Who Compiled The Quran?

andres · March 12, 2014

And when?

Jaabir · March 12, 2014

`Uthman ibn `Affaan compiled it during his caliphate. What we have now is also called the `Uthmanian codex.

sadegh · March 12, 2014

Salaamun Alaykum,

The holy Quran was definitely compiled at the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

During the 23 years of the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), as the verses were revealed to his heart in different occasions, a lot of the sahaaba (companions) memorized the verses and a good number of them wrote the verses. (see: al- Burhaan fi Ulumil Quran/ Zarkishi/ 1:330 and also: al- Itqaan fi Ulumil Quran/ Suyuti/ 1: 126)

There are evidences for that, even in the sayings of the Prophet himself.

Baydhaawi, Zamakhshari, and many other scholars have narrated in their books from ibn- Abbaas that when the verse 281 of sura al- Baqarah was revealed, the Prophet received a message from Jabra'il that ordered him to put the verse after the verse two hundred and eighty of sura al- Baqarah.

This hadith clearly shows that the holy Quran was not only compiled at the time of the Prophet, but the numbers of its verses also were specified.

But the question is: what did Uthmaan do?

We know that Islam was spread wide after the Prophet. The different accents of the Arab Muslims in Iraq and Hijaaz and other regions in addition to the Persians who accepted Islam, left some effects on the recitation of Quran and several Qira'aat (ways of reading) appeared. What Uthmaan did was that he gathered all of the Qurans and, chose the most famous Qiraa'ah of the Quran to be the only Qiraa'ah.

Briefly, Uthmaan united the Qira'aat and spread the most famous one, which is what we use now.

**Son of Placid** · March 12, 2014

The Qur'an has been passed down from men they called "the Reciters". The way these men recited the Qur'an was formerly recorded in textual form by other men called the "Transmitters". I'm not sure how many Reciters there were but not all of them had a Transmitter thus not all were recorded. It is the claim of Muslims that all the Reciters recited the exact same Quran yet only 10 versions were accepted, some were rejected.

One of the Reciters was Nafi bin Abdur Rahman bin Abu Nuaym al Madani. He managed to get two Transmitters. One was Warsh,(Abu Saeed Uthman ibn Saeed Al-Misri) the other was Qalin. You'll find Warsh more in Algeria, Morocco, and north and west Africa, Qalin's version went more to Libia, Tunisia, etc.

Al-Duri was the Transmitter for Abu `Amr al-'Ala' which also went to west Africa.

Hafs was the Transmitter for Abu Bakar bin Ayyash al-Asadi al Nahshali, which became the most popular Arabic version.

Apparently he heard it from 'Aasim ibn Abu Najud Al-Kuufi, who was Taabi'i, i.e, among the generation following the Sahaabah, who heard from Abu Abdur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Habib As-Sulami, who heard from Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zayd ibn Thaabit and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, who heard from the Muhammad.

Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun has published a version of the (Hafs) Quran which contains the variant readings from the 10 Accepted Readers in its margins. About 2/3 of the verses have some sort of variant reading.

Hafs 2:184 tells you your restitution for not fasting is feeding a poor man while Warsh says you have to feed poor men. Man or men?

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz · March 12, 2014

The meaning for hafs 2:184 is not changed......

If you put men or man, the context still restricts the meaning while staying grammatically sound, this is the beauty of the Qur'an.

Warsh and hafs are only differences in pronunciation,

It is not "men" or "man", both hafs and warsh takes one meaning of men (plural).....

**baqar** · March 12, 2014

About 2/3 of the verses have some sort of variant reading.

Variant reading would not mean textual differences.

It comes down to differences in recitation, translation or understanding - not the text.

We all know that the understanding of many verses of the Quran varies from one denomination to another.

Nothing new about that!

Hafs 2:184 tells you your restitution for not fasting is feeding a poor man while Warsh says you have to feed poor men. Man or men?

I gather you are just copying from some web site or perhaps a book, without an in-depth understanding of the subject-matter.

You will be able to support your argument better if you give an example of at least one variation in the Arabic text.

One would be enough to quash the usual claim, that

The Arabic text of the Quran is absolutely uniform the world over.

Edited March 12, 2014 by baqar

**Son of Placid** · March 13, 2014

Hi Baqar, you caught me. I'm afraid Arabic is still squiggly lines and one long yodel to me. I could never decipher it on my own. These are the findings of Samuel Green.

If any of the Arabic has been misinterpreted making these fraudulent I'd really like to know.

hafs_2.58.gif nagfir warsh_2.57.gif yugfar

we give mercy ... 2:58 he gives mercy ... 2:57

So the Hafs says Allah was speaking but in the Warsh someone must be narrating?

hafs_2.140.gif taquluna warsh_2.139.gif yaquluna
you (plural) say ... 2:140 they say ... 2:139

Does it matter who says?

hafs_2.10.gif yakdhibuuna warsh_2.9.gif yukadhdhibuuna
they lied ... 2:10 they were lied to ... 2:9

Somebody lied.

hafs_2.184.gif ta'aamu miskiinin warsh_2.183.gif ta'aami masakiina
a redemption by feeding a poor man ... 2:184 a redemption by feeding poor men ... 2:183

There's the man or men.

Note how every sample the Hafs is always a verse ahead of the Warsh, in other cases it's two.

22 verses in all either Hafs added or Warsh took away.

**baqar** · March 13, 2014

These are the findings of Samuel Green.

Hi SoP

If Samuel Greens' article is in the Internet, could you please give me the link.

If it is not on the Internet, then the name of the book or other source.

Thanks

andres · March 13, 2014

The Arabic text of the Quran is absolutely uniform the world over.

I have no reason to doubt this. What is more interesting is how long the Arabic text has been uniform. All the way back to Uthmans canon from around 50AD? Or even back to 32AD? Only old finds can give the answer.

**IloveImamHussain** · March 13, 2014

I have no reason to doubt this. What is more interesting is how long the Arabic text has been uniform. All the way back to Uthmans canon from around 50AD? Or even back to 32AD? Only old finds can give the answer.

The subject you have introduced is interesting but requires extensive knowledge.

With less than a dozen regular members visiting this forum, I doubt if you will get enough responses.

You will probably get more responses if you open this thread in the QURAN forum

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/forum/35-quran-hadeeth-dua-forum/

or perhaps in the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum,

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/forum/1-general-discussions/

This forum is extremely quiet for the last few months and the subject of the compilation of the Quran is pretty heavy-set, in my view.

Up to you

Cheers

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz · March 13, 2014

Hi Baqar, you caught me. I'm afraid Arabic is still squiggly lines and one long yodel to me. I could never decipher it on my own. These are the findings of Samuel Green.
If any of the Arabic has been misinterpreted making these fraudulent I'd really like to know.

nagfir                 yugfar

we give mercy ... 2:58                       he gives mercy ... 2:57

So the Hafs says Allah was speaking but in the Warsh someone must be narrating?

taquluna                 yaquluna
you (plural) say ... 2:140                           they say ... 2:139

Does it matter who says?

   yakdhibuuna                   yukadhdhibuuna
they lied ... 2:10                                                                                   they were lied to ... 2:9
Somebody lied.

ta'aamu miskiinin                      ta'aami masakiina
a redemption by feeding a poor man ... 2:184                                           a redemption by feeding poor men ... 2:183

There's the man or men.
Note how every sample the Hafs is always a verse ahead of the Warsh, in other cases it's two.
22 verses in all either Hafs added or Warsh took away.

It seems like the person who made this list doesn't know what he is talking about, almost the entire list has mistakes.

For example "yukathibun" doesn't mean they were lied too in this verse, it means they deny.

For example in surah ma'un "arayta alathee yukathibu bid-deen", have you seen the one who denies the the day of judgment?

So saying they "lied", yakthabun or they "denied" yukathibun, has the same meaning.

Another example he says that "naghfar" means we show mercy, no, it means we forgive or we will forgive. Wrong translation.

Also yughfar is in the majhul form, so it means their sins will be forgiven not "he forgives", this would be yaghfir not yughfir. There is no difference in the meaning here.

Then you have "miskeen" and "masakeen", miskeen and masakeen have the same meaning in this verse, miskeen simply means poor it doesn't have to refer to one person.

None of these phrases have any difference in meaning....

By the way I don't think a Christian should be speaking on textual errors... ;)

Edited March 13, 2014 by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz

andres · March 13, 2014

The subject you have introduced is interesting but requires extensive knowledge.
Cheers

Of course it is a complex subject. Concerning the Bible critical research has been going on for almost 200 years, and there are still many doubts about the text, thou not at all as many as Wisdom Lion is hoping for. With the Quran this process just started. What I wanted to know was not what the examination by independent historians think but what true Muslims believe. I think I got the answer. Uthman compiled the Quran.

**Abu Hadi** · March 13, 2014

First, we have to understand that 'The Quran' is an Arabic text. Anything else, such as the English Translation or the French Translation, is not 'The Quran' but a translation of the Quran. The Quran itself states, in 11 different places (12:2, 13:37,16:103, 20:113, 26:195, 39:28, 41:3, 41:44, 42:7, 43:3, and 46:12) that the Quran is an Arabic book.

The so called variances in the Quran are variances in

1) The wording of the translation

2) Understanding or interpretation of the text

There is no differences in the Arabic text. If you want proof of this, take a verse, any verse, say 39:28 for example,

and pickup a Quran from any store, library, or masjid anywhere on earth, read the Arabic, which is the Quran,

and see if you find any differences between the copies of the Quran. Then take another verse and repeat.

You could spend the rest of your life doing this, you will not find any variance.

The Bible is a much different case. First, the Bible, the original text, is in multiple languages. The old testement is in Hebrew, different variants of Hebrew, and the New Testement is / was originally written in Ahramaic, then the texts were translated into Konic Greek, then Latin, then English and other languages. So what is the language of the Bible ? It is at least two languages which each have different vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical structures.

Also, you have different versions of the Bible. The versions have different books (whole chapters) included or excluded, for example the Catholic Bible has the Book of Thomas (and other books) which the Protestant Bible doesn't have. Then within each book, you have passages that are excluded and some which the wording has changed. For example, John 3:16, the favorite verse of bible thumpers, in the King James Version, refers to Jesus as the 'Only begotten Son', and in the New American Standard Version, it says 'Only Unique Son', and 'Son' is capitalized whereas in Ahramaic, the language spoken by Jesus(peace be upon him) there is no capital letters, and so on and so forth (we could go on for days and weeks with this). Most people who know English know that there is a pretty huge difference between 'Unique' and 'Begotten' and between words which are capitalized and ones that are not.

So Christians can't really agree on what the original text of the Bible actually is (which books, which language).

Muslims agree on what the Quran is, they just disagree on the interpretation of certain verses.

That is the difference, and it is a huge difference and one of the main reasons why I am Muslim and not Christian. The Quran is protected by Almighty God(s.w.a), which is the only reason why it hasn't been changed despite many, many attempts.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Abu Hadi

**IloveImamHussain** · March 13, 2014

Uthman compiled the Quran.

If you speak to Shia scholarship, they will tell you that the Quran was definitely compiled in the time of the Prophet.

I am sorry I do not have the details with me here right now.

shreek · March 14, 2014

and there are foreign words not Arabic within the Koran.

**baqar** · March 14, 2014

Unless you have another explanation, I guess every language evolves with the accretion of new words.

There is no reason to assume that any language, scriptural or otherwise, is stationary.

Besides, I believe there also is no reason to assume that the Arabic scholar of modern times, Muslim or non-Muslim, knows exactly the Arabic of those days and that region, where the Quran was born.

One could know bits and pieces but certainly not perfectly.

But a few examples in your post might have been helpful, to progress that discussion.

Of course, we might need to hook in some very good Arabic speaking people - who are scarce in this forum.

Ali Musaaa :) · March 14, 2014

and there are foreign words not Arabic within the Koran.

What's your point?

Al-Englisi · March 14, 2014

It seems like the person who made this list doesn't know what he is talking about, almost the entire list has mistakes.

For example "yukathibun" doesn't mean they were lied too in this verse, it means they deny.

For example in surah ma'un "arayta alathee yukathibu bid-deen", have you seen the one who denies the the day of judgment?

So saying they "lied", yakthabun or they "denied" yukathibun, has the same meaning.

Another example he says that "naghfar" means we show mercy, no, it means we forgive or we will forgive. Wrong translation.

Also yughfar is in the majhul form, so it means their sins will be forgiven not "he forgives", this would be yaghfir not yughfir. There is no difference in the meaning here.

Then you have "miskeen" and "masakeen", miskeen and masakeen have the same meaning in this verse, miskeen simply means poor it doesn't have to refer to one person.

None of these phrases have any difference in meaning....

By the way I don't think a Christian should be speaking on textual errors... ;)

Bismillah

I don't think the point was the translation itself as much as the different letters used. In cases, one uses the 'mukhaatab' where the other uses 'ghaa'ib', or one uses 'mutakilm' whilst the other uses 'ghaa'ib'.

So regardless of the translations the question still remains.

What the most likely explanation is for these particular differences is that fact that the system of dots and various '`alamaat' (signs - fatha, kasra, dhama) were all introduced later on. There was a different system to differentiate 'huroof' (letters) back then, or maybe none at all in some scripts. For the most part, the writers and compilers of the Qur'an may have had in mind that their target audience (if any - it may have been for personal use) were going to be Arab, hence would understand and know what the letter should be without the help of signs. This mindset couldn't have lasted long, since the Islamic Empire spread quite quickly, however if proven, then even if the first few scripts were written in such a way it could cause problems for non-arab readers or even latter arabs.

As Islam spread and so did the reciters we see as early as the time of Imam Ali (as) differences in pronunciation occurring and hence why the nahwiyun (scholars of Arabic semantics) believe Imam Ali (as) announced the rules of Arabic for a (telling him that a word is either a noun (ism), or a verb (fe`l) or a harf - a letter or word used to create a relation between other words and sentences). This it's self would have corrected the pronunciation problem - so every one reads the fa`il as marfu' and maf`ul as mansub - but it still wouldn't completely solve the writing issue and differentiating actual letters.

There are many things which need to be kept in mind, one of the most important the mindset and practices of the Arabs of that time.

Muhammad Taha · March 14, 2014

`Uthman ibn `Affaan compiled it during his caliphate. What we have now is also called the `Uthmanian codex.

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dear brother,

I think it cannot be acceptable, because:

1- Due to the importance and the role of Holy Quran in the guidance of people and the will of Allah and holy Prophet (A.S) our reason cannot accept that holy Prophet (A.S) abandons this book as scattered pages.

By these verses we can support this idea:

إِنَّ عَلَيْنا جَمْعَهُ وَ قُرْآنَهُ (75:17)

Indeed it is up to Us to put it together and to recite it.

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَ إِنَّا لَهُ لَحافِظُونَ (15:9)

Indeed We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed We will preserve it.

2- In Hdith al- Thaqalayn, Holy prophet (A.S) said:

«انّي تارك فيكم الثقلين كتاب الله و عترتي»

"Verily, I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you: the Book of Allah and my kindred (`itrah), my household (Ahl al-Bayt)."(Sunan of Termedhi. Vol.5 bobe manaqib of Ahlul Bayt and Musnad of Ahmad vol.3 pp.14, 17,26,59)

According to this hadith, Holy Quran must be written at that time because the word of "book" is used for written things.

andres · March 14, 2014

If you speak to Shia scholarship, they will tell you that the Quran was definitely compiled in the time of the Prophet.
I am sorry I do not have the details with me here right now.

Does this mean that Shias and Sunnis differ? Do Shias suggest a name of the compilator?

"Verily, I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you: the Book of Allah and my kindred (`itrah), my household (Ahl al-Bayt)."(Sunan of Termedhi. Vol.5 bobe manaqib of Ahlul Bayt and Musnad of Ahmad vol.3 pp.14, 17,26,59)
According to this hadith, Holy Quran must be written at that time because the word of "book" is used for written things.

How can we know this quote is correct?

And dhould it be, why did Uthman compile the Quran once more?

Edited March 14, 2014 by andres

**IloveImamHussain** · March 14, 2014

Does this mean that Shias and Sunnis differ?

Shias and Sunnis differ in lots of things.

History according to Shias and Sunnis is miles apart.

And so is hadeeth

Do Shias suggest a name of the compilator?

As far as my understanding goes, the compilation was done by a team working for the Prophet.

But I am not aware of the precise details

**IloveImamHussain** · March 14, 2014

How can we know this quote is correct?

Are you talking about this quote?

"Verily, I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you: the Book of Allah and my kindred (`itrah), my household (Ahl al-Bayt)."

(Sunan of Termedhi. Vol.5 babe-e-manaqib of Ahlul Bayt and Musnad of Ahmad vol.3 pp.14, 17,26,59)

He has already quoted the two books where the quote comes from and I have colored .those names in blue.

Actually, the quote can be found not only in those two books but also in one of the most authentic Sunni Hadeeth books, known as Saheeh Muslim. .

shreek · March 14, 2014

What's your point?

i was under the impression that the Quran was in pure Arabic.

as in unadulterated, unaltered, no foreign languages.

if I am wrong ok.

Edited March 14, 2014 by shreek

Agora · March 14, 2014

i was under the impression that the Quran was in pure Arabic.
as in unadulterated, unaltered, no foreign languages.
if I am wrong ok.

"I really like to eat pizza and tacos."

Was that an English sentence or did I intersperse it with Italian and Spanish worlds?

Al-Englisi · March 14, 2014

i was under the impression that the Quran was in pure Arabic.
as in unadulterated, unaltered, no foreign languages.

if I am wrong ok.

Bismillah

No, that's not wrong. There are words which were derived from other languages. For example the name of previous Prophets. Many of the names of previous Prophets were not in Arabic, also names of other people mentioned in the Qur'an. It is said that the word Fil/fFeel' (elephant) is also not arabic, but taken from Persian - as Arabs did not have elephants on their lands to have names for them.

**Son of Placid** · March 15, 2014

Hi Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz,

Always nice to see new names in the forum. If you are familiar with Arabic, that would be awesome.

It would be foolish to think textual criticism won't touch Islam. It's not enough for the world to discredit Christianity, they will try with Islam as well. Paul says to hold up your shield of faith to ward off the fiery darts of the wicked. Good advise.

It seems like the person who made this list doesn't know what he is talking about, almost the entire list has mistakes.

What do you mean by almost?

For example "yukathibun" doesn't mean they were lied too in this verse, it means they deny.
For example in surah ma'un "arayta alathee yukathibu bid-deen", have you seen the one who denies the the day of judgment?
So saying they "lied", yakthabun or they "denied" yukathibun, has the same meaning.

See, this is where it gets confusing. yakdhibuuna, yukadhdhibuuna, and you say yakthabun and yukathibun, yet the example you use says yukathibu. None the less, I can't get myself to figure out how lied and denied are the same.

Another example he says that "naghfar" means we show mercy, no, it means we forgive or we will forgive. Wrong translation. Also yughfar is in the majhul form, so it means their sins will be forgiven not "he forgives", this would be yaghfir not yughfir. There is no difference in the meaning here.

I can see "show mercy" and "forgive as interchangeable and in the link below it clearly states Naghfar as "We will forgive" and the closest to the others is yaghfiru, which means "He forgives" as is mentioned in 3:128 http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=gfrnaghfar

Still leaves us with the same situation, We forgive, or He forgives. Narrated or not?

Then you have "miskeen" and "masakeen", miskeen and masakeen have the same meaning in this verse, miskeen simply means poor it doesn't have to refer to one person.

Here again, Miskeen, is as close to miskiinin as Masakeen is to masakiina. If Miskeen wasn't a new fashion rage it might be easier to search.

None of these phrases have any difference in meaning....

Sorry, not convinced.

By the way I don't think a Christian should be speaking on textual errors...

Lol, good point although it's the risk you take when you tell me the Bible has thousands of errors/perversions, and "various lies" n stuff. (over n over n over)

Note the OP only once gave a feeble response to my questions, ignored my response and continued to parrot on, regardless.. Even though he declares "thousands" he's having a hard time naming one.

The list is actually longer, but as it's been mentioned, letters/dots/language in general changes as it evolves. If it's the Quran we're talking, it's only dialect, evolution of the language, etc. When it's the Bible, every bit is a perversion? You tell me.

I didn't put the full list in because; I'm not wanting to make mountains out of mole hills, and I'm already annoyed with myself for falling for the old "Oh yeah, poke me I poke you back" mentality that turns almost every thread into a "your bible is corrupted" thread. (Note the title of this thread and the content.) The OP basically hijacked his own thread.

Don't get me wrong, I do see what I would call alterations in the Bible, but it's not as deliberate as it is the already ingrown belief system of the scholar. If you were totally convinced there was a trinity you would have chosen the same thing. The problem lies in the ancient languages, Arabic included. There are so many meanings per word anyone translating has to really have a grasp of the context. Check this out...

John 3:16 says "begotten" in the KJV, and the Douay-Rheims. What's incredibly interesting is that the KJV and Douay-Rheims were done separately, took different paths/sources, and still ended up almost word for word. Just like Hafs and Warsh are almost word for word As far as I'm concerned, All texts being so close to the originals it is proof positive there has to be a God.

As for "begotten" In the original Greek the explanation of this word says Lone. one. only, single, unique, etc. The only time you see "begotten" is from a commentary(tafsir) that managed to make it's way onto the list. This is why God told us to study, rightly dividing the word of truth. I can give you a couple more examples, but not thousands, let's be real.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Son of Placid

**baqar** · March 15, 2014

Hi SoP

I haven't yet had the time to read the arguments in any great detail. They require a fair degree of concentration and cross-referencing.

But come to think of it, it is not much of a problem really. If there are multiple versions of the Qurans, well then so be it.

There is little we can do about it, the information I had would be wrong.

That is what all of us have always been told and is what I said in this thread. But hey, after all, we are all susceptible to misinformation at times.

In any case, whether the differences in the various versions are few or many, at best only one of those Qurans can be right.

But as I said, if you think about it, if there are many, it is, in a way, good for us.

Anyone trying to refute Islam because of what he thinks the Quran says, will have a harder time getting results.

Because he will actually have to scrutinize every single version before he can make a definitive statement.

And make his point, quoting each and every one of the different versions.

One might say though that it points to a problem with the history of the Quran.

Possibly, but again, in the end it does not really matter.

As far as we Shias are concerned, we take our directions from the one version that the overwhelming majority of Muslims know of.

And more importantly, we find that it agrees very much with the teachings that our noble Imams have passed down to us.

Honestly, with the massively beautiful examples of ethics and morals from our Imams, we have enough to go by, even if the Quran did not exist.

For one thing, I know it cannot be very different from the absolute original, but even so, as I said, our Imams are our main source of light and direction.

And the power of that light is in my view, simply inextinguishable.

I hope I did not lose you there and that you got the point I was driving at.

**Son of Placid** · March 15, 2014

Thank you Baqar. The point is, it changes nothing. You know in your heart how to worship God. The Quran, the history, the Imams can all help but it really boils down to you and God. When God touched me it changed my life, turned me around, literally physically put me straight on the path, There's no atheist that can convince me there is no God. Since I had the privilege of worshipping with a Muslim, no Muslim can tell me we don't worship the same God. At the same time, anybody in-between can tell me how wrong all my sources are but they can't take away what I've experienced and therefore what I believe.

Then again...If you were to ask me what I believe, all I could honestly say is I think I'm getting closer to the truth. I have you guys to thank for that as well.

andres · March 15, 2014

Are you talking about this quote?
.

Yes. This;

"Verily, I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you: the Book of Allah and my kindred (`itrah), my household (Ahl al-Bayt)."

First, the quote can be disputed, but if we assume it is correct, why then did Uthman made a new compilation 15 years later?

andres · March 15, 2014

By the way I don't think a Christian should be speaking on textual errors... ;)

Textual errors in the Bible is a popular subject on Shiachat so if course it inspires to the subject of textual errors in the Quran. Let me just stress an important difference between the two subjects; Christians believe the Bible to be human products, so copying errors and individual views is not a big problem. Muslims believe the Quran to be the perfect word of God, so a single error is unthinkable. It is my experience that a Muslim never would admit an error in the Quran even if it was right in front of him.

**IloveImamHussain** · March 15, 2014

First, the quote can be disputed,

andres · March 15, 2014

What do you mean by saying 'this quote can be disputed'?
Do you know anyone who has disputed it?
Or are you just raising a theoretical possibility?

**Abu Hadi** · March 15, 2014

Textual errors in the Bible is a popular subject on Shiachat so if course it inspires to the subject of textual errors in the Quran. Let me just stress an important difference between the two subjects; Christians believe the Bible to be human products, so copying errors and individual views is not a big problem. Muslims believe the Quran to be the perfect word of God, so a single error is unthinkable. It is my experience that a Muslim never would admit an error in the Quran even if it was right in front of him.

IF it is a human product, then why do you follow it ?

Hajji87 · March 15, 2014

OP: This is one of the most beneficial lectures I've ever listened to. And yes I confirmed all of his research afterward on my own.

Please watch:

andres · March 15, 2014

IF it is a human product, then why do you follow it ?

Because we believe the testimonies of NT writers. Not very different from when Muslims believe Mohammed when he testifies he got the Quran from God.

Sign In

Who Compiled The Quran?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics