(January 24, 2011 at 9:26 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 24, 2011 at 9:11 pm)annatar Wrote: Rayaan.. I am still waiting for you to refute turan dursun's article.

You'll see my reply whenever I'm ready. I'm still learning also. I usually work at a slower pace but I didn't forget about that.

Rayaan won't ever be ready i guess.. Anyways, I was going to open a new thread about this video but this thread fits well.(also i like to remind our muslim friend how he failed to prove his assertion.)
So, here is the oldest quran ever dated, and its differences from the quran today...
And a bonus video, that confirms the claims on Turan Dursun's article..

So yes quran is as unreliable as other so called holy books..

Summary

Uthman was one of Muhammad's closest companions, belonging to his inner circle, and he was presiding over a group of other very close disciples of Muhammed. Thus, a team of Quranic experts and disciples of Muhammad painstakingly went through all the material, as well as the parallel oral transmission, and produce Quranic copies which the community welcomed. We know of no companion of Muhammad who doubted their authenticity. So, given the fact that Muhammad's closest companions were working on a joint project, with a belief that the Quran was a divine scripture, what reason is there to think that they would intentionally alter the Quran?

The compilers were Muhammad's closest companions who themselves memorized the Quran while he was still alive. Yes, every human is fallible, but it is possible to accurately memorize a text and a text can be memorized within a community. This can be accurately done if there is also a parallel written back-up support. This was also present. So we have the good intentions of the compilers (Muhammad's companions/disciples), added to the fact they are all working as a team (so if one errs, others can catch it), added to the fact they are not only dependent upon memory, but also actively going through the written data and consulting the very scribes of Muhammad.

Unlike New Testament manuscript traditions, things here are different when it comes to the Quranic manuscript tradition. That is because, thanks to the parallel oral transmission, the variations which come about at the secondary copying stage are limited and restricted to specific manuscripts. They are easily identifiable and do not spread like wild fire once a manuscript is copied and recopied. In sharp contrast, due to a lack of a rigid oral transmission tradition, mistakes in NT manuscript spread rapidly from one to another, with new mistakes coming about in the copying stage. In the case of the Quran, however, that is less likely to happen because of the widespread memorization of the Quran.

One has to remember that written manuscripts are over-rated. There is a book called "Misquoting Jesus" and it addresses the issue of common misconceptions about old manuscripts, which are: (1) Just because a manuscript is older, does not mean that it is more authentic and (2) if there is a variation, then it there is no way to tell which is more authentic.

So, the main problem with manuscripts is that they are written by a single person or two. It will always be susceptible to error in writing and error in reading (in addition to the potential for forging). So, it is in this light that the Muslim system of preservation of knowledge shines. It never depended on written documents only and always depended on the dual system of both writing and mass memorization. In the case of hadiths, there was also writing and memorization as well, but not on the mass scale.

The Prophet encouraged his companions to learn each verse that was revealed and transmit it to others. The Quran was also required to be recited regularly as an act of worship, especially during the five daily prayers (salah). Through these means, many repeatedly heard passages from the revelation recited to them, memorized them and used them in prayer. Not only were the words of the Quran memorized, but also their pronunciation, later which formed into a science in itself called "Tajweed." This science meticulously elucidates how each letter is to be pronounced, as well as the word as a whole, both in context of other letters and words. Today, we can find people of all different languages able to recite the Quran as if they are Arabs themselves living during the time of the Prophet (pbuh).

Quote:Hello everyone, I am back.

Good.

Stop slacking!

(July 16, 2011 at 8:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Hello everyone, I am back.

Good.

Stop slacking!

Sir yes sir

(July 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm)annatar Wrote:

(July 16, 2011 at 8:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Hello everyone, I am back.

Good.

Stop slacking!

Sir yes sir

I don't know but I've been told...
eskimo pussy is mighty cold!

One has to mention, whatever the reasons for the destruction of the earliest texts, it was a loss for both sides. Devout Muslims could point to these as rock solid proof of the Qu'rans claim to inerrancy, accuracy, and consistency.

Of course, if we can say anything with certainty about apologists, it doesn't matter how badly maimed or soundly refuted their claims may be; Their faith compels them to continue to refine arguments, remove the indefensible, and convince others of the "basic truth" of the concept. If the Qu'ran were shown to be absolute rubbish, cover to cover, there would still be Muslims and Islam.