So the Holy Prophet muhammad(pbuh) after reciting to his followers counter checked many times and asked them what they had written down. Problem solved.
Both the Jews and Christians were literate peoples who knew their scriptures. Quran 2:79 when read in context clearly states that the illiterate people were writing the book 'with their own hands' and claiming it was from Allah. Since we know the people of the Book were literate, these verses are not referring to them.
The Quran never charges that the Jews and Christians have physically corrupted their scriptures. It states that they have 'changed words from their right places (with their mouths)' and 'concealed parts of the message given to them'.
you know what you made a good point when you what you said about the text of the Quran when man were entrusted with it and added the harakat. but see Uthman (as) kept the text the way Muhammed(saw) recited it so that together should say enough the Quran is pure. as for the other scriptures according to some research the originals are pure except the interpretations and i think transliterations. is that correct?
thats why in Islam we dont say the books of ALLAH were corrupt we generally believe that is was revealed. the bible is a different story that is not torah or injil its bible and that was extremely altered
osmaan, tafsir 3:187 "In this Ayah, Allah chastises the People of the Scriptures, from whom Allah took the covenant by the words of their Prophets, that they would believe in Muhammad... However, they hid this truth and preferred the the small amounts and the material gains..." is a warning, doesnot support your claims of a corrupted Torah.
osmaan, tafsir 5:13 "Since their comprehension became corrupt, they behaved treacherously with Allah's Ayat, altering His Book from its apparent meanings which He sent down, and distorting its indications." Again, refers more to the meaning and interpretation rather than the text corruption or responsibility of man to keep the text pure.
osmaan, tafsir 5:15 "So the Prophet explained where they altered, distorted, changed and lied about Allah. He also ignored much of what they changed, since it would not bring about any benefit if it was explained." refers to the prophethood of Muhammad and the the "lies" that christians and jews told about Allah not to the Torah or Ingil.
osmaan, tafsir 5:41: ' They change the words from their places: by altering their meanings and knowingly distorting them after they comprehended them." again refer to meaning and interpretation. It looks like instead of proving your point, your interpreters have proven that the Torah or the Ingil cant be changed, that is if you believe that the Quran cant be changed too. So if you believe that the Torah and the Ingil were corrupted, then you have to believe that the Quran can be corrupted too.
osmaan, tafsir of 2:59, Ibn Khatir: "The summary of what the scholars have said about this subject is that the Children of Israel distorted Allah's command to them to submit to Him in tongue and deed." has nothing to do with your claim of corruption of the Torah.
osmaan, tafsir of 2:77: "Meaning their secret denial and rejection of Muhammad, although they find his coming recorded in their Book.'' again nothing to do with your claim.
osmaan, tafsir of 2:140: "They used to recite the Book of Allah He sent to them that stated that the true religion is Islam and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Their Book also stated that Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Yaqub and the tribes were neither Jews, nor Christians. They testified to these facts, yet hid them from the people." The meaning is of hiding not changing the text necessarily.
osmaan, Tafsir 3:78 "Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Abbas said that; the Ayah means they alter and add although NONE AMONG ALLAH'S CREATION CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, they alter and distort their apparent meanings." and " Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and the Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, and NO letter in them was removed." You are not making a good case for your claims, at least your tafsirs are against you...
they were intrusted with something and they failed this is what ALLAH says. ALLAH did not let his word get corrupt because the Quran is here now regardless of what you say the Quran is here confirming truth and its a book of pure truth
osmaan, the same can be said about the muslims, they were trusted with keeping the Quran pure and then they added the harakat and the dotification and changed all its meaning. Hence corrupted the text and failed Allah, when they associated human by adding innovations to the text. Do you think that muslims corrupted the Quran too?
Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
Osmaan, again this verse may be refer to the interpretation of the Torah, or what you will call the Tafsir, not necessarily to the perversion or corruption of the text. Nevertheless even if we accept the interpretation that suits you it only talks about the possibility of man to change Allah written word, something that may or have happen with the Quran too. Again your Quran references fails to piont out that the responsibility for keeping the Torah pure was assigned to the jews by Allah.
osmaan, you have not proven your claim. Keep trying. allah is the only one who preserves his word. He doesnot share this responsability with man, He cant be associated with man, His word is HIS WORD, man can not chage Allah revelation even if they try, thats what you have proven with Sura 2:75-77 and 4:46. Dont try to associate Allah with men, as if Allah needs men to keep his revelations pure (Torah, Zabur and Ingil) and Quran if you are truly a muslim.
Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this). And when they meet those who believe they say: We believe, and when they are alone one with another they say: Do you talk to them of what Allah has disclosed to you that they may contend with you by this before your Lord? Do you not then understand?
osmaan, again i the tafsir of Ibn Kathir is states: "(Inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawrah), then they used to change it) meaning, distort its meaning," refer to the meaning and interpretation not the the actual corrupting of the Torah nor to the responsability of man in keeping Allah's word in the Torah.
osmaan, in the same tafsir it states: "(Know they (Jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal), "Meaning their secret denial and rejection of Muhammad, although they find his coming recorded in their Book.'' That makes no reference to your claims but only to the Jews disbelief of Mohammad and the Qur'an.
Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.
osmaan, still haven proven your point the tafsir of Ibn Kathir says "(there are some who displace words from (their) right places) meaning, they intentionally and falsely alter the meanings of the Words of Allah and explain them in a different manner than what Allah meant" does not refer to the altering of the original but to the explanation of it. Nor places responsability of the keeping of the Torah on men.
If you have doubts about what We have sent down to Our servant, produce another surah equal to it, and call your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are telling the truth. If you do not do that and you will not do it then fear the Fire whose fuel is people and stones, made ready for the unbelievers. ] (Al-Baqarah 2: 23-24)
Well ALLAH is perfect and Man is not. i dont need deedat for that. i dont need a theary, i dont believe in half the theory out there i go by fact and truth. and Quran doesnt have theories only truth. truth is you dont understand ALLAH
osmaan, Since I it is clear to you I dont understand Allah or the Qur'an or the Bible, just show me the Qur'an verses that support your claims that the previous revelations of Allah were trusted to man and man failed. So Allah had a second more perfect plan to correct his corrupted previous revelations with the Qur'an. Show me the facts and the truth in the Qur'an for your claims.
i wrote "ALLAH did protect the previous revelations. they just got altered for a time." he protected it by Revealing the Quran and set things straight again, after their first initail revelation it was mans responsibility to keep it in tact and we failed now the Quran is here confirming all truth
osmaan, you said "he protected it by Revealing the Quran and set things straight again, after their first initial revelation it was mans responsibility to keep it in tact and we failed now the Quran is here confirming all truth"
It is probably the worst explanation, blaming man for the inability of a God to protect his own word. Probably you have "tons" of prove from the Qur`an to back -up your theory, can u give us an example of this theory from the Qur'an? Try Deedat to see if u can find it...
look before you ask another question just search Ahmad deedat in youtube here and man just watch his debates youll be left with no more doubts. Search the miracles of the Quran look at ALLAH written in the clouds. read the book for yourself and behold its perfection i am a witness to the perfect logic,reason,truth and wisdom in the Quran
osmaan, Second, the story about Allah only promising to keep the Quran from corruption and leaving the other revelations in the hands of men, just speaks about the character of Allah as an irresponsible, ambivalent and changing God. Which are not characteristics generally assigned to Alla by any muslims. Your explanations fails to resist the test of the 99 names of Allah and his character, because it will make Allah a lair.
No need to see Deedat, be brave and answer yourself.
ALLAH didnt say in those previous revelations that he would protect it because he left it man to be responsible for it. that is a known fact thats why the Quran is unique because ALLAH himself said hed protect it. and it has not been altered and i recite the Quran the same way every other muslim does side by side. ALLAH is the all wise all knowing and when it comes to ALLAH believe his word and promise is true. and the book uproots all falsehood.
osmaan, to talk about the Bible you need to know the Bible. In the bible there are several references to God protecting his Word and Revelation from been changed or corrupted. See my other vid on the subject.
ALLAH did protect the previous revelations. they just got altered for a time. now the Quran is here and restored the word of the Zabur,Torah, and injil and in those revelations Prophet Muhammed(saw) was fortold. ALLAH would not have created any of this if it werent for prophet Muhammed(saw). Upon his arrival in this dunya he completed his mission and now religion is perfected once again. till the day of judgement. may ALLAH have mercy on us all.
osmaan, you wrote "ALLAH did protect the previous revelations. they just got altered for a time."
Do you realize the implications of this? Is Allah able to lie? Leaving his WORD to be altered for a time? Then how can you be sure the Qur'an has not been altered for a "time", because Allah say it will protect it? How can I trust you God when we promised the same with the Zabur, Ingil and the Torah and then allowed them to be "altered for a time"? Please make sense out of this!!
how would the recitation get manipulated because the dots got added on top of the letter tha when it has 3 dots anyways? how could the text get altered if ALLAH said hed protect it? and ALLAH is perfect in every way.
osmaan, if you know Arabic, you know that there are two different things, the dots and the harakat. Initially Arabic was written without both. The basic form of Arabic characters can only be differentiated by the dots on top or on the bottom. this is missing on all arabic script at the time of Mohammad death. Any script that pretends to be from that period DO NOT have dots or harakat. If they do have them, that original was manipulated by the addition of harakat or dots after Muhammad recital.
osmaan, you asked "how could the text get altered if ALLAH said hed protect it?"
That is precisely my question to you, how can the Ingil and the Torah be altered when Allah himself revealed then and said he will protect them? Remember that muslims view the Ingill and the torah and the qur'an as revelations from Allah. Chirstians do not view the Qur'an as a revelation from God. It is a question you most answer, not me as a Christian.
first off addin the dots didnt manipulate anything,the recital is still the same and yeah i saw that in a documentary the person who tried to claim that wouldnt even show his face he was manipulated by a big shaytan. prove it to me id like to see that what source?
osmaan, you said you did not needed to prove me anything. prove it to yourself. Dots and harakat were added AFTER the text was written in the "original" form by somebody different than the initial writer or recital. So they were ADDED. If you really want to real te "original" qur'an, with out an iota of change don fool yourself and remove the dots and harakat, and try to read it. Good luck! Face the fact that the qur'an has been manipulated. the person is a muslim in a Islamic site, not me.
look i aint gotta prove anything to you because its either you accept or reject. its not my position to "prove" anyhthing but give you the correct information
examine this authenticity for yourself, i already did. May ALLAH make your search easy for you and help you to arrive at the truth
osmaan, when muslims added the dots to the "original" script, it constituted a manipulation of the text and meaning of the quran. When they added the harakat, it was another manipulation of the meaning and text. there is plenty of evidence in ISLAMIC sources for this. You see what you want to see, is your choice. you need not to prove anything to me.
man i wouldnt want any non muslim scholars examinig it anyways i wouldnt trust it cuz that would put it at risk of getting corrupt. the bible didnt start getting compiled more than 100 years after jesus was gone. During the time prophet Muhammad (saw) people wrote it down and after and it aint changed and i can take my copy and compare the arabic wit the arabic that was original and its the same not a single iota has been changed.
osmaan, do you know that arabic was not establish in its present quranic by Khalīl ibn Ahmad Al Farāhīdi (c. 718c. 791 ) then ADDED to the quran the harakat and dottification in its present form? and that in arabic the harakat change the meaning of almost every word? Yes addition to the text were made after the initial "originals". islamtutor(dot)com/prayer(dot)php?p=turbah: "...Harakat were added to the text of the Quran a while after the death of the Prophet..."
and he gave them the original and get the message clear he was one of the great caliphas you should read about him. I traced the meaning of my name and found out who my parents named me after and i found his story and man was it enlightening
Osmaan, where is exactly this copy you talk about, where it has been kept for al these years and how many non-muslim scholars have examined it? According to Jam' Al-Qur'an "The oldest manuscripts of the Qur'an still in existence date from not earlier than about ONE HUNDRED years after Muhammdad's death"
after the prophets (saw) death the 3rd caliphah Uthman had an original copy of the quran and all these tribes had a copy but they recited it in a different dialect and he compared them all with the source and they were all different so he burned the corrupt recitations
osmaan, I an a christian, I have no fear of judgement day because I have been forgiven and saved from sin and death.Jesus The only Son oF God is my saivior.
i didnt see this thread i was commenting on another video, yes i agree with thepeacemaker hes tellin you what i been tellin you this whole time but you are very contentious what is there to keep you back from believing now that true guidance has come? all you do is look for a new way to ask your same question when it all comes down to faith either you believe or you dont.
Osmaan, the problem then is not whether I believe the qur'an is the final revelation, but whether you believe that the Torah and Ingil are also revelations from Allah. Do you believe that both the Torah and Ingil are also revelations from Allah?
The religion of ALLAH is like a building missing a brick and prophet Muhammed (saw) is the final piece. now the Quran is here and there is no doubt about the Authenticity of it so read it and behold its perfect logic and reason truth and wisdom for ones self
Osmaan, first, this vid is about the logic in the transmission of the Qur'an. It was answered by another viewer, u can see his answer in this log or view my other vid. Ur place as a Muslim is to agree with ur mulim brother or propose an alternate hypothesis. Second, I the world of thought and logic ur statement "the Quran is here and there is no doubt about the Authenticity" are just vain and empty. Try to answer when commenting in this channel and do not avoid by saying "there is no doubt".
me saying no doubt is not my words these whole "debate" im not the one your challenging your challenging ALLAH and his words and his messengers and everything else. ALLAH is the source of all things. why say what im saying is vein when i have backup you dont. your standing on your own ground. look at history every time man challenged ALLAH they are taken down!
osmaan, I have not challenged Allah, I made a question that you chose to avoid answering, probably because ur insecurities and lack of real knowledge. Allah, at least the God that we Christians believe in, cant be challenged. Allah certainly does not need you to threatenand bully me in his behalf. Dont keep avoiding the question, just answer and prove that you are capable of thinking rationally and do have knowledge of your religion and Allah. Do you agree with peacemaker (he is Muslim) answer?
the word of ALLAH is perfect thats how an imperfect emitter and receiver can transmit the perfect message orally and written without change because the Word transcends them and the sources are still here and there is a mountain of evidence backing up the Authenticity of the Holy Qur-An
to a certain extent you have to use the Qur-an as a filter for the other revelations, the original Qur-an is still here and the Torah, injil and psalms are not perfected as of today at a time there were but there were the hands of man intervening, and with the Quran this is not so plus the Qur-an confirms this in itself so we can find truth in all the other scriptures wit the actual true scripture which was the final scripture
osmaan, you did not answered the question, if the Torah and the Ingil were the perfect word of Allah, and were before the Qur'an, how come their perfection was corrupted by imperfect emitters and receivers, while the Qur'an was not affected? Did Allah changed the way he deals with his own perfect word (ingil and torah)? answer don't avoid the question.
now see your lookin at one side, now the other holy scriptures are perfected by the revelation of the Qur-an so now you know the truth and if you look close enough you see that in the previous scriptures prophet Muhammad(saw) was mentioned by name in the older scriptures his coming was foretold and he would be the one to complete it all.
osmaan, what you are saying is that when Allah reveal his word in the Torah and the Ingil, he was not clear or careful like when he revealed the quran, so he had to correct HIS mistake with the quran? Is Allah perfect?
QURAN=LIes How can MOHAMED say the angel of god said this to me so write this down what did he say how do I know Its god! What Sighns did he lesve for me. Prove its the word of God
It is only the non-challenging people that are able to believe, without challenging the obvious weak. Must Muslims will avoid the questioning of their own faith, and dedicate their lives to challenge Christianity, thinking that if the prove it wrong then they will be the choice. This attitude just proves Christianity is logically and theologically superior to Islam.
Voyageislam, cant understant what that have to do with the debate. But I have studied from books, internet and had lived in the middle east for some years.
Voyageislam, If you cant say anything to disprove or argue or instruct all of us, then the one who do not have any qualifications or knowledge about YOUR OWN BELIEVES, is you my friend, then sad indeed is your story. Argue and debate, don't go around avoiding dealing with LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS about your set of believes. Attacking my credentials does not deal with the fact that you can not disprove even the most "marginal and esoteric" arguments.
Voyage, I have not claimed to be an "Islamic academic", but if you can't deal with the fact that common people like me can ask about your faith, the you are a weak and close minded person. I can't imagine a more humble person that your prophet could not even read and was not a scholar. Were did he studied Islam, I wonder? Yet you revere him like a super-human. Now I ask you who is more esoteric and marginal, YOU that trust a prophet without "credentials" or me who ask you about your faith?
Voyage, is so sad you block me from your channel. It seams my reasoning is to much for you to handle. It is really sad and talks loudly n your willingness to explore and question your own faith based on logical premises. It also says that either you are not prepare to debate, you are not qualified to defend Islam or your faith (Islam) is weak and theological inferior to Christianity.
another problem: humanity is facing severe human rights abuses done in the name of allah, justified using the quran. the suicide bombings, muslims bombing other muslims in mosques, people get stoned, muslims want shariah law, ..
islam as it is today cannot be tolerated anymore, it causes too much suffering. in order to turn islam into something that is harmless and peaceful, muslims would need to reject large parts of the quran. if the quran is perfect, your religion as a whole will need to go.
Only Muhammad received the revelation, and nobody can confirm that. Ie: there is only faith. It sounds like the Joseph Smith's dilemma. At least he had 12 witnesses or more.
How do you know the message wasn't changed?
Google: "Early Debates on the Integrity of the Quran"
i dont think so, it has to do with logic, understanding, faith, and the truth. put together, then one can comprehend, then come to this one and only religion of all the worlds :P
faheem, when it come to Muhammad receiving the message from Gabriel, one uses ONLY faith, first because no one at the time it happen saw the Angel or heard him, ONLY Muhammad, there is no logic or science involved in the acceptance of the incident, only faith. Second you were not there unless you have more than 1000 years, so it is Faith dependent incident, that can only be accepted by Faith and Faith alone. All other instruments my give support, but without faith are worsthless and empty.
like u said, one cannot have 'blind faith'. so, YES, you have to use all of those things in which i have mentioned to you before(faith, logic, etc). so, do u see, how we keep goin in circles like i had mentioned to you before as well?
You are forcing it to go in circles by not admitting what logic tells you, If there were no witness that heard or saw the Angel but only Mohammad, then you must accept this a of doubtfull or highly unlikely, then evaluate it from a perspective of faith or religious construction, using logic and reason to sustain that in fact what at first glance is logically doubtful can be explained to be actually true, following a certain rationale. But u assume first it is true hence forcing a circular logic.
logic dictates, that if an error occurs, or something seems inhumane or irrational, then one can say this is wrong. NOW, when i chose to research Islam, i used LOGIC first, faith came aferwards. u cant tell me, that i MUST first have faith, then follow reasoning. thats not how the REAL world works. i have general knowledge of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. I can make my decision based on my LOGIC(knowledge) first..
faheem, yet you are saying I am going in circles! You are the one trying to make a circular logic. This is logic, Can I say something happened if nobody saw it or heard it and there is no record of it on a unbiased form like a photo or recording? No, I have to presume it DID NOT HAPPENED FIRST, and then using historical methodology prove whether is more probable that it happened or it did not. As a Muslim YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DO THIS, you first have to accept THE QUR'AN is the word of Allah.
If your saying that the Quran is corrupted then bring your proof if you are truthful, if you cant then you have no arguments. I can give you many corruption in the bible and many mistake in it. If you want me to list it then say so.
This is the second time I answer this comment. The corruption of the Bible NOT the topic of this debate. I am NOT saying the Qur'an is corrupted. I am not challenging you in the content of the Qur'an. You have anwsered why you believe the Qur'an is free from corruption, CONGRATULATIONS! Based on Sura 15:6-10, God preserves his Word, see your comments. I will address the implications of your answer in my next video, that will be open for debate too.
I don't understand one thing. If you claim that the Qur'an has been corrupted - why are you neglecting the content of the Qur'an to check whether it was corrupted or not? I mean - if it were, as you are insinuating by constantly undervaluing its oral tradition, wouldn't you want to check the content to see if corruption had perforated it? I don't see how you won't look at the integrity of the content to offset the claim of corrupted transmission and claim you have valid logic and reasoning.
My friend, the Qur'an text is for you to explain, not for me, I am a Christian. Lets assume the Qur'an is perfect in its form or content. There are famous books (i.e. The Quixote) that are consider perfect in content and they do not mean any thing to me, even if one will say they are from God. I an challenging the logig behind your claims of the perfection of the Qur'an, not it perfection. OK, The qur'an is perfect and the Quixote also, does that means they are both from God?
The Qur'an claims to be from God. Does the Quixote? The Qur'an provides prohpecies that came true. It has history of previous nations that is proven factual. It has secrets of this world that we are only now understanding. Does the Quixote have this? The Qur'an was revealed over a period of 23 years, and not chronologically as it is in book form now, yet there are no contradictions within, and yet each chapter relates with the others perfectly. Does the Quixote have this?
The Qur'an contains mathematical integrity, in the relation of the number of times words are used in relation to each other, which we are only discovering now - just proves that no human could have forged such a fantastic work, and since these consistencies and integrity still exists in the Qur'an is proof that the Qur'an today was the Qur'an that was revealed, for surely if corrupted, the balance and integrity within would have been destroyed years ago.
Again this supports the idea that the Qur'an IN ITS PRESENT FORM is perfect and elaborated. This facts do not support origin or uncorruption possibilities during the last step between oral and written form (PRESENT FORM). The question has been answered by a previous commenter, see thepeacemakers's response. Do you agree with him? do you have any other explanations?
Certantly the Quixote does not says it is from God, it was an example of the following: perfection in written language, never can by itself alone relate to divine origin. Any human language is a human product and can only point the human that is producing it even when it is perfect. When a claim is made by any book that it is from God, since it is expressed in a human language(even if it is a a perfect form), this claim of divine origin has to be supported by theology, logic or reason.
The following was sent by one youtuber to my e-mail (edited): "This question has been answered by proper scholars...your arguement ...is very simplistic, ignoring ...that if Mohammed was illiterate, and he was double chekced by Gabriel - where did he find the words to replace the ones he was given with?
The Response: With his own by means of his imperfect mind and memory.
Also: "Secondly - anyone receiving transmission from a supernatural source will be doubtful of his own sanity."
Response: The first time he hear Gabriel Mohammad thought he was being haunted by a demon, was later convinced by his wife that it was an Angel , is this not even worst than being clinically insane?
This is more true and believable, unlike the other personalities in the Bible, like Peter, who IMMEDIATELY KNOWS it's God. No sane man would think that if touched with a super-natural experience. And Mohammed was sane and the best of men.
You really think that if someone is touch by GOD, you will first confuse him with a demon? And if I am haunted by a demon I will first think is God? What kind of reverse theology is this one? Why God, the allpowerful and Holy will allow someone to confuse him with a demon, instead of making it clear from the begining that he is God? Was Musa and Ibrahim hearing a demon when they instantly knew God was calling them? Is the Torah the word of demons? Pls be consistent! Allah does not change!
Ok - you tell me - if you hear someone is speaking with God - what is your first knee-jerk reaction? Majority of the people would react - "what a looney!" A person who feels he is great enough to be speaking with God in the first instance without trial and introspection is an arrogant one. All the Prophets first had real introspection and contemplation of life and what their worth was. And all had physically draining experiences when getting revelation.
Plus, weren't Ibrahim (AS) and Musa (AS) humans too? Did they corrupt their revelations when transmitting it? You are willing to believe their transmission was perfect and not Muhammed's (S), when in fact there is much more evidence and history on the life of Muhammed (S) than that of Ibrahim and Musa.
First, when this part of the debate is going? It is you who said the Mohammad was sane when he initially confused the voice of God for the voice of a demon. You said that this fact was prove of the divine nature of the Qur'an, opposed to the previous revelation, using the example of Peter. Again this debate is about the transcription process of the Qur'an, not about the character of Ibrahim, Musa or Mohammad. They are all great man, but none of them can claim to have a perfect memory.
This is not part of this debate, but us to end this line of the debate, My first reaction is discribe by your words "real introspection and contemplation of life and what their worth was" caused only by the awareness that is GOD talking to me not a demon, but would not be fear, because fear does not lead to introspection, leads to doubt and self-protection. If a demon comes to speak to me, I will either confront him or flee, certantly will not feel is time for introspection and meditation.
In addition: "Muhammad was known for his truthfulness - and hence the fact that this man was not insane and received revelation from a superhuman source - is proof enough that he would not corrupt received transmission of the Qur'an."
Response: You base the incorruption of the Qur'an on Muhammad's reputation, not on Allah own power or will? Is Muhammad divinely perfect like Christians think of Jesus? Is Mohammad un capable of making mistakes? is Mohammad God? This is NOT a valid answer.
Allah chooses the best of men. To be be righteous, you don't need to be divine. In any oral tradition, you have to take into consideration the character and personality of the people transmitting. Being perfect is not human. Mohammed did not come up with the Qur'an. Associating divinity to Mohammed would be plausible if you claimed THAT. Not just for being an honest person.
Righteousness, is not the same as not being capable of making mistakes. The fact is that Mohammad, like all mankind, was capable of making mistakes, even when transmitting the Word of Allah. Again, I am NOT saying Mohammad "came up" with the Qur'an, I am challenging your assuptions that support Qur'an uncorruption. You as a Muslim should be able to provide consistent logical or theological explanation for this uncorruption theory. For muslims the Qur'an is uncorrupted, then prove it!
You are right, righteousness doesn't mean infallible. However, it indicates that there would be every intention of NOT making a mistake for this particular task. And considering the character and record of the Prophet (S), it is highly unlikely that he would ever make a mistake in matters of revelation.
We agree, but again even the most higest of characters (i.e. for you Mohammad) can make mistakes without bad intensions and without being aware of making them. Hence the perfect charater of Mohammad can 100% be attributed as an valid anwser to this dilemma BY ITSELF ALONE.
I agree that in oral traditions the character of the emitter is crucial, but as long it remains oral. Once the oral tradition is transcribe to written tradition that dependance on the character of the oral vehicle must be subtituted by reason, logic and in our case theology.
At the end: "Lastly - if there were corruptions when reciting the revelations to the followers, further revelations could have been revealed to CORRECT the corrupted verses (...during the life of the Prophet) - this you do not find in the Qur'an, where one verse is correcting another verse or in complete contradiction to another."
Response: Admitting the possibility of error does not help your case. And the Prophet may have corrected oral recitations but not written versions, he could not read.
About: "do not find in the Qur'an, where one verse is correcting another verse or in complete contradiction to another"
Response: The abrogation principle Sura 16:101- "And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'an, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not." (Hilali-Khan), this is a widely know accepted Islamic principle
Other translations: "And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not." (Pickthall)
"When We substitute one revelation for another, - and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." (Yusuf Ali).
All of them refer to the possibility that one verse from the Qur'an can supersede another.
You don't understand even the English translation, sadly. The verses states "revelations" - not "verses", referring to the previous revelations to previous Prophets. It does not refer to having to change a revealed verse. if it were - it would have mentioned WHICH verse was being changed and with what.
Well, think you were to fast I dont understand the English translation, can you explain this other one?
"And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'an, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not." (Hilali-Khan)
The word in arabic is "ayatan" "آيَةً" and "ayatin" "آيَةٍ " and generally the verses of the qur'an are refer to with this name. There is much discusion on Islamic forums about what is the real meaning of this verse, you only gave the most conservative position. The fact that the principle of abrogation exist, in Islam and it can imply even one verse being abrogated by another.
Ok - even with verses abrogated - it doesn't indicate corruption or mistakes. They verses abrogated are no longer applicable after revelation, and so new revelation is brought. It doesn't indicate anywhere that it was human error that caused abrogation. Again - it doesn't indicate that Mohammed made a mistake in transmitting the revelation or else it would have stated so, like in other places where revelation was different to Muhammed's (S) thoughts.
This part of the debate was about oyur email comment: "do not find in the Qur'an, where one verse is correcting another verse or in complete contradiction to another", so not about the transmission debate or possibility of corruption in the Qur'an. Hence, you have proven that your previous statement is not 100% correct in Islam because of the abrogation doctrine in Islam.
I am not wrong in my statement that the verses don't contradict each other. Abrogation of a verse doesn't mean it contradicts another verse. It just means that the situation to which it applies is non-existent anymore. You will not find, for example two verses describing the same incident, but in one there are 5 people involved and in the other there are 50 people involved. Nor will you find two verses providing contradictory results for the same situations.
Since I am no expert in the Qur'an content, I give you the benefit of the doubt. Even if the Qur'an in its PRESENT FORM has no contradictions, doesn't answers the question how it got to be like this. Also the fact of the existence of the abrogation verse opens a door for Muslims Scholars to subjectively "interpret" which verses of the Qur'an have been superseded by other verses or what past revelations (Torah and Ingil) are no longer valid, as long as they have a plausible human rationale.
That is your assumption. If you memorise something without knowing anything else to replace it - chances are you will memorise it as it is, rather than trying to put it in your own words. Plus - you yourself understand that he was double-checked by Gabrel to prevent exactly what you are assuming. You contradict your own statements.
Only if Muhammad had an empty brain your theory may be right. Then he would be like a recorder, that doesnot leave much room for admiration of his character and truthfulness. I am not contradicting myself, see the video again, the question arises on the transmission from Mohammad to his scribes, even if he had a blank brain, with no other infomation but the Qur'an, then his scribes, the ones who wrote it from his recitation, they also had blank brains? if not then, what was the mechanisim?
Just by the fact that he did not know how to read or write - he would be extra careful not to make any mistakes when he himself is transmitting, and would emphasize greatly for the scribes to not change or mess-up when writing, coz he wouldn't be able to check himself, except by their recitations. Now, if you doubt this measure of caution on the part of the Prophet (S), then you are not challenging the preservation of the Quran in transmission, rather the character of the Prophet (S).
What you are proposing may reduce the chance of errors, but since both are man, and man are subject to error(voluntarily of involuntarily) this carefulness and emphasis cant asure 100% error free transmission by itself alone. Fact: humans make errors, Mohammad and his Scribes were human, hence they have the possibility of making errors. Will Mohamad be able to catch written errors, answer is NO, so then who did catch those possible error? If it was a person, who was him, is he a prophet too?
u have a hard time differentiating between Prophets(man) of God versus man(your average 'man'). once you have a clear understanding, this doubt will vanish. if Prophet Muhammad was in error or if his scribes were in error, you would see a decline in reversions to this religion, you know why? because they will bring forth all the 'ERRORS'. i'm not talking about the biased 'errors' you see on the interenet. taking versus out of context..
This doesnot have to do with the debate, but it is your problem, not mine. You cant claim Mohammad was a normal human and an perfect in memory. If God made HIM perfect, why he cant do the same NOW with other muslims? If he himself or you consider him to be an special man or a special creation of God, then you are not better than any chistian. Convertions to a religion does not prove anything. Christianity is growing too! The debate is about the transmission of the Qur'an.
hmm, if its my problem, then why make it your problem? you know what? i read wat you and mumbai have been debating about, and he makes his points clear. you seem to turn a blind eye to logic. but everyone has there opinion. and one has to respect that. this debate wont go anywhere, it will just go in circles..
My friend, it is not my problem because I am not challenging here the credentials or holiness of a man like Muhammad. Yes all muslims and christians agree in this Mohammad was just a MAN, he may be special to you, but at the end HE IS A MAN like you and me. HE WILL STILL have to come before GOD in JUDGMENTDAY. And the question doesn't goes in circles because it has been properly answered by pacemaker, he is a respectable muslim that KNOWS his religion, go and learn from him.
sorry, but i have a teacher already, and thats God. and yes it does go in a non-ending argument. it always does. UNLESS someone is willing to accept the truth :D
My friend, also by chossing this way of explaining YOU, not me, are admitting to the possibility of mistakes in the ransmission process. This does not help your case! Rather admits to the possibility of correction after the act of Mohammads recital of the verses! so they were "drafts" of the qur'an that were not perfect or divine, and they were corrected to MAKE THEM PERFECT! dont use this explanation again anywhere, it doesnot favor Islam, it will just make it worst for you.
You assume that the Arabs were novices at memorising, poetry, recitation and the use of language to preserve tradition. These were a people who used language to preserve their traditions and culture. They used to have professional memorizers who used to memorize the recitals of the poets in the market place to rectire later on to their masters. So - stay rested that when Muhammed (S) recited the Qur'an, they memorised it well enough to last them their lifetime.
Taking the oral tradition of the Arabs, and add on to that the fact that the Qur'an was superior to any other poetry that existed, the possibility that the companions would make a mess while receiving the transmission, or when Muhammed (S) was transmitting the revelation.
Plus - if you read the history of HOW the Qur'an was collected and written into a book - you would understand that that there was no chance of any corruptioin even at that stage. For each VERSE noted down, there were atleast TWO witnesses, except for one, where One Companion was used, but for whom the Prophet (S) had stated that his witness would be equivalent to the witness of two people. That's how robust a technique was used to ensure there was no corruption in the preservation of the Qur'an.
Second, your rationale just admits that there were possibility of error in transmission. Witnesses, and other HUMAN means of assurance are JUST THAT, HUMAN. How good they were at transcribing the oral to written, and how good representation is the Qur'an of the message given to Mohammad is not answered by your rationale. It admit as to the nature of all oral traditions and memorizers, several "drafts" and correction in the transcribing process can yeild a document with no "contraditions".
Third, the absence of the original "Mohammad and his witnesses Approved original" leaves MORE room for the possibility of further correction and drafting of the original document "Approved by Mohammad" after his death. I am not saying it happened, it just a understandable possibility. It is strange that there is thousands of copies of Christian and Greek manuscripts, hundreds of years before The Qur'an, but no original of this highly important Islamic "Mohammad Approved" manuscript.
Forth, about the role of the witnesses. Where they able to correct Mohammad if he made a mistake? Where they impartial or were they chosen by Mohammad? In a court of law, witnesses of the defendant are important to built character of the defendant, but agreeing witnesses from the other side prove complete truthfulness. If they were Muslims, they can testify on Mohammad character, but will not be able to correct him or certify the message written was indeed the same God gave to Mohammad.
First, I want to thank you. You have been very patient and brave in all your comments and points. You have kept the level of discussion to the highest level. I admire you and hope that many more follow your example. You as a person are an example or courtesy and open-mindedness for all other Muslims, Christians and secular persons.
Again memorization is a HUMAN THING; God has no need to memorize anything, GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING! Human processes are subject to HUMAN FLAWS. No matter how elaborated or complex there memorization techniques are.
Again my friend this is God direct intervention on the part of the scribes, which will make the scribes the "last prophets" and not Muhammad. But I have to say is a plausible theological and miraculous explanation, due to the subject in debate.
If your saying that the Quran is corrupted then bring your proof if you are truthful, read the Quran and then try to find the corruption. Allah says if the Quran was from other than Allah you would find many mistakes or corruption in it. I challenge you to find the corruption in the Quran.
My friend I am not challenging you on the content of the Qur'an. That should be your area of expertise. There are other places were you can find the information you are seeking. I am no expert in the Qur'an. My question is not about the of corruption on the Quranic text, but on the claims on the transcription of it. You must provide logical, historical or even theological explanations for the Islamic claims included in the video that will make them valid and cohesive with other claims.
and if we are not sure about the belief itself, then our salvation in the hereafter would be jeopardized.
Thus this above evidence for the protection of the Quran from any corruption is a strong hint about its divine origin. We request all open hearted persons to read, understand and live the Quran, the 'Manual for Mankind'.
Compare this divine and historical preservation of the Quran with any literature, be it religious or secular and it becomes evident that none possess similar miraculous protection. And as states earlier, a belief is as authentic as the authenticity of its scripture. And if any scripture is not preserved, how can we be certain that the belief arising out of this scripture is divine or man made,
Friend, "divine...preservation of the Quran" is the only explanation plausible, again not logical in nature but theological solution to a logical dilemma. Again, this solution causes other Islamic claims to be logically and theologically inconsistent and incohesive. Like,curruption of thr Tora and Ingil, or unchangability, justice and Omnisience of Allah, Mohammad as the last Prophet and Allah being the same god of the Tora and Ingil.
If they committee would have made a error even of a single alphabet in transcribing the Quran, the Qurra (memorizers of the Quran) which totaled in the tens of hundreds would have caught it right away and correct it. This is exactly where the neat check and balance system of preservation of the Quran comes into play, but which is lacking for any other scripture besides the Quran.
Yuor answer is ery good. The system that you propose keeps the CURRENT QUR'AN from being changed. This "Islamic science" of memorization of the Qur'an, with all its hundreds of rules and prescriptions, was developed a lot after the death of your prophet. It does not traces back to the original moment of revelation of The Qur'an. At the begining there were only a few that memorized it, not tens of hundreds and there were no written text to compare to neither.
Quran is the only book, religious or secular, on the face of this planet that has been completely memorized by millions. These memorizers range from ages 6 and up, both Arabic and non-Arabic speakers, blacks, whites, Orientals, poor and wealthy.
what is the use of an "non-Arabic speakers" to memorize a text they cant read? why can they memorize it in their own languages? If they dont speak arabic, how can they be sure they are memorizing the correct form or text and that it has not been change by the one teaching them? Can "non-Arabic speakers" teach memorization of the Qur'an to arabic speakers? what memorization solves the proposed dilemma?
'Some of the companions who memorized the Quran were: 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama'. [5]
'Abu Bakr, the first male Muslim to convert to Islam used to recite the Quran publicly in front of his house in Makka'. [6]
Are this the same that wrote the original Qur'an text? What is their role in the preservation of the text? Did they memorized it from Gabriel or from Muhammad? If they memorized it from Muhammad, how could they be 100% sure that the message was the same that Mohammad received from Gabriel?
does any one of them possess their scriptures in its entirety BOTH in writing AND in memory from the day of its revelation until our time. None of them fit this required criteria, except one: This unique scripture is the Qur'an - revelation bestowed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) 1,418 years ago, as a guidance for all of humankind.
My friend you are assuming things by faith, you have not answered the question in a way that will not make Islam claims cohesive. So this claim can only be valid once you have solve it in a logical manner.
If the memorization part doesn't exist parallel to the written part to act as a check and balance for it, then there is a genuine possibility that the written scripture may loose its purity through unintentional and intentional interpolations due to scribal errors, corruption by the enemies, pages getting decomposed etc, and these errors would be concurrently incorporated into subsequent texts, ultimately loosing its purity through ages.
I agree i principle, but again inperfect minds, cant produce uncorrupted documents, based un origina oral traditions. I can "accept" tha the Qur'an is "free from error", but that does not mean that it was the exact copy of "Gabriel Message", it means that the Qur'an was edited, corrected and handeled to reflect it present form. Why? 1) by logic of transmission 2)because there is no written Mohammad approved original from "Gabriels Message" You have to prove with a logical theory to your claims
Therefore, for any claimants to proclaim that their scripture is preserved in purity, they have to provide concrete evidence that the Scripture was written in its entirety AND memorized in its entirety from the time it was revealed to our time, in a continuous and unbroken chain.
So the Holy Prophet muhammad(pbuh) after reciting to his followers counter checked many times and asked them what they had written down. Problem solved.
peaceful661 2 years ago
@peace. Who check for accuracy AFTER the death of the Prophet?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Both the Jews and Christians were literate peoples who knew their scriptures. Quran 2:79 when read in context clearly states that the illiterate people were writing the book 'with their own hands' and claiming it was from Allah. Since we know the people of the Book were literate, these verses are not referring to them.
osmaan87 2 years ago
The Quran never charges that the Jews and Christians have physically corrupted their scriptures. It states that they have 'changed words from their right places (with their mouths)' and 'concealed parts of the message given to them'.
osmaan87 2 years ago
you know what you made a good point when you what you said about the text of the Quran when man were entrusted with it and added the harakat. but see Uthman (as) kept the text the way Muhammed(saw) recited it so that together should say enough the Quran is pure. as for the other scriptures according to some research the originals are pure except the interpretations and i think transliterations. is that correct?
osmaan87 2 years ago
thats why in Islam we dont say the books of ALLAH were corrupt we generally believe that is was revealed. the bible is a different story that is not torah or injil its bible and that was extremely altered
osmaan87 2 years ago
# Qur'an 3:187 The Jews "cast it (Allah's book) "behind their backs"
# Qur'an 4:46 The Jews "alter the words from their places" and "distort the book with their tongues."
# Qur'an 5:13 The Jews "altered the words from their places" and "forgot a good part of the message."
# Qur'an 5:15 The Jews "concealed that which Muhammad had made clear" and Muhammad made clear much which they had "passed over" (in their book)
# Qur'an 5:41 The Jews "alter the words from their places."
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, tafsir 3:187 "In this Ayah, Allah chastises the People of the Scriptures, from whom Allah took the covenant by the words of their Prophets, that they would believe in Muhammad... However, they hid this truth and preferred the the small amounts and the material gains..." is a warning, doesnot support your claims of a corrupted Torah.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, tafsir 5:13 "Since their comprehension became corrupt, they behaved treacherously with Allah's Ayat, altering His Book from its apparent meanings which He sent down, and distorting its indications." Again, refers more to the meaning and interpretation rather than the text corruption or responsibility of man to keep the text pure.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, tafsir 5:15 "So the Prophet explained where they altered, distorted, changed and lied about Allah. He also ignored much of what they changed, since it would not bring about any benefit if it was explained." refers to the prophethood of Muhammad and the the "lies" that christians and jews told about Allah not to the Torah or Ingil.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, tafsir 5:41: ' They change the words from their places: by altering their meanings and knowingly distorting them after they comprehended them." again refer to meaning and interpretation. It looks like instead of proving your point, your interpreters have proven that the Torah or the Ingil cant be changed, that is if you believe that the Quran cant be changed too. So if you believe that the Torah and the Ingil were corrupted, then you have to believe that the Quran can be corrupted too.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
# Qur'an 2:59 They "Changed it for a saying other than had been spoken to them."
# Qur'an 2:77 Allah "knows what they keep secret and what they make known."
# Qur'an 2:140 They "Conceal a testimony they have from Allah."
# Qur'an 3:78 A "Party among them" (Jews) '"distort the book with their tongues and say it is from Allah."
# Qur'an 3:79 The Jews "teach the book and read it themselves."
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, tafsir of 2:59, Ibn Khatir: "The summary of what the scholars have said about this subject is that the Children of Israel distorted Allah's command to them to submit to Him in tongue and deed." has nothing to do with your claim of corruption of the Torah.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, tafsir of 2:77: "Meaning their secret denial and rejection of Muhammad, although they find his coming recorded in their Book.'' again nothing to do with your claim.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, tafsir of 2:140: "They used to recite the Book of Allah He sent to them that stated that the true religion is Islam and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Their Book also stated that Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Yaqub and the tribes were neither Jews, nor Christians. They testified to these facts, yet hid them from the people." The meaning is of hiding not changing the text necessarily.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, Tafsir 3:78 "Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Abbas said that; the Ayah means they alter and add although NONE AMONG ALLAH'S CREATION CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, they alter and distort their apparent meanings." and " Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and the Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, and NO letter in them was removed." You are not making a good case for your claims, at least your tafsirs are against you...
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, tafsir 3:79 "On the contrary (he would say), "Be you Rabbaniyyun, because you are teaching the Book, and you are studying it.''
means, the Messenger recommends the people to be Rabbaniyyun.
Ibn Abbas, Abu Razin and several others said that;
Rabbaniyyun means, "Wise, learned, and forbearing"
osmaan, again this has nothing to do with your claim.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
they were intrusted with something and they failed this is what ALLAH says. ALLAH did not let his word get corrupt because the Quran is here now regardless of what you say the Quran is here confirming truth and its a book of pure truth
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, the same can be said about the muslims, they were trusted with keeping the Quran pure and then they added the harakat and the dotification and changed all its meaning. Hence corrupted the text and failed Allah, when they associated human by adding innovations to the text. Do you think that muslims corrupted the Quran too?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
Qur'an 2:79
osmaan87 2 years ago
Osmaan, again this verse may be refer to the interpretation of the Torah, or what you will call the Tafsir, not necessarily to the perversion or corruption of the text. Nevertheless even if we accept the interpretation that suits you it only talks about the possibility of man to change Allah written word, something that may or have happen with the Quran too. Again your Quran references fails to piont out that the responsibility for keeping the Torah pure was assigned to the jews by Allah.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Do they not know that Allah knows what they keep secret and what they make known?
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, you have not proven your claim. Keep trying. allah is the only one who preserves his word. He doesnot share this responsability with man, He cant be associated with man, His word is HIS WORD, man can not chage Allah revelation even if they try, thats what you have proven with Sura 2:75-77 and 4:46. Dont try to associate Allah with men, as if Allah needs men to keep his revelations pure (Torah, Zabur and Ingil) and Quran if you are truly a muslim.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Quran 2:75-77
Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this). And when they meet those who believe they say: We believe, and when they are alone one with another they say: Do you talk to them of what Allah has disclosed to you that they may contend with you by this before your Lord? Do you not then understand?
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, again i the tafsir of Ibn Kathir is states: "(Inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawrah), then they used to change it) meaning, distort its meaning," refer to the meaning and interpretation not the the actual corrupting of the Torah nor to the responsability of man in keeping Allah's word in the Torah.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, in the same tafsir it states: "(Know they (Jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal), "Meaning their secret denial and rejection of Muhammad, although they find his coming recorded in their Book.'' That makes no reference to your claims but only to the Jews disbelief of Mohammad and the Qur'an.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Quran 4:46
Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, still haven proven your point the tafsir of Ibn Kathir says "(there are some who displace words from (their) right places) meaning, they intentionally and falsely alter the meanings of the Words of Allah and explain them in a different manner than what Allah meant" does not refer to the altering of the original but to the explanation of it. Nor places responsability of the keeping of the Torah on men.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
dont worry im gettin there give me more time this one is gonna take a while lol
osmaan87 2 years ago
If you have doubts about what We have sent down to Our servant, produce another surah equal to it, and call your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are telling the truth. If you do not do that and you will not do it then fear the Fire whose fuel is people and stones, made ready for the unbelievers. ] (Al-Baqarah 2: 23-24)
osmaan87 2 years ago
Will they not ponder the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it.] (An-Nisaa 4: 82)
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, this does not support your claim of the previous revelations trusted to man but they failed... Sura 4:82 only makes reference to Qur'an.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Comment removed
osmaan87 2 years ago
Well ALLAH is perfect and Man is not. i dont need deedat for that. i dont need a theary, i dont believe in half the theory out there i go by fact and truth. and Quran doesnt have theories only truth. truth is you dont understand ALLAH
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, Since I it is clear to you I dont understand Allah or the Qur'an or the Bible, just show me the Qur'an verses that support your claims that the previous revelations of Allah were trusted to man and man failed. So Allah had a second more perfect plan to correct his corrupted previous revelations with the Qur'an. Show me the facts and the truth in the Qur'an for your claims.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
i wrote "ALLAH did protect the previous revelations. they just got altered for a time." he protected it by Revealing the Quran and set things straight again, after their first initail revelation it was mans responsibility to keep it in tact and we failed now the Quran is here confirming all truth
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, you said "he protected it by Revealing the Quran and set things straight again, after their first initial revelation it was mans responsibility to keep it in tact and we failed now the Quran is here confirming all truth"
It is probably the worst explanation, blaming man for the inability of a God to protect his own word. Probably you have "tons" of prove from the Qur`an to back -up your theory, can u give us an example of this theory from the Qur'an? Try Deedat to see if u can find it...
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
look before you ask another question just search Ahmad deedat in youtube here and man just watch his debates youll be left with no more doubts. Search the miracles of the Quran look at ALLAH written in the clouds. read the book for yourself and behold its perfection i am a witness to the perfect logic,reason,truth and wisdom in the Quran
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, Second, the story about Allah only promising to keep the Quran from corruption and leaving the other revelations in the hands of men, just speaks about the character of Allah as an irresponsible, ambivalent and changing God. Which are not characteristics generally assigned to Alla by any muslims. Your explanations fails to resist the test of the 99 names of Allah and his character, because it will make Allah a lair.
No need to see Deedat, be brave and answer yourself.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
ALLAH didnt say in those previous revelations that he would protect it because he left it man to be responsible for it. that is a known fact thats why the Quran is unique because ALLAH himself said hed protect it. and it has not been altered and i recite the Quran the same way every other muslim does side by side. ALLAH is the all wise all knowing and when it comes to ALLAH believe his word and promise is true. and the book uproots all falsehood.
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, to talk about the Bible you need to know the Bible. In the bible there are several references to God protecting his Word and Revelation from been changed or corrupted. See my other vid on the subject.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
ALLAH did protect the previous revelations. they just got altered for a time. now the Quran is here and restored the word of the Zabur,Torah, and injil and in those revelations Prophet Muhammed(saw) was fortold. ALLAH would not have created any of this if it werent for prophet Muhammed(saw). Upon his arrival in this dunya he completed his mission and now religion is perfected once again. till the day of judgement. may ALLAH have mercy on us all.
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, you wrote "ALLAH did protect the previous revelations. they just got altered for a time."
Do you realize the implications of this? Is Allah able to lie? Leaving his WORD to be altered for a time? Then how can you be sure the Qur'an has not been altered for a "time", because Allah say it will protect it? How can I trust you God when we promised the same with the Zabur, Ingil and the Torah and then allowed them to be "altered for a time"? Please make sense out of this!!
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Comment removed
osmaan87 2 years ago
how would the recitation get manipulated because the dots got added on top of the letter tha when it has 3 dots anyways? how could the text get altered if ALLAH said hed protect it? and ALLAH is perfect in every way.
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, if you know Arabic, you know that there are two different things, the dots and the harakat. Initially Arabic was written without both. The basic form of Arabic characters can only be differentiated by the dots on top or on the bottom. this is missing on all arabic script at the time of Mohammad death. Any script that pretends to be from that period DO NOT have dots or harakat. If they do have them, that original was manipulated by the addition of harakat or dots after Muhammad recital.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
osmaan, you asked "how could the text get altered if ALLAH said hed protect it?"
That is precisely my question to you, how can the Ingil and the Torah be altered when Allah himself revealed then and said he will protect them? Remember that muslims view the Ingill and the torah and the qur'an as revelations from Allah. Chirstians do not view the Qur'an as a revelation from God. It is a question you most answer, not me as a Christian.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
first off addin the dots didnt manipulate anything,the recital is still the same and yeah i saw that in a documentary the person who tried to claim that wouldnt even show his face he was manipulated by a big shaytan. prove it to me id like to see that what source?
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, you said you did not needed to prove me anything. prove it to yourself. Dots and harakat were added AFTER the text was written in the "original" form by somebody different than the initial writer or recital. So they were ADDED. If you really want to real te "original" qur'an, with out an iota of change don fool yourself and remove the dots and harakat, and try to read it. Good luck! Face the fact that the qur'an has been manipulated. the person is a muslim in a Islamic site, not me.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
look i aint gotta prove anything to you because its either you accept or reject. its not my position to "prove" anyhthing but give you the correct information
examine this authenticity for yourself, i already did. May ALLAH make your search easy for you and help you to arrive at the truth
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, when muslims added the dots to the "original" script, it constituted a manipulation of the text and meaning of the quran. When they added the harakat, it was another manipulation of the meaning and text. there is plenty of evidence in ISLAMIC sources for this. You see what you want to see, is your choice. you need not to prove anything to me.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
man i wouldnt want any non muslim scholars examinig it anyways i wouldnt trust it cuz that would put it at risk of getting corrupt. the bible didnt start getting compiled more than 100 years after jesus was gone. During the time prophet Muhammad (saw) people wrote it down and after and it aint changed and i can take my copy and compare the arabic wit the arabic that was original and its the same not a single iota has been changed.
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, do you know that arabic was not establish in its present quranic by Khalīl ibn Ahmad Al Farāhīdi (c. 718c. 791 ) then ADDED to the quran the harakat and dottification in its present form? and that in arabic the harakat change the meaning of almost every word? Yes addition to the text were made after the initial "originals". islamtutor(dot)com/prayer(dot)php?p=turbah: "...Harakat were added to the text of the Quran a while after the death of the Prophet..."
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
no he could not write it was something he recited and his companions wrote it down. the way he recited it got preserved by Uthman the third caliphah.
osmaan87 2 years ago
and he gave them the original and get the message clear he was one of the great caliphas you should read about him. I traced the meaning of my name and found out who my parents named me after and i found his story and man was it enlightening
osmaan87 2 years ago
Osmaan, where is exactly this copy you talk about, where it has been kept for al these years and how many non-muslim scholars have examined it? According to Jam' Al-Qur'an "The oldest manuscripts of the Qur'an still in existence date from not earlier than about ONE HUNDRED years after Muhammdad's death"
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
after the prophets (saw) death the 3rd caliphah Uthman had an original copy of the quran and all these tribes had a copy but they recited it in a different dialect and he compared them all with the source and they were all different so he burned the corrupt recitations
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, what is this original copy you talk about? the one Muhammad wrote himself? I thought he could not write.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
the fact that we exist is a clear sign to me. you need more, i hope you dont wanna wait until you die cuz then its too late....
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, I an a christian, I have no fear of judgement day because I have been forgiven and saved from sin and death.Jesus The only Son oF God is my saivior.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
i didnt see this thread i was commenting on another video, yes i agree with thepeacemaker hes tellin you what i been tellin you this whole time but you are very contentious what is there to keep you back from believing now that true guidance has come? all you do is look for a new way to ask your same question when it all comes down to faith either you believe or you dont.
osmaan87 2 years ago
Osmaan, the problem then is not whether I believe the qur'an is the final revelation, but whether you believe that the Torah and Ingil are also revelations from Allah. Do you believe that both the Torah and Ingil are also revelations from Allah?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
The religion of ALLAH is like a building missing a brick and prophet Muhammed (saw) is the final piece. now the Quran is here and there is no doubt about the Authenticity of it so read it and behold its perfect logic and reason truth and wisdom for ones self
osmaan87 2 years ago
Osmaan, first, this vid is about the logic in the transmission of the Qur'an. It was answered by another viewer, u can see his answer in this log or view my other vid. Ur place as a Muslim is to agree with ur mulim brother or propose an alternate hypothesis. Second, I the world of thought and logic ur statement "the Quran is here and there is no doubt about the Authenticity" are just vain and empty. Try to answer when commenting in this channel and do not avoid by saying "there is no doubt".
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
me saying no doubt is not my words these whole "debate" im not the one your challenging your challenging ALLAH and his words and his messengers and everything else. ALLAH is the source of all things. why say what im saying is vein when i have backup you dont. your standing on your own ground. look at history every time man challenged ALLAH they are taken down!
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, I have not challenged Allah, I made a question that you chose to avoid answering, probably because ur insecurities and lack of real knowledge. Allah, at least the God that we Christians believe in, cant be challenged. Allah certainly does not need you to threatenand bully me in his behalf. Dont keep avoiding the question, just answer and prove that you are capable of thinking rationally and do have knowledge of your religion and Allah. Do you agree with peacemaker (he is Muslim) answer?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
the word of ALLAH is perfect thats how an imperfect emitter and receiver can transmit the perfect message orally and written without change because the Word transcends them and the sources are still here and there is a mountain of evidence backing up the Authenticity of the Holy Qur-An
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan87, will this same rationale apply to ALL of Allah's revelations like the Torah, Ingil, etc.?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
to a certain extent you have to use the Qur-an as a filter for the other revelations, the original Qur-an is still here and the Torah, injil and psalms are not perfected as of today at a time there were but there were the hands of man intervening, and with the Quran this is not so plus the Qur-an confirms this in itself so we can find truth in all the other scriptures wit the actual true scripture which was the final scripture
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, you did not answered the question, if the Torah and the Ingil were the perfect word of Allah, and were before the Qur'an, how come their perfection was corrupted by imperfect emitters and receivers, while the Qur'an was not affected? Did Allah changed the way he deals with his own perfect word (ingil and torah)? answer don't avoid the question.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
now see your lookin at one side, now the other holy scriptures are perfected by the revelation of the Qur-an so now you know the truth and if you look close enough you see that in the previous scriptures prophet Muhammad(saw) was mentioned by name in the older scriptures his coming was foretold and he would be the one to complete it all.
osmaan87 2 years ago
osmaan, what you are saying is that when Allah reveal his word in the Torah and the Ingil, he was not clear or careful like when he revealed the quran, so he had to correct HIS mistake with the quran? Is Allah perfect?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
QURAN=LIes How can MOHAMED say the angel of god said this to me so write this down what did he say how do I know Its god! What Sighns did he lesve for me. Prove its the word of God
stupadasso2006 3 years ago
It is only the non-challenging people that are able to believe, without challenging the obvious weak. Must Muslims will avoid the questioning of their own faith, and dedicate their lives to challenge Christianity, thinking that if the prove it wrong then they will be the choice. This attitude just proves Christianity is logically and theologically superior to Islam.
yessua9ibnallah 3 years ago
Where did you study Islam? Egypt, Africa, Arabia?
VoyageIslam 3 years ago
Voyageislam, cant understant what that have to do with the debate. But I have studied from books, internet and had lived in the middle east for some years.
yessua9ibnallah 3 years ago
So in other words you have no academic qualifications pertaining to the religion of Islam so, your opinion is marginal and esoteric.
VoyageIslam 3 years ago
Voyageislam, If you cant say anything to disprove or argue or instruct all of us, then the one who do not have any qualifications or knowledge about YOUR OWN BELIEVES, is you my friend, then sad indeed is your story. Argue and debate, don't go around avoiding dealing with LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS about your set of believes. Attacking my credentials does not deal with the fact that you can not disprove even the most "marginal and esoteric" arguments.
yessua9ibnallah 3 years ago
Voyage, I have not claimed to be an "Islamic academic", but if you can't deal with the fact that common people like me can ask about your faith, the you are a weak and close minded person. I can't imagine a more humble person that your prophet could not even read and was not a scholar. Were did he studied Islam, I wonder? Yet you revere him like a super-human. Now I ask you who is more esoteric and marginal, YOU that trust a prophet without "credentials" or me who ask you about your faith?
yessua9ibnallah 3 years ago
Voyage, is so sad you block me from your channel. It seams my reasoning is to much for you to handle. It is really sad and talks loudly n your willingness to explore and question your own faith based on logical premises. It also says that either you are not prepare to debate, you are not qualified to defend Islam or your faith (Islam) is weak and theological inferior to Christianity.
yessua9ibnallah 3 years ago
The question then is ,is there a strong enough case to say that their is a good possibility that the quran is as it was when revealed.?
(obvioulsy not an absolute one ,as god has never been a dictator who makes it all black and white...its not his Style!)
rareskateboardvideos 3 years ago
another problem: humanity is facing severe human rights abuses done in the name of allah, justified using the quran. the suicide bombings, muslims bombing other muslims in mosques, people get stoned, muslims want shariah law, ..
islam as it is today cannot be tolerated anymore, it causes too much suffering. in order to turn islam into something that is harmless and peaceful, muslims would need to reject large parts of the quran. if the quran is perfect, your religion as a whole will need to go.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Only Muhammad received the revelation, and nobody can confirm that. Ie: there is only faith. It sounds like the Joseph Smith's dilemma. At least he had 12 witnesses or more.
How do you know the message wasn't changed?
Google: "Early Debates on the Integrity of the Quran"
pedroac 4 years ago
You are right, it is only faith, if it does not have at least a Theological explanation then is only illogical "blind faith".
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
i dont think so, it has to do with logic, understanding, faith, and the truth. put together, then one can comprehend, then come to this one and only religion of all the worlds :P
faheemthedream2007 4 years ago
faheem, when it come to Muhammad receiving the message from Gabriel, one uses ONLY faith, first because no one at the time it happen saw the Angel or heard him, ONLY Muhammad, there is no logic or science involved in the acceptance of the incident, only faith. Second you were not there unless you have more than 1000 years, so it is Faith dependent incident, that can only be accepted by Faith and Faith alone. All other instruments my give support, but without faith are worsthless and empty.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
like u said, one cannot have 'blind faith'. so, YES, you have to use all of those things in which i have mentioned to you before(faith, logic, etc). so, do u see, how we keep goin in circles like i had mentioned to you before as well?
faheemthedream2007 4 years ago
You are forcing it to go in circles by not admitting what logic tells you, If there were no witness that heard or saw the Angel but only Mohammad, then you must accept this a of doubtfull or highly unlikely, then evaluate it from a perspective of faith or religious construction, using logic and reason to sustain that in fact what at first glance is logically doubtful can be explained to be actually true, following a certain rationale. But u assume first it is true hence forcing a circular logic.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
logic dictates, that if an error occurs, or something seems inhumane or irrational, then one can say this is wrong. NOW, when i chose to research Islam, i used LOGIC first, faith came aferwards. u cant tell me, that i MUST first have faith, then follow reasoning. thats not how the REAL world works. i have general knowledge of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. I can make my decision based on my LOGIC(knowledge) first..
faheemthedream2007 4 years ago
faheem, yet you are saying I am going in circles! You are the one trying to make a circular logic. This is logic, Can I say something happened if nobody saw it or heard it and there is no record of it on a unbiased form like a photo or recording? No, I have to presume it DID NOT HAPPENED FIRST, and then using historical methodology prove whether is more probable that it happened or it did not. As a Muslim YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DO THIS, you first have to accept THE QUR'AN is the word of Allah.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
sorry - the lecture by Gary Miller is entitled: The Amazing Qur'an. And it is on MuslimKid786's channel.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
I will see it. Thanks!
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
If your saying that the Quran is corrupted then bring your proof if you are truthful, if you cant then you have no arguments. I can give you many corruption in the bible and many mistake in it. If you want me to list it then say so.
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
This is the second time I answer this comment. The corruption of the Bible NOT the topic of this debate. I am NOT saying the Qur'an is corrupted. I am not challenging you in the content of the Qur'an. You have anwsered why you believe the Qur'an is free from corruption, CONGRATULATIONS! Based on Sura 15:6-10, God preserves his Word, see your comments. I will address the implications of your answer in my next video, that will be open for debate too.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
I don't understand one thing. If you claim that the Qur'an has been corrupted - why are you neglecting the content of the Qur'an to check whether it was corrupted or not? I mean - if it were, as you are insinuating by constantly undervaluing its oral tradition, wouldn't you want to check the content to see if corruption had perforated it? I don't see how you won't look at the integrity of the content to offset the claim of corrupted transmission and claim you have valid logic and reasoning.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
My friend, the Qur'an text is for you to explain, not for me, I am a Christian. Lets assume the Qur'an is perfect in its form or content. There are famous books (i.e. The Quixote) that are consider perfect in content and they do not mean any thing to me, even if one will say they are from God. I an challenging the logig behind your claims of the perfection of the Qur'an, not it perfection. OK, The qur'an is perfect and the Quixote also, does that means they are both from God?
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
The Qur'an claims to be from God. Does the Quixote? The Qur'an provides prohpecies that came true. It has history of previous nations that is proven factual. It has secrets of this world that we are only now understanding. Does the Quixote have this? The Qur'an was revealed over a period of 23 years, and not chronologically as it is in book form now, yet there are no contradictions within, and yet each chapter relates with the others perfectly. Does the Quixote have this?
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
The Qur'an contains mathematical integrity, in the relation of the number of times words are used in relation to each other, which we are only discovering now - just proves that no human could have forged such a fantastic work, and since these consistencies and integrity still exists in the Qur'an is proof that the Qur'an today was the Qur'an that was revealed, for surely if corrupted, the balance and integrity within would have been destroyed years ago.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Again this supports the idea that the Qur'an IN ITS PRESENT FORM is perfect and elaborated. This facts do not support origin or uncorruption possibilities during the last step between oral and written form (PRESENT FORM). The question has been answered by a previous commenter, see thepeacemakers's response. Do you agree with him? do you have any other explanations?
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Certantly the Quixote does not says it is from God, it was an example of the following: perfection in written language, never can by itself alone relate to divine origin. Any human language is a human product and can only point the human that is producing it even when it is perfect. When a claim is made by any book that it is from God, since it is expressed in a human language(even if it is a a perfect form), this claim of divine origin has to be supported by theology, logic or reason.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
The following was sent by one youtuber to my e-mail (edited): "This question has been answered by proper scholars...your arguement ...is very simplistic, ignoring ...that if Mohammed was illiterate, and he was double chekced by Gabriel - where did he find the words to replace the ones he was given with?
The Response: With his own by means of his imperfect mind and memory.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Also: "Secondly - anyone receiving transmission from a supernatural source will be doubtful of his own sanity."
Response: The first time he hear Gabriel Mohammad thought he was being haunted by a demon, was later convinced by his wife that it was an Angel , is this not even worst than being clinically insane?
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
This is more true and believable, unlike the other personalities in the Bible, like Peter, who IMMEDIATELY KNOWS it's God. No sane man would think that if touched with a super-natural experience. And Mohammed was sane and the best of men.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
You really think that if someone is touch by GOD, you will first confuse him with a demon? And if I am haunted by a demon I will first think is God? What kind of reverse theology is this one? Why God, the allpowerful and Holy will allow someone to confuse him with a demon, instead of making it clear from the begining that he is God? Was Musa and Ibrahim hearing a demon when they instantly knew God was calling them? Is the Torah the word of demons? Pls be consistent! Allah does not change!
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Ok - you tell me - if you hear someone is speaking with God - what is your first knee-jerk reaction? Majority of the people would react - "what a looney!" A person who feels he is great enough to be speaking with God in the first instance without trial and introspection is an arrogant one. All the Prophets first had real introspection and contemplation of life and what their worth was. And all had physically draining experiences when getting revelation.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Plus, weren't Ibrahim (AS) and Musa (AS) humans too? Did they corrupt their revelations when transmitting it? You are willing to believe their transmission was perfect and not Muhammed's (S), when in fact there is much more evidence and history on the life of Muhammed (S) than that of Ibrahim and Musa.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
First, when this part of the debate is going? It is you who said the Mohammad was sane when he initially confused the voice of God for the voice of a demon. You said that this fact was prove of the divine nature of the Qur'an, opposed to the previous revelation, using the example of Peter. Again this debate is about the transcription process of the Qur'an, not about the character of Ibrahim, Musa or Mohammad. They are all great man, but none of them can claim to have a perfect memory.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
This is not part of this debate, but us to end this line of the debate, My first reaction is discribe by your words "real introspection and contemplation of life and what their worth was" caused only by the awareness that is GOD talking to me not a demon, but would not be fear, because fear does not lead to introspection, leads to doubt and self-protection. If a demon comes to speak to me, I will either confront him or flee, certantly will not feel is time for introspection and meditation.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
In addition: "Muhammad was known for his truthfulness - and hence the fact that this man was not insane and received revelation from a superhuman source - is proof enough that he would not corrupt received transmission of the Qur'an."
Response: You base the incorruption of the Qur'an on Muhammad's reputation, not on Allah own power or will? Is Muhammad divinely perfect like Christians think of Jesus? Is Mohammad un capable of making mistakes? is Mohammad God? This is NOT a valid answer.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Allah chooses the best of men. To be be righteous, you don't need to be divine. In any oral tradition, you have to take into consideration the character and personality of the people transmitting. Being perfect is not human. Mohammed did not come up with the Qur'an. Associating divinity to Mohammed would be plausible if you claimed THAT. Not just for being an honest person.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Righteousness, is not the same as not being capable of making mistakes. The fact is that Mohammad, like all mankind, was capable of making mistakes, even when transmitting the Word of Allah. Again, I am NOT saying Mohammad "came up" with the Qur'an, I am challenging your assuptions that support Qur'an uncorruption. You as a Muslim should be able to provide consistent logical or theological explanation for this uncorruption theory. For muslims the Qur'an is uncorrupted, then prove it!
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
You are right, righteousness doesn't mean infallible. However, it indicates that there would be every intention of NOT making a mistake for this particular task. And considering the character and record of the Prophet (S), it is highly unlikely that he would ever make a mistake in matters of revelation.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
We agree, but again even the most higest of characters (i.e. for you Mohammad) can make mistakes without bad intensions and without being aware of making them. Hence the perfect charater of Mohammad can 100% be attributed as an valid anwser to this dilemma BY ITSELF ALONE.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
I agree that in oral traditions the character of the emitter is crucial, but as long it remains oral. Once the oral tradition is transcribe to written tradition that dependance on the character of the oral vehicle must be subtituted by reason, logic and in our case theology.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
At the end: "Lastly - if there were corruptions when reciting the revelations to the followers, further revelations could have been revealed to CORRECT the corrupted verses (...during the life of the Prophet) - this you do not find in the Qur'an, where one verse is correcting another verse or in complete contradiction to another."
Response: Admitting the possibility of error does not help your case. And the Prophet may have corrected oral recitations but not written versions, he could not read.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
About: "do not find in the Qur'an, where one verse is correcting another verse or in complete contradiction to another"
Response: The abrogation principle Sura 16:101- "And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'an, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not." (Hilali-Khan), this is a widely know accepted Islamic principle
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Other translations: "And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not." (Pickthall)
"When We substitute one revelation for another, - and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." (Yusuf Ali).
All of them refer to the possibility that one verse from the Qur'an can supersede another.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
You don't understand even the English translation, sadly. The verses states "revelations" - not "verses", referring to the previous revelations to previous Prophets. It does not refer to having to change a revealed verse. if it were - it would have mentioned WHICH verse was being changed and with what.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Well, think you were to fast I dont understand the English translation, can you explain this other one?
"And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'an, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not." (Hilali-Khan)
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
The word in arabic is "ayatan" "آيَةً" and "ayatin" "آيَةٍ " and generally the verses of the qur'an are refer to with this name. There is much discusion on Islamic forums about what is the real meaning of this verse, you only gave the most conservative position. The fact that the principle of abrogation exist, in Islam and it can imply even one verse being abrogated by another.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Ok - even with verses abrogated - it doesn't indicate corruption or mistakes. They verses abrogated are no longer applicable after revelation, and so new revelation is brought. It doesn't indicate anywhere that it was human error that caused abrogation. Again - it doesn't indicate that Mohammed made a mistake in transmitting the revelation or else it would have stated so, like in other places where revelation was different to Muhammed's (S) thoughts.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
This part of the debate was about oyur email comment: "do not find in the Qur'an, where one verse is correcting another verse or in complete contradiction to another", so not about the transmission debate or possibility of corruption in the Qur'an. Hence, you have proven that your previous statement is not 100% correct in Islam because of the abrogation doctrine in Islam.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
I am not wrong in my statement that the verses don't contradict each other. Abrogation of a verse doesn't mean it contradicts another verse. It just means that the situation to which it applies is non-existent anymore. You will not find, for example two verses describing the same incident, but in one there are 5 people involved and in the other there are 50 people involved. Nor will you find two verses providing contradictory results for the same situations.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Since I am no expert in the Qur'an content, I give you the benefit of the doubt. Even if the Qur'an in its PRESENT FORM has no contradictions, doesn't answers the question how it got to be like this. Also the fact of the existence of the abrogation verse opens a door for Muslims Scholars to subjectively "interpret" which verses of the Qur'an have been superseded by other verses or what past revelations (Torah and Ingil) are no longer valid, as long as they have a plausible human rationale.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
That is your assumption. If you memorise something without knowing anything else to replace it - chances are you will memorise it as it is, rather than trying to put it in your own words. Plus - you yourself understand that he was double-checked by Gabrel to prevent exactly what you are assuming. You contradict your own statements.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Only if Muhammad had an empty brain your theory may be right. Then he would be like a recorder, that doesnot leave much room for admiration of his character and truthfulness. I am not contradicting myself, see the video again, the question arises on the transmission from Mohammad to his scribes, even if he had a blank brain, with no other infomation but the Qur'an, then his scribes, the ones who wrote it from his recitation, they also had blank brains? if not then, what was the mechanisim?
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Just by the fact that he did not know how to read or write - he would be extra careful not to make any mistakes when he himself is transmitting, and would emphasize greatly for the scribes to not change or mess-up when writing, coz he wouldn't be able to check himself, except by their recitations. Now, if you doubt this measure of caution on the part of the Prophet (S), then you are not challenging the preservation of the Quran in transmission, rather the character of the Prophet (S).
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
What you are proposing may reduce the chance of errors, but since both are man, and man are subject to error(voluntarily of involuntarily) this carefulness and emphasis cant asure 100% error free transmission by itself alone. Fact: humans make errors, Mohammad and his Scribes were human, hence they have the possibility of making errors. Will Mohamad be able to catch written errors, answer is NO, so then who did catch those possible error? If it was a person, who was him, is he a prophet too?
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
u have a hard time differentiating between Prophets(man) of God versus man(your average 'man'). once you have a clear understanding, this doubt will vanish. if Prophet Muhammad was in error or if his scribes were in error, you would see a decline in reversions to this religion, you know why? because they will bring forth all the 'ERRORS'. i'm not talking about the biased 'errors' you see on the interenet. taking versus out of context..
faheemthedream2007 4 years ago
This doesnot have to do with the debate, but it is your problem, not mine. You cant claim Mohammad was a normal human and an perfect in memory. If God made HIM perfect, why he cant do the same NOW with other muslims? If he himself or you consider him to be an special man or a special creation of God, then you are not better than any chistian. Convertions to a religion does not prove anything. Christianity is growing too! The debate is about the transmission of the Qur'an.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
hmm, if its my problem, then why make it your problem? you know what? i read wat you and mumbai have been debating about, and he makes his points clear. you seem to turn a blind eye to logic. but everyone has there opinion. and one has to respect that. this debate wont go anywhere, it will just go in circles..
faheemthedream2007 4 years ago
My friend, it is not my problem because I am not challenging here the credentials or holiness of a man like Muhammad. Yes all muslims and christians agree in this Mohammad was just a MAN, he may be special to you, but at the end HE IS A MAN like you and me. HE WILL STILL have to come before GOD in JUDGMENTDAY. And the question doesn't goes in circles because it has been properly answered by pacemaker, he is a respectable muslim that KNOWS his religion, go and learn from him.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
sorry, but i have a teacher already, and thats God. and yes it does go in a non-ending argument. it always does. UNLESS someone is willing to accept the truth :D
faheemthedream2007 4 years ago
My friend, also by chossing this way of explaining YOU, not me, are admitting to the possibility of mistakes in the ransmission process. This does not help your case! Rather admits to the possibility of correction after the act of Mohammads recital of the verses! so they were "drafts" of the qur'an that were not perfect or divine, and they were corrected to MAKE THEM PERFECT! dont use this explanation again anywhere, it doesnot favor Islam, it will just make it worst for you.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
You assume that the Arabs were novices at memorising, poetry, recitation and the use of language to preserve tradition. These were a people who used language to preserve their traditions and culture. They used to have professional memorizers who used to memorize the recitals of the poets in the market place to rectire later on to their masters. So - stay rested that when Muhammed (S) recited the Qur'an, they memorised it well enough to last them their lifetime.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Taking the oral tradition of the Arabs, and add on to that the fact that the Qur'an was superior to any other poetry that existed, the possibility that the companions would make a mess while receiving the transmission, or when Muhammed (S) was transmitting the revelation.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
would be nil.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Plus - if you read the history of HOW the Qur'an was collected and written into a book - you would understand that that there was no chance of any corruptioin even at that stage. For each VERSE noted down, there were atleast TWO witnesses, except for one, where One Companion was used, but for whom the Prophet (S) had stated that his witness would be equivalent to the witness of two people. That's how robust a technique was used to ensure there was no corruption in the preservation of the Qur'an.
MumbhaiMBBS 4 years ago
Second, your rationale just admits that there were possibility of error in transmission. Witnesses, and other HUMAN means of assurance are JUST THAT, HUMAN. How good they were at transcribing the oral to written, and how good representation is the Qur'an of the message given to Mohammad is not answered by your rationale. It admit as to the nature of all oral traditions and memorizers, several "drafts" and correction in the transcribing process can yeild a document with no "contraditions".
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Third, the absence of the original "Mohammad and his witnesses Approved original" leaves MORE room for the possibility of further correction and drafting of the original document "Approved by Mohammad" after his death. I am not saying it happened, it just a understandable possibility. It is strange that there is thousands of copies of Christian and Greek manuscripts, hundreds of years before The Qur'an, but no original of this highly important Islamic "Mohammad Approved" manuscript.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Forth, about the role of the witnesses. Where they able to correct Mohammad if he made a mistake? Where they impartial or were they chosen by Mohammad? In a court of law, witnesses of the defendant are important to built character of the defendant, but agreeing witnesses from the other side prove complete truthfulness. If they were Muslims, they can testify on Mohammad character, but will not be able to correct him or certify the message written was indeed the same God gave to Mohammad.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
First, I want to thank you. You have been very patient and brave in all your comments and points. You have kept the level of discussion to the highest level. I admire you and hope that many more follow your example. You as a person are an example or courtesy and open-mindedness for all other Muslims, Christians and secular persons.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Again memorization is a HUMAN THING; God has no need to memorize anything, GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING! Human processes are subject to HUMAN FLAWS. No matter how elaborated or complex there memorization techniques are.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
depends if God gives them the power to memorize without flaws. its quite easy for God to do so. not only to Muhammad(PBUH) but also to his scribes.
faheemthedream2007 4 years ago
Again my friend this is God direct intervention on the part of the scribes, which will make the scribes the "last prophets" and not Muhammad. But I have to say is a plausible theological and miraculous explanation, due to the subject in debate.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
If your saying that the Quran is corrupted then bring your proof if you are truthful, read the Quran and then try to find the corruption. Allah says if the Quran was from other than Allah you would find many mistakes or corruption in it. I challenge you to find the corruption in the Quran.
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
My friend I am not challenging you on the content of the Qur'an. That should be your area of expertise. There are other places were you can find the information you are seeking. I am no expert in the Qur'an. My question is not about the of corruption on the Quranic text, but on the claims on the transcription of it. You must provide logical, historical or even theological explanations for the Islamic claims included in the video that will make them valid and cohesive with other claims.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
and if we are not sure about the belief itself, then our salvation in the hereafter would be jeopardized.
Thus this above evidence for the protection of the Quran from any corruption is a strong hint about its divine origin. We request all open hearted persons to read, understand and live the Quran, the 'Manual for Mankind'.
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
peacemaker...Thanks for all the time and effort on your part, providing your opinions to this debate.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Compare this divine and historical preservation of the Quran with any literature, be it religious or secular and it becomes evident that none possess similar miraculous protection. And as states earlier, a belief is as authentic as the authenticity of its scripture. And if any scripture is not preserved, how can we be certain that the belief arising out of this scripture is divine or man made,
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
Friend, "divine...preservation of the Quran" is the only explanation plausible, again not logical in nature but theological solution to a logical dilemma. Again, this solution causes other Islamic claims to be logically and theologically inconsistent and incohesive. Like,curruption of thr Tora and Ingil, or unchangability, justice and Omnisience of Allah, Mohammad as the last Prophet and Allah being the same god of the Tora and Ingil.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
If they committee would have made a error even of a single alphabet in transcribing the Quran, the Qurra (memorizers of the Quran) which totaled in the tens of hundreds would have caught it right away and correct it. This is exactly where the neat check and balance system of preservation of the Quran comes into play, but which is lacking for any other scripture besides the Quran.
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
Yuor answer is ery good. The system that you propose keeps the CURRENT QUR'AN from being changed. This "Islamic science" of memorization of the Qur'an, with all its hundreds of rules and prescriptions, was developed a lot after the death of your prophet. It does not traces back to the original moment of revelation of The Qur'an. At the begining there were only a few that memorized it, not tens of hundreds and there were no written text to compare to neither.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Quran is the only book, religious or secular, on the face of this planet that has been completely memorized by millions. These memorizers range from ages 6 and up, both Arabic and non-Arabic speakers, blacks, whites, Orientals, poor and wealthy.
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
what is the use of an "non-Arabic speakers" to memorize a text they cant read? why can they memorize it in their own languages? If they dont speak arabic, how can they be sure they are memorizing the correct form or text and that it has not been change by the one teaching them? Can "non-Arabic speakers" teach memorization of the Qur'an to arabic speakers? what memorization solves the proposed dilemma?
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
'Some of the companions who memorized the Quran were: 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama'. [5]
'Abu Bakr, the first male Muslim to convert to Islam used to recite the Quran publicly in front of his house in Makka'. [6]
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
Are this the same that wrote the original Qur'an text? What is their role in the preservation of the text? Did they memorized it from Gabriel or from Muhammad? If they memorized it from Muhammad, how could they be 100% sure that the message was the same that Mohammad received from Gabriel?
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
does any one of them possess their scriptures in its entirety BOTH in writing AND in memory from the day of its revelation until our time. None of them fit this required criteria, except one: This unique scripture is the Qur'an - revelation bestowed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) 1,418 years ago, as a guidance for all of humankind.
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
My friend you are assuming things by faith, you have not answered the question in a way that will not make Islam claims cohesive. So this claim can only be valid once you have solve it in a logical manner.
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
If the memorization part doesn't exist parallel to the written part to act as a check and balance for it, then there is a genuine possibility that the written scripture may loose its purity through unintentional and intentional interpolations due to scribal errors, corruption by the enemies, pages getting decomposed etc, and these errors would be concurrently incorporated into subsequent texts, ultimately loosing its purity through ages.
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago
I agree i principle, but again inperfect minds, cant produce uncorrupted documents, based un origina oral traditions. I can "accept" tha the Qur'an is "free from error", but that does not mean that it was the exact copy of "Gabriel Message", it means that the Qur'an was edited, corrected and handeled to reflect it present form. Why? 1) by logic of transmission 2)because there is no written Mohammad approved original from "Gabriels Message" You have to prove with a logical theory to your claims
yessua9ibnallah 4 years ago
Therefore, for any claimants to proclaim that their scripture is preserved in purity, they have to provide concrete evidence that the Scripture was written in its entirety AND memorized in its entirety from the time it was revealed to our time, in a continuous and unbroken chain.
thepeacemaker786 4 years ago