Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

We see in apologetic talking points from Muslims that the Koran has been perfectly preserved by Allah for all time.

Despite the existence of numerous editions (up to 14 at the beginning of the 20th century) of the Koran containing verses with different wording and subtle differences in meaning, Muslim apologists are adamant in their belief the Koran has been perfectly preserved in face of all countervailing facts.

However, it is notable the first generation of Muslims were never this convinced the Koran was perfectly preserved.

In his commentary on the Koran, Yusuf Ali notes in a footnote that one verse of the current Koran is missing an entire line that is present in the earliest "Qira'ahs" including the "qira'ah" of Ubay Kaab - the greatest of the early Koran memorizers and reciters.

In v33:6 of the Koran, which reads:

The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of God. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of God).

Ali writes:

In some Qira'ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka'ab, occur also the words "and he is a father of them", which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words "and his wives are their mothers". [Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, 11th edition, Note #3674]

Discussed in full back in 2008:
philosophy-dubai/quranic-and-biblical-integrity-t25193.html

In short, this is a weak argument from 20th century critics of Islam that the Quran is not the same as was revealed to the Prophet, pbuh.

When one looks into the arguments produced, we find that it hinges on some isolated accounts of different pronunciations of a handful of words. The variant readings/Quirat do not change the meaning of the Quran at all. A simple Google dispels this myth.

This is conflated, usually, with some isolated manuscripts which may (or may not) contain mistakes.

The Quran was memorised as it was being revealed, every Ramadhan it was recited in full by the Prophet and the early Muslims and by the time he passed away, the entire Quran was memorised word-for-word perfectly by hundreds of believers. This was the primary means of preservation.


Cheers,
Shafique

No, the missing line has nothing to do with different pronunciations of the Koran (nor does that address the fact different editions of the Koran have different meanings in verses).

And, when the Koran was compiled, Uthman relied on four Koran memorizers including the Muslim mentioned in this thread whose Qiraat (and others) contained the additional line.

You're providing stock answers that of course don't actually address what this thread, or the points therein, are actually about.

If you read the thread from 2008, you'll realise that 'Qirat' are indeed covered there.

We've discussed this to death - the claims of 20th century anti-Muslim bloggers don't stand up to scrutiny - the isolated examples over a handful of words in isolated accounts don't overturn all the other accounts of the perfect, word for word memorisiation of the whole Quran by hundreds.

It is not a difficult concept to grasp - the Quran memorised by Muslims from the time of Muhammad, pbuh, is not learnt from the written records from Uthman's time - but rather the written records from Uthman's time were checked against the memory of those who had memorised the whole Quran.

There is no dispute amongst any Muslims or indeed any historic Muslim account on this point. Nor is there any record of Arabic speaking non-Muslims of the time raising this issue. This is a 20th century anti-Muslim spin.

Cheers,

Shafique

If you read the thread from 2008, you'll realise that 'Qirat' are indeed covered there.

The issue of the earliest qiraat having an additional line or the "subtle differences in meaning" isn't covered in that thread.

This thread is specifically about the earliest qiraats containing a line that is not present in modern Korans.

That is not a pronunciation issue if you had read the posts in THIS thread.

There is no dispute amongst any Muslims or indeed any historic Muslim account on this point.

Lie. There was plenty of dispute amongst the earliest Muslims on the perfect preservation of the Koran.

There is even a belief the Koran contained verses on stoning - so your claim that there was no dispute amongst early Muslims is simply a falsehood.

But this is neither here nor there, this thread is about a Muslim Koran scholar in the 20th century admitting the early qiraats contained an additional line to a Koran verse that is not present today.

I suggest you re-examine what you've been told. There is no dispute at all amongst Muslims or even the earliest Arab speaking non-Muslims on the preservation of the Quran intact.

If I continue, I fear I will owe DDS a cinema ticket... 3 posts here stating the same thing is enough for today.



Cheers,

Shafique

Thanks, I guess your straw-men can't address this fact:

In some Qira'ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka'ab, occur also the words "and he is a father of them", which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words "and his wives are their mothers". [Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, 11th edition, Note #3674]

"And he is a father of them" is not a pronounciation issue - the entire line is absent from modern Korans.

But as usual, you don't have the ability to comprehend the actual discussion and give scripted, off-topic responses.

jackpott wrote: shafique wrote:The variant readings/Quirat do not change the meaning of the Quran at all. A simple Google dispels this myth.



Absurd really, trusting Google with your faith.

Is Google your G.O.D.?

LoL, apparently so.

What's interesting is that both early Muslims and historians/scholars of our generation affirm the Koran has not been perfectly preserved - this fact is indisputable with different extant editions of the Koran.

Shafique cannot provide a scholarly rebuttal.

His fundamentalist belief system is incompatible with real truth, so he plays games where he does not have to address the evidence and conclusions in any substantial way.

He's content with living in his imaginary world where everything he was told was true when he was younger remains so no matter what.

That seems like an intellectually stunted person to me.