Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Has the quran suffered from Tahreef?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

Assalāmu ʿalaykum.

I recently came across a page saying the Quran had been subject to Tahrīf. They presented evidence from the oldest Qurān found. Can anyone give an explenation or refute this?

https://www.hubeali.com/articles/True-Shia-Beliefs-in-Quran-Majeed.pdf

Comparisons can be seen at pg.9-14

Please I need an explanation. My Imaan is getting low :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quran has not been subjected to Tehreef. This is our belief as Shias. Allah AWJ has taken its responsibility to protect it. Nowadays, many new versions of Codex are coming to the seen which are thought to be as oldest form of Quran. However, it is known that the Quran which we read has been authenticated by all People living at the time of Prophet PBUHHP and all people despite having other ideological conflicts agree upon that Quran has not gone under any change and have been transferred to us since ages. Now, it is impossible to change Quran because 1.6 billion Muslims have copies of Quran and no any conspiracy can create such doubts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to warn ALL members to refrain from using that Akhbari website 'hubeali'. It is vile and full of corruption and deviance, and they promote against our ulema, marji, and put forth deviant beliefs. They are the modern day ghulat.

As usual, there will always be some who seek to incline towards foolishness who won't heed to this warning, but i am not responsible for what you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ali Dunigan said:

Assalāmu ʿalaykum.

I recently came across a page saying the Quran had been subject to Tahrīf. They presented evidence from the oldest Qurān found. Can anyone give an explenation or refute this?

https://www.hubeali.com/articles/True-Shia-Beliefs-in-Quran-Majeed.pdf

Comparisons can be seen at pg.9-14

Please I need an explanation. My Imaan is getting low :(

From one of shia islams greatest scholars: https://www.al-islam.org/a-shiite-creed-shaykh-saduq/concerning-extent-quran

Concerning the Extent of The Qur’an

Says the Shaykh Abu Ja'far: Our belief is that the Qur'an, which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad, is (the same as) the one between the two boards (daffattyn)1. And it is that which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
2 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Quran has not been subjected to Tehreef. This is our belief as Shias. Allah AWJ has taken its responsibility to protect it. Nowadays, many new versions of Codex are coming to the seen which are thought to be as oldest form of Quran. However, it is known that the Quran which we read has been authenticated by all People living at the time of Prophet PBUHHP and all people despite having other ideological conflicts agree upon that Quran has not gone under any change and have been transferred to us since ages. Now, it is impossible to change Quran because 1.6 billion Muslims have copies of Quran and no any conspiracy can create such doubts. 

I agree with you brother but there are more words and letters added to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
2 hours ago, QuranandAhlulbayt said:

From one of shia islams greatest scholars: https://www.al-islam.org/a-shiite-creed-shaykh-saduq/concerning-extent-quran

Concerning the Extent of The Qur’an

Says the Shaykh Abu Ja'far: Our belief is that the Qur'an, which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad, is (the same as) the one between the two boards (daffattyn)1. And it is that which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that.

 

Yes I know. I am talking about the pics within the PDF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

There was a Quran that was found in Birmingham which was believed to be one of the oldest copies of Quran that existed from time of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh).

The verses were same as the present day quran. Even non-muslims were amazed by this.

The images in the pdf you sent me seems fake and what makes you believe that was actually the olden version of Quran?

The quran is 100% unaltered and majority of scholars(be sunni or shia) have always refered to the same arabic text throughout 1400 years. 

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Ali Dunigan said:

Assalāmu ʿalaykum.

I recently came across a page saying the Quran had been subject to Tahrīf. They presented evidence from the oldest Qurān found. Can anyone give an explenation or refute this?

https://www.hubeali.com/articles/True-Shia-Beliefs-in-Quran-Majeed.pdf

Comparisons can be seen at pg.9-14

Please I need an explanation. My Imaan is getting low :(

Don't just believe what you read,  the image you see on their site exists only once on the Interent so it isn't reliable. The image was taken from a Quranist Website. So you can ignore that article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Here is an example of tahrif (removing / adding of letters):

 

For instance the word 'samawat', or heavens, is written with an alif sometimes and sometimes without.

sometimes سموات

sometimes سماوات

 

here with:

images.png.4b1f112f7494b4783df64fe1bd777027.png

here without:

bacaan-Ayat-Kursi.jpg.fce8132e9b5aef608752ded0b80cf0dc.jpg

 

There are other examples that brother @heliwave pointed out to me once, before he kicked me out of his skype group because i was too ... dumb i think. i can't remember.

 

Anyway, here we have proof that there has been change and tampering of the horuf .. or letters, aka tahrif 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

^sigh... *facepalm*

_______

The Qur'an was revealed at a very interesting time in Arabic history. While, since at least the the first century BC, the Arabs had a modern script to write in, the Nabateans who were a mercantile people used a modified Imperial Aramaic script, initially to keep account of their business dealings but later for general recording purposes.

Prior to this there was a script used in the Arabian peninsula by non-Arab people, collectively referred to as Musnad scripts in Arabic. It developed originally and Yemen and spread North as well and was used in various languages. Eventually it was discontinued in Arabia but went on to become the Ge'ez script and then the modern Ethiopic scripts. 

In Arabia the Nabatean script continued to evolve for the next six centuries until starting to look like what we began to see at the beginning of the seventh century. There was also, undoutedly, a Serto Syriac influence on the Arabic script. Based on epigraphy and writing from the seventh century, including several early Qur'ans, we find that by this period that the Arabic script looks visibly similar to the modern script with minor nuances. These nuances include the shapes of letters, orthographic choices (such as writing a medial alif or not), and, more famously, dotting and vowelling the consonantal skeleton.

The authors are not incorrect in their observations that there are orthographic differences between the Qur'anic texts, and they are also not wrong in pointing out that differences between Qira'aat (readings) of the Qur'an exist, in fact it's well known that there were even disagreements among the companions regarding the order of chapters and what was actually part of the Qur'an or not. That being said their assumption that orthographic differences translates to a distorted text is absurd, especially considering that the Arabic language was still evolving. By the end of the first century AH (seventh century AD) we had a stable Qur'anic text despite stabilizing orthography, this really happened with the standard Uthman Taha orthography. A stabilizing orthography does not impact the reading of the Quran. They also mistakenly thought that the Samarkand codex was written by Uthman b. Affan, it was written nearly a hundred years later in the second/eighth century (as should be obvious from the script, Kufic was used much later on, the earliest texts are written in Hijazi script), the Samarkand codex is also well known for having several unique and noteworthy orthographic choices, some conjectured to have been caused by scribal error (Jeffery & Mendelsohn, "The Orthography of the Samarqand Qur'ān Codex").

Your faith should not be depleted because of Tahrif or possible Tahrif. The Imam is the keeper of the Qur'an. May Allah hasten his parousia.

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

:bismillah:

:salam:

 

Brother I have looked at that document very briefly and thus will not comment on any of the specific examples given therein. However it looks like they are pointing out relatively very minor differences in the texts. Also keep in consideration that the manuscript which they are using is not thought to be a very early (the time of the Prophet or ‘companions’) copy of the Quran.

With such old texts, differences in minor items (letters and marks etc) should not surprise us because they were often left out of these primitive texts and evolving written forms of the language.

You must also accept the fact that even though the Quran is a revelation from God, it is not immune to human error (and possibly even malice). There is sufficient evidence that the Quran is from Allah and that there are very few differences between the scripts and qira’ah. These differences may exist but the Quran as a whole has not changed. Most of those differences have no impact at all on the meaning of the text. And even those ones which do, have very little impact on the meaning.

I would challenge those people who believe in tahreef to bring evidence of any significant alteration in extant and authentic copies of the Quran. They would fail miserably. You will not find old copies of the Quran with texts from those fabricated ahadith that the likes of hubeali quote.

Muslims are misled by some religious teachers who make them believe that there is not a single difference in any of the manuscripts. This is a misconception that we have to remove and find peace with the fact that these very minor differences do occur. All ancient texts will have these differences (due to things such as scribal errors).

 

Let me give you an analogy here that may be helpful. Imagine an ancient text that was evidentially written by a genius. When you read the text you had no doubt that the author was a genius. However you found many copies of the text with minor differences. Some had letters, grammatical marks and even words that were a bit different. But you could not find copies of that text that were significantly different. These findings would not make you believe that the author was not a genius. It would be wrong for you to reject the quality of the author because of the scribal errors. And the lack of any significant differences in the manuscripts would make you believe that the extant copies were reliable as a whole.

The 12th Imam will clarify which of the minors variations are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi

I don't understand why the facepalm.

You did not prove me wrong for saying that some letters have been added or removed. 

Those two versions with different letters are readily available online and are both used today. Regardless of the reasons, this qualifies as tahrif, as per the definition of tahrif.

 

Believing the quran was edited or not is not the determining factor of faith. I see no connection in the two. Faith is faith in God, and not that a book hasn't been changed. We are not supposed to worship a book.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...