ive tolerated ur slanders on everything, from muslims, down to ur obvious sarcasm at evrything associated with Islam...now, AVOID being disrespectful to the Holy Prophet (pbuh)...i dont know who u are, a Jew or a Christian, but i wonder if any revealed religion has taught anything that verges on disrespect to what others hold sacred...
this im sure is the last time im ever going to reply to any nonsense u'll come up with, anywhere on this forum...listen carefully...Quran is the only, the ONE and ONLY book that is preserved in its true form by Allah..it didnt need humans for that matter...it was not written by humans from their own minds, or to satisfy their need for a God!it is not self-contradictory, rather it is one book that even lends credibility to the other (supposedly) revealed books...and the religion of Islam is not dependant on savagry, but true, it dsnt make its followers passive! and i know it 100% that u know absolutely NOTHING of the Quran, so please dont bother ur pea-brain over it!!
If you will stop whining like a child, I'll teach you about the false claims you have made regarding the koran.
I think some clarification is in order. We actually do know the Koran was tampered with and that there are copies of copies made. The case can clearly be made that ‘Uthman’s Rescension was an obvious and explicit example of “changing.” An objective viewer would point out that change was part of process by which the koran was created.Well, to begin with there is actually no original manuscript of any “Koran”.
There are numerous myths and legends regarding such a book but as we know, the Koran went through many edits and changes by many individuals. The dogmatic claim of a “perfectly preserved Koran” is, in fact, refuted by the historical record. It is simply false to claim that any study of history gives the serious student a basis for concluding that the Koran is a recitation of historical facts.
Secondly, a thorough study of history reveals that the writers, editors and compilers of what Muslims call the “Koran” often had believed widely divergent things regarding religion, gods, and man’s relationship with them. So to claim that all these personalities who made the “Koran” eventually produced a book that contained anything resembling what Mohammed tried to write is a factually false claim.
You still haven’t accounted for the obvious breaks in the chain of transmission from Mohammed’s tales and fables to Uthman’s eventual writing / re-writing of the Koran.
Let’s understand that the lineage of the Koran is irreparably broken in three places. Those places are:
1. The ‘Uthmanic rescension.
2. The Compilation under Abu Bakr.
3. The chain of transmittal prior to Muhammad.
For those of us who have made an effort to understand the compilation and standardization on the mushaf of ‘Uthman, such self reference is more prosaically explained by the late date of this version.
The fact remains that “Qur’an” means “recitation,” not book. It did not become a book until years after Muhammad’s death.
Without going into too much detail, rather than “numerous” sahabahs with perfect recollections of the Koran, there is compelling evidence that these earliest sahabahs had different and differentially complete memories. How else is one to make sense of the ahadith (repeated in one form or another at least seven times) concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari? Doesn’t that require the understanding that every other sahabah had an incomplete memory?
How does one further account for the conflicts among those sahabahs that required the Uthmanic rescension?
In fact, how does one account for Uthman’s rescension at all?
It is pretty clear that the “perfect preservation” of the Koran did not commence until after the rescension. And even then, we could get into a wonderful discussion of the multiple readings, but why bother. The point is made. Second, giving the fact we have a historical record of the event during which the Koran was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of a standard since that time hardly qualifies as suggesting that Mohammed would have even recognized the writings. 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.
Mere Muslim tradition does not provide a basis for ignoring the obligation of historians to be comprehensive and unprejudiced.
