Some muslims believe that all hadiths are unreliable because its written long after muhammed.
Well, it's a valid argument but, that means you agree that old sources may be corrupted or lost. They claim that we should rely on quran only. But what is the difference between the two?

Al-Bukhari is the main source and most trusted hadith collecter among muslim world. He lived in 8th century and finished collecting hadiths around 846 and he is oldest hadith collector I know.
Muhammed died in 632. So hadiths were started being collected properly long after muhammed's time. And, yes that makes hadiths unreliable sources. But what about quran? What is the date of oldest quran in the world?
Oldest quran scriptures is in samarkand(today known as Taschkent) Muslims claim that this was one of caliph uthman's(656CE) copy, the one who produced multiple copies of quran. But, science disagree...

Quote: 2nd century hijra or 8th century CE.
Shebunin dated this manuscript to the early second century hijra. On the basis of the orthography as observed in the 1905 facsimile edition prepared by S. I. Pisarev, Jeffery dated it to the early ninth century. More recently, Déroche had assigned a date to the second half of the eight century. The carbon-dating of a folio from this manuscript was carried out at Oxford. The result showed a 68% probability of a date between 640 CE and 765 CE, and a 95% probability of a date between 595 CE and 855 CE. Commenting on this result, Rezvan noted that the paleographic dating of this manuscript also indicated a date at the turn of the eight / ninth century CE.

Although the dates generated by the radiocarbon dating at either confidence level do not rule out the possibility that this manuscript was produced in ʿUthmān's time, palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/T...rqand.html

So, oldest quran we have is dated 8th century. Oldest hadith collections date is also 8th century. If you believe that hadiths are not reliable then you shouldn't believe quran is reliable either.

This is not the oldest Quran because there is another one in Cairo, Egypt which dates back to 7th century (or late 1st century of hijra).

Quote:Late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra:
Hussein dates this manuscript to the 7th century CE. Moritz dates this manuscript to the 1st / 2nd century hijra. Déroche gives three dates for this manuscript, the beginning of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, the middle of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE and the latter half of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, although it is not clear which of these dates he prefers. Von Bothmer dates this manuscript to the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE. On the basis of a privately held fragment of the Qur'an carbon dated to the 7th century CE (609-694 CE with a 95.2% confidence level) showing similar script, textual aids and illumination, Dutton dated Arabic Palaeography Plates 1-12 (i.e., Ms. 139) to a roughly similar timeframe, i.e., the Umayyad period.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/T...ak139.html

Picture of the Quran:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7319/...anmss1.jpg


Also, the most important thing which elevates the authenticity of the Quran from that of the hadiths is the careful process in which it was compiled. See the links below:

1. Preservation and Chronology of the Quran
2. The Quran's Preservation and Compilation During the Prophet's Lifetime

Well, I didnt know about that copy, I knew only the one in tashkent and one in topkapi(Turkey). But as you quoted it is believed to be 8th century quran either...

"/ 2nd century hijra. Déroche gives three dates for this manuscript, the beginning of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, the middle of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE and the latter half of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, although it is not clear which of these dates he prefers. Von Bothmer dates this manuscript to the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE."
carbon dating gives us a wide period which we know it can't be possible.(609-694)
So we should rely on palaeographic studies which suggest that its a 8th century..

Quote:Also, the most important thing which elevates the authenticity of the Quran from that of the hadiths is the careful process in which it was compiled. See the links below:

Real history of quran;
http://www.turandursun.net/index.php?opt...38&lang=en

Rayaan Wrote:This is not the oldest Quran because there is another one in Cairo, Egypt which dates back to 7th century (or late 1st century of hijra).

Quote:Late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra:
Hussein dates this manuscript to the 7th century CE. Moritz dates this manuscript to the 1st / 2nd century hijra. Déroche gives three dates for this manuscript, the beginning of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, the middle of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE and the latter half of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, although it is not clear which of these dates he prefers. Von Bothmer dates this manuscript to the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE. On the basis of a privately held fragment of the Qur'an carbon dated to the 7th century CE (609-694 CE with a 95.2% confidence level) showing similar script, textual aids and illumination, Dutton dated Arabic Palaeography Plates 1-12 (i.e., Ms. 139) to a roughly similar timeframe, i.e., the Umayyad period.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/T...ak139.html

Picture of the Quran:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7319/...anmss1.jpg


Also, the most important thing which elevates the authenticity of the Quran from that of the hadiths is the careful process in which it was compiled. See the links below:

1. Preservation and Chronology of the Quran
2. The Quran's Preservation and Compilation During the Prophet's Lifetime

so this link says the same thing annatar said. According to your link, this quran is from 8th century. What dates back to 7th century is a fragment from another quran.

(January 16, 2011 at 8:05 am)annatar Wrote: But as you quoted it is believed to be 8th century quran either...

Eighth century is an appoximated date, so the Quran could also be from the beginning of the 8th century or the end of the 8th century, but no one stated that specifically and there are different opinions on the date because others have said that it is from the 7th century as well. The carbon dating analysis shows that it most likely to be from the 7th century (from 609 to 694 CE with a 95.2% confidence level), which again, has a wide range of possible dates.

(January 16, 2011 at 8:05 am)annatar Wrote: So we should rely on palaeographic studies which suggest that its a 8th century..

I didn't see any paleographic studies of the Quran that I posted. Quote it if you find it. Only your link talks about the paleographic studies which is about a different Quran.

(January 16, 2011 at 8:05 am)annatar Wrote: Real history of quran;
http://www.turandursun.net/index.php?opt...38&lang=en

The article looks like a very poorly researched history of the Quran. I'll post more comments about this at a later post in this thread.

While you're waiting for the reply, here are some of the problems that I noticed, which are:

(1) The author has quoted several hadiths and he distorted some of their meanings by changing the words and/or by deleting parts of the original text of the hadiths. (2) He incorrectly spells the name "Bukhari" as "Buhari" (omits the letter "k" in the name) every single time throughout the whole article. That's not even how you pronounce it. (3) His approach on the history of the Quran is inconsistent because he used several quotes from the works of Al-Suyuti and Imam Bukhari who themselves accepted the authenticity of the Quran.

(January 16, 2011 at 9:32 am)muhtesem insan Wrote: According to your link, this quran is from 8th century.

The link says that there is a probability that the Quran is from either 7th or the 8th century, but there is no certainty. It's only an approximation according to scientific analysis.

(January 16, 2011 at 9:32 am)muhtesem insan Wrote: What dates back to 7th century is a fragment from another quran.

No, it's from the same Quran. The link doesn't say that it's from "another" quran.

Here's the quote again:

"On the basis of a privately held fragment of the Qur'an carbon dated to the 7th century CE (609-694 CE with a 95.2% confidence level) showing similar script, textual aids and illumination, Dutton dated Arabic Palaeography Plates 1-12 (i.e., Ms. 139) to a roughly similar timeframe, i.e., the Umayyad period."

(1) The author has quoted several hadiths and he distorted some of their meanings by changing the words and/or by deleting parts of the original text of the hadiths.
Which one? Prove it..
(2) He incorrectly spells the name "Bukhari" as "Buhari" (omits the letter "k" in the name) every single time throughout the whole article. That's not even how you pronounce it.
In turkey we type his name as Buhari. It's just a translation mistake. See that;
http://www.google.com.tr/#hl=tr&source=h...2129f371e1
(3) His approach on the history of the Quran is inconsistent because he used several quotes from the works of Al-Suyuti and Imam Bukhari who themselves accepted the authenticity of the Quran.
And? why is that inconsistent?

@annatar and Ryaan

Thank you both for a fascinating and informative thread.

My own knowledge of Islam does not begin to approach yours. I read the Qur'an (only in English of course) at university for background.I was studying the Sanusi Bedouin,and later,some Sufi lodges in the Atlas mountains. I have not read the Hadith, and did not understand the difference between Qur'an and Hadith, only that the Qur'an is accepted as of supreme importance by all Muslims. Thank you for the explanation.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

TANGENT:Question. I would appreciate it if one or both of you would help clear up another confusion:

When reading the Qur'an,I was struck by the many similarities with the Torah,with which I'm more familiar. That observation is not usually received well by Muslims I've come across online,and that confuses me:

The reason for my confusion: It is my understanding that there are no greater or lesser prophets in Islam. That Muhammad was simply the last. Does that not mean that Allah also spoke to the earlier prophets? If that is so,why then should not some of the teachings of the earlier prophets be found in the Qur'an,to compliment the last words given to Muhammad ?

I do not ask to argue,but to learn. (I've put on my Anthropology hat).

Wa salaam

Quote:Also, the most important thing which elevates the authenticity of the Quran from that of the hadiths is the careful process in which it was compiled.

Every compilation of allegedly 'sacred' writings gets that kind of adoration from its followers. To non-believers the argument is far from compelling.

(January 20, 2011 at 7:09 pm)annatar Wrote: (1) The author has quoted several hadiths and he distorted some of their meanings by changing the words and/or by deleting parts of the original text of the hadiths.
Which one? Prove it..
(2) He incorrectly spells the name "Bukhari" as "Buhari" (omits the letter "k" in the name) every single time throughout the whole article. That's not even how you pronounce it.
In turkey we type his name as Buhari. It's just a translation mistake. See that;
http://www.google.com.tr/#hl=tr&source=h...2129f371e1
(3) His approach on the history of the Quran is inconsistent because he used several quotes from the works of Al-Suyuti and Imam Bukhari who themselves accepted the authenticity of the Quran.
And? why is that inconsistent?

I'll answer those questions when I refute the article that you posted (but later). Stay tuned for the reply.

(January 20, 2011 at 7:48 pm)padraic Wrote: When reading the Qur'an,I was struck by the many similarities with the Torah,with which I'm more familiar.

I think that's perfectly okay, because the similarities between the Quran and Torah is an argument for the belief that the revelations came to the prophets from the same divine source, and that's why there are so many similarities between the two. Does the Quran have to be totally different from the Torah to be the word of God? No, not necessarily.

However, some people might say this is an evidence of plagiarism from an earlier work. But I wouldn't agree with that. Why? Because the prophet was illiterate and the people who lived during his time knew that this was true, and that's why he wouldn't be able to read the Torah nor be able to write an entire book all by himself. If he was being taught by someone, however, then people would have doubted him as a prophet because then he would be able to read the Torah, and sooner or later, most likely he would've been exposed as a liar because he was surrounded by the pagans, Romans, Christians, Jews, non-believers, and many other enemies who were always trying to to discredit him as a truthful person. Yet, there is not a single report from anyone who lived during his lifetime that he told a lie or that he was untruthful.

Also, remember that the life of Muhammad is a well-documented life unlike the other prophets. There are many historians and scholars who have written about him with a great amount of detail and accuracy in their biographies. But still, no one was able to prove that he told a lie, or that he was hiding a foreign book in his house, or that he was being educated by someone, or that he went to a different country to get access to books from a library, etc. On the contrary, there is more evidence that he was an honest and faithful person according to the most authentic reports about him.

(January 20, 2011 at 7:48 pm)padraic Wrote: It is my understanding that there are no greater or lesser prophets in Islam. That Muhammad was simply the last.

I don't know about that, because there are some Muslims who believe that Muhammad was a greater prophet than the rest while others think that all the prophets are equally great.

(January 20, 2011 at 7:48 pm)padraic Wrote: Does that not mean that Allah also spoke to the earlier prophets?

Yes, we believe that Allah also spoke to all the earlier prophets like Moses, Noah, Abraham, etc. The only difference is that some of them weren't given a holy book like the others.

(January 20, 2011 at 7:48 pm)padraic Wrote: If that is so,why then should not some of the teachings of the earlier prophets be found in the Qur'an,to compliment the last words given to Muhammad ?

Well, what is important to understand is that all the prophets are like a unity. And each of them were given revelations from the Creator. That's why, if God has sent the Quran as the last and final message for mankind, and if it is preserved in it's actual words, then it logically implies that whatever is in the Quran should be given more weight than what was taught by the previous prophets because all the prophets were given the same responsibility as Prophet Muhammad (which is to spread God's message to the world). In this line of reasoning, the teachings of Muhammad is sufficient for us because he is the seal of the prophets and all the prophets are like a single unity who had the role of teaching the divine wisdom in a successive order.

(January 20, 2011 at 7:48 pm)padraic Wrote: I do not ask to argue,but to learn. (I've put on my Anthropology hat).

I don't care if you want to argue either, but, it's good that you want to learn. I hope gave you at least satisfactory answers to your questions.

(January 20, 2011 at 9:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Every compilation of allegedly 'sacred' writings gets that kind of adoration from its followers.

Yes, but that's a generalization because not everyone's adoration for their holy books are equally well-supported. The history of the Quran is much more authentic and well-known than the history of the Bible, Torah, Vedas, and many other religious scriptures (from a scholarly perspective). This is the same with Prophet Muhammad because it is proven that he is a historical figure, not a mythological figure. The events during his lifetime are also recorded (unlike the case for the other prophets).

That's why Islam, in my opinion, has the strongest evidences and the most solid foundation out of all the other religions in the world.

Quote:Yes, but that's a generalization because not everyone's adoration for their holy books are equally well-supported.

Your ethnocentrism is showing Rayaan. I cannot think of any actual evidence ( aside from the koran itself and its reliability is what is in question) that your 'mohammad' ever existed. The history of the time is silent about him. Xtians try to shake off the fact that no one mentioned jesus by claiming that he was just an insigificant wandering preacher but mohammad was supposed to be this great conquering warlord. History usually recalls such people.