The compilation and editing of the Qur'an

[Skillganon]

Because Uthman destroyed all the ones he did not like?

Can you elaborate on that?
Which one did he not like. Show me evidence.

In bold: You contradict yourself in seubsequnt sentences. The information I have suggests the Qur'an was not compiled until after the prophets death.

It was written down in his lifetime. Not to mention it was memorised by nearly the whole generation. It was brought together in a book after his death.

As for your other point: we will never know will we? Which leaves room for some suspicion for those of us who are cynical. History is often the opinion of they who write it at best and a cover up at worst.

One has not provided any evidence.

 

[Snowbunny]

are there any reliable non-polemical books about how the koran was created?

 

[The Midge]

Hello Midge.

No offense but you are reading into lot of miss-information. The bible does not come close to the reliability of the Quran.

From a scholarly POV they are. Both can have their origins critiqued. If you applied the same standard of criticism to the Bible as the Qur'an you get the same kinds of questions and problems arising. And perhaps with the Tripitaka (sp?) for all I know. It realy is pointless arguing purely from the position that the text is infallible with those from another world view.

Ultimately the reliability of the texts come down to the integrity of the authors and, in the case of the Gospels if the person they portrayed is who say they are. We ask of Muhammad "Did he really receive a message from God?" and of Jesus "Did he really rise from the dead?". Those are the questions that ultimately determine if the texts are worth all the paper they are written on.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste shaks,

thank you for the post.

So if you destroy all the copies of Quran in the world today, would it make Quran a thing in the past ???? Like brother said... it was recieted and remembered and passed through generations without any changes.

you are not understanding what was written. the fact that all Qur'ans are the same today can be attributed to many factors, not least of which was the burning of the other texts by Uthman.

so YOU have no problem with it ??? who are YOU ??? so if you had a problem with it what would you have done about it???
I would like to know thatt...

nor have you understood what i was saying here.

i said that if reading Al Qur'an encourages you to engage in moral and ethical actions, then i have no issues with it. if, however, Al Qur'an encouraged you to engage in immoral and unethical actions, then i would have issue with it. understand the difference?

metta,

~v

 

[Arthra]

Friends,

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the Qur'an was altered from the time of Revelation to Prophet Muhammad until the Uthman Caliphate ordered a standardized text...

The only alteration I know about might have been the order of the Surihs....and how can we speak of "alteration" in that way when there was really no previous standardized text? There were probably different copies around but we have nothing to compare.

As I posted earlier...I think maybe yesterday, there was constant repetition of the Revelations in the Qur'an going on regularly at Friday services and Ramadan, etc. and any alteration would be noticed.

Also the early believers such as Ali who was with the Prophet from the beginning of the Revelation and later became the fourth Caliph and survived Umar and Uthman accepted the Uthmani standardization.

When people discuss this they want to compare it with maybe the Gospels or the New Testament but we can't really do that very well because it took probably over forty years after the time of Christ lived for the Gospels that we have today or their antecedents to be composed.

So the composition and editing of the New Testament took place over a considerably longer period of time than the composition of the Qur'an.... There were some Logia or sayings of Jesus that were circulated and we only have what has come down to us in Greek, Coptic not even in His own language which was Aramaic-Hebrew. What you have are variations in texts from Alexandria to Ephesus.

Bart Uhrman's recent book "Misqouting Jesus" deals with some of this material and is very well written and I recommend it.

Some of the epistles of Paul are in Greek and they have some references...The other NT books were composed later.

So really the composition of the Qur'an and the NT are not that similar.

- Art

 

[peaceful soul]

Friends,

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the Qur'an was altered from the time of Revelation to Prophet Muhammad until the Uthman Caliphate ordered a standardized text...

The only alteration I know about might have been the order of the Surihs....and how can we speak of "alteration" in that way when there was really no previous standardized text? There were probably different copies around but we have nothing to compare.

As I posted earlier...I think maybe yesterday, there was constant repetition of the Revelations in the Qur'an going on regularly at Friday services and Ramadan, etc. and any alteration would be noticed.

Also the early believers such as Ali who was with the Prophet from the beginning of the Revelation and later became the fourth Caliph and survived Umar and Uthman accepted the Uthmani standardization.

When people discuss this they want to compare it with maybe the Gospels or the New Testament but we can't really do that very well because it took probably over forty years after the time of Christ lived for the Gospels that we have today or their antecedents to be composed.

So the composition and editing of the New Testament took place over a considerably longer period of time than the composition of the Qur'an.... There were some Logia or sayings of Jesus that were circulated and we only have what has come down to us in Greek, Coptic not even in His own language which was Aramaic-Hebrew. What you have are variations in texts from Alexandria to Ephesus.

Bart Uhrman's recent book "Misqouting Jesus" deals with some of this material and is very well written and I recommend it.

Some of the epistles of Paul are in Greek and they have some references...The other NT books were composed later.

So really the composition of the Qur'an and the NT are not that similar.

- Art

Did you read and understand The Midge's post? I think that he answered your objection about comparisions very precisely.

 

[Skillganon]

Did you read and understand The Midge's post? I think that he answered your objection about comparisions very precisely.

Without no clear evidence.

 

[peaceful soul]

Without no clear evidence.

I should expect you to say such. What do you disagree with in his assessment?

 

[Skillganon]

I should expect you to say such. What do you disagree with in his assessment?

Hello Peaceful soul.

What assessment did he make without any evidence. Is it an assessment of the blind. All we ask is bring in some evidence, than we can talk, discuss to ones delight.

salam

Skill

 

[peaceful soul]

Hello Peaceful soul.

What assessment did he make without any evidence. Is it an assessment of the blind. All we ask is bring in some evidence, than we can talk, discuss to ones delight.

salam

Skill

We are talking about putting both under the same scope. Once you do that, you will find out that the Qu'ran will fair no better than the Bible. Truthfulness is not found in how a book was compiled. It is in how the scriptures testify together as complete revelation. That is the road that The Midge was headed down. All of your emotional pontifications do not make the Qu'ran true. I am trying to be real here.

 

[Skillganon]

We are talking about putting both under the same scope. Once you do that, you will find out that the Qu'ran will fair no better than the Bible. Truthfulness is not found in how a book was compiled. It is in how the scriptures testify together as complete revelation. That is the road that The Midge was headed down. All of your emotional pontifications do not make the Qu'ran true. I am trying to be real here.

Midge only proposed speculation so far without any evidence. I understand what he proposed, he already drawn a conlusion (in manner of his speaking). You cannot make an argument from no evidence, neither did I propose any sort of emotion.

In the manner of speaking he proposed an argument "if it is the case with the bible than it must be the case with the Quran" such argument do not make it so.

 

[The Midge]

Midge only proposed speculation so far without any evidence. I understand what he proposed, he already drawn a conlusion (in manner of his speaking). You cannot make an argument from no evidence, neither did I propose any sort of emotion.

In the manner of speaking he proposed an argument "if it is the case with the bible than it must be the case with the Quran" such argument do not make it so.

If you go back to the Op you will notice I posted these points:

• is "Virtually certain" was not transcribed completly until after Muhammeds death. The Qur'an is does not/ never did have a complete autograph- all be it a dictated one as some of it would have existed in a oral or unedited version.
• Fragments of Qur'anic texts found on coins, inscriptions and other literature show some varience in texts. e.g. the theological epistle of Hasan al Basri around 700 AD)
• Muhamed died in 632. Uthman's text which is the standardised unvaried text still in use today was not set down until about 20 years after the prophets death (around 650). There are older text fragments with some variations (I don't know what the extent of these might be- copy errors spellling or phrasing?)
• The Qur'an was collected from various souces by people such as Abu Bakr (reigned 632 to 634) and Uthman himself.
• The Hadiths or story traditions were not canonised until ninth and tenth centuaries.
• It is said that the pious son of the Caliph Umar said "Let none of you say he has the whole Koran in his possesion. How does he know what the whole of it is? Much of the Koran has gone."

.

They have not really been adressed. Apart from the circular argument that the Qur'an is true because it says it is true/ the Muslim knows it is true because he believes it to be true and assertions (not evidenced) that the information/ opinions I present is misinformed or not the case.

I respectfully put it to you that I have backed up my points with evidence and am trying not to show frustration at how poorly they have been answered. There seems to be a clear gap between the death of Muhammad and the setting down of the text of teh Qur'an. The burning of the other copies was brought to the discussion by others.

 

[Skillganon]

Hello Midge

If you go back to the Op you will notice I posted these points:

Exactly you posted points not evidence.

They have not really been adressed. Apart from the circular argument that the Qur'an is true because it says it is true/ the Muslim knows it is true because he believes it to be true and assertions (not evidenced) that the information/ opinions I present is misinformed or not the case.

I respectfully put it to you that I have backed up my points with evidence and am trying not to show frustration at how poorly they have been answered. There seems to be a clear gap between the death of Muhammad and the setting down of the text of teh Qur'an. The burning of the other copies was brought to the discussion by others.

Fustration. You posted speculation without evidence, than one calls those speculation evidence. Until you back it up with real evidence, we will regard all this as speculation, for one's whim and fancy.
So until one does that their is no point in adressing this thread any further.

Peace

Skill.

 

[Arthra]

Well my friends you have sometimes I think to admit that the body of evidence suggests that the Qur'an has an un impeachable authority because it was accepted as Revelation by the believers from the beginning... So as much as many wish it were not so..it is.

You know if you understand the history of early Islam and it's rapid spread and the developement of Arabic... that variations in monumental inscriptions and coinage are not in and of themselves convincing evidence of variations in the text of Qur'an.

Arabic was in itself in transition as a written language.

The evidence I've seen is that Qur'an was collected and referred to as "Qur'an" during the lifetime of the Prophet:

"Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied..."

Surih 2:121

This means that there was a collection of the Revelation of Qur'an during the Prophet's lifetime and that it was recited and an admonition that it be studied.

Also consider what I wrote earlier about Ali the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad who was with Him from the earliest Revelation and who accepted the Uthmani standardized Qur'an later in his life and as Caliph himself after Uthman died:

"Mu'awiyah raised an army and marched against Ali, demanding vengeance for the death of Uthman. A prolonged battle took place in July 657 CE in the Battle of Siffin, near the Euphrates; the battle seemed to be turning in favor of Ali, when a number of the opposing army, fixing copies of the Qur'an to the points of their spears, exclaimed that "the matter ought to be settled by reference to this book, which forbids Muslims to shed each other's blood."

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali#Caliphate

This is a very well known incident so Ali himself accepted the Uthmani standardization.

Here are additional sources...and I think the soource of this merits attention also:

The Codex of 'Ali (A): The first person to start the collection of the Qur'an after the demise of the Prophet (S) was 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (A). He did so in accordance with the instructions and testament of the Prophet (S). [33] He arranged the verses chronologically and mentioned their context and place of revelation.
Ibn al-Nadim writes: "After the demise of the Prophet (S) 'Ali (A) vowed not to leave his home until he had collected the Qur'an. He remained at home for three days and collected the Qur'an. He was the first one to have compiled the Qur'an from memory; this compilation remained in the custody of the family of Ja'far". [34]
It is inferred from the observations of Ibn al-Nadim that 'Ali (A) had already memorized the Qur'an before the demise of the Prophet (S) and after his (S) demise he retrieved it from his memory and compiled it. Perhaps he had already written parts of it, because even a highly skilled scribe cannot write the entire Qur'an in three days from memory or copy it from another copy. Since there is no evidence that 'Ali (A) copied the Qur'an from another copy, it follows that he had previously written the Qur'an as and when it was revealed in that order, and since the Prophet (S) was aware of 'Ali's (A) work and his writing of the Qur'an, he (S) instructed him (A) to collect and compile the same, so that it was safeguarded from destruction and tahrif like the revealed scriptures of the past.

Source:

http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_quran_manuscripts2.htm


As I pointed out earlier the developement of the New Testament is quite a different matter entirely and is really not comparable to the process that occurred with the Qur'an.

Peace and blessings of the Almighty God be with you all...

- Art

 

[Exegete12]

This might be why there are some inconsistencies e.g. in Sura 35: 1 it says that angels have 2, 3 or 4 pairs of wings. Does that mean angel Gabriel was not an angel? He apparently had 600 wings (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 54, No: 455).

 

[Arthra]

This might be why there are some inconsistencies e.g. in Sura 35: 1 it says that angels have 2, 3 or 4 pairs of wings. Does that mean angel Gabriel was not an angel? He apparently had 600 wings (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 54, No: 455).

If you read the verse Surih 35 verse 1 I think it is self- explanatory:

Praise be to Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, Who appointeth the angels messengers having wings two, three and four. He multiplieth in creation what He will. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

[Pickthal 35:1]

_____________________________

So the angels can have two, three and four wings... not really an inconsistency in the Qur'an itself.

To me the Angel Gabriel is also known to appear as a "man" to Mary ..of course I believe this is allegorical.

The angel Gabriel is the Holy Ghost, the intermediary between God and Muhammad.

- Art

 

[Islam_mulia]

Just came back from my holidays and I hope we can clarify some things in Misdge's OP:

I have been doing a little reading into the Qur'an and it's origins, mostly from general secular entry level comparative religion books. It would seem that the Qur'an

• is "Virtually certain" was not transcribed completly until after Muhammeds death. The Qur'an is does not/ never did have a complete autograph- all be it a dictated one as some of it would have existed in a oral or unedited version.

The evidence from the hadith all points out that

The Quran, as revealed to Muhammad (pbuh), was memorised by the early Muslims during his lifetime and written in 'parchments, scapula, leafstalks of dates and palms' (Bukhari, VI, No. 201). In fact, the Quran irself was written in the presence of the Prophet (Bukhari, VI, No. 512).

• Fragments of Qur'anic texts found on coins, inscriptions and other literature show some varience in texts. e.g. the theological epistle of Hasan al Basri around 700 AD)

I have not seen any evidence of variance in Quranic text from Hasan al Basri. We demand that Midge provide us proof of this.

• Muhamed died in 632. Uthman's text which is the standardised unvaried text still in use today was not set down until about 20 years after the prophets death (around 650). There are older text fragments with some variations (I don't know what the extent of these might be- copy errors spellling or phrasing?)

What are the variations? Midge already informed us scribe's errors.

• The Qur'an was collected from various souces by people such as Abu Bakr (reigned 632 to 634) and Uthman himself.

Yes. Also other Companions kept written copies of the Quran.

• The Hadiths or story traditions were not canonised until ninth and tenth centuaries.

'Canonised'? Muslims have a Science of Hadith where we categorised the various reports by their strength of truthfulness and their chain of transmission.

• It is said that the pious son of the Caliph Umar said "Let none of you say he has the whole Koran in his possesion. How does he know what the whole of it is? Much of the Koran has gone."

This is the saying from the hadith, not the Quran:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

I heard the Prophet saying, "If the son of Adam (the human being) had two valley of money, he would wish for a third, for nothing can fill the belly of Adam's son except dust, and Allah forgives him who repents to Him." (Bukhari, Vol. VIII, No. 444)
​

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

there really is no way to know, for certain, however as the variants were destroyed by order of Uthman. that is an historical fact that is not in dispute by Muslims or non.

that they were destroyed does not mean that they did not exist.

here's an excerpt from an interesting site:

"It is of some importance to call attention to a possible source of misunderstanding with regard to the variant readings of the Quran. The seven (versions) refer to actual written and oral text, to distinct versions of Quranic verses, whose differences, though they may not be great, are nonetheless substantial. Since the very existence of variant readings and versions of the Quran goes against the doctrinal position toward the Holy Book held by many modern Muslims, it is not uncommon in an apologetic context to hear the seven (versions) explained as modes of recitation; in fact the manner and technique of recitation are an entirely different matter. "

http://www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm

metta,

~v

 

[Islam_mulia]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

there really is no way to know, for certain, however as the variants were destroyed by order of Uthman. that is an historical fact that is not in dispute by Muslims or non.

that they were destroyed does not mean that they did not exist.

here's an excerpt from an interesting site:

"It is of some importance to call attention to a possible source of misunderstanding with regard to the variant readings of the Quran. The seven (versions) refer to actual written and oral text, to distinct versions of Quranic verses, whose differences, though they may not be great, are nonetheless substantial. Since the very existence of variant readings and versions of the Quran goes against the doctrinal position toward the Holy Book held by many modern Muslims, it is not uncommon in an apologetic context to hear the seven (versions) explained as modes of recitation; in fact the manner and technique of recitation are an entirely different matter. "

http://www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm

metta,

~v

The Quran was sent down in seven ahruf. For an excellent explnation of this, please read
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html#1

 

[Arthra]

Hello my dear friend Vajra!

To me the historical approach to the question is very convincing, that one of the few people who was present in the early revelations and survived to be the fourth Caliph, namely Ali ibn abu Talib the cousin and soninlaw of Prophet Muhammad accepted the Uthmani Qur'an...

It is pretty clear that there were variations in the order of the Surihs but this is a very minor issue and doesn't relate to trhe text of Qur'an itself.

The unity of the believers is also an evidnece of the integrity of the Qur'an compared with the disunity and lack of coherence say in previous religions.

- Art