Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
andres

Is the infancy of Christianity better documented than that of Islam?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Not really.

We arent sure when any of it is written Icambrian. However, it is written in a font and type of Arabic that was used at the time of the Prophet SAW and before the later kufan style.

Both the lower, lower corrections and upper text are written in hejazi script, so it suggests its all very early, by 685ish arabic was written generally with the vowel marks in place.

The person that was doing the corrections/teaching knew the standard quran, as they were correcting the mistakes to the standard version. Its seems unlikely someone would correct just parts of a document in neat hand writing, leaving other parts in messy writing, then wash it off and do it all in neat. 

To me, its very likely this could be a local printing business with an apprentice. One of the experts analysing the text has put forward that :

Beyond that, its all speculation. Like I said, perhaps its actually the original Bible written by Jesus AS the son of Mary himself !

 

 

But the lower text has not been corrected to the extent that it matches the upper text.  So you cant suggest that it was being corrected in a manner that would make it match the current, standard version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you cant suggest that the upper text was written as correction to the lower text, on the basis that the lower text was originally considered incorrect. Because we dont know why the parchment was erased and re-written with the upper text. Be it as a result of a teacher correcting a student, or be it as a result of Uthmans literature being distributed, or any other possibility.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2018 at 10:29 AM, andres said:

Conservative Muslims believe God protected the Quran from "variations". Conservative Christians believe God did so with the Bible.

This is a false equivalency.

I don't know any 'liberal' Muslims who believe that Allah failed to protect the Qur'an from tahrif. Furthermore, this discussion is irrelevant to the Sana'a manuscripts; the belief of the Qur'an's preservation is in regards to the modern script compared to what the Prophet dictated orally. Conflicting manuscripts in between these two are both acknowledged by 99.9% of the adherants of Islam and are also rejected (and I'm not using that statistic as a hyperbolic device).

This is why I said several pages ago that no comparison with Christianity's interpretation of the Bible deserves merit. These misconceptions are seriously hindering several members from understanding this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

This is a false equivalency.

I don't know any 'liberal' Muslims who believe that Allah failed to protect the Qur'an from tahrif. Furthermore, this discussion is irrelevant to the Sana'a manuscripts; the belief of the Qur'an's preservation is in regards to the modern script compared to what the Prophet dictated orally.

I am very much aware that Muslims generally will follow old traditional belief. However there are always people that dont. The history of the Quran is not very well documented which opens up for theories that differ from the official ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andres said:

I am very much aware that Muslims generally will follow old traditional belief. However there are always people that dont. The history of the Quran is not very well documented which opens up for theories that differ from the official ones. 

Can you point to any contemporary group of Muslims that believe the Qur'an is corrupted or has been changed?

As far as I know, even the most liberal and radical of Islamic reformation movements in the West (namely the Qur'anists) are founded on the very creed that the Qur'an is the uncorrupted word of God (and thus the only reputable source of knowledge in the face of man-inspired works such as the ahadith).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

Can you point to any contemporary group of Muslims that believe the Qur'an is corrupted or has been changed?

I doubt such groups exist. Not within Christianity either. I was speaking about secular Muslims. Or maybe you prefer to call them cultural or ethnic Muslims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

Can you point to any contemporary group of Muslims that believe the Qur'an is corrupted or has been changed?

As far as I know, even the most liberal and radical of Islamic reformation movements in the West (namely the Qur'anists) are founded on the very creed that the Qur'an is the uncorrupted word of God (and thus the only reputable source of knowledge in the face of man-inspired works such as the ahadith).

I don't think a contemporary group of Muslims would remain a contemporary group of Muslims, if such a thing was believed. So I don't think pointing out the lack of contemporary Muslims who believe such a thing, has any meaning. (Unless they're the secular kind who don't really hold specific positions).

 

I do want to say though, thank you for clarifying information in your last post. This is new information for me, I could have assumed that there might have been historic conflicting manuscripts, but I had not actually read about any before. I just assumed they were all lost or hidden or perhaps destroyed.

And to be fair, it does seem like a rare topic of discussion, at least on these forums. People are more busy discussing politics than scriptural origins.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, andres said:

I doubt such groups exist. Not within Christianity either. I was speaking about secular Muslims. Or maybe you prefer to call them cultural or ethnic Muslims. 

You just a closed circuit person ,like as I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, iCambrian said:

But the lower text has not been corrected to the extent that it matches the upper text.  So you cant suggest that it was being corrected in a manner that would make it match the current, standard version.

Yes, not every mistake was corrected.

However, each correction was inline with the standard Quran. Meaning that the corrector knew the standard quran and the initial writer did not.

Hence why the theory of the learner scribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, iCambrian said:

And you cant suggest that the upper text was written as correction to the lower text, on the basis that the lower text was originally considered incorrect. Because we dont know why the parchment was erased and re-written with the upper text. Be it as a result of a teacher correcting a student, or be it as a result of Uthmans literature being distributed, or any other possibility.

Why not?

Also your missing the point that the lower text was corrected in may places by someone before it was washed off. The lower text was generally quite a poor attempt, they couldnt write straight, they couldnt write the same number of lines per page or the same size. Its unlikely that was ever meant to be sold or used.

This also pre dates uthmans version in both style and age of parchment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, andres said:

I am very much aware that Muslims generally will follow old traditional belief. However there are always people that dont. The history of the Quran is not very well documented which opens up for theories that differ from the official ones. 

You say that when you have learned that there are two physical Qurans dating to the time of the Prophet SAW which match what we have today. How much more do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Yes, not every mistake was corrected.

However, each correction was inline with the standard Quran. Meaning that the corrector knew the standard quran and the initial writer did not.

Hence why the theory of the learner scribe.

If they didn't correct the document in full, this would indicate that perhaps they weren't familiar with the modern version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

Why not?

Also your missing the point that the lower text was corrected in may places by someone before it was washed off. The lower text was generally quite a poor attempt, they couldnt write straight, they couldnt write the same number of lines per page or the same size. Its unlikely that was ever meant to be sold or used.

This also pre dates uthmans version in both style and age of parchment. 

If you don't know who wrote the upper text, or when it was written with relation to the lower text, or why it was written at a particular time...

Then you can't say...

 that the upper text was written as correction to the lower text, on the basis that the lower text was originally considered incorrect.  (by the people who were originally working on the lower text).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Anyone can suggest anything, but if you don't know basic information about these writings, then you don't have a basis for the suggestion 

It's the same with the Bible. There are times when the texts were hidden and we don't know by who. If we knew, they would probably know first and there would be no texts. The Bible had to survive the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and the Flavian dynasty before it could surface. That's about the time the NT was presented. May have been compiled years sooner, we can't know...but everybody has a theory. It either defends or accuses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Anyone can suggest anything, but if you don't know basic information about these writings, then you don't have a basis for the suggestion 

We are on page 8 now and I doubt if we have arrived at any meaningful conclusions.

What would be interesting to know is if experts have worked at length on this problem and what their conclusions are.

The opinions of SC members will not get very far.

We need to know what the experts have said in this matter.

Until we have something like that to work on, I will continue to believe, as I said before, that it is someone's personal notes. Nothing more.

As I had also pointed out, Imam Ali had also compiled a Quran of his own.

The message may not be different from the current Quran but it is believed to have been set in an order different from our present Quran, possibly chronological  and also possibly with some explanatory notes. The details have been lost to us but the Administration is believed not to have accepted it.

And as I also said in my last post, even if our current Quran is not absolutely accurate, if it was significantly different, it is very doubtful if Imam Ali would have withheld its weaknesses from the public.

You can see that discussion in my last post.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, iCambrian said:

If you don't know who wrote the upper text, or when it was written with relation to the lower text, or why it was written at a particular time...

Then you can't say...

 that the upper text was written as correction to the lower text, on the basis that the lower text was originally considered incorrect.  (by the people who were originally working on the lower text).

 

 

I think your missing the point about the lower text correction, which occurred before the washing of the parchment. This indicates that someone who was correcting the lower text as they went along knew the "standard" Quran. We dont know why they didnt correct everything, perhaps because they were learning and knew that they were going to wash it all off anyway. 

To conclude, this really is a fantastic piece of evidence to show the consistency of the Quran, and I think to speculate beyond that is really baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

I think your missing the point about the lower text correction, which occurred before the washing of the parchment. This indicates that someone who was correcting the lower text as they went along knew the "standard" Quran. We dont know why they didnt correct everything, perhaps because they were learning and knew that they were going to wash it all off anyway. 

To conclude, this really is a fantastic piece of evidence to show the consistency of the Quran, and I think to speculate beyond that is really baseless.

I don't accept this response.  It assumes that people "correcting" the lower text for one reason or another, didn't actually correct the text. Even though they were allegedly "correcting" the document, they decided not to do just this. It assumes that "uncorrected" variances were not accepted as correct to begin with.

There are too many unsubstantiated assumptions bundled into this statement and it just sounds unreasonable.

And again, we don't know authors or "correctors", we don't know motives, we don't know temporal details. 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, iCambrian said:

I don't accept this response.  It assumes that people "correcting" the lower text for one reason or another, didn't actually correct the text. Even though they were allegedly "correcting" the document, they decided not to do just this. It assumes that "uncorrected" variances were not accepted as correct to begin with.

There are too many unsubstantiated assumptions bundled into this statement and it just sounds unreasonable.

And again, we don't know authors or "correctors", we don't know motives, we don't know temporal details. 

It doesnt assume that at all.

If you have a child and they make several mistakes on the page of work they are doing, you may discuss somethings, and write somethings on a board, and you may correct somethings on their page. So just because you did not re-write every single mistake on their page, does not mean that you accept it as correct.

However, what you corrected on their page is deemed as correct. We know that the person correcting the lower text, could write neatly and professionally, and they corrected to the standard quran.

So whilst they didnt re-write everything on the lower text, they did make corrections, this at least confirms that the lower text was not some different version as Andres wishes, but instead simply wrong. 

To leave no doubt, the lower text was then washed and re-written with the standard version. So I cant see how it could be any clearer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just making this story up. All I have to do is ask you to provide proof of when the upper text was written. 

Would you like to answer this question?

Of course we don't know. And so we have no understanding of what initiated those upper text corrections. No understanding of motives.

 

Regarding the lower text.  You can't suggest that the people with the document automatically assumed it to be incorrect. You don't know who was working with this document. You don't know who they were, their motives, their beliefs about the text etc.

You don't know what they thought about text that was written as it was, different than that of the upper text. 

It's not like someone wrote "my name is George, it is the year 600 and I am correcting this text but intentionally ignoring X, Y and Z. I am doing this because..." on the cover page.

And you have this poor case in which someone was "correcting" the document but just decided not to actually correct it. What is your reasoning ? "Well I guess they just missed a bunch of things or just didn't feel like correcting it all".

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, iCambrian said:

You're just making this story up. All I have to do is ask you to provide proof of when the upper text was written. 

Would you like to answer this question?

Of course we don't know. And so we have no understanding of what initiated those upper text corrections. No understanding of motives.

 

Regarding the lower text.  You can't suggest that the people with the document automatically assumed it to be incorrect. You don't know who was working with this document. You don't know who they were, their motives, their beliefs about the text etc.

You don't know what they thought about text that was written as it was, different than that of the upper text. 

It's not like someone wrote "my name is George, it is the year 600 and I am correcting this text but intentionally ignoring X, Y and Z. I am doing this because..." on the cover page.

And you have this poor case in which someone was "correcting" the document but just decided not to actually correct it. What is your reasoning ? "Well I guess they just missed a bunch of things or just didn't feel like correcting it all".

 

Icambrian,

I have already explained that the upper text is in written in a style of Arabic that ended in approx 700. In fact I have pointed that out several times already.

We can assume the people with the document assumed it to be incorrect. The reason being is that in numerous points they had corrected it. Then they washed it. Then they re-wrote it.

It wasnt like it was preserved and labeled "the real quran"  and spread around etc.

 

I think im going to retire from this conversation, as you rightly point out, it is quite speculative, and I think the case is clear enough for those that are interested. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

Icambrian,

I have already explained that the upper text is in written in a style of Arabic that ended in approx 700. In fact I have pointed that out several times already.

We can assume the people with the document assumed it to be incorrect. The reason being is that in numerous points they had corrected it. Then they washed it. Then they re-wrote it.

It wasnt like it was preserved and labeled "the real quran"  and spread around etc.

 

I think im going to retire from this conversation, as you rightly point out, it is quite speculative, and I think the case is clear enough for those that are interested. 

 

 

 

 

Let me try clarifying for you,

You cant assume that the people who wrote the upper text, had any association with the people who wrote the lower text because you dont know by who, when or why the upper text corrections were initiated.

So you cant say that the upper text people were the same who were working out corrections of the lower text.

But when you say "in numerous points they had corrected it, then they washed it and re-wrote it", this implies that "they" is a single entity that saw an error in the lower text, changed it, then said, ok instead of trying to fix all of this, we can just erase the whole thing and start over.

This is just imaginary^.

 

And beyond that, because you cant assume that "they" is a single entity, you cant assume that "they" who wrote the upper text, were also "they" who perceived error in the lower text, in regards to items that we not changed/corrected.

The truth is, regarding items that were not altered in the lower text or were not "corrected" as you perceive it, you don't know that the authors of the lower text perceived these variances as errors. You're assuming that they did, and for some random reason you just think they decided not to actually correct things that they viewed as errors.  Which is nonsense. Because if they were correcting things that they viewed as errors, they would have corrected items that varied with the upper text. 

"The reason being is that in numerous points they had corrected it."

This isnt a real argument because there are many things that were not "corrected" as you perceive them. So you cant use this as justification.

" Then they washed it. Then they re-wrote it."  

And you cant pair your case with this^ because of what I have already noted above.

Feel free to justify your position. I don't want to assume that you are incorrect. You will have to justify yourself, rather than just repeating rhetoric. Otherwise, i cant accept your claim if you don't have more to offer.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

You cant assume that the people who wrote the upper text, had any association with the people who wrote the lower text because you dont know by who, when or why the upper text corrections were initiated.

I did not.

Im talking about the "lower text modified" which refers to the early text which has someone else's writing on it-  modifying it. This isn't the upper text as you wrongly assume.

You also did not note the point I raised for the fourth time, in which the style of Arabic used is the same type. This type is limited to that period. Of course it doesnt mean we can identify individuals or places, but it does limit us to time periods, so we know that the lower, lower modified and upper were written before approx 700ad.

3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

So you cant say that the upper text people were the same who were working out corrections of the lower text.

 

It doesnt matter, they both must have known the standard quran, as they corrected to that.

3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

But when you say "in numerous points they had corrected it, then they washed it and re-wrote it", this implies that "they" is a single entity that saw an error in the lower text, changed it, then said, ok instead of trying to fix all of this, we can just erase the whole thing and start over.

This is just imaginary^.

I didnt say it was a single entity, Im just explained the timeline of events. Which is exactly as the facts are.

So there was a parchment, someone wrote on it initially in a rough way. It was then corrected by a neat person who knew the quran. It was then washed. The quran was then written on it neatly and correctly. 

3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

And beyond that, because you cant assume that "they" is a single entity, you cant assume that "they" who wrote the upper text, were also "they" who perceived error in the lower text, in regards to items that we not changed/corrected.

As I said earlier. It really doesnt matter if it was one person or a million. They all corrected it to the Quran. 

 

3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

The truth is, regarding items that were not altered in the lower text or were not "corrected" as you perceive it, you don't know that the authors of the lower text perceived these variances as errors. You're assuming that they did, and for some random reason you just think they decided not to actually correct things that they viewed as errors.  Which is nonsense. Because if they were correcting things that they viewed as errors, they would have corrected items that varied with the upper text. 

Well they were corrected in the sense the parchment was washed off. 

Your right in that maybe the untidy guy did think that what they wrote was the real quran. Just as I can write something down now and call it the bible. However, the fact that it was corrected, and washed, and re-written, suggests that it wasnt viewed as correct by others.

I hope someone doesnt find your old school math book and enhance the rubbed out areas, they will think you believe in all sorts of math heresies :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try this again.

 

Ok, so the lower text was washed away and replaced by the upper text.

Good. So you believe that the writers of the upper text believed that the lower text was wrong.

Ok. 

Before the upper text was written, the lower text was written with many variations from the later upper text. Many variations that were not changed or corrected.

So you can't say justify the idea that "it was then corrected by a neat person" when in fact, many variances were not changed until it was ultimately replaced by the upper text.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't understand the above, then there isn't much I can do for you.

Someone could write a name on a piece of paper and could spell it a certain way. Let's say the name is Julian. So this person writes, Julian on a piece of paper but they misspell it. They write JulliAn. So then someone else comes along and says hey, it's actually spelled Julian. And they correct it.

This is, essentially your lower text.

Then later in time, someone else could come along and could say, hey that's not right. They erase it and write Julien. This is the upper text.

 

The two people working with the lower text ultimately did not change the name Julian to Julien. They left it as Julian. Which implies that didn't view this name as incorrect despite the fact that perhaps they corrected the names spelling.

And the fact that a person came later in time, erased it and wrote "Julian" only implies that this person alone might have viewed Julien as a mispelling.

So what is your justification that the lower text editors thought Julian was wrong, even though they didn't actually change it while correcting other details?

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your justification can't include anything related to the authors of the upper text, unless you could demonstrate that the upper text and lower text were written, essentially by the same people.

 

Thus far, the only justification you have given is "at multiple points they corrected it", but in fact at many points, it was not changed at all. So this isn't an adequate response unless you have more to add to the statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2018 at 9:45 PM, iCambrian said:

If you can't understand the above, then there isn't much I can do for you.

Someone could write a name on a piece of paper and could spell it a certain way. Let's say the name is Julian. So this person writes, Julian on a piece of paper but they misspell it. They write JulliAn. So then someone else comes along and says hey, it's actually spelled Julian. And they correct it.

This is, essentially your lower text.

Then later in time, someone else could come along and could say, hey that's not right. They erase it and write Julien. This is the upper text.

 

The two people working with the lower text ultimately did not change the name Julian to Julien. They left it as Julian. Which implies that didn't view this name as incorrect despite the fact that perhaps they corrected the names spelling.

And the fact that a person came later in time, erased it and wrote "Julian" only implies that this person alone might have viewed Julien as a mispelling.

So what is your justification that the lower text editors thought Julian was wrong, even though they didn't actually change it while correcting other details?

Sorry for the delay.

This assumes there was a significant period of time between the "versions". Eg, if at the end of the same day they knew they were going to wash the parchment any way, then they would not correct every item on there, it may have been discussed etc. We know there wasnt a large amount of time, as the style of Arabic is limited to that time period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all comes down to what you believe and how you came to that belief. Most of us just believe, and disbelieve what we're taught. Most of us are at least a sub\sub sect of a split sect of one of the three main cross confused religions. 

Every sect, sub sect, sub\sub sect and offspring includes the reason they are the only true believers. Every sect, etc. has scholars that have interpreted their scriptures to mean what the leaders wanted it to. Sub sects take a different interpretation. It doesn't take the entire volume to be contradictory, one main point or a few minors are enough for a sect to split...again.  

This is history over and over after the Prophets died. Some were killed so their message didn't interfere. The majority are unrecognized in history. The few that we know of created a following that chose different paths with the same info.

The Prophets did their best to convey the message given to them by whatever means was available, oral or written, crude as it may have been but didn't start a religion. After a Prophet dies, everyone believes they should have a successor. Some were appointed by God, some by the Prophet, and some by the people.

Start with Moses and the twelve tribes of Israel. Joshua was appointed by Moses, by word of God to lead the Israelites. Caleb went on to teach the tribe of Judah what he learned, ten other tribes are scant on details. None the less there were Pharisees, Essenes, Ebionites, Scribes, Priests, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, Sicarii, and Proselytes by the time Jesus came around. None of them remembered the true message of Moses, or did they?  Same Torah.

Then Christianity and churches . . . Adventist, Baptist, Brethren, Catholic Churches, Christian Churches, Congregational Churches, Episcopal and Anglican, Quaker, Fundamentalist, Bible, and Conservative Evangelical,Holiness Churches, Lutheran,  Mennonite,  Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, (did I miss any), all with their own forms of Orthodox or Reformed. These all use the same Bible, many the same version. Then add the groups that Christians don't consider Christian. Unfair request. Christian groups don't accept any others. 

You guys know Islam better than I, and I know there's more than one school of thought, some sworn enemies even though they also claim the same version of the same book.

Keep in mind, each group has their own scholars that have proven they are the only true bunch, (in the entire world).

Bottom line; Authenticity doesn't much matter if it's meaning is misinterpreted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2019 at 11:28 AM, Son of Placid said:

Bottom line; Authenticity doesn't much matter if it's meaning is misinterpreted.

Absolutely

Some groups among Muslims use the word "authentic" repeatedly again and again.

They do so especially in case of some hadiths they wish to use in an argument. And the funny thing is that many of such hadiths are completely illogical. But they were declared "authentic" by mainstream scholars because they helped them in the unending Shia - Sunni war.

I will not bore you with details but I will give you just one example.

One mainstream hadith, for example, says that the Prophet declared that if he had to take a friend, he would have taken Abu Bakr.

Sunnis regard this as proof of Abu Bakr's superiority over Ali.

However, when in real life, he did have to take a friend, he took Ali, not Abu Bakr 

This is also recorded in Sunni books.

So how on Earth can that hadith possibly be true?

Someone please tell me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, baqar said:

Absolutely

Some groups among Muslims use the word "authentic" repeatedly again and again.

They do so especially in case of some hadiths they wish to use in an argument. And the funny thing is that many of such hadiths are completely illogical. But they were declared "authentic" by mainstream scholars because they helped them in the unending Shia - Sunni war.

I will not bore you with details but I will give you just one example.

One mainstream hadith, for example, says that the Prophet declared that if he had to take a friend, he would have taken Abu Bakr.

Sunnis regard this as proof of Abu Bakr's superiority over Ali.

However, when in real life, he did have to take a friend, he took Ali, not Abu Bakr 

This is also recorded in Sunni books.

So how on Earth can that hadith possibly be true?

Someone please tell me!

When things get confusing, people tend to move on without bothering to find a conclusion. It's easier to go watch TV, or play internet games and go with whatever explanation someone else came up with.  It doesn't have to make sense, just fold it up and put it in the "what I believe" box.

The problem comes when you start asking questions and people realize they haven't really been paying attention. The pressure sets in when challenged because everything...but everything, is a life or death mandatory belief. You either get anger or can shake their entire belief.

In the second book to Timothy it says; “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 

It puts the onus on the individual to learn for themselves rather than go by what somebody said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of Placid said:

It puts the onus on the individual to learn for themselves rather than go by what somebody said. 

Absolutely. But in actual practice, we rely so much on the conclusions of others - usually people who lived in the past, perhaps hundreds of years ago. 

Thanks for your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 4:30 PM, iraqi_shia said:

Sorry for the delay.

This assumes there was a significant period of time between the "versions". Eg, if at the end of the same day they knew they were going to wash the parchment any way, then they would not correct every item on there, it may have been discussed etc. We know there wasnt a large amount of time, as the style of Arabic is limited to that time period. 

Sounds like an assumption to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 10:23 AM, baqar said:

One mainstream hadith, for example, says that the Prophet declared that if he had to take a friend, he would have taken Abu Bakr.

Perhaps one of the Arab linguists and cultural commentators can chip in, but I'd have thought that referring to someone as a brother would denote a far higher level of closeness than simply being a "friend". In fact the latter could even denote a certain distance. But as I said so much depends on the actual words used and their significance.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...