The sana'a manuscript did not represent an official piece.
This is a nonsense statement. So what if it's not an "official piece"? As far as I've been able to find, it is perhaps the earliest surviving manuscript evidence that we have of the Qur'an. This would be like saying that the Bodmer Papyri or some other incredibly important early Biblical materials don't matter for the study of the NT because they're not the Textus Receptus. No serious academic would take such a ridiculous stance seriously.
Never heard of that, where can I see evidence of this idea having existed? I hope this isn't one of those 'they added marks over the letters to signify certain pronunciation'.
It is in John of Damascus' writings. An Eastern Orthodox person could probably explain it better to you, since they would know him better. If I recall correctly, he wrote about the "heresy of the Ishmaelites", as it was called, in some part of his Fount of All Knowledge. It mentions material that was apparently known in his time as being part of the Qur'an that is not there now. (Not anything about the markings. John was
possibly of Arab origins himself, and either way it is likely that he was conversant in Arabic, since he worked in administration of the city before being retired to a monastery once the Arabs had ensured that Muslim administrators could replace him; his grandfather, Mansour Ibn Sarjun, was likely involved in the handover of Damascus to the Arabs, and there is speculation that he may have belonged to the Banu Kalb or Banu Taghlib, though nothing is for sure.)
There is neither a missing verse, a cancelled verse nor any evidence toward either of them.
So Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim don't count for anything?
That's very strange, and very unlike other Sunni Muslims I have spoken to or corresponded with.
How prevalent was it that people could recite the whole of it by heart? The main problem is of course that the new testament was written after Jesus had already died, not to mention that he left no particular 'revelation' to be recited.
Neither of these things are actual problems. Again, the Qur'an was compiled after Muhammad's death, and you don't seem to have any problem with that. You simply have a different standard for other religions, which your own does not even meet.
So you would be mostly reciting the words of the person who wrote the story.
The reciting of the Qur'an is the reciting of the words of the person or people who wrote the story, so y'know, same difference, except that we don't claim that our Holy Bible is the literal
dictated speech of God in the first place.
I've never heard of a Christian who knows the Bible by heart. I wish you could show me proof of it.
This actually seems to be something of a challenge among certain types of Evangelical Protestants (putting "memorize the New Testament" into Google leads to many pages with tips and benefits of doing so), though I don't know if any of them have actually done so. I think it's more common in those types of churches to have a "read the Bible in X amount of time" idea, as a kind of replacement for the liturgical calendars of more traditional churches.
In the more traditional churches, though, the cycle of readings follows the liturgical calendar, such that if you go through the liturgical year you will eventually cover everything (though there are different rules in different churches regarding what exactly is read when, i.e., some churches apparently don't read the Revelation of St. John aloud; mine does, for Bright Saturday of the Holy Week services). This is probably part of the reason why we don't have things like hafiz as a kind of distinction you can attain: it's not really traditionally seen as something to do on an individual level, since everyone will learn the entire thing if they just keep going to church. It is similar to how most monks learn the Psalms: by repetition of their daily offices -- not in isolation from them with memorization
as a goal in itself.
Though since I have been to a Coptic monastery, I have met a few people who knew the Psalms by heart. I would say that most Coptic people, if they are steadfast in their prayers, can all learn them all insofar as they pertain to the Agpeya (the book of hourly prayers, from which we are to pray seven times a day) in a matter of a few weeks to months, depending on their aptitude at retaining things.
It is important to realize in all this the crucial divide between Christianity and Islam: in Christianity, the importance has historically been on the learning of the liturgy through which the Bible is preached and taught, while in Islam apparently the importance is put on learning the text itself. Those are not the same thing.
I don't understand. It is so clear.
If it were really so clear you presumably wouldn't need contradicting explanations depending on what challenge was put to your idea.
Well don't keep it a secret.
It's not, and never has been. The Gospels are the four given to our fathers and masters the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, while the Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known collectively as the Pentateuch.