(no title)
waps | 10 years ago
But islam clearly states there's only one version. Who is lying ? Reality or your paedophilic religion ?
As for the islamic history's version of the quran's collection, read it and you will realize just how absurd it is that it would be even remotely accurate ...
> "...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men.[Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:201]
This statement obviously means that there were no more than fragments written down 2 years after your prophet died. Supposedly, the first version was written down 25 years later. That's the version of history in the hadith, and very few historians believe it to be accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn...
Note that while there is a "canonical" version of the quran in existence (Ottomans robbed it from Baghdad and it's still in Turkey), "for some reason" nobody's allowed to see it. Fragments of one of the others was found in graves in Yemen (the famous Sana'a manuscripts) and ... surprise ! They don't match. Nobody was surprised of course, but you're still going to deny it, aren't you ? Usually muslim lunatics claim this is a conspiracy against islam, just so you'll have some inspiration ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript
Do note that this is a script from after the canonicalization. So this should have been copied from a written quran, and thus presumably much more accurate than the copies made orally. And yet ... hundreds of differences.
(note that there are internal inconsistencies in the Sana'a manuscripts too. The multiple copies found don't even fully match eachother. Sorry to state the obvious, but clearly early muslims weren't very concerned with exact copies of the quran, in the way that, for instance, Christian monks were for the bible)
Muslims responded with violence and attacks. At the time, people were actually surprised at this.
Also note that, in order to "guarantee nothing got lost", the hadith actually contain alternative versions of ~40% of all verses in the quran. And that number goes above 50% if you take all hadith accepted by any sect of islam (instead of just sunnis). Another conspiracy perhaps ?
azth|10 years ago
If you study the history of the Arabs and Muslims, you would know that they were extremely strict in how narrations were passed down, even before Islam. We have the chain of narration for the Mu'allaqat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat), and this was pre-Islam.
People recited both from scribes as well as from memory. Memorizing large amounts of information is something very uncommon today, but was common back in the day. There are people who used to memorize hundreds of thousands of Hadiths, with the chain of narration; and some people of that nature still exist to this day, though not as many.
Even today, when children memorize the Quran, they know where what Ayah is on what page. You can ask the child to start reciting from a random page, and he/she would.
Can you show me a reference that the Turks refuse to show the Quran they have to the public, or that there were differences between that one and what was discovered in San'aa?
[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira%27at
waps|10 years ago
[deleted]