01 Jan 07
As I understand it what you are saying is
1) Quran is memorised from the prophet himself. It cannot be wrong. There is a history associated with the learning process. It cannot be wrong.
2) The collated version was checked against the spoken version. It was proved to be correct. It cannot be wrong.
3) Why were the original bits destroyed? Answer: To ensure that others could not add bits later, and thus corrupt the book.
But this assumes that process 1 and 2 can have a flaw that would allow such a claim to be considered valid, wouldn't it?
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandOk I think you got what I want to say.
As I understand it what you are saying is
1) Quran is memorised from the prophet himself. It cannot be wrong. There is a history associated with the learning process. It cannot be wrong.
2) The collated version was checked against the spoken version. It was proved to be correct. It cannot be wrong.
3) Why were the original bits destroyed? Ans ...[text shortened]... cess 1 and 2 can have a flaw that would allow such a claim to be considered valid, wouldn't it?
But this assumes that process 1 and 2 can have a flaw that would allow such a claim to be considered valid, wouldn't it?
To clarify this I will add the following: Islam has spreaded widely in the first 30 years , that all arabia , parts of North Africa, and Iran joined Islam. So many people from different cultures has joined Islam , and many of them are non arabic speakers.
The Khalif Othman wanted to collect a unified Mushaf to be sent to new muslims to read from, and to learn Quran from.
So to save new Muslims , specially non arabic speakers from being foold by any one, the original bits are destroyed..
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by ahosyneySorry, but that does not make sense. The original documents are exactly that - original. It would make sense to keep them, God's word, intact. That way, it would be easy to show that ALL of the Quran was intact, that the original documents could be produced, they could be verified. The only time people destroy documents is if they do not want people to read what is in them, or they are no longer required, is that not true?
Ok I think you got what I want to say.
[b]But this assumes that process 1 and 2 can have a flaw that would allow such a claim to be considered valid, wouldn't it?
To clarify this I will add the following: Islam has spreaded widely in the first 30 years , that all arabia , parts of North Africa, and Iran joined Islam. So many people from differen ...[text shortened]... , specially non arabic speakers from being foold by any one, the original bits are destroyed..[/b]
Can I suggest that destroying the original documents might have not been in the Quran's interests, since it looks as if, like the Bible, there was a particular view in mind. With the bible, books that were not thought, at that time, to be a) popular enough and b) lead to a unifying set of doctrines were declared to be 'apocryphal'. The struggle the Church(s) have had with these apocryphal books ever since, despite many being destroyed, must have led many a pope to bemoan the fact that had all the books been brought together early enough, and ruthlessly edited to produce 'one' bible, life would have been so much easier for them. It would have been easier to stifle dissent, and institutions like the Inquisition may not have come into being.
02 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWhat you miss is that the original Quran is the spoken one, not the written one. So the first copy is the same as the second one, all copies from the memorized version.
Sorry, but that does not make sense. The original documents are exactly that - original. It would make sense to keep them, God's word, intact. That way, it would be easy to show that ALL of the Quran was intact, that the original documents could be produced, they could be verified. The only time people destroy documents is if they do not want people t ier to stifle dissent, and institutions like the Inquisition may not have come into being.
And not a complete version too. You will not be able to read Quran from the written copy alone. There are rules to read Quran that doesn't exist in any written Quran (Mushaf). There rules are only known from the memory. You have to study the recitation of Quran to be able to read it.
Does it make sense now?
Again my information about the details of the process may not be accurate, but what I know for sure that evey step is documented and will known? It is easy to find it in Arabic, but I tried to find something in English if I found it I will give it to you.
02 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyI think I'm beginning to understand.
What you miss is that the original Quran is the spoken one, not the written one. So the first copy is the same as the second one, all copies from the memorized version.
And not a complete version too. You will not be able to read Quran from the written copy alone. There are rules to read Quran that doesn't exist in any written Quran (Mushaf). There rules ...[text shortened]... ind it in Arabic, but I tried to find something in English if I found it I will give it to you.
There are differences between the Quran and the Mushaf. The Mushaf is not complete.
04 Jan 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI see you made an edit here which I didn't see:
I think I'm beginning to understand.
There are differences between the Quran and the Mushaf. The Mushaf is not complete.
There are differences between the Quran and the Mushaf. The Mushaf is not complete.
This statement is not accurate, Mushaf include evey letter of the Quran and also include the reading signs. But to be able to read it you have to hear it first.
04 Jan 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyIs that something to do with Arabic? Is it a langauge thing?
I see you made an edit here which I didn't see:
[b]There are differences between the Quran and the Mushaf. The Mushaf is not complete.
This statement is not accurate, Mushaf include evey letter of the Quran and also include the reading signs. But to be able to read it you have to hear it first.[/b]
04 Jan 07
2 edits
Originally posted by snowinscotlandIt is actually realted to Quran itself, reading Quran is somehow different from reading any other Arabic writing. It has a unique rythme that you have to study. What in the Mushaf is the words and the punctuation marks that specify the rythm. So to read Quran you have two options:
Is that something to do with Arabic? Is it a langauge thing?
1- To study the rues of the recitation of Quran and interpret the punctuation while reading, which is difficult and doesn't gurantee that you read it correcly, because there are some words require a specific way of reading that is hard to understand from the punctuation alone.
2- Or listen to Quran to know the exact way to read it and that is how it goes now.
----------------------------
The unique rythm of Quran was not known before the prophet, not used after, and Arabs who were at that time famous of literature and writing found Quran unique and understood that it is not human made, specially that the prophet, who before starting telling Quran , was working as merchant and didn't have any education. He was not able to read an write.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyI'm not sure this belongs here, I was looking at the Gospel of Barnabas and there was a comment about the Apostle John foretelling Muhammad. Is that right? and where are the references?
It is actually realted to Quran itself, reading Quran is somehow different from reading any other Arabic writing. It has a unique rythme that you have to study. What in the Mushaf is the words and the punctuation marks that specify the rythm. So to read Quran you have two options:
1- To study the rues of the recitation of Quran and interpret the punctuat ...[text shortened]... ran , was working as merchant and didn't have any education. He was not able to read an write.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandAre you searching for the text of the Gospel?
I'm not sure this belongs here, I was looking at the Gospel of Barnabas and there was a comment about the Apostle John foretelling Muhammad. Is that right? and where are the references?
I don't know if this site will help:
http://www.barnabas.net
Go to the search page and search for the word "Mohammed":
http://www.barnabas.net/_vti_bin/shtml.exe/search.htm
It will give you all the references for the prophet Mohammed in the Gospel.
Here is an example:
http://www.barnabas.net/barnabasP97.html
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyNo - it was the references to Mohammed in John's gospels.
Are you searching for the text of the Gospel?
I don't know if this site will help:
http://www.barnabas.net
Go to the search page and search for the word "Mohammed":
http://www.barnabas.net/_vti_bin/shtml.exe/search.htm
It will give you all the references for the prophet Mohammed in the Gospel.
Here is an example:
http://www.barnabas.net/barnabasP97.html
05 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandOh, may be you mean John 14:16 to 14:26 , I think that is the only part of John Gospel that might refere to the prophet Mohammed. Some muslim scolars say that the word "Comforter" in the Greek source means the same meaning of the word "Mohammed" in arabic.
No - it was the references to Mohammed in John's gospels.
I'm not sure of that. For me it doen't matter a lot if these verses really refere to prophet Mohammed or not.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyAnd I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
Oh, may be you mean John 14:16 to 14:26 , I think that is the only part of John Gospel that might refere to the prophet Mohammed. Some muslim scolars say that the word "Comforter" in the Greek source means the same meaning of the word "Mohammed" in arabic.
I'm not sure of that. For me it doen't matter a lot if these verses really refere to prophet Mohammed or not.
17the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him nor know him; but ye know him, for he abides with you, and shall be in you.
I think this is the passage. When you look at the rest of the sentence, it doesn't look as if it is referring to a future person.
06 Jan 07
2 edits
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI think you better start reading from John 16:7.
And I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
17the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him nor know him; but ye know him, for he abides with you, and shall be in you.
I think this is the passage. When you look at the rest of the sentence, it doesn't look as if it is referring to a future person.
John 16:7-14 (King James Version)
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.