contributed to mankind's ills?

:)

Is that really necessary? Take fundamental muslims, Taliban e.g. and see how they are interpreting Koran.

[baidarka]

Not just Koran ...
I don't find any religious book trustworthy becase there are so many different ways to interpret. Stupid, evil people have done that to their liking and have caused so much death and grief throughout the history. It is still happening today.

Agree completely. It is like the conversation I was having with a co-worker the other day. He is a devout Harvest church adherent. He referenced some obscure quote in the bible to refute the supposition that Jesus had a son, who was born in France.

I told him, we have a manufacturing facility a mere 800 miles away from us. Things are happening at this moment, with currently living witnesses, event being recorded real time--in writing, in English, yet it is difficult to get a straight story out of our manufacturing plant. With the Bible, or any other holy script, you have events that happened a couple of millenias in the past, halfway around the world, all the witnesses are dead, and things were written down in a dead language after being passed down by word of mouth, often for generations. Is any of it reliable? I doubt it.

That said, the Q'uran is probably more reliable than the Bible, simply because it is a newer document.

[rkim291968]

Agree completely. It is like the conversation I was having with a co-worker the other day. He is a devout Harvest church adherent. He referenced some obscure quote in the bible to refute the supposition that Jesus had a son, who was born in France.

I told him, we have a manufacturing facility a mere 800 miles away from us. Things are happening at this moment, with currently living witnesses, event being recorded real time--in writing, in English, yet it is difficult to get a straight story out of our manufacturing plant. With the Bible, or any other holy script, you have events that happened a couple of millenias in the past, halfway around the world, all the witnesses are dead, and things were written down in a dead language after being passed down by word of mouth, often for generations. Is any of it reliable? I doubt it.

That said, the Q'uran is probably more reliable than the Bible, simply because it is a newer document.

That's a good real life example. Even simple e-mails exchanges at my work are often misinterepted and cause a lot of mishap.

[chrisl]

With the Bible, or any other holy script, you have events that happened a couple of millenias in the past, halfway around the world, all the witnesses are dead, and things were written down in a dead language after being passed down by word of mouth, often for generations. Is any of it reliable? I doubt it.

There is no need to "doubt" in this matter. It is simple to research and verify. There are source documents in existence today in libraries and museums around the world that date to within decades of the original writings that form the Christian Greek scriptures (the New Testament.) There is no question that the NT is accurate and uncorrupted.

And while we do not have manuscripts of that age for the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), there is much other evidence of their integrity. Fragments of some OT books were found in the Dead Sea caves that date to the 2nd century BCE. They reveal no significant corruption of the texts. There are many other similar cases but the Dead Sea Scrolls are probably the most well-known.

With the wealth of manuscripts, scrolls and papyrus fragments available today, it is uninformed to claim that the Bible texts are somehow unreliable or fraudulent. Secular and religious scholarship does not agree.

If you are interested, this URL has interesting info about how we have arrived at our modern Bible:

Comparing Translations

I can't vouch for the author's theology but I find his analysis of Bible scholarship to be very interesting and easy to follow.

That said, the Q'uran is probably more reliable than the Bible, simply because it is a newer document.

Frankly, I view the age of the Quran as a weakness. To me, if I had to start from scratch looking for the genuine written word of our Creator, I would start with the oldest books. It makes perfect sense that God's word would be one of the first documents recorded by mankind, if not the first.

Chris

[G4-450]

While some things in certain versions of the bible show that they have not been corrupted they also demostrate everything in the bibles they are and there corruptions, asn also directly by people who abused them at those times, especially with Gospals which do not have authors.

The Al Qur'an iis the word of God according to JP ii


Why

Do a search about JP's investigation on the crucifixion of Jesus and if you can find it anymore, JP discovered that the Quran had over 25 proofs of been the word of God and asks believers of every faith to believe only in one god and stop the wrongdoing.

This link also has some interesting facts to read up on.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative.html

I am not saying the Bible is totally corrupted as is, I am saying there is clearly written corruption in it and some repented and some did not yet as we see today who still use the bible (Torah and Gospels) as well as the rest of it to destructive ends.

[baidarka]

There is no need to "doubt" in this matter. It is simple to research and verify.

Research only gets you so far, if it is researching old texts. Even the old texts are based on information passed on by word of mouth. I trust archaeological evidence, such as concrete artifacts much more. But then, you're still open to interpretation.

As for the Q'uran being less reliable, due to it's newness, that is probably true, if you are referring to identical events covered by the Bible and the Torah. However, as far as events that occurred during Mohammed's time, I would tend to believe that they are recorded more accurately than the Bible covers Jesus' life.

[chrisl]

Research only gets you so far, if it is researching old texts. Even the old texts are based on information passed on by word of mouth. I trust archaeological evidence, such as concrete artifacts much more. But then, you're still open to interpretation.

So your doubt is not really so much about the subsequent written transmission as it is about the trustworthiness of the original message?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "archaeological evidence" and "concrete artifacts." To me, an ancient scroll recovered from a cave or a papyrus fragment found in an Eqyptian excavation would definitely qualify. Can you expand on this a little bit?

As for the Q'uran being less reliable, due to it's newness, that is probably true, if you are referring to identical events covered by the Bible and the Torah. However, as far as events that occurred during Mohammed's time, I would tend to believe that they are recorded more accurately than the Bible covers Jesus' life.

I agree that the Quran would be the most reliable source of info about the teachings of Islam and Mohammed's time, but I don't think it's valid to say that it must be more accurate than the Bible simply because it is more recent.

The Bible has withstood many centuries of criticism, scrutiny and attacks by opposers and enemies. In my opinion, the Bible's long history supports its accuracy and reliability rather than the other way around. It's kind of like a very old and respected legal precedent or court case. Such a precedent deserves respect because it is old and has withstood more challenges.

Chris

[baidarka]

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "archaeological evidence" and "concrete artifacts." To me, an ancient scroll recovered from a cave or a papyrus fragment found in an Eqyptian excavation would definitely qualify. Can you expand on this a little bit?

Well, for one thing, the content of what is written on the scrolls, I tend to take with a grain of salt. However, the study on the parchment material, perhaps radiocarbon dating, that sort of thing I trust more. I mean, if the scrolls document a world wide flood, do I take that literally? No.

But geological evidence points to a flood that might have innundated the entire region. Not the entire world, but it was the whole world to them. So, I believe the geological evidence, but not the written word from that period.

This is not to say that I totally discount ancient scripts. I tend to trust details from scripts that are likely free of bias and competing interests. If I were to use northeast Asian history as an example (a field I'm comfortable speaking about), I place very little credence on written Japanese texts as it relates to its place in the hierarchy of nations in the early period of Japan's formation as a nation state.

Japan was a relatively new nation formed circa AD 200, by immigrants from Korea, and the chief aim of the ancient Japanese texts such as the Kojiki and Nihongi were to bolster the idea that Japan was just as old and distinguished as China and Korea. So they fabricated a long line of emperors dating back several thousand years, made claims of having a subordinate state in Korea. Archaeological evidence showed massive cultural and technological transfer into Japan from the Korean peninsula, thus making the Japanese claim very unlikely. The sheer paupacity of archaeological artifacts from pre-AD 200 makes their claim of antiquity highly unlikely.

But, the fabrications are understandable when one realizes that Korea and China deridingly dubbed Japan as "Wa," (Wae in Korean), which comes from the Chinese character for "small" or "fraile." These ancient texts were attempts to escape such belittlement.

But as far as Japanese records of who gave birth to whom, and how so and so it related to so and so, there is little reason to doubt them, because they are free from competing interests.

So, going back to the Bible as a reliable document, all the competing interest during that period throws much of it into doubt, in my opinion. You have the Romans trying to suppress a rebellion in its colony, the Jews trying to suppress someone they viewed as a heretic, and the Christians trying to assert their rights. Trying to piece together events from three competing points of view is difficult I think. I think the written scripts should be corroborating evidence, rather than the primary source. Archaeological artifacts should be the primary.

[chrisl]

... the study on the parchment material, perhaps radiocarbon dating, that sort of thing I trust more... geological evidence

OK, I follow. You prefer the "hard" sciences. There are, of course, many archaeological sites that confirm the Bible record.

As for the flood, I don't think the geological evidence is so much missing as it is misinterpreted. I think geological evidence that many attribute to glacial activity is in reality flood damage. And I saw a program on cable awhile back about a geologist who claimed that very thing about an area in North America--I think it was the Mississippi River basin or something. He wasn't talking about THE flood, just A flood. But his point was how similar the effects were. Yet his colleagues were publishing papers and claiming that it was obviously glacial. He was attacked and ridiculed by his colleagues but they eventually were forced to admit that he was right. I wish I could remember what program that was...

Anyway, science is not perfect and we must be open-minded about other explanations. Not gullible: open-minded. As I've said before, science has a long history of saying, "D'oh!"

So they fabricated a long line of emperors dating back several thousand years, made claims of having a subordinate state in Korea... the fabrications are understandable when one realizes that Korea and China deridingly dubbed Japan as "Wa," (Wae in Korean), which comes from the Chinese character for "small" or "fraile." These ancient texts were attempts to escape such belittlement.

That's interesting. I don't know a lot about Far East cultures and I didn't know this about Japanese history. But from what I've read, few civilizations were eager to record their own failures.

But the Bible is very different in that regard. To me, a powerful hallmark of Biblical authenticity is the frank and honest disclosure of MAJOR shortcomings and unfaithfulness by the writers. If someone wanted to forge or embellish their history, why put themselves in such unfavorable light? What reason would they have to claim that they descended from slaves in Egypt? Or that their greatest kings fell into adultery and idolatry?

The Bible record contains many exposures and admissions of gross wrongdoing. Why? To my mind, the only logical answer is because it's genuine.

Chris

[Morganite]

Is that really necessary? Take fundamental muslims, Taliban e.g., and see how they are interpreting Koran.

It would be very helpful to those interested in the subject if you would explain in some detail (so that we could follow your arguments and understand your interpretation), precisely, and in some detail, what it is that you find wrong with sacred texts.

I have heard about Taliban but which parts of the Koran are they interpreting in ways that disagree with how you interpret it?





MORGANITE



:)

[baidarka]

But the Bible is very different in that regard. To me, a powerful hallmark of Biblical authenticity is the frank and honest disclosure of MAJOR shortcomings and unfaithfulness by the writers. If someone wanted to forge or embellish their history, why put themselves in such unfavorable light? What reason would they have to claim that they descended from slaves in Egypt? Or that their greatest kings fell into adultery and idolatry?

The Bible record contains many exposures and admissions of gross wrongdoing. Why? To my mind, the only logical answer is because it's genuine.

Chris

Well, I think another factor is that the whole point of the Bible, is not simply a faithful record of history, but an attempt to drive home a certain moral message. Exposing wrongdoings is a vital part of any didactic story. Of course, since God is the only one infallible, according to the Bible, all others, including Kings, would be subject to failure. Plus, didn't God allow the Jews to be enslaved by the Egyptians because of some shortcoming in their faith? Again, a moral message.

[Morganite]

Japan was a relatively new nation formed circa AD 200, by immigrants from Korea, [... ]

But as far as Japanese records of who gave birth to whom, and how so and so it related to so and so, there is little reason to doubt them, because they are free from competing interests.

I understood the Japanese to be a mixture of Korean and Chinese. Is this correct?




MORGANITE




:)

[baidarka]

I have heard about Taliban but which parts of the Koran are they interpreting in ways that disagree with how you interpret it?

There are many contradictory passages in the Q'uran, in my opinion. I have read parts of it, though I could never get through the entire thing, because after a while, it seemed to repeat itself. Every major passage seems to end with something like, "God is all-forgiving and wise," or something like that. It was a period in my life when I was in love with a Muslim girl, and wanted to see if conversion was even a remote possibility. Sadly, the answer was no. Some parts seem to encourage tolerance and kindness, while others advocate revenge on your enemies. Some passages seem to encourage killing infidels, while sparing the women and children. I found the token gesture of humanity kind of laughable. Overall, I found passages that encourages violence against infidels to far outnumber tolerance, however. But, anyone can cherry pick certain passages to support whatever radical/moderate views they have.

I found the entire book to be lacking any sort of clarity, or unifying theme, besides the message that God is good. Strangely enough, I think its rambling nature is what mystifies believers even more. Believers think that the Q'uran is the literal words of God. The parts that do not make sense can be explained away as they unknowable nature of God.

[baidarka]

I understood the Japanese to be a mixture of Korean and Chinese. Is htis correct?




MORGANITE




:)

Genetically speaking, almost entirely Korean, with minor input from the aboriginal people that lived in pre-historic Japan. Studies seem to indicate that the Ainus of northern Japan are a genetic mix of Korean migrants and aboriginal Japanese, but with a larger input from the aboriginal part.

Linguistically, Korean and Japanese are related. Not really close like Spanish and Portuguese. Probably not even as close as English and German.

[G4-450]

I believe the Qur'an is true in its wisdom and teachings, it does not even take sides with Arabs but calls for unity to one God, something shocking got the people at that time. as well as tell how the people who CAN NOT READ and hear the word and are patient with there religion should not provoke war since Mohammed let them practice there religion, pay there own tax rate and sign a peace treaty.

And it directs everything towards God been the disposer of man's affairs and reminds the reader to look in the past over and over to understand who invites you to peace and who it is that invites you self destruction as well as how to tell the difference between evil and good of the Bible (torah and Gospels).

One must remember something very important about the Qur'an before making the same mistakes I did which I think are common been a bible study person, the Yassuf Alli version of the Qur'an (english) is one of the best versions to get because it explains it chronological order of revelations and details to whom some of the chapter where addressing (the enemies of Mohammed and Islam ) as for example his Uncles tribe the Quaresh, and all the pagans arguments and war declarations against islam and the idea of unity and the one true God, but you can not tell this at a glance unless you read this all in arabic because of the variations. I do not speak arabic but the Yasuf Alli version called "The meaning of the Holy Qur'an" also adds explinations to many bilingual miss interpretations.

I agree with most of the posts here about many problems with all the scriptures been abused by people who miss understand them.

What I do not agree with "Morgentide" an his agenda for attacking the Qur'an while yet claiming that the Talmud is 100% clean when it teaches ethnic cleansing of Arab and black jews and all non jews as well and is obviously a anti semitic ideology itself.

I mention the Talmud since it is a Anti Semitic Rabbinic book and calls all racist alike it up for blame games to justify hate trends because of Rabbinic inventions in it. while many teaching in it are good it does inded have some Evil Rabbis as well making scary statements and no one has proven it pure and clean yet.+ even in a court of law as France attempted to do when they discovered Israel got Nuclear Weapons some how and lied about it.

So there are in fact anti semitic people disguised as jews as much as Christians and muslims who are not at all true to any of the 3 faiths, the Qur'an warns the reader of such people and reminds man about the one true God, the Torah and the Tenack, the gospels and man's purpose in earth, and also states that it does not matter what religion one claims they fallow as long as they do God's will, be good and remember the last day when they meet there lord.

Further more, the Qur'an goes on to say that if any so called Jews are true to there covenant then ask them to wish for death to meet there due portion of the hear after as promised by there lord for there virtues, and if you witness terror in there eyes it is because these are not jews but liars or what I believe today are Zionists.

So yes the Qur'an is a valid word of God as long as anyone who reads it does not mix racial ideologies with it been a black or arab poeples God or Book but the God of Abraham.

As far as parts not understood in the Qur'an, all I can say that it has codes (letters) to protect it from corruption as the Torah did, and they stood for meanings we now understand but before both Arabic and Hebrew where officially spoken languages, and both Semitic peoples from the cradle of the human race which brings us all to the conclusion of our fathers.

There is no evidence to any other people pre dating who we now refer to as Arabs in Iran, Syria and Iraq which means we all descended from these areas from the beginning and the so called Theories of evolution are simply Theories.

[chrisl]

Well, I think another factor is that the whole point of the Bible, is not simply a faithful record of history, but an attempt to drive home a certain moral message.

This is certainly true, although I would say it is more than an "attempt." ;) It succeeds completely. The history and science is secondary to the message. Yet, I find even that fact to be significant. The science and history is not used for "gee-whiz" effect, as if the writers were trying to impress or justify. Often it is totally incidental or even obscure.

One more point worth considering is how firmly the Bible is grounded in dates and places. It is not like other holy books that seem far more "once-upon-a-time"-ish, like fables or myths. Not so with the Bible. Events are placed in historical context with very detailed locations. That too has the ring of authenticity to me.

If someone's going to forge a book, why make it so easy to expose by using easily verifiable things like dates and places? It'd be like a criminal purposely leaving clues at a crime scene.

Chris

[Tower4Love]

Shalom

The Koran is for those who did not practice the Torah and are lost from the truth, it's a guidance for them.

The Koran does not call for the destruction of Judaism or Christianity as we also witnessed in Spain and Israel for 800 years of peace, but when the reader understands its truth they should stick to there covenants as much as I should if I understand the Torah,


The Koran clearly says God has sent prophets to there people with the same moral messages to deliver them from destructive ends and demonstrates that.

But again, if you made your covenant with been Jewish then you are, if your muslim then you are and since there is one God then stick to your faith if it is peace your after. I am educated not to Judge otheres for there faith if they have any.