Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The Sana palimpsest is only corroborating the Islamic narrative of the Quran. There were 7 Harfs of the Quran. The prophet considered all the 7 harafs as quran, and equal in meaning, and hence the recitation of any one of them was good to go with for a muslim. The purpose of the 7 harafs was ease of recitation.
By the time of Uthman, some ignorant people began to dispute over the superiority of one haraf over the other. And so, Uthman standardized the quran in one haraf, and destroyed all other copies. He sent professional reciters along with the standardized quran to various centers to teach people the proper recitation.
What we see in the sana palimpsest is the quran before the standardization (inferior text) which is one of the harafs, and the standardized haraf (Superior text).
That is short is my take on it.
We don't have any version of those Qurans that Uthman burnt, so we are unable to compare between those recitations and reach a firm conclusion that they were the same. Burning books due to one individual opinion indicates the subjectivity of the Islamic history that we have on our hands and that it is unreliable for truth reaching researches.
Uthman burnt all the books. What could be the reason? Let's analyze.
1. He wanted to change the text for some reason.
2. He wanted to preserve one reading only.
I can't think of other reasons. You may include more if you have any.
From the historical sources of Islam (which is where we get all these information from, even for us to sit and debate today) the second option seems to be the case. If that is so, then there is no cause for worry, because one reading has been strongly preserved.
If you are suggesting, that the first option was the case, then you will have to produce your proofs. Once you produce them, then we will analyze it. Until then, your concerns cannot be entertained.
So many hadiths in AL Bukhari mentioned that the Qura'n didn't get preserved and some verses got eaten by a pet or God made every one forget them or they just got lost, let alone the abrogation of so many verses by later verses
I think I know what you are talking about. But I don't want to do you the favor of quoting your proofs for you and then answering them. Bring them, and then we will discuss. But anyways, I am sure that Watchman will heap them all in due course. So may be you can wait until then. Why preempt the thrill?
Valiya :
I have to apologise ...
I've been tied up on family business tonight and have nothing to post .
However I will be back tomorrow ,when I shall be my own master.
I see you take the line that Sana'a represents one of the 7 Harfs.
I need to check against that as I seem to recall that the Sana'a document contains excerpts from no less than 4 different versions of the Quran .
You will no doubt ask for evidence ,(which I will find tomorrow & then present tomorrow evening) before you ,presumably claim that they will be 4 of the 7 ...
Any way I think you are correct to refuse to take on nicknick ...
his points would represent "mission creep" in that our discussion was intended to test the claim that the "Quran has been preserved
in its pristine purity "
Following nicknick's line would lead to trying to prove/disprove the validity of the Hadiths ... another subject altogether.
Perhaps nicknick could start a separate thread along those lines.
You post ,"I am sure that Watchman will heap them all in due course".
I'm sorry ,... you are mistaken .
I will have nothing to do with the red herring of the "stoning" verse.
It was given as a verse ...but Mohammed (& maybe the companions) didn't want it included in the Quran ... but the "duty" to which the verse refers (stoning of adulterers) is still valid.
No I'm sorry ,such sophistry is not to be allowed in serious discussions of supposed divine revelations.......
either it is a divine injunction or it isn't ......
It cant be both. I pass on this one.
And as to the passing goat ,finding its way into Aisha's chambers and eating some written verses ensconced under her pillow....
This is pure "myth" .... the idea that the prophets wife (& apparently his favourite) would be housed in a place where livestock roamed unchecked is not tenable.
No this too is not pertinent to the present discussion.
However nicknick's point that we have no direct evidence of the Quran's unaltered continuance due to Uthmans destruction ,is of course perfectly valid.
How can you know it is unaltered when all the original texts are no longer extant.?
Particularly as there were (allegedly) 7 valid versions of these verses.
But ,of course that is partly what we may hope to find out during our discussions.
Once again you have my apologies for my not posting anything that progresses our quest this evening.
Hi Watchman
Take your time, i can wait. no problem.
You have not said anything in this post for me to refute. I agree with you.
Just your closing note on the there being NO direct evidence of the Quran's unaltered continuance... you ask how can you know when all the original texts are no longer extant?
You can know because this so called final version was compiled by none other than those very people who had the so called original manuscripts. It happened with the full consensus of the community. Everyone was taking part in the compilation process. The best of the best reciters, who had fully memorized the quran directly from the prophet were part of the core committee. If their consensus is not acceptable, I would look at it as a ultra radical skepticism. If you question the validity of these hadith that report to us these events, then as you very rightly pointed out that would be a different topic all together.
I would be interested to know your opinion about the superior script in sana'a manuscript? Do you agree that it is the quran post uthmanic standardization?
If you agree, then as far I am concerned, this debate is nearly over. But more on that, when we get to it.
No problems about the delay... i can understand... debating will not get us our bread and butter... we all have our own professions.
Valiya ...
No ...not quite right.....
"You can know because this so called final version was compiled ( so we are told) by none other than those very people who (we are told) had the so called original manuscripts. It happened (we are told) with the full consensus of the community. (tradition has it ) Everyone was taking part in the compilation process. The best of the best reciters, who had fully memorized the quran directly from the prophet were part of the core committee."
Your original post was long on assertion ( I understand why) but you must understand what is tradition to you is not so compelling to others.
But on consideration ,and taking into account the dating evidence for both the inks and the parchment of the Sana'a document ,I think I tend to agree with you on its validity.
This is not to say I agree that the substance of the Quran is divinely inspired but ,as things stand at the present state of investigations, I am coming to believe that the text of the verses may well be an accurate (although possibly incomplete) rendering of the original verses.
I believe this shows my opinion of the "superior" script ....(for the non initiated "superior" in this context refers to the overlying and therefore later script )
The inferior (or underlying) script seems to prove the point about the Quran (the written account itself) being modified ... ( ie .inclusion of diacritical marks ,some differing words & differing order).
link:
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/1570058...
So ,yes I agree our conversation (not really a debate) is at an end.
I should thank you ,it has been a pleasure and I have enjoyed it very much.
Given the nature of some of the other /older threads touching on Islam
I think it demonstrates that given a degree of good will there is more to be gained from conversation than from histrionics.
Anyway perhaps we shall cross swords again.
Watchman
When we are investigating history we have to go by analyzing accounts and available objective evidence. Any attempt at filling the gaps must not contradict these available evidence, especially when they are in conformity.
What do I mean? We have traditions of the prophet (hadith) which I can prove are highly reliable historical accounts (given the sanad system and so on which I know is tangential to our discussion). This is the only source of history we have got with us pertaining to the quran.
This tradition talks of 7 harafs, which had differences in wordings, but their meanings aren’t altered. Uthman ordered the standardization of the quran in one haraf, and when the task was achieved, all other manuscripts were destroyed. This is the historical account.
And then we have got an objective evidence – the sana’a manuscript. This has superior script which is the Quran as we have today. It also has inferior script that differs in wordings. These differences in wordings when analyzed don’t show any divergence in the meaning.
From these, it is easy to draw the following conclusions: 1. The inferior script is in a different harf than the superior script. 2. The inferior script was wiped out in accordance with the Uthmanic standardization. 3. The lack of any conflict over this issue among the companions shows that this standardization did not in any way compromise the textual of integrity of the quran. 4. Moreover, there is no proof to indicate that the change in text (inferior/superior) had any motive (social, political or religious) because there is no difference in the overall meaning of each verse. Why would someone go through all the pain of changing the text if it doesn’t fear of favor anyone in particular?
Therefore, I am not simply making assertions. I have provided very strong proofs. And moreover, in your sense of fairness, you have conceded, “I am coming to believe that the text of the verses may well be an accurate (although possibly incomplete) rendering of the original verses.” I thank you for that graciousness.
About the differing diacritical marks: yes, we all agree that quranic orthography had evolved over time. What was revealed to the prophet was not a divine scroll with text written on it. What was revealed was the recitation.
The emphasis had always been on the recitation. And scribal efforts were only attempting their best to translate the sound into orthography. So as and when the need arose, new innovations were introduced to the orthography.
Even today, memorizers of Quran (the Qaris) don’t just open a text of the quran and simply commit it to their memory. They have to learn it from a teacher whose recitation they have to follow. There are orthographic irregularities even in today’s text, but nobody is perturbed by that because it’s not the orthography that preserved the quran, but the recitation.
If you study the subject at a deeper level it is very fascinating, because event to this day, professional Qaris keep a record of the chain of reciters that go all the way back to the prophet, even though there is no need for that. The recitation comes through what is called Mutawatir chain (I am sure you know about it, but for the benefit of the uninitiated, it means chains of transmission in such overwhelming numbers that its certainty becomes apodictic.
The objective evidence and the historical account are in absolute conformity, and there is no conflict. If you suspect this history, then I can only call it, radical skepticism. Like some people who even reject the notion that someone by name Mohammed had lived.
But I really enjoyed this discussion. I admire you facility with words, and your clear thinking. I am looking forward to more discussions with you on different topics.
@Royism: "We have traditions of the prophet (hadith) which I can prove are highly reliable historical accounts"
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE "HIGHLY RELIABLE" ANYTHING, THAT MUHAMMAD ACTUALLY EXISTED. ALL YOU HAVE IS TRADITION.
Apologies for bringing up a 5 years old topic. I realized it ended nowhere so I had to jump in.
ROYISM, to ensure that the Quran of this time is exactly the same as the one in the Prophet's time, we need to be able to compare the ccontent of the current Quran to a preserved mushaf of the one which was in the Prophet's time.
Is there any such Quran available? Can we by, carbon dating, date any mushaf of Quran successfully back to the time of the Prophet or the time of the Caliph Usman?
If we can, then we should compare every inch of that copy with the today's Quran.
That's the only way we can find out if what you claim is true. Since from my knowledge, there is no such mushaf available and no way to find out with 100% certainty the truth of this matter, I'll label your claim to be based upon lack of evidence.
A theists claims lack evidence?
Surely not!!!!!
This must be some sort of witchcraft!
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm an atheist.
I know, it was sarcasm at the idiots you are addressing.
Bold faced assertions, with fuck all to support it!
Other than, "But meh' holy book!"
@Seek3r
You said: “Apologies for bringing up a 5 years old topic. I realized it ended nowhere so I had to jump in.”
You are most welcome Seek3r. Even I felt this discussion ended abruptly, and thank you for bringing it up again.
You said: “Is there any such Quran available? Can we by, carbon dating, date any mushaf of Quran successfully back to the time of the Prophet or the time of the Caliph Usman?
There are many manuscript copies from the first century, including the Birmingham Manuscript, which has been dated to the time of the prophet. Dated between 570-640 AD. Sana manuscript dates back to 671 AD. And then there are plenty more including Topkapi, Samarkand etc. All within the 1st century of Islam.
Now, if you knew about ancient manuscripts, you would know how valuable these findings are, going so close to the times of the originator of the texts. That’s very, very rare with regard to ancient manuscripts.
Now let’s look at your claim that we need a copy of Uthman’s quran in order to compare with the current quran and make sure it is so.
While it definitely would add to the weightage of evidence if we had one such copy – let’s not overlook the enormity of the existing evidence.
First of all when you have a large number of copies from different periods and locations – all with a high degree of textual integrity – then it is only fair to assume that they are coming from a single source. Otherwise the similarity is hard to explain.
Secondly, one may say that, fine perhaps these are coming from a single source, but that source could have been some corrupted text other than what Uthman wrote.
Such a theory only makes matters worse for historians, because now historians have more to explain. Firstly, how did the Uthmanic text which was the official text issued by a dominant state get superseded by an anonymously corrupted text? Secondly, why is it that there is not a single extant copy of the original text which was a project undertaken by a dominant state not available, while so many of the corrupted texts are emerging from all over, that too with such textual integrity. Lastly, while all the manuscripts are corroborating the Islamic narrative of textual preservation, why should we give any importance to conspiracy theories?
Finally, quran’s preservation was based on two methods. One is textual and the other is oral. The oral transmission has been passed down the generations over the centuries, and the teachers had gone far and wide to different parts of the world, spanning Persia, China, India, North Africa, Europe and so on spreading the oral memorization of quran.
And we find that there is a global conformity as to the authenticity of the recitations, while that shouldn’t have been the case, if they had different sources. Especially, given the fact that Muslims fight over every single issue in the faith wherever there is even the slightest disagreement. But it’s amazing that when it comes to the most fundamental aspect of the faith, QURAN, the whole global community is somehow unanimous.
If, you are proposing a theory of multiple origins, then you will have to explain at which stage in the history of Islam did all the scholars and teachers get together and work out which version should be upheld as the original and which ones should be rejected. And how was it achieved in such secrecy that history is absolutely quiet about this event.
Therefore, the best and most plausible explanation is the Islamic narrative of Quranic preservation.
Fair enough on what you've said.
Battle of the Garden of Death, as it was popularly known, caused the death of 360 huffaz. In addition, after the passing away of your prophet, the only sources of Quranic text was what was memorized and what was written on the bones of camels, stones and etc.
I am sorry but such type of transmission leading to the compilation of a book is extremely unreliable. Moreover, in the 7th century, the Quran was not written with "harakat". So, any word could be changed with the displacement of a single "harkat".
The addition of "dots" was done much later, I believe 70-80 years after the death of Muhammad.
I really can't comprehend how this could be relied upon. Besides, you don't know what the people could've done. Maybe the memory was faulty. You don't know for sure, nobody knows. Saying that the sanad was sahih means nothing. That's what you say and what the author of the hadith book will assert. He doesn't know either.
Nobody knows the truth for 100% certainty. The only thing we know is that it is very improbable for the Quran to be in the same form today as it was before. Why do we know this? Because the events leading to its sudden compilation, the way it was preserved in minds and on natural things and the fact that the dots were added half a century later makes for a very weak argument in your case.
One can only assume that Quran is perfect. Principally and practically and looking back at history, no evidence would suggest this.
Furthermore, during the compilation time in Usman's era, many of the "wrong" copies of the Quran were burnt. What makes you think all of them were burned? What is the evidence that the ones which weren't burned didn't even have a single "dot" worth of difference? Even if it changes 0.01% of the Quran, it falsifies your argument.
@Seek3r
You said: Battle of the Garden of Death, as it was popularly known, caused the death of 360 huffaz.”
Not 360, it was only 70. Unless you have some proof.
You said: “…n addition, after the passing away of your prophet, the only sources of Quranic text was what was memorized and what was written on the bones of camels, stones and etc.”
You are right… but you make it sound too trivial. This was a community that was fully dedicated to the memorization and preservation of what they believed were the words of God. So, they indulged in it with absolute integrity.
By the time the prophet died, there were such masters of quran, that the prophet sent them to faraway places to teach quran.
You said: “Moreover, in the 7th century, the Quran was not written with "harakat". So, any word could be changed with the displacement of a single "harkat".
You are right. The harkats came later. That’s why the preservation of quran had two methods… one writing and one memorization. In fact, the recitation was the more predominant one as writing materials were very basic. As they learnt it through recitation, the harkats were redundant.
You said: “I really can't comprehend how this could be relied upon. Besides, you don't know what the people could've done. Maybe the memory was faulty. You don't know for sure, nobody knows.”
All that you said would have carried weight, if there were differences of opinion regarding the text. You can’t be united on an error.
You said: “Saying that the sanad was sahih means nothing. That's what you say and what the author of the hadith book will assert. He doesn't know either.”
Sanad is an entirely different topic and a very powerful argument too. We will go in depth if you are interested. However, let’s look at it this way… if you have let’s say 10 chains of transmission of some message. At the end of every chain, if you get the same message, you can be fairly confident that the transmission has been carried out loyally. It’s only when you have disputes, then we need to get into the reliability of the chains. In the case of Quran, with so much consonance between (mutawatir) chains, it is apodictic certainty. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. When it comes to hadith, the sanad serves as a very powerful method to sift out the fake ones. More on that if you are interested.
You said: “The only thing we know is that it is very improbable for the Quran to be in the same form today as it was before.”
It’s true that’s improbable. But the miracle is that there is no evidence for it. On the contrary, the evidence (all that I mentioned in the previous post and this one) points to its preservation.
You said: “Because the events leading to its sudden compilation, the way it was preserved in minds and on natural things and the fact that the dots were added half a century later makes for a very weak argument in your case.”
Yes. Then explain to me how is it that the whole global community is agreed on the text. How is it there is no dispute over variants. When exactly was this unanimity agreed on?
You said: “One can only assume that Quran is perfect. Principally and practically and looking back at history, no evidence would suggest this.”
Principally and practically, this is the best proof that history can produce. There is no ancient book on earth that is so well documented free from contradictions, with so much manuscript evidence, and a loyal tradition of transmission, which can be explained only by a single-source origin.
You said: “Furthermore, during the compilation time in Usman's era, many of the "wrong" copies of the Quran were burnt.”
It’s wrong to say that the burnt copies were ‘wrong’ copies. The personal copies that were in the hands of individuals were burnt. Because people not only wrote quran on personal copies. They also wrote explanations alongside it. If these copies were left, then people who got these copies in future would tend to mistake the explanations for quran and there could be reasons for conflicts. The people who compiled the quran had foresight. If you read the full history you would know.
You said: “What makes you think all of them were burned? What is the evidence that the ones which weren't burned didn't even have a single "dot" worth of difference? Even if it changes 0.01% of the Quran, it falsifies your argument.”
That burden of proof is yours. I have shown so many reasons for the integrity of the text. Now, if you are bringing a hypothetical scenario, you’ve got to prove it.
There's a difference between what is available today and what was originally revealed. I'm just concerned with the preservation of the original revelations.
Here's something to ponder upon:
"Sahih Muslim 2286—Abu Musa al-Ash’ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur’an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.” And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it . . ."
Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an—A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].”
Sunan ibn Majah 1944—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”
Narrated Anas bin Malik: For thirty days Allah's Apostle invoked Allah to curse those who had killed the companions of Bir-Mauna; he invoked evil upon the tribes of Ral, Dhakwan, and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. There was revealed about those who were killed at Bir-Mauna a quranic Verse we used to recite, but it was canceled later on. The Verse was: "Inform our people that we have met our Lord. He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased" (Sahih Bukhari, Book #52, Hadith #69)
Narrated Anas bin Malik : The Prophet invoked evil upon those (people) who killed his companions at Bir Mauna for 30 days (in the morning prayer). He invoked evil upon (tribes of) Ril, Lihyan and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. Allah revealed a quranic Verse to His Prophet regarding those who had been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma'una, and we recited the Verse till later it was canceled. (The Verse was:) 'Inform our people that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him." (Sahih Bukhari, Book #59, Hadith #421)
ROYISM, the Quran is massively changed from what was recited in the Prophet's time.
What we have today is not the original Quran, sorry to disappoint you.
@Seek3r
This is easy, and well known thing in Islam. I am sure you know about it, as I can sense from your knowledge of islam that you have displayed through your posts. All the examples, you have given below are based on a principle called abrogation. Many verses were revealed only for a certain duration and then abrogated. This was special for the primary audience of the scripture for reasons best known to God. However, this was all done under the supervision of the prophet. Therefore, it’s not be considered a distortion, as the prophet is the final authority on what is to be considered. Also, one of the hadith you have mentioned is da’eef, or weak. So that can be dismissed.
"Not 360, it was only 70. Unless you have some proof."
My bad. Read something else somewhere, don't remember anything about it except the 360 number.
But whatever. 70 is still an enormous number.
@Cognostic
You said: But whatever. 70 is still an enormous number.
No. There were a far greater number of memorizers of quran. In fact, the committee that was created for the quran compilation project after this battle were all memorizers… that too not any garden variety memorizers, but the cream of the crop. Zaid was the head of the committee.
@Preservation? The Quaran was never preserved. What in the hell are you talking about. All the Quarans were collected and destroyed and then an official version was created and called the most perfect book ever written. Unfortunately, we still have copies of the old Quarans that escaped being burned, OOOPS! Allah fucked up! We actually do know the origins of the Quaran and it has little to nothing to do with Muhammad, the fucktard rapist of children.
@Preservation? The Quaran was never preserved. What in the hell are you talking about. All the Quarans were collected and destroyed and then an official version was created and called the most perfect book ever written. Unfortunately, we still have copies of the old Quarans that escaped being burned, OOOPS! Allah fucked up! We actually do know the origins of the Quaran and it has little to nothing to do with Muhammad, the fucktard rapist of children.
@ROYISM: RE: Another history lesson for the Muslim that doesn't even have a clue about the creation of his own religious text!
The Battle of Yamama was fought in December 632 as part as the Ridda Wars against a rebellion within the Rashidun Caliphate in the region of Al-Yamama (in present-day Saudi Arabia) between the forces of Abu Bakr and Musaylimah, a self-proclaimed prophet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yamama
The entire reason for writing the quaran down was because nearly all those who had memorized it were killed in the battle of Yamama. (YAMAMA - Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....) "In the year 633, after Muhammad's death, the Battle of Yamama took place in which many of those who had memorized the Quran died, and with them, their memories of the Quran. "
At the very beginning of ‘Islam’, the Quran was mostly being memorized by Huffath (memorizers) and not yet compiled into a written form especially since as long as Muhammad was alive and receiving ‘revelations’ – over a very long period of 23 years – new Suras were being added while others were being revised, deleted and/or abrogated.
All verses in the Quran that speak of it as a Book are wrong and deceiving since the Quran was never in book form while Muhammad was alive.
When Muhammad died, there existed no singular codex of the Quranic text, that is, there was not in existence any collection of ‘revelations’ in a Final Review form. There was not a single memorizer who knew all the verses of the Quran; all these verses were scattered in the memories of hundreds of Huffath/ memorizers.
The Quaran was never written from anyone's memory. Fragments of bone, stone and parchment were collected on which some of the writings had been collected. The entire Quaran was constructed after the death of Muhammadf and without his oversight and without any single person with a great memory who had memorized the entire text. IT NEVER HAPPENED THAT WAY!!!
Why, oh why would anyone rely on memorization when the technology of writing things down was valid and effective? Why, because mo was a fast talker?
it is established that the longer something is stored in a person's memory and the more people it passes through, the more garbled the message at the end. And even then, to assume that everyone has 100% integrity and would not embellish a tale?
Here are professional actors, where they must have the ability to memorize lines. yet ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H8hcvNeWtg
Because very few people could write, but they could recite.
Time to add my own 2 cents to this 5+ year old thread :)
@Leper
Don't forget, that for 99+ % of all people back then, the only book they ever saw was whichever holy book was being read out of at their local church, that was far too precious/holy to have the "common" folk even read out of, even if they could read it, (most could not!)
Before the invention of the printing press books were prohibitively expensive to all but the most extremely wealthy. Something as large as the bible or Quran and other similar "holy" books would easily cost far more than a typical house + farm + all necessary available equipment. They would build these grand buildings (usually biggest in the area) at great expense all to further project the power/prestige of their religion/god/holy book.
There certainly was no internet, nor any place, (except in private,) to even begin to discuss in an organized way an opposing idea to whatever was popular in the area. Getting caught even talking about something contrary to what is in these holy books quite often resulted in death or exile.
To me it is plainly obvious why so many folks "believed" back then. But now, in "free" western societies, with internet etc.. there simply no excuse, believing in god/religion is willful ignorance of facts and many of us no longer face the threat of violence if we do not believe as others do.
Many religious folks openly admit ignorance of facts by saying something along the lines of: "you gotta have faith."
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@Cognistic
You said: “The entire reason for writing the quaran down was because nearly all those who had memorized it were killed in the battle of Yamama.”
The link you provided does not say “nearly all those who memorized it were killed.” 70 of them were killed, and that was a significant number. But there were many more top-class memorizers including Zaid who was a person who inscribed the quran directly from the prophet.
You said: “At the very beginning of ‘Islam’, the Quran was mostly being memorized by Huffath (memorizers) and not yet compiled into a written form especially since as long as Muhammad was alive and receiving ‘revelations’ – over a very long period of 23 years – new Suras were being added while others were being revised, deleted and/or abrogated.”
You make it sound as if Quran was never written down in those years. There is a difference being compilation and writing it down. The prophet had over 40 scribes who were writing down the Quran whenever it was revealed. Along with it they also memorized it. From those scribes hundred others were copying it down and memorizing it as well.
You said: “There was not a single memorizer who knew all the verses of the Quran; all these verses were scattered in the memories of hundreds of Huffath/ memorizers.”
Every single verse in the quran (in its final form of compilation) had manuscript evidence backed by 2 witnesses. There was not a single verse that was not already known to the expert committee, comprising of Zaid and his team. What more do you want for its authenticity?
You said: “The Quaran was never written from anyone's memory. Fragments of bone, stone and parchment were collected on which some of the writings had been collected.”
That’s a gross misrepresentation of history.
@rOYISM" THERE WAS NO QUARAN - NO BOOK - NOTHING TO MEMORIZE. Those memorizes remembered bits and pieces. The quaran was constructed from partial memories, parchments, etchings on bone and stone. THERE WAS NO GREAT MASTER OF MEMORY. IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY.
@Royism : Question:
One version of the Koran uses the past tense for this verse:
"Surah 69:44-47 reads as follow from Sahih International version:
"And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,
We would have seized him by the right hand;
Then We would have cut from him the aorta.
And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him."
The version I own (A.Yusef Ali) uses the present tense:
"And if the Messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name
We Should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart;
Nor could any of you withhold him from Our wrath."
Do you think this discrepancy is the only one that occurred?
Pages