Muslims claim the Koran has never changed , but that isn't true. Just like the Bible it has been edited , rewritten ect..........

I want to know how Muslims deal with this ?


The Sana'a manuscripts—found in Yemen in 1972—represent the oldest extant version of the Quran, dated to the latter half of the 7th century. In it are textual variations from the standard Quran that is presently read throughout the world.
cont ...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_in_t...ipt_in_Sana%27a



Researchers with a variety of academic and theological interests are proposing controversial theories about the Koran and Islamic history, and are striving to reinterpret Islam for the modern world. This is, as one scholar puts it, a "sensitive business"
by Toby Lester


IN 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure's inner and outer roofs stumbled across a remarkable gravesite, although they did not realize it at the time. Their ignorance was excusable: mosques do not normally house graves, and this site contained no tombstones, no human remains, no funereal jewelry. It contained nothing more, in fact, than an unappealing mash of old parchment and paper documents -- damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by centuries of rain and dampness, gnawed into over the years by rats and insects. Intent on completing the task at hand, the laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them into some twenty potato sacks, and set them aside on the staircase of one of the mosque's minarets, where they were locked away -- and where they would probably have been forgotten once again, were it not for Qadhi Isma'il al-Akwa', then the president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find. Al-Akwa' sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, and in 1979 managed to interest a visiting German scholar, who in turn persuaded the German government to organize and fund a restoration project. Soon after the project began, it became clear that the hoard was a fabulous example of what is sometimes referred to as a "paper grave" -- in this case the resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a thousand different parchment codices of the Koran, the Muslim holy scripture. In some pious Muslim circles it is held that worn-out or damaged copies of the Koran must be removed from circulation; hence the idea of a grave, which both preserves the sanctity of the texts being laid to rest and ensures that only complete and unblemished editions of the scripture will be read.

Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.

cont ...........

http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_An...ranic_Texts.htm

original article

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/koran

There was a really good thread about this on um a while ago. There were some really good links and info too. No link tough sorry:-)

Yeh that right, been through this one before at some length. Just need to make it clear LT Ripley, that Wiki is not a credible source, even the creators say this, as its an opne forum to post anything with any professional making changes or corrections as they dont work for free. for you conveneince about the Yemeni script, here you go, oh and by the way, there is proof alot older and dated before the script which shows the the quran's textual integrity is intact.

Moreover, after the publication of the Atlantic Monthly, Puin wrote a letter in which he revealed:


"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur'anic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur'an itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. This phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur'an published in Cairo in which is written:



Ibrhim next to Ibrhm

Quran next to Qrn

Simahum next to Simhum



In the oldest Yemeni Qur'anic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common."





Prof. Azami comments:



"This deflates the entire controversy, dusting away the webs of intrigue that were spun around Puin's discoveries and making them a topic unworthy of further speculation."





Source: Puin's letter and Prof. Azami's comments cited from: M. M. Azami, The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, UK Islamic Academy, 2003 pp. 12

Yes its from one the link i posted earlier, you should have read and researched it first.

As for the variant reading, it makes us muslims laugh when christian missionaries brought this one up, anyway, here is the link, please do me a favour and read it.

Here is the link to other UM thread. If you still one persist in debating this, i have mentioned many others that i welcome debate by PM.

Link

Read on from this page and check every link and then come back to me.

back to you -

Sean has always been a straight shooter . not given to emotionality . I find his opinion credible.

Thank you LTR. However, Ozi will dismiss everything you post, claim it's all bias tripe by evil Orientalists, and point you to an Islamic apologetic site--which, of course, is not biased in any way. This is all he knows. That said, here are a few evil and terribly biased academic sites dedicated to Islamic Studies etc.--which I sent to FW as well. I hope you find them of use ...

History of Islam, History.Com
http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content...mp;mini_id=1077

Internet Islamic History Sourcebook, Fordham University
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html

Middle East Center: Modern Middle East Studies, University of Pennsylvania
http://mec.sas.upenn.edu/courses.html

Exploring Ancient Cultures: Early Islam, University of Evansville
http://eawc.evansville.edu/ispage.htm

ISLAM AND THE MUSLIM WORLD RESEARCH GUIDE, North Carolina State University
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/guides/islam/webresources.html

Islam and Islamic Studies Resources: For Studying Islam and the Diverse Perspectives of Muslims, University of Georgia
http://www.uga.edu/islam/

USC-MSA COMPENDIUM OF MUSLIM TEXTS, University of Southern California
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

Islam: Barbara R. von Schlegell (Visiting Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion), Ursinus College
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~bvon/index.html

University of Cambridge Islamic Society
http://www.isoc.co.uk/

Religion and Ethics: BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/

Islam Links, University of Cambridge
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/links.php

Oxford Islamic Studies, University of Oxford
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public...amp;failReason=

Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University
http://library.princeton.edu/catalogs/arti...hp?subjectID=60

Arabic and Islamic Studies, Harvard University
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~nelc/arab_islam.html

Program in Islamic Studies, Yale University
http://www.yale.edu/religiousstudies/fields/islamic.html

Islam, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

Middle East & Islamic Studies Collection, Cornell University
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/

Islamic Resources, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

Islam in Comparative Context: Online Resources, University of Berkeley
http://orias.berkeley.edu/Islam.html

Middle Eastern Studies, The University of Texas at Austin
http://menic.utexas.edu/mes.html

Islamic Origins, University of Chicago
http://bcweb.bluefield.edu/danderson/islam...amicOrigins.htm

Islam: Virtual Resource Index, Rutgers University
http://virtualreligion.net/vri/islam.html

Islamic studies in Ph.D. Programs in Religious Studies, UNC
http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/reliprograms.htm

A beautiful statement if I must say so myself. Please read this in its entirety.

... The sooner we Muslims rehabilitate and mend our classical networks and institutions, and reconnect them with the rest of humanity in sincere and humble dialogue, the more able we will be to serve God and humanity. This “Common Word” is a great first step along the way.--In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, The Promise of “A Common Word”, Aref Ali Nayed, October 2007

SOURCE: Cambridge Divinity
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/document...monWord_000.pdf

LECTURES ON DVD BY THE TEACHING COMPANY:

Great World Religions: Islam (12 lectures, 30 minutes/lecture) by John L. Esposito Georgetown University, Ph.D., Temple University
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=6102

REVIEW: Harold McFarland, editor of Midwest Book Review, writes about this course: "This is easily the most accurate, even-handed, and thorough survey of Islam that I have seen to date. The extent of coverage, breadth, and depth of Professor Esposito's knowledge, recognition of the various groups and beliefs within Islam, and scholarly treatment of the subject makes this a very highly recommended lecture series and the only one on the subject that I could recommend to date."

Most kindly,

Sean

This is the fellow i was on about...
http://www.goethe.de/ges/rel/prj/ffs/ori/en1184094.htm
http://www.christoph-heger.de/Christoph_Luxenberg.html

...and sort of on topic... http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/...,631332,00.html

Ofcourse you would, and i bet you had the decency to check the refutations and rebuttals, or did you also think muslims are not worthy of academia or scholarly research. Oh yeh straight shooter alright, sitting on one side of the fence, ignoring every muslims source.

Told ya!

Most kindly,

Sean

i know how honest you are and hide behind myths. You have no decency or honesty to check the other perspective, like you were the one to quote Puin from 1972, i pointed you towards his later perspective, ignored, as the sources you use, ignore primary islamic sources, scholars, universities etc. When the same study the bible, they consider all and consult all, yet studying islam, they use material about islam from Catholic organisations, hmmm, really fair.

# Ibn Ishaq (d. c. 773 CE): Selections from the Life of Muhammad
# [Tierney 23] The Qu'ran: Surahs 1 and 47. For full text, see full texts page. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Koran and Catholic Encyclopedia: Islam (Concept)

(This Sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul Hijjah 10 A.H in the Uranah Valley of mount Arafat ) Note: Found on the Net, but without source or copyright information. Please contact halsall@muray.fordham.edu if you have information This one related to last sermon.



Source.

From: Charles F. Horne, ed., The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, (New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917), Vol. VI: Medieval Arabia, pp. 11-32

Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.


OOh look another academic, who does not know arabic, and know where to get the hadith, or which is the primary source for the material, instead he uses Hornes interpretations and at one point even suggest to ignore his opening paragraph.

Jokers......

I am ONLY WANTING TO refering to textual integrity, its usually here where the orientalists at large become bias, historical stuff and islamic contributions they dont have a problem with, but when it comes to studying the quran, their basis of study is on translations, they dont even know arabic, absolute jokers. then you have duped personel like yourself, who claim anything from muslims is bias, anything from non muslims is objective, even the catholics. Above are only a few example, i could bring them all day. Like the list of Uni's which did not include one Islamic university, or muslim professor etc.

Stick to the textual integrity, not this wishy washy rubbish about orientalists and opinion, firstly you need to learn to read both sides, and not dismiss one for the other on the basis of groundless myths.

See ... Told ya!

Here is the terribly evil IW on debating muslims. He is an apostate who sites bias material according to Ozi bla ... bla ... bla ...

Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim
http://www.challenging-islam.org/articles/...ate-muslims.htm

Most kindly,

Sean

Well, do ya! Are you objective and honest enough to check material from both sides. NO! cause you have a prejudice.

Yet again! So predictable! Prejudice, bias, dishonest ... oh, don't know arabic ...

Kindly,

Sean

There has been some disagreement about the nature of this inscription. Cantineau catalogued it as a "Nabataean" text.[1] Gruendler also classifies it as a "Nabataean" text. However, she notes that:

The text is noteworthy for its many Arabisms. O'Conner describes it as an eccentric mixture of Nabataean and Arabic... Blau labels it a border dialect...[2]

However, Healey and Smith say that this is an Arabic text with Aramaic archaisms. They have hailed it as the earliest dated Arabic document.[3]

The salient point of this inscription is that it has diacritical points on the letters د, ش and ر. The diacritical points on ش and ر are not used consistently. The Arabic article ʾl- occurs twice, once in the place name ʾl-ḥgrw (line 4) and once before a common noun ʾl-qbrw (line 7).


THAT THE EARLIEST ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS WHICH SHOWS THAT CHRISTOPH GOT IT WRONG, NOT JUST THAT.

These inscriptions detailed above provide ample evidence of a well articulated Arabic alphabet and are sufficient to refute the speculative assumptions of Mingana and Luxenberg. Furthermore, Bellamy commenting on the inscriptions from Jabal Ramm, Umm al-Jimal and Harran says:

Anyone who takes a close look at these inscriptions and compares them with the sample of Koran... will discern a great many letterforms that have not been changed at all, or very little, in the sixteen hundred years that have elapsed since the earliest one was written.[16]

We should also point out that Nabia Abbott also refuted the arguments of Mingana using the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH] originating from Egypt. If Arabic was indeed so primitive in its homeland during the advent of Islam, as claimed by Mingana, how can one rationalize its practical use in Egypt in such a short time and that too in a well-developed cursive script? Abbott says:

The condition of Arabic writing in Muhammad's time is indicated by PERF No. 558 (our plates iv-v), an Arabic papyrus of the reign of ‘Umar dated AH 22 and written in a fairly well developed manuscript hand in the distant province of Egypt, where Greek and Coptic were the written languages in general use. If written Arabic was so primitive and rare in its own homeland at the time of Muhammad's death, how do we account for its practical use in Egypt only a short dozen years after that event? Again to grant the incomplete development of orthography would give us reason to suspect only the orthographic accuracy of early Qur'anic editions but not the possibility of their existence. In this connection it is interesting to note that nowhere in the traditions of the earliest transmission of the Qur'an is there any hint of serious orthographic or vowel difficulties; rather it is the differences in the Arabic tribal dialects and differences arising out of foreigner's use of Arabic that seem to demand attention. The foregoing considerations lead one to believe that, if we allow for such common mistakes as writers and copyists are liable to make, the Arabic writers of Muhammad's time and of the time of early Caliphs were able scribes capable of producing an acceptable edition of a written Qur'an despite the lack of all the improvements of modern written Arabic.[17]

Luxenberg mentions the pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions in Grohmann's classic Arabische Paläographie.[18] Deducing from the early form of Arabic alphabets, he says that it is safe to assume the cursive syro-aramäische script [i.e., Syriac] served as a model for the Arabic script.[19] What now becomes almost unbelievable is that Luxenberg uses Grohmann's Arabische Paläographie as a source to support his argument that the syro-aramäische script served as a model for the Arabic script. Grohmann in this book, in fact, was one of the earliest scholars to refute the origins of Arabic script from Syriac script.[20] T. Nöldeke was the first to establish the link between the Nabataean and Arabic scripts in 1865, which later confirmed against J. Starcky's Syriac thesis by Grohmann. The affiliation between Nabataean and Arabic scripts has now been fully documented by J. Healey. He says:

The development of the Nabataean script in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. is usually seen as a progression from form derived from earlier Aramaic towards forms out of which the early (western cursive) Arabic script developed, though we should note the view of J. Starcky, based partly on the observation that Nabataean script, unlike the Syriac and Arabic scripts, is essentially suspended from an upper line, that the origin of the Arabic script is to be sought in a Lahmid form of the Syriac script. This view has met with little support. The Nabataean origin of the Arabic script is now almost universally accepted.[21]

lINK

Its a shame cause not single one of you will be honest enough or decent enough to read and check the link unders the same impression as shaun that, Oh my god, its from an islamic site, its gotta be bias, yeh in i know they quote western scholars and peers, but the info comes from muslims, its gotta be wrong. Grow up guys, there is no harm in admitting you got it wrong.

See, right to the ol' apologetic site. Get used to it!

Kindly,

Sean

Seanph,Mako( a good freind and wonderful on links for my studies) and Beowulf are well know on Um as great historians and if they post you can bet its valid and sound..just my humble opinion..

Thank you for such kind words SS.

Most kindly,

Sean

and yet it's a shame you can't view it neutrally. that you might be wrong ? ego and pride goeth before a fall.

Who is Ibn Warraq, do you even know what Ibn mean, just cause someone has Abu or Ibn infront of their name does not make them muslim, arab christian, jews use the same terms, what his real name, and why dint you post the link in refutation to his rubbish, giving the objective reader both sides of the equations, not too fair i see. Firstly X muslim, according to who, i know this guy better than you do, and i have debated with him many an occasion i still cannot get anything on him, he is a mystery.

What do modern scholars say about Tisdall's The Original Sources Of The Qur'ân or the revised version (forwarded by another missionary William Muir) The Sources Of Islam? Commenting about Ibn Warraq's use of Tisdall's material in his The Origins Of The Koran: Classic Essays On Islam's Holy Book, François de Blois says:

The "classic essays" are of unequal value. The worst is St. Clair Tisdall's decidedly shoddy piece of missionary propaganda. The two by Mingana are not much better. It is surprising that the editor, who in his Why I Am Not A Muslim took a very high posture as a critical rationalist and opponent of all forms of obscurantism, now relies so heavily on writings by Christian polemicists from the nineteenth century.[3]

A similar review by Herbert Berg informs us that:

The essay by St. Clair Tisdall with a forward by Muir seems to have been included for the 'Christian' perspective..... It is not particularly scholarly essay or even a polemical one; it is simply a polemic. It uses the salvation history of Christianity to refute that of Muslims. The author is altogether too fond of using words such as 'foolish', 'fanciful', 'childish' and 'ignorant' when describing quranic (and for that matter talmudic and midrashic) stories that disgree with his Christian reading of the Old Testament.[4]

In other words, Tisdall's material is not only a piece of shoddy missionary propaganda but also a baseless and vicious attack on the Qur'ân and the Jewish writings, especially when the author's views did not match with them.

THE GUY WARRAQ USEs TISDALL'S MATERIAL, WHO WAS LAMBASTED BY HIS PEERS. HMMM RELIABLE HEY. YOU JOKIN MATE.

lINK



He might be on other matters, but no on islam, as all the sources he as quoted use no islamic sources, not even the primary sources, islamic scholar opinion, muslim experts on arabic, islamic universities, and you expect me to take him seriously, clearly he only listens to one side. I at least have the decency to go through his links and refer to them and answer them, he does not even look at link in refutation to what he posts, because their from muslims, its like saying, "lets us say what we want about and dont answer back"

You can say what you want about him, i understand his character from our discourse, he bias and prejudiced. He aint come across anyone like me, infact most of here aint.

Yeh right, atleast i have the decency to read the accusation put forward answer them constructively, point you to a refutation, but you wont check it, thats nuetral is'nt it. You guys are a joke. You cant even face the truth, you have no decency to be neutral and read the other perspective, at least us muslims use material from muslim and non muslim.

perhaps a bit of understanding on what an apologetic site is ..its a 'reasoned defense' of the chosen pov.....

another key point is that in academia or history the vested interest has been set aside..


Then one studies relgions through academia bias has to be set aside, generally the first part of any course deals with this....

Ozi , i would consider Sean's input helpful he is giving you the benefit of experince and expertise.....for what ever its worth....

literalism and academia are not the same....

dont patronise me, i know what he is trying to do, they are apolgetic sites according to him, but these are muslim experts working with non muslims experts, using their material and sourcing islamic material. the poeple he has quoted and his approach is one sided it ignores every aspect from the muslims under some myth that criticism get people killed, or threatened. i acknowledge there reactionary muslims who ruin for all of us, but his generalisation are very bias and unfair, i have taken enought criticism and i am not alone, i dont threat poeple, or kill them. I dont agree with reactionary muslims.

Those sites use material from both sides looking at accusation objectively, if he has a problem with muslim, he might as well just say it, but why not even consider the islamic worlds universities, its damn arrogant and offensive to claim that we are not capable of taking criticism or reply to it.

and to add to Luxemborgs research and the links in connection to him.

Many of you might have heard about Christoph Luxenberg's book Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache and how New York Times, Newsweek and The Guardian heaped praises on it. In scholarly journals, this book has received some serious trashing. We present the reviews of this book by Angelika Neuwirth and François de Blois published in Journal of Qur'anic Studies (2003, Volume V, Issue I).

According to Neuwirth: The method (of Luxenberg) presupposes its very results: the facticity of a Syriac layer underlying the Arabic text. Much of his material relies on obvious circular argument.... This is an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations.

Blois says: [A]ny reader who wants to take the trouble to plough through Luxenberg's 'new reading' of any of the numerous passages discussed in this book will concede that the 'new reading' does not actually make better sense than a straight classical Arabic reading of the traditional text. It is a reading that is potentially attractive only in its novelty, or shall I say its perversity, not in that it sheds any light on the meaning of the book or on the history of Islam.... He is someone who evidently speaks some Arabic dialect, has a passable, but not flawless command of classical Arabic, knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary, but is innocent of any real understanding of the methodology of comparative Semitic linguistics. His book is not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism.

IS THAT APOLOGETIC MUSLIM OPINION.

Ibn means "Son of" no?


Salaam Alakim

I would not be patronizing you, if you felt that its in error...I do agree from an academic historical approach that sheds a different light. and from my experience on Um Seanph has always presented himself as fair and just..........I personally intend to study islamic religion over the summer.....thanks for your input.....your interesting and I intend to follow this thread.....

I could not read the whole thread because of lack of time, i roughly glanced. Just want to add something about the subject, if it is discussed sorry...

The manuscripts or parts of Kuran which were found as mentioned, is possibly one of the reason that Khalif Osman decided to bring together and write the Quran by the help of Hafızs, because at that time the number of Hafızs were decreasing and some other copies began to arise in other languages or different dialects of Arabic. Khalif Osman tried to collect these copies and burned all of them maybe these found copies are the ones which were missed. And the Quran which was collected, designed and written, is the same Quran which muslims use today except the “hareke”s vowel marks, the original copy of Quran written without vowel marks which can be found in Topkapı museum in İstanbul. Then vowels marks were added in order to non-arabics could read it easily. But there are also speculations that at the time of Umayyads extra vowel marks included to Quran, famous one is Hallacı Yusouf who was proud of adding a thousand alif to Quran.

So then Armegon, is it fair to say that the Quran in use today is not the "original" Quran, as proposed by some?

good question and my original point. if what they found has been carbon dated to be the oldest script found and that script isn't exact like muslims believe as they got it from Mohammed , then how many 'versions' of the Koran are there ?

The Qur’an translated in any other language than it's original is not the Qur’an . That is how they see it. To know and read the true Qur’an you have to read it in it's original forum. Now of course it is translated to recruit new followers, but they are encouraged to truly read and learn the Quran, because like the Bible a lot of meaning is lost in translation. It is actually quite common for a Muslim to have the entire Qur’an memorized by heart. I knew a family who threw a party for their son who had memorized the whole Qur’an. It should be noted that Muhammad did not write the Qur'an down, he felt it was too holy to be written down and he and his followers memorized it. It was later felt that it needed to be written down.

Also the Qur'an is seen as something that has been there since the start of time. God just felt we were not ready for it yet, hence why we had a number of prophets with Jesus Christ actually being one. They believe in most of the stories that are in the Bible and Torah, they just believe some are not correct. Allah is the SAME EXACT God in Christianity and in Judaism. Allah simple means "The God". I hope that clears some things up, no I am not a Muslim I just have an extensive knowledge on world religion, it is among my studies and papers. If you have any more questions let me know, I'll do my best to answer them from my knowledge again I am not a Muslim and beliefs change, I just go by the "pure" form before any of the change. Again the most important word to remember when discussing any religion is hermeneutics.

no Bin mean son of.



Thanks you. I am sorry if i ranted a bit, i felt you were patronising me. I have no doubt that Sean is sincere in what he says, or how capable he is. infact so far its one of the best debates i have had hear. I am simply showing that there is another side to the coin, and i respond to both sides of the coin. Sean seems to be adamant, not even consider islamic material, the very thing that is being studied.



thats right, but there are inscriptions which show vowel marking pre islam and during islam. what you have written above is abosolutely right. The vowel were added to benefit non arab muslims, in order to make it easier for them to read it. for example i speak and write urdu, which is a language derived from arabic, i can write by adding vowel marks or with out. People with a good understanding of urdu can read without vowel marks, but those who dont have a good understanding, need the vowel marks to help them aid in reading and the sounds etc. this is not changing the quran, they are not leaving whole words or chunks out like is done with the bible for example, these are superflous changes, making it easier for non arab speaking muslims.



There is only one version of the quran, but different translations. the arabic in the quran is same today as it was back then and still remains the same. You can pick up a quran from australia and the other one from california and the arabic is the same. To make changes by adding vowel marks is not a change like your thinking. you dont know arabic, or any other semetic language, therefore it is hard for people to understand, the vowel marking in arabic is simply a superrflous change to make it easier on the reader, it does not change words, verse, or chapters. Like the letter A having _ under it as a vowel marking, thats a bad example but i cant think of anything better right now. does not change the word or the letter, just indicated how it should be pronounced. the arabic language also allows for i think 7 variations in reading, meaning accent and dialect, but it does not change the words or the meanings, they are still the same. Major and authortive orientalists dont dispute the textual integrity of the quran, writes like luxembourg and others have been silence by their own peers not just muslims. Its just a shame that people keep picking up on Stuff by authors like Ibn Warraq, who use mainly christian missionary Tisdalls material for their works, Ibn Warraq, is unverifiable as a person, indentity and whether he is an a true X-muslim. Even if he was real inevery sense, is scholarly credibility is questionable, due to him using source and material already rejected by their peers and muslims.

the different style of arabic scripts has not much relevance, due to the varying styles from varying regions, the words and meaning remain the same, but early inscriptions, on rocks, coins, papyri and manuscripts show that the quran is the same as it was 1400 yrs ago.

Great contribution and a good understanding of islam and the quran. I am impressed. I totally agree, the quran to be seen in its true light needs to be read, recited and studied in its original language, aRAbic.

You need to chill out man, i just posted a link about the fellow who featured in an earlier thread.
As it happens, i did read your link but am struggling to make sense of what you are saying in relation to it.
As for arabic being the same all over, i have native arabic speaking friends and colleagues(christian and muslim) of various nationalities who will all say that the same text can be written, spoken, and or interpreted differently depending on where the speaker/reader/writer is from.
As salaam.

sorry for sounding so harsh, it was not my intent. This is modern arabic its refering to, the quran was revealed during classical arabic period, when the language and its use was at its peak. Same text can be written, spoken differently, and for interpretation, i dont think so. the written difference today is not the same as classical arabic then. As for changes in the quran, superflous changes to the vowel, to achieve the correct sound and word, is not a wholesale change, its an aid to read it. these changes dont alter the words or the meaning etc. all that remains the same.

The main reason i'm struggling to learn arabic is because of the people teaching me. One is kuwaiti, one is egytian and the other is somali. The same things are all different depending lol.

Quite familiar, thank you. And I posted a link to his article "How to Debate a Muslim" because someone might find it of interest. You wanted to play the apologetics game ... Here it is again ...

Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim
http://www.challenging-islam.org/articles/...ate-muslims.htm



Sure you do and/or did. And I find it quite easy to find information on him. Do your homework.



Okay. Why would I care? That said, here is the Christian apologetic response to the Islamic apologetic nonsense Ozi provided above regarding Tisdall. Notice how both sites twist information to make it appear as if history is on their side, their god and holy text is the truth!

THE ORIGINAL SOURCES OF THE QUR'AN

BY THE REV. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, M.A., D.D.

SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Tisdal...urces/index.htm

~~~~~~~

Answering Islam (Debunking Islam)
http://answering-islam.org.uk/index.html

vs

Islamic Awareness (Debunking Christianity)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sou.../BBsources.html

And here is Islamic Awareness debunking Tisdall et al.

Comments On Geiger & Tisdall's Books On The 'Sources' Of The Qur'ân
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sou.../BBsources.html

And here is Answering Islam supporting Tisdall et al.

Material for the Evaluation of the Sources of the Qur'an
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/index.html

And this rubbish is why I despise apologetics!!!!!!!



I thought he was a mystery to you, Ozi, and couldn't get anything on him?

What peers?

Reliable ... Don't know. Never used his work.

LINK ... Told ya! Islamic apologetics site! Only one he knows.



Uh-huh. Broken record.

For those who wish to see the beginning of our discussion in "Ask a Muslim" ... start here and follow it through. You decide who's bias, prejudiced ... and everything else Ozi has called me.

ASK A MUSLIM
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2196167



Broken record.



I sure ain't!

Sean

Lets get back to the textual integrity.................

LOL. I see. Im happy to hear you are learnig arabic. Your problem i can understand. There is a difference. But when it come to reciting the quran, its allows for 7 variations, it compensates for those differences, thats what make it even more amazing.

You would do well to heed your own advice.You take dogmatism to a new height .every one is wrong but you .every one is biased but you



fullywired

Oh no! not again.

Yes again ,think about it



fullywired

mate i do heed my own advice, lets just agree to disagree. You have not shown once where i have been bias, its just you cant understand your own language.

That's the point I am making ,you just can't see your own bias .it's every one else who is biased


fullywired

thats the point mate, you only seem to come in to back Sean no other time. And so far not shown me or anyone where my bias is clearly shown. You above comment is easily reversed to fit yourself.

how so ??


fullywired

Well you keep claiming i am bias, like i claim sean is, but when i made those claims, i pointed out, he never used a single uni from the islamic world the links he posted, were only using non muslim sources, some could not be bothered to get the info from primary sources. you claim i am bais, How?

And what you cant see is your own bias, in making hollow claims, not substantiated, its just clearly showing your own bias.

I have made no claims about Muslims ,but I have read your posts and bias comes through loud and clear. My post and link about protection money was made by Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, are you telling me he was biased?


fullywired

Who?



Huh?!



Uh-huh.



I thought he was a mystery to you, Ozi, and couldn't get anything on him?



No you haven't. Who?



I never used him as a source other than what I stated above--How to Debate a Muslim. Again, you want to play the apologetic game ...



That is so far from the truth as not to be funny. A difference of opinion does not mean hatred. So we disagree ... big deal!



UMF members may decide this for themselves. Here's your source ...

Islamic Awareness
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

And here are just a few of my sources ...

History of Islam, History.Com
http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content...mp;mini_id=1077

Internet Islamic History Sourcebook, Fordham University
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html

Middle East Center: Modern Middle East Studies, University of Pennsylvania
http://mec.sas.upenn.edu/courses.html

Exploring Ancient Cultures: Early Islam, University of Evansville
http://eawc.evansville.edu/ispage.htm

ISLAM AND THE MUSLIM WORLD RESEARCH GUIDE, North Carolina State University
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/guides/islam/webresources.html

Islam and Islamic Studies Resources: For Studying Islam and the Diverse Perspectives of Muslims, University of Georgia
http://www.uga.edu/islam/

USC-MSA COMPENDIUM OF MUSLIM TEXTS, University of Southern California
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

Islam: Barbara R. von Schlegell (Visiting Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion), Ursinus College
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~bvon/index.html

University of Cambridge Islamic Society
http://www.isoc.co.uk/

Religion and Ethics: BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/

Islam Links, University of Cambridge
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/links.php

Oxford Islamic Studies, University of Oxford
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public...amp;failReason=

Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University
http://library.princeton.edu/catalogs/arti...hp?subjectID=60

Arabic and Islamic Studies, Harvard University
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~nelc/arab_islam.html

Program in Islamic Studies, Yale University
http://www.yale.edu/religiousstudies/fields/islamic.html

Islam, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

Middle East & Islamic Studies Collection, Cornell University
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/

Islamic Resources, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

Islam in Comparative Context: Online Resources, University of Berkeley
http://orias.berkeley.edu/Islam.html

Middle Eastern Studies, The University of Texas at Austin
http://menic.utexas.edu/mes.html

Islamic Origins, University of Chicago
http://bcweb.bluefield.edu/danderson/islam...amicOrigins.htm

Islam: Virtual Resource Index, Rutgers University
http://virtualreligion.net/vri/islam.html

Islamic studies in Ph.D. Programs in Religious Studies, UNC
http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/reliprograms.htm

A beautiful statement if I must say so myself. Please read this in its entirety.

... The sooner we Muslims rehabilitate and mend our classical networks and institutions, and reconnect them with the rest of humanity in sincere and humble dialogue, the more able we will be to serve God and humanity. This “Common Word” is a great first step along the way.--In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, The Promise of “A Common Word”, Aref Ali Nayed, October 2007

SOURCE: Cambridge Divinity
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/document...monWord_000.pdf

LECTURES ON DVD BY THE TEACHING COMPANY:

Great World Religions: Islam (12 lectures, 30 minutes/lecture) by John L. Esposito Georgetown University, Ph.D., Temple University
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=6102

REVIEW: Harold McFarland, editor of Midwest Book Review, writes about this course: "This is easily the most accurate, even-handed, and thorough survey of Islam that I have seen to date. The extent of coverage, breadth, and depth of Professor Esposito's knowledge, recognition of the various groups and beliefs within Islam, and scholarly treatment of the subject makes this a very highly recommended lecture series and the only one on the subject that I could recommend to date."



Absolutely, unequivocally false!!!!! However, apologetic sites love to twist history to make it fit their preconceived notions of what should be. Apologetics was the final nail in the coffin of my faith. Why? If one must lie, put on a dog and pony show in order to forward a particular religion ... What does it make that religion? To me, a lie.



And I stated that earlier in "Ask a Muslim" ... And shouldn't I listen to what apostates have to say so that I might understand their reasons for abandoning Islam? I'm comparing muslim and non-muslim sources here, Ozi. I did exactly the same with Christianity--pro, con and in-between.

Both sides ... and everything in-between.



Such language for a man of god, Ozi! Doesn't your deity forbid such things?

Sean

Thats was his scholarly opinion based onthe islamic sources. there is room for difference of opinion within islam. Mawdudi said what he said, i respect his opinion. Which is what it is. what i posted is authentic quranic verses and hadith,which offers opinion on the same subject,but more accurately.

As for my bias, if its that loud and clear, then show me.

Who says it is more accurate ?


fullywired

Everybody hears it but you Ozi. It's loud and clear to the rest of us ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmz801mtiwQ

Sean