Koran is not the word of allah?
How can muslims say that the koran is the word of allah and has not been changed? it was written from 30-50 years after the death of muhammed, and was penned from the memory of some of his believers or their descendants. how can they say it's word for word what allah said? can you remember word for word, a load of things which were talked about when you were in your twenties, and now you are
in your sixties? can you guarantee something passed down from your grandfather is actually word for word, when it wasn't even learned from text, just told from memory? rubbish. what is
your opinion?
''umar was worried that bits of the koran would be lost after bloke
y muslims were killed at the battle of yamama. therefore he commissioned zaid ibn thabit to collect the koran and write it down. or was it abu bakr's idea? or maybe 'ali's? there's
several other difficulties: could this have been accomplished in only two years? the muslims were fighting the battle of yamama (in central asia), why had these new converts memorised the koran but the arab converts had not? why was this collation not an official codex but
the private property of hafsa? it sounds like these traditions were invented to credit the popular abu bakr and (more significantly) to debit the much maligned uthbloke
''
i have
capitalised the word 'invented' for you, regarding zaid ibn.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
''one major (and often un-addressed) question is – how much can we rely upon the memories of the early muslims? can we assume that they not only remembered e
thing perfectly, but that they heard and understood muhammad perfectly in the first place?''
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
''standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of ibn mujahid. even he admitted 14 versions of the koran. these are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations''
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
''also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? for example, the kharajites considered the joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.''
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
''there is no record of the koran being used in legal decisions before the 9th century, and the fiqh akbar i (a sort of muslim creed drafted in the mid-8th century to represent orthodox views) contains no reference to the koran.''
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
''the koran itself admits that muslims accused muhammad of changing verses (s. 16:103). variations are explained by the abrogation of verses and laws.''
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
conscious - so there is
been no change? you are
wrong bud - ''the koran today is not the same as that given by muhammad during the lifetime of the prophet and immediately afterwards verses were circulating that were either apocryphal or mistakenly attributed to the prophet. the 'uthbloke
ic recension was necessary to deal with the uncertainty regarding the canonical text. "it is clear that in the year 30 ah no official redaction existed. tradition itself admits that there were various 'schools,' one in iraq, one in syria, one in al-basrah, besides others in smaller places, then
, exaggerating in an orthodox sense this scandal, tries to make out that the divergences were wholly immaterial; but such affirmations accord ill with the opposition excited by the caliph's [i.e. 'uthbloke
's] act in al-kufah. the official version must have contained somewhat serious modifications."
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
fools - who am i to say whether it is unchanged word of god? these are not my opinions you pig-headed blinkered, blindfolded imbeciles. read the facts and open your eyes. time adn time again you people will not accept the truth - if the koran said the moon was made of knob-cheese, you would believe it to your grave.
