Transmission Of The Qur'anic Revelation

[laian]

Assalamu alaikum everyone,


Anya I don't think the tone of the post should matter, because actually she did put a link to the source of her information. If anyone puts a link to a source, I think we as muslims are obligate to at least check if the source is valid, so that we can then explain why it is invalid, or if it is valid to go forward with the discussion. If she has a bad tone and no indication of a source, then sure it can be assumed that maybe she is making stuff up, or she "heard it" from somewhere. But if there is an accessible source, we should check it first.


Ronni, Umm Z basically posted the entire text of the link you gave us, and the same link that I replied to in the other thread. Ronni was saying that there seems to be evidence of different "versions" of Qur'an.... not different translations, but different actual versions, thus supporting the view that maybe Qur'an is no different from the Bible.


Of course as Muslims we don't need to be convinced this is not true. But for Ronni's sake, I think we owe her a clear and objective explanation of what she has found, since on her part she has no reason to believe in the Qur'an being a non-muslim, and I think her question is valid.


In the other thread I replied to what she found about different versions. For those that missed it, I am re-posting my reply here inshaAllah.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bismillah


wow, over 2 pages were added to this thread since I last read it.


Ronni, I just want to say that you are right, no one seems to be acknowledging the fact that you are providing information from Muslim sources.


I will admit that although I would not say I am "new" to Islam, I have certainly not been Muslim long enough to call myself an expert on any topic, let alone the Qur'an which is hard enough for me just to read in Arabic.


But I took a look at the link you provided for the Ulum al Qur'an. The main website containing this page iswhich as far as I can tell is a legitimate Muslim website.


In case everyone missed it, here is the link from Ronni that I looked at


Ok Ronni, from my limited knowledge, here is what I concluded from that link:


1. First it describes the suhuf and mushaf. I can only give the definition this site provides as I do not know on my own. If anyone else here is familiar with these terms and can give a better explanation, please do


the suhuf refers to single sheets or pieces of writing material which contain surahs. On these suhuf, the ayats of the surahs are in the correct order, but the surahs are not put in order, i.e. they are all on separate pieces and not collected.


the mushaf refer to complete collections of the suhuf, which have the surahs in the correct order and bound together as a book or collection of writings. Therefore, the Qur'an as we have it today is a mushaf.


2. Further, the *correct* suhuf were those written in the time of abu bakr, and the *correct* mushaf were those collected in the time of 'uthman.


(From my own understanding, I did not find this information on the site because I didn't look for it, but previously I learned that 'Uthman was given the task of collecting all of the parts of the Qur'an into one complete volume. Therefore, it makes sense that the only correct collection we should follow is that done by 'Uthman. Someone please correct this if I am mistaken )


3. The text goes on to mention some "variations" found, which are attributed to specific people. One of these is described as being the collection of one person, Ibn Mas'ud. The description from this website is as follows:

He wrote a mushaf, in which sudras 1, 113 and 114 were not
included. Ibn al-Nadim [38] however said he had seen a copy of


the Qur'an from Ibn Mas'ud which did not contain al-fatiha


(Sura 1). The arrangement of the suras differed from the


'Uthmanic text.


..... (the list of surah numbers removed to save space)


This list is obviously incomplete. It contains only 106 suras


and not 110, as Ibn Nadim wrote.

Ok, so it appears that Ibn Mas'ud had his own collection of the Qur'an, and other people were aware that it was different from the 'Uthmanic text. So that tells me it was known this collection was not correct, so no one would be following it or accepting it as the correct Qur'an. The website continues to describe the variations:

In Sura al-baqara, which I take as an example, there are a
total of 101 variants. Most of them concern spelling, some also


choice of words (synonyms), use of particles, etc.


Examples:


Pronunciation:


2:70  Ibn Mas'ud reads  al-baqira


      in place of       al-baqara


Spelling:


2:19  He reads          kulla ma


      in place of       kullama


2:68  He reads         sal (seek, beseech)


      in place of      ud'u (beseech)


Assuming that all these are reliable reports, the copy of Ibn


Mas'ud would then have been prepared for his personal use


and written before all 114 suras were revealed.

Ok, again this tells me that nobody would mistake Ibn Mas'ud's collection for the real Qur'an. It was only for his personal use, like maybe he understood the word ud'u better than sal, so he put it for his own ease of reading. Some may consider this a sin, by trying to make a copy of Qur'an with one's own words, but that is a matter between Ibn Mas'ud and Allah. Also, this website specifies that his collection was made before the Qur'an was completely revealed. So this further tells me that no one could mistake his copy for the real, "official" 'Uthmanic text.


The other examples on this website tell me basically the same thing.


As for the issue of pronunciation versus spelling... it is well known that the Qur'an was preserved primarily by memorization, so in order for it to be *written* (spelled) it had to be *spoken* (pronounced) by someone who had it memorized. From my limited knowledge of the Arabic alphabet, it is very easy to mistake an "e" vowel for an "a" vowel if the person speaking it has a certain accent or a certain way to say it. (there is no soft and hard "a" sound as there is in English, both would be the same "a" in Arabic, but some might think a soft "a" sound sounds more like a soft "e" sound... and so on)


So to some extent, pronunciation differences could also be the same as spelling differences. It depends on how people heard the recitation.


But that still doesn't change the fact that it seems obvious to me that nobody was taking "versions" of the Qur'an as the real Qur'an except the 'Uthmanic text, which was the official compilation.


That is my impression from the information on that website, Ronni.


Also, in every different translation of Qur'an, the original 'Uthmanic text is right along next to the translation, and *all* copies of the Qur'an have the *same* arabic text, the <b>original</b>


No one, not even you, Ronni, can deny that the same cannot be said of the Bible. I have never seen or heard of a Bible that has the <b>original</b> text right next to the translation. So with the Qur'an, any variation in *translation* can be easily resolved by looking at the arabic.


It would be nice if someone who has more knowledge than me would look at Ronni's links and comment on them. But for my part, I did my best, and I hope that helps you Ronni with understanding at least one Muslim's view of the information you posted.

[Anyabwile]

Anya I don't think the tone of the post should matter, because actually she did put a link to the source of her information. If anyone puts a link to a source, I think we as muslims are obligate to at least check if the source is valid, so that we can then explain why it is invalid, or if it is valid to go forward with the discussion.

*Sigh* Maybe your right, perhaps it shouldn't matter. But just because we are all Muslims doesn't mean we are all identical like robots in our manners and actions does it. To <b>you </b> if someone who is being offensive in their style of writing and posts asks you to look at something you do it fine. To me, i don't show much interest, because i know whatever their response to me seeking that information would be, it would inevitably be in the same style as the request for me to look at something. In other words it's like someone who is offensive against Islam asking me to justify something in it or whatever. I respond to a point, as i have done with Ronni and the others but only to a point. I come here to enjoy reading posts as well, not to have to defend something which is blatantly the truth from people who don't even <b>want</b> to see it is. It's just tiresome, you can only give Da'wah and information to a point.


So if someone is asking me to look at something and are like "why is this like this then? come on come on show me then" No matter what my response is, they will never accept, by their very nature. This is the same with Ronni. I at least ask for civil and respectful dialogue first, then get into researching links. This is how i work, as i said <b>you</b> may be different.


I havent got time for these kind of games now. I gave people like Ronni a lot of time before but now as members have advised me i either ignore or respond if the manner i'm being asked to do something is a bit more respectful. It's like this topic right here and others, no matter how much we explain, a Christian such as Ronni is never going to accept or understand the Arabic Qur'an is untouched from the day it is was revealed. No matter what they come with <b>no where </b>is it proven the Qur'an we have is different from the one the Prophet (Peace be upon him


This post will just go on and on and on like the post she made about it months back and so on and so forth. Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) tells us with some people in the Qur'an, no matter what we do, they will not see, this is how their life pans out. We only try so much and then leave it. Not keep banging our head against the wall trying to explain to someone who doesn't want to see the truth for whatever reasons they may have.


Anyway i'm done with this. I logged on to see what my brothers and sister had to say after Eid etc not to be dragged down by Christians attacking my religion and not to have to explain myself to a good sister who is curiously insistent on defending Kafir. Please PM me if you have views about my posts in the future sister, this telling off on forums can get frustrating. I know i need to "cool off" in defending my religion but PM's and Emails are better i think.


Assalamu Alalikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh

[laian]

Assalamu alaikum Anyabwile,


I wasn't "telling you off," and I don't think my tone was at all hostile. I was simply saying, for everyone's sake not just you, that if someone comes with a question that she or he got from a Muslim source, maybe we should check it out before blowing them off.


I completely understand if you do not want to respond to someone who asks a question with a bad tone, whether they have a source or not. I know you don't want to deal with their reaction, and I don't blame you. If that is the case, then you should not respond, not even to tell them that their tone is bad. Then you are only getting yourself into the discussion that you say you don't want to be a part of.


I will repeat once again to make it clear, my comments were addressed to ALL the Muslims on this site, not just you, because it seems to me that everyone has been ignoring Ronni's links until I mentioned them. You just happened to be the last one that said something about it.


And no, I am not defending the kafir. But if we want to have *discussions* with them, we should be doing so in a respectful manner, otherwise they will come back at us with the same manner that we approach them (unless they come here not wanting to learn, which I don't think is the case with Ronni). And part of the beliefs of Islam is to show respect toward the Christians and Jews because they believe in our God, and all of our prophets except Mohammed, peace be on them all.


My only point is to say that Ronni did in fact bring a valid Muslim source, which Umm Z has now been quoting from in this thread. I just thought she deserved acknowledgment for being the one to bring it.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


as salam alykom brothers and sisters


Umm Mash a Allah Jazaki Allah khairan


Laian I agree with u that our duty is to reply without even questioning the intention. But that is if the answers were not given. But no harm why not reply again. She already has these answers and still having a problem then it is not our duty to push her to understand.


Any way, as for the link I know I am supposed to delet it, they promote sufism.


Insh a Allah I will look for another one. As far as I read thru (not all) of the quran text, looks ok.


But Laian, the order of surahs, ayahs was already made and set by the Messenger himself salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam. Again and again ronniv. There isnt many versions of Quran. Even the one without dots. At the time of the Arab they excelled in Arabic. It was very easy for anyone to read without dots. But as time passed by, in order to keep it easy and fixed, dots were placed where they belong. Imagine a non arabic speaker learning arabic. It is enough to try and read rather than predict where the dot should be.

[Anyabwile]

I completely understand if you do not want to respond to someone who asks a question with a bad tone, whether they have a source or not. I know you don't want to deal with their reaction, and I don't blame you. If that is the case, then you should not respond, not even to tell them that their tone is bad. Then you are only getting yourself into the discussion that you say you don't want to be a part of.

How was i involving myself in the discussion, i said i was "done with this discusssion" it was only until you decided to have a dig that i'm responding again. Ronni was suprised why no one, not just me, but no one had responded to her links. I suggested to her the reason may be becuase of her tone. Because let's face it no one did respond as you said, so i'm sure i'm not the only one who felt she comes across rude. As for telling me when and when not to respond....really, maybe it's a UK/US language communication thing that you appear extremely rude suggesting this, but i will respond where and when i want to. If i want to pop into a post to tell someone their tone is bad and then dip out i will do so. I wouldn't have even responded to Ronni in a reply in this post anyway as i belive i said "Anyway i'm done with this" meaning even if Ronni had replied i'm done with it. Therefore not interested in a discussion. It's only when you commented on me that i have to defend myself here. This is nothing to do with the discussion with the person who's tone i object to as i said i was done with that, this now taking place between me and you just happens to be in the same topic. Otherwise if you'd have kept your comments to yourself, i would have been gone from this topic.

But if we want to have *discussions* with them, we should be doing so in a respectful manner, otherwise they will come back at us with the same manner that we approach them (unless they come here not wanting to learn, which I don't think is the case with Ronni).

Cannot belive i'm reading this, i think you need to look over Ronnies posts again, her manner of asking questions and then think about what you wrote above. Honestly i think you have made an error here so this is not your fault. Read through her posts again, and see if she really is here to learn. You seem to be the only one who thinks so. Her manner of asking questions sarcasm regarding the "hand of god" that wrote Qur'an. Sarcasm regarding how convieniently Prophet only received revelations when his people needed them. Which....makes perfect sence anyway but. And so on and so forth. I can with ease post a list of all her comments but i fear as with JohnDoe you will be the first to rush to her defence, claim i am more offensive and claim i took her words out of context or mis interpreted them, when they are clear open quotes. Honestly sister, take a step back from this and have a look at how you're being here. You're supposed to be the responsible Muslimah right?

And part of the beliefs of Islam is to show respect toward the Christians and Jews because they believe in our God, and all of our prophets except Mohammed, peace be on them all.

Erm, no...this is not correct. If they belive in Trinity as Ronni does, they will end up in hell. If they claim Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) has had a son (as Ronni does) they will end up in hell. Unless they change from these incorrect practises and follow the last Prophet (Peace blessings and love of Allah be upon him) and embrace Islam, then they will be "amongst the losers" in the hereafter. Hellfire. So you can't come with this strange way of thinking a lot of Muslim have lately, that all jews and Christians will enter Jannah with us Muslim <i>who obey Allah </i>(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) No unless they loose the trinity Blasphemy and the God has had a son Blasphemy and follow the original teachings of Christ, which they have no more...then they will end up heaped in the hellfire in the hereafter. Honestly i shouldnt be telling you this, should be the otherway round, i'm only barely half a year in this Deen. Honestly, sometimes you come across as frighteningly Christian with the above Quotes, and with your saying "Ronni is here to learn" It really is uncomfortable. You're supposed to be proud to be Muslim not apoligetic.


Anyway show the Kafir who you wish to continute accepting their slandering of your religion how much you are the better Muslim by not responding to this hot headed one who flies off at the handle (anywabwile) show you are the better Muslim by not sinking to my level and ignoring me. Otherwise if you respond, you are just as bad as me lowering yourself to my level. Show me how much you are above me by leaving this now.


Assalamu Alalikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh


<b>Allahu Akbar</b>

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


as salam alykom


Laian just a little correction. Jews and Christian obviously dont belive in the same God as we don. Neither do they belive in all Prophets. For example jews dont recognize Eassa as a Messenger. Nor Christians accept Mohamed salla Allah a`lyehum wa sallam.


Besides jews have serious faults in their dogma just as christians for ex they say Allah (astaghferullah) created heavens and earth in 6 days then rested on the 7th. I really prefer not to post much about the contents of their books Quran is more than enough to study we need 24 h over the 24 to study Quran and hadeeth.


But no Christians and Jews dont share same beliefs what is the point that u left christianity if it has no problem?

[reepicheep]

Muslimah wrote:


> Besides jews have serious faults in their dogma just


> as christians for ex they say Allah (astaghferullah)


> created heavens and earth in 6 days then rested on the 7th.


Just to clarify what you wrote: I assume you believe that the Earth was created in 6 days. It's the idea that God rested on the 7th day that you don't agree with?

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


I am not sure what is your point. I am waiting for your answer on the other thread

[reepicheep]

Muslimah wrote:


> Besides jews have serious faults in their dogma just


> as christians for ex they say Allah (astaghferullah)


> created heavens and earth in 6 days then rested on the 7th.


I'm just trying to clarify what you consider to be the "fault" in Christian dogma.


My understanding of Islam is that Muslims believe that the Earth was created in 6 days. So, that can't be the "fault" which you disagree with. That leaves only the last part of your sentence ("rested on the 7th"). That must be the faulty dogma you are referring to, right?

[laian]

Assalamu alaikum,


first, to Anya... lol, great post. I think u r right, there must be some difference between US and UK culture that is causing some misunderstandings... I really didn't think I was being offensive at all. As for Ronni, ya maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it when she gets "sarcastic" as you call it, it just seems like shes getting on the defensive side, and rightly so, because there's so much information from Islam and against Christianity being thrown at her. And several of her posts I read seemed like she was wanting to learn, but maybe that was earlier. Anyway, sorry for all that.


To Muslimah.... ummm... I'm not sure exactly what God you think the Christians believe in, but let me assure you it is the same God that the Muslims believe in. They just happen to attribute a son to him. Read the Qur'an -- it talks about it countless times, how they have wrongly attributed a son to Allah. If they don't even believe in Allah, how can they attribute anything to him? As for the prophets, ya that's what I said, they believe in all the prophets except Mohammed, peace upon them all. Jews the same, except they leave out Jesus and Mohammed, peace upon them. But Allah was the God of Moses and Allah was the God of Jesus. I never said there was no problem with Christianity, Islam is the correct religion of course. But as far as the God they believe in, it is the same. As a Christian I believed God had a son. Now I believe He didn't. I didn't "switch" Gods or anything... I hope that makes the distinction clear.


Any other Christian reverts with a view on this?


Also, just about every muslim I've ever talked to about Islam, both before and after I took shahada, agreed that it is part of faith to show respect to the people of the book, namely the Jews and Christians. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them. Just be respectful.


(Oh ya, to Anya, I never said they would enter Jannah.. glad we agree on something )


Last point, Muslimah, about the website. Are you talking about the one I replied to from Ronni, or the other one she posted? Because as far as I can tell, she posted 2 different websites. The one I looked at was sunnah.org, kinda weird that they would promote sufism with that title. Also, Umm Z has posted the entire text of their article in this thread, so there's not much point to take the link down now. Anyway, I only briefly looked at the site and it seemed legitimate to me, but if it does promote sufism then I will take the links out myself. Thanks for keeping an eye on that