Muslims would NEVER burn the Bible

[JakeStarkey]

That's it, bud. You can't prove there was an original, thus you can't prove what you have now is authentic.

 

[Kalam]

That's it, bud. You can't prove there was an original, thus you can't prove what you have now is authentic.

In what universe does universal consistency in contemporary historical reports not equal truth?

Ah, that's right. It's not truth in the imaginary universe dreamed up by those who feel the need to spread lies about Islam.

 

[Queen]

Both the New Testament (Bible) and the Old Testament (Torah) are spoken of in the Quran.

And thus are held sacred by all muslims.

That is why you will NEVER hear about Muslims burning the Bible.

I bet there were some Bibles in the World Trade Center towers. So Muslims don't burn the Bible, they just blow the fucking shit out of it.

Stupid thread.

 

[Kalam]

Both the New Testament (Bible) and the Old Testament (Torah) are spoken of in the Quran.

And thus are held sacred by all muslims.

That is why you will NEVER hear about Muslims burning the Bible.

I bet there were some Bibles in the World Trade Center towers. So Muslims don't burn the Bible, they just blow the fucking shit out of it.

Stupid thread.

Certainly no stupider than your response to it...

 

[ABikerSailor]

So you consider diversity of opinion to be a sign of weakness? As for how such a religion can be viable, look at the last 1400 years of history...

Yes. Especially when the same verse is interpreted by 2 different groups and the opinions of each are diametrically opposed.

Kinda like a Northern and a Southern Baptist arguing about a verse in the Bible.

I guess I don't see what's wrong with that.

You don't? Tell ya what........put a Norther Baptist and a Southern Baptist preacher in a room together and lock 'em in for 2 hours.

When you come back, only 1 will be left. Why? Each side is trying to convince the other that they are the correct ones, and if the other doesn't come over to their way of thinking, they are branded as heretics and consigned to hell.

Wait........isn't that what your faith of Islam does to those that aren't?

 

[Kalam]

Yes. Especially when the same verse is interpreted by 2 different groups and the opinions of each are diametrically opposed.

Kinda like a Northern and a Southern Baptist arguing about a verse in the Bible.

I guess I don't see what's wrong with that.

You don't? Tell ya what........put a Norther Baptist and a Southern Baptist preacher in a room together and lock 'em in for 2 hours.

When you come back, only 1 will be left. Why? Each side is trying to convince the other that they are the correct ones, and if the other doesn't come over to their way of thinking, they are branded as heretics and consigned to hell.

Wait........isn't that what your faith of Islam does to those that aren't?

Consider the following. About 90% of Muslims are Sunni. Sunni jurisprudential thought is divided into four main schools -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- each named after the Imam whose views formed its basis. Both Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Malik were students of the prophet's (SAWS) grandson, Ja'far. Imam ash-Shafi'i was a student of Imam Malik, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was a student of Imam Ash-Shafi'i. While views can differ substantially between the four schools, each one recognizes the validity of the others' opinions to a great extent. For example, a person recognized as a scholar within one school can adopt the views of other schools on particular issues if they find that those views are more sound.

Declaring another person a heretic or a disbeliever can be problematic. Whenever this happens, Muhammad (SAWS) says that either the accuser is correct or the accuser himself is a disbeliever for making a false accusation. For that reason, this is not something that should be done carelessly. The viewpoints of others must be considered.

 

[lizzie]

I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have. In order to "replace" the actual Qur'an with a fraudulent text, all existing copies of the original text and every document that mentions this replacement would have needed to be destroyed.

Who said that anyone "replaced" the Koran?

What happened to the original that was "changed"?

It was no longer original. Look at it like this- if I write an essay with a pencil, then decide I need to make some changes, I erase and re-write. It's pretty simple. The original has been changed. If some of the manuscripts found in Yemen in the early 70's had obvious markings of scraping off old writing, and being written over. Were these changes significant? No one will ever know, but the oldest complete copy is thought to have been written in the late 9th century, well after the life of Mohammed. In a time span of 200+ years, all the revelations which were saved in the memories of men, written in different regions, passed on from one generation to the next, then collected and put into one book and claimed to be the true revelations, unchanged and true as revealed by God, it's a little hard to believe.

 

[Kalam]

It was no longer original. Look at it like this- if I write an essay with a pencil, then decide I need to make some changes, I erase and re-write. It's pretty simple. The original has been changed. If some of the manuscripts found in Yemen in the early 70's had obvious markings of scraping off old writing, and being written over.

So, your assertion is that this was written over what was then the only extant copy of the "original Qur'an"? You're aware that Zayd ibn Thabit and other scribes made multiple copies of the Qur'an under 'Uthman's orders, yes? Moreover, the finding in Yemen included nearly 1,000 separate Qur'anic manuscripts. It's possible that some of the palimpsests are 'Uthmani musaahaf or fragments thereof written over pre-'Uthmanic manuscripts. These early writings were made before the Ummah confirmed and standardized the order of ayat under 'Uthman (RA - whose scribes, including Zayd who was one of those appointed to record revelations directly as they occurred, referred to an early codex prepared by Abu Bakr - RA)

Were these changes significant? No one will ever know, but the oldest complete copy is thought to have been written in the late 9th century, well after the life of Mohammed.

If you insist on disingenuous nit-picking and choose to exclude partially or nearly complete (>99% complete in some cases) manuscripts dating from the mid or late 7th to the early 8th centuries, perhaps.

The "Qur'an Of Uthman" At The Al-Hussein Mosque, Cairo, Egypt, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra
The "Qur'an Of Uthman" At The Topkapi Museum, Istanbul, Turkey, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra
The "Qur'an Of Uthman" At The Turk ve Islam Eserleri Muzesi (Turkish and Islamic Art Museum), Istanbul, Turkey, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra
The "Qur'an Of Uthman" At The Egyptian National Library (Dar Al-Kutub Al-Misriyya), Cairo, Egypt, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra
The "Qur'an Of Uthman" At Tashkent (Samarqand), Uzbekistan, From 2nd Century Hijra
The "Qur'an Of Uthman" At St. Petersburg (Russia), Katta Langar, Bukhara And Tashkent (Uzbekistan), From 2nd Century Hijra

The last Qur'an is not attributable to 'Uthman (RA) because it contains minor variations from the 'Uthmani Qur'an, including using the pronoun "he" (huwa) in place of "Allah" in one ayah. I am unaware of any departure from the Uthmani Qur'an in any of the other manuscripts listen above, and if some of them are not original musaahaf prepared by Zayd then they're certainly direct copies.

In a time span of 200+ years, all the revelations which were saved in the memories of men, written in different regions, passed on from one generation to the next, then collected and put into one book and claimed to be the true revelations, unchanged and true as revealed by God, it's a little hard to believe.

Fortunately, that's a completely inaccurate account of what happened and you aren't being asked to believe that it's the word of God. You're merely being asked to acknowledge certain historical facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't have the original, thus your contention about the authenticity and literalness of the Qur'an is merely supposition.

 

[Kalam]

You don't have the original, thus your contention about the authenticity and literalness of the Qur'an is merely supposition.

Sure we do. Not all in one place, but it and pre-'Uthmani texts used as references to form it exist in the form of dispersed fragments. Then, of course, we have the manuscripts I linked to above that are at least direct copies of the originals if not some of the originals themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you don't at all. "Dispersed fragments" are not the original text. You have faith, and that's fine, but you don't have objective, critical proof. That's fine as long as you understand you believe by faith and not knowledge.

 

[Kalam]

No, you don't at all. "Dispersed fragments" are not the original text. You have faith, and that's fine, but you don't have objective, critical proof. That's fine as long as you understand you believe by faith and not knowledge.

Sure they are. The fact that they didn't always remain in a single location doesn't make them anything less.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course, it does, Kalam. You have no objective proof that you have the original. So you believe by faith.

 

[Kalam]

Of course, it does, Kalam. You have no objective proof that you have the original. So you believe by faith.

You may benefit from perusing this and related articles.

The Qur'anic Manuscripts

 

[ABikerSailor]

Face it......the Koran is a mixed up book made by mixed up people for a mixed up religion.

In Genesis it states that God brought order out of chaos. If your religion truly follows the "One True God" wanna explain why there is no order to your holy book?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Face it, the Qu'ran is best understood by the moderates and liberals who practice the principles of peace.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Who said that anyone "replaced" the Koran?

What happened to the original that was "changed"?

It was no longer original. Look at it like this- if I write an essay with a pencil, then decide I need to make some changes, I erase and re-write. It's pretty simple. The original has been changed. If some of the manuscripts found in Yemen in the early 70's had obvious markings of scraping off old writing, and being written over. Were these changes significant? No one will ever know, but the oldest complete copy is thought to have been written in the late 9th century, well after the life of Mohammed. In a time span of 200+ years, all the revelations which were saved in the memories of men, written in different regions, passed on from one generation to the next, then collected and put into one book and claimed to be the true revelations, unchanged and true as revealed by God, it's a little hard to believe.

Same can be said for the New Testament.

 

[Mortimer]

In gaza muslim extremists burned bibles and destroyed crosses: christians in fear

 

[Hister]

Of course, it does, Kalam. You have no objective proof that you have the original. So you believe by faith.

You may benefit from perusing this and related articles.

The Qur'anic Manuscripts

I heard the earliest parts of the coran were written by a donkey while Mohammed fucked a pig in the ass. That true kalam?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course, it does, Kalam. You have no objective proof that you have the original. So you believe by faith.

You may benefit from perusing this and related articles.

The Qur'anic Manuscripts

Thank you, Kalam, but I have read many, many articles on "first" documents about the Torah, or Bible, or Qur'an, and the simple conclusion remains that there are none.