Origins of the Koran

[Hollie]

I've always been of the opinion that if you wish to study a religious text or religion, don't use 3rd party books to do so. Go to the source and read the actual holy book. Attend a service. Talk with active followers. You're never going to learn anything relying on 'ex' members and 3rd party commentary. When I was on walk-about, I attended many religious services from California to Florida and learned quite a bit.

Therein, is a part of the problem. It’s the source material that is in question.

In reference to the Koran, there is no “source material”. Giving the fact we have a historical record of the events during which the koran was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of any source material is a contradiction in terms. The completely human engine for that standard is evident and obvious. We have in our possession, at best, the musshaf of Uthman. We really do not know what the musshaf of Muhammad contained, and how different the two might be.

The percentage of Moslems that accept any particular foundational myth of Islam is hardly a basis for deciding that myth is true or not. An objective evaluation of the claim to muhammud (swish) “hearing voices” must be assessed with consideration to the time and circumstances.

Similarly, the Moslem myth of a “perfectly preserved koran” is a late development in Moslem history. The earliest Moslems did not share it as demonstrated by their own writings.

 

[Bowman]

We are told, even within the pages of the Koran itself, that the Koran (i.e. ‘the collection’) is a mere fabrication – which is an open admission that it is not the original.

Sura 10 is an excellent example of this.

The ayahs leading up to 10.37 are discussing “alhaqqi” (i.e. The Truth), of which we are told refers to only Jesus Christ (4.171).

This is fact.

Therefore, 10.37 is also a continuation of a discussion of Jesus Christ, as thus…


وما كان هذا القرءان أن يفترى من دون الله ولكن تصديق الذي بين يديه وتفصيل الكتب لا ريب فيه من رب العلمين

Wama kana hatha alqur-anu an yuftara min dooni Allahi walakin tasdeeqa allathee bayna yadayhi watafseela alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

10.37 And that this was the collection, that fabricated one, from superior (to) “allah”, and but (a) confirmation (of) Him in His presence, and explaining The Book, no doubt in it, from the lord of the jinn and of mankind.



The first thing that we observe in this ayah is that the Koran (i.e. “alqur-anu” i.e. ‘the collection’) is called a fabrication (yuftara).

Further, this ayah states that ‘the collection’ is shown to be superior to “allah”, but still is a confirmation (tasdeeqa) of Him (allathee i.e. Jesus Christ) in His presence “bayna yadayhi”.

What this means is that while the Koran is admittedly a fabrication of the previous scriptures (i.e. it is not divine in any manner whatsoever), it still contains the Biblical message of Jesus Christ.

Further still, ‘the collection’ is said to explain (tafseela) The Book (alkitabi i.e. The Holy Bible) – of which, the Holy Bible is stated to contain no doubt whatsoever in it (la rayba feehi).

Finally, this ayah concludes with the admission that ‘the collection’ (i.e. the fabrication) is from “allah” lord of the jinn (demons).

Thus….this ayah does nothing to support the false Islamic claims that the Koran was divinely inspired.

It does, however, promote the divine origin of the Holy Bible, and 'The Truth' of Jesus Christ.

 

[abu afak]

I've always been of the opinion that if you wish to study a religious text or religion, don't use 3rd party books to do so. Go to the source and read the actual holy book. Attend a service. Talk with active followers. You're never going to learn anything relying on 'ex' members and 3rd party commentary. When I was on walk-about, I attended many religious services from California to Florida and learned quite a bit.

Hollie answered you very well, but let me add:

My "ex member" DID go to the source itself, unlike current practitioners who are Lead to believe "the source" was Allah. Period/end of story.
ie, and the article gets much more detailed yet, Warraq explained the script issue with consonants and vowels that is just part of the problem.
My source used Credible (for this purpose) religious historical figures including the most important wife of Mohammed, Aisha.

Again, we are talking "ORIGINS" of the Koran, so Why would we to go Current practitioners/a service to find that out?!?
They have been lead to believe that it was handed down from Allah 'as is'.
They know nothing about said origins.

And an obviously highly educated "ex" member would be a better source than a hoard of Non-objective current believers/cult members even from a current-practice viewpoint: he's lived the religion but seen Both sides.

For those reasons and others, your post is Obtuse beyond belief and shows you don't even comprehend the issue presented, but instead (with Knee-Jerk PC) think someone merely said something bad about Islam and we should talk to our local Muslims to clear it up.
`

 

[theword]

Muslims like to Claim that while other Holy Books are written by man, the Koran is 'perfect' and 'as delivered' by God.
That, of course, is Ludicrous for various reasons. Not least of which the book is cobbled together from various dubious sources. Much of it lost and certainly not the word of any god in any case.
And there is strong evidence, the earliest known Korans, the "Sana'a Hoard", are 'Palimpsests', written over old and altered text.

From: The Origins of the Koran,
Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book
Ed. Ibn Warraq. Prometheus Books
The Origins of the Koran Ed. Ibn Warraq. Prometheus Books

I. Introduction

"....While modern Muslims may be committed to an Impossibly conservative position, Muslim scholars of the early years of Islam were far more flexible, Realizing that parts of the Koran were Lost, Perverted, and that there were many Thousand variants which made it impossible to talk of Koran.

For example, As-Suyuti (died 1505), one of the most famous and revered of the commentators of the Koran, quotes Ibn Umar al Khattab as saying:
"Let No one of you say that he has acquired the entire Quran, for how does he know that it is all. Much of the Quran has been Lost, thus let him say, "I have acquired of it what is available" -Suyuti, Itqan, part 3, page 72).

Aisha the favorite wife of the Prophet, says, also according to a tradition recounted by as-Suynti,
"During the time of the Prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be Two Hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Quran, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73).

As-Suyuti also tells this story about Uba ibn Ka'b, one of the great companions of Muhammad:
"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims,
"How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?" He said,
"Seventy-three verses." He (Uba) told him, "It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning". The man asked, "What is the verse of the Stoning?" He (Uba) said, "If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."

As noted earlier, since there was No single document collecting all the revelations, after Muhammad's death in 632 C.E., many of his followers tried to gather all the known revelations and write them down in codex form.
Soon we had the codices of several scholars....."

".....The problem was aggravated by the fact that the consonantal text was unpointed, that is to say, the dots that distinguish, for example, a "b" from a "t" or a "th" were missing. Several other letters (f and q; j, h, and kh; s and d; r and z; s and sh; d and dh, t and z) were indistinguishable.
In other words, the Koran was written in a scripta defectiva.
As a result, a great many variant readings were possible according to the way the text was pointed (had the dots added).

Vowels presented an even Worse problem. Originally, the Arabs had no signs for the short vowels: the Arab script is consonantal. ....using different vowels, of course, rendered different readings. The scripta plena, which allowed a fully voweled and pointed text, was not perfected until the late 9th century....

The problems posed by the scripta defectiva inevitably led to the growth of different centers with their own variant traditions of how the texts should be pointed or vowelized. Despite Uthman's order to destroy all texts other than his own, it is evident that the Older codices survived...."

EDIT: Note the 'Sunni Man' TROLLING Below. (now THRICE)
This is a very Valid String topic for this section and I prefaced the aricle with Why it is[/u].
"AND..." is a NOT a valid response, merely a Juvenile Wisecrack because he doesn't like the content.
Pretend you're an adult and Post ON TOPIC please.
`

Some of the writings of the old testament, most of the new testament and the Quran were written by antichrists who had no idea who our Creator was. God used true prophet and saints to testify to His hidden knowledge, not antichrists.

 

[HenryBHough]

Does this mean Bill Ayers didn't ghost-write it for The New Messiah?

 

[MaryL]

Origins of the Koran? As myth or as part of human history, I accept that. But inspired by the divine spirit? Prove it…Maybe perhaps, religion is just deluded insanity. But never can the Koran or the bible or the torah be said to be the word of "god", ever! Prove it. All religion is man- made garbage.

 

[abu afak]

Most Christians believe that, while the Bible is holy scripture, it was written by various prophets and disciples. To Muslims, the Koran is different.

"For Muslims, the Koran is the literal word of god," says Dagli. "They don't consider Muhammad to be the author of the Koran. It came straight down from heaven, and you won't find a Muslim who would say otherwise. That's non-negotiable."
- See more at: IslamiCity.com - The Origins of a Holy Book

The Origin of the Quran

IslamiCity eh?


The end of the Quran as Muslims know it
The end of the Quran as Muslims know it
Today’s Quran in the light of its early manuscripts

“The Quran is a record of the exact words revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. It was memorized by Muhammad and then dictated to his Companions, and written down by scribes, who cross-checked it during his lifetime. Not one word of its 114 chapters, Suras, has been changed over the centuries, so that the Quran is in every detail the unique and miraculous text which was revealed to Muhammad fourteen centuries ago.” (IslamiCity.com - Islam & The Global Muslim eCommunity, search for ‘What is the Qur`an?’; accessed 19 2011)​

The fundamental Islamic belief that no word of the Quran has changed is put in question by a rather unique ancient manuscript, a Palimpsest, known as ‘DAM 0 1-27.1.’1

It was discovered by Muslims in 1972 at the ancient Great Mosque of Sana'a in Yemen. According to the latest academic studies, aided by the use of ultraviolet photography, this palimpsest contains many differences when compared with today’s Arabic Quran. They range from different and missing words and dissimilar spelling to a changed order of Surahs and words within verses. The find is part of a bundle of parchments thought to be the OLDEST surviving copies of the Quran.

A Palimpsest is a manuscript from which a text has been scraped or washed to make room for another one in order to re-use the expensive parchment. Such a process would normally only be done after several centuries. However, in the case of ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’ it took place within the first century of the ‘Hijrah’ (7th and early 8th century AD), shortly after the Uthmanic recension. This is confirmed by the fact that the primary writings that reappeared and the secondary ones that followed, including the corrections of both, were found to be made in the ‘Hijazi’ style of the first Islamic century. The characteristic, irregular lines of that particular style exist in all the four above mentioned developmental stages of the text.

1. The Evidence

The palimpsest known as ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’ contains at least 38 Quran leaves. They were each written on parchment with an approximate size of 36.5 x 28.5 cm. Since on the majority of the leaves a primary text is visible and both texts contain parts of over 70% of today’s Quran, the palimpsest must be a remnant of two, previously complete, yet different Qurans.
[.......]
In the following examples, changed words from the primary writing are compared with the Standard text (StT). These changes represent only a very small part of a much bigger, in-depth analysis conducted by Dr E. Puin.3

2. Examples

A. Several words are Missing within a paragraph leading to a different meaning​

[........]
B. Words are different from today’s Quran
[........]​

3. Questions of Muslims answered

A. Why should we listen to Western Orientalist scholars who are known to be against Islam?

Sadly there are not many other scholars who Dare to approach the sensitive subject of early Quranic manuscripts in an objective manner. A notable exception was Dr Nasr Abu Zaid, formerly a lecturer in Koranic Studies at Cairo University.
He argued that the Quran is a literary text which needs to be examined through a literary approach. The highest court in Egypt ruled in 1995 that he was an Apostate and therefore his marriage was annulled.

Salim Abdullah, director of the German Islamic Archives, affiliated to the powerful pan-Islamic Muslim World League, is open to critical research too, saying: “I am longing for this kind of discussion on this topic.”9
[.......]
B. Was it just a bad copy used by those whom the Uthmanic text had not yet reached?

There are several problems with such an assumption:

1. The palimpsest ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’ has been proven to actually contain four different Qurans: A complete primary and secondary text, and both showing later corrections. Therefore we are not just dealing with one but four ‘bad copies’ within the first Islamic century. If the Uthmanic text had not yet reached the mosque, upon what basis were the corrections of the two different texts made?
[.......]​

 

[abu afak]

The Fogg is Lifted
Answering Muslims: The Fogg is Lifted

Due to Uthman's systematic destruction of the early Quranic manuscripts, very little evidence remains of what the great pre-Uthmanic Quran teachers taught. Much of what we know has been saved through quotations and traditions faithfully recorded by early Muslim authors such as Ibn Abi Daud (none other than the son of Abu Daud, compiler of one of the collections of sahih sittah). As fortunate as we are to have these records of early variants, very little can replace the power and poignancy of manuscript evidence.

As fate would have it, however, a palimpsest was discovered which contained a few notable similarities to the supposed Ibn Masud manuscripts. (A palimpsest is a manuscript which has been washed out and written over; the original text can still be examined, however, via UV light imaging methods). Within this manuscript are no less than seven types of variances from the standard texts of today:

1 - Different sequences of words
2 - Omissions
3 - Different words
4 - Orthographical variants
5 - Scribal errors/corrections
6 - Explanatory additions
7 - Different contexts which are a result of omitted words.

Below is an image of Fogg's Palimpsest. Notice that the scripto secunda, or the overlying text of the palimpsest, was made to match the standard text; the scripto prima, or the older text, had different wording.

Why do Muslims continue to deny the existence of Quranic variants from early Islamic history? Well, it's because they must if the Quran's claim in 15:9 is to be defended. But just how long can Muslims continue to deny the existence of variants while staring at variants?
Only time will tell.
`

 

[Dajjal]

Here is a well known book on the sources of the quran.

The Original Sources of the Qur'an [Table of Contents]

 

[Dajjal]

Most Christians believe that, while the Bible is holy scripture, it was written by various prophets and disciples. To Muslims, the Koran is different.

"For Muslims, the Koran is the literal word of god," says Dagli. "They don't consider Muhammad to be the author of the Koran. It came straight down from heaven, and you won't find a Muslim who would say otherwise. That's non-negotiable."
- See more at: IslamiCity.com - The Origins of a Holy Book

The Origin of the Quran

This web site incorrectly uses Rashad Khalifas translation of verse 79.30 which says the earth is egg shaped. But this is a false translation, and all the others say the earth is spread out (flat) at this verse.


79:30

Pickthall- And after that He spread the earth,

Yusuf Ali- And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);

Hilali-Khan- And after that He spread the earth;

Shakir- And the earth, He expanded it after that.

Sher Ali- And the earth, along with it, HE has spread forth.

Khalifa- He made the earth egg-shaped.

Arberry- and the earth-after that He spread it out,

Palmer- and the earth after that He did stretch out.

Rodwell- And afterwards stretched forth the earth, -

Sale- After his he stretched out the earth,

Transliterated Arabic Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha

 

[Shaarona]

Muslims like to Claim that while other Holy Books are written by man, the Koran is 'perfect' and 'as delivered' by God.
That, of course, is Ludicrous for various reasons. Not least of which the book is cobbled together from various dubious sources. Much of it lost and certainly not the word of any god in any case.
And there is strong evidence, the earliest known Korans, the "Sana'a Hoard", are 'Palimpsests', written over old and altered text.

From: The Origins of the Koran,
Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book
Ed. Ibn Warraq. Prometheus Books
The Origins of the Koran Ed. Ibn Warraq. Prometheus Books

I. Introduction




EDIT: Note the 'Sunni Man' TROLLING Below.
This is a very Valid String topic for this section "And..." I prefaced it with Why.
"AND..." is a NOT a valid response, merely a Juvenile Wisecrack because he doesn't like the content.
Pretend you're an adult and Post ON TOPIC please.
`

Ibn Warrag is a total fake.. Check his bio....

I have no issues with your opinions.. but I would ask that you check your sources.

I know his Bio and I consider him Excellent.
YOU, OTOH, are a Fraud.
Perhaps you'd like to take Specific Issue with anything he's said in that post... or anything I said in the Next?

I didn't think so.

`

Its very likely that the Quran was based on Syriac teachings that were heterodox.

And clearly Islam borrow from the Nestorians, just as Christians borrowed from the Jews and the Jews borrowed from Sumer, Ugarit and Egypt.

 

[abu afak]

The Evidence That al-Qur’an is Corrupted, Fake and Full of Lies (Video)
The Evidence That al-Qur?an is Corrupted, Fake and Full of Lies (Video) | sharia unveiled

Video 1:
(at link)


Video 2:​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q30NrDKBuvs]The Quran is corrupted. - YouTube[/ame]

`

 

[Destroyer2]

Of course the Quran/Koran is fake.

It's just like the Bible, the Torah, whatever the Hindus currently use (I honestly can't remember if it's the vedas or the upanishads), the Book of Mormon, or any other holy scripture.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I know his Bio and I consider him Excellent.
Perhaps you'd like to take specific issue with anything he's said in that post or anything I said in the Next?

Ibn Warrag, (his fake pen name) is an Islamophobic idiot and a fraud.

And that is being polite.........

Is islamaphobic the belief in the truth that islam is satans religion and allah is satan?

 

[SalaamAkir]

The Holy Qu'ran was given by Allah (God) and His Messenger Muhammad

 

[Dajjal]

The Holy Qu'ran was given by Allah (God) and His Messenger Muhammad

If the quran is the word of God why does it say Noah's age was 950 years when he died?

I can tell you the reason, it is because Muhammad stole most of the quran from the bible, and he copied an early translation error in the bible by a scribe who did not understand the ancient numbering system. The bible also says Noah's age was 950 years and that is an obvious error in the bible which is copied by the quran.

 

[longknife]

The OP is now a target of Muslims as a heretic with the penalty of death if he or she is ever identified and located.

Freedom of Speech?

And to agree with him/her puts you in the same category.

Think about it.

 

[abu afak]

The OP is now a target of Muslims as a heretic with the penalty of death if he or she is ever identified and located.

Freedom of Speech?
And to agree with him/her puts you in the same category.
Think about it.

'Freedom of Speech' is NOT an Islamic concept.

Blasphemy and Apostasy ARE important ones: punishable by as much as death, and Death it has been for many. If you're thinking of becoming a stupid 'revert'/pervert - think again - there's no out.
`

 

[Destroyer2]

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." Leviticus 24:13-16

What was that about only Muslims killing blasphemers?

 

[Shaarona]

If Obama is as personally close to the King of Saudi Arabia as he appears then this thread could get us all stoned....at the very least.

Why would you think Obama is close the King Abdullah?