Pretty sad that you guys buy the mooselimb argument about how it’s ‘qu’ran’… Who cares? I call it the koran. Or toilet paper. Or bird cage liner.
Why get so upset about being politically correct?
The attempt to be accurate is simply polite. Much like addressing you as “monty2_2001” and not “dick head”.
Polite? Who cares? islamics have not earned it.
Zahava424, by this logic, please explain why the Universe wasnt created .0000000002 seconds ago.
Islamists have not earned it. Muslims have, in as much as the followers of any religion deserve respect.
Get your terminology correct.
The Koran is just another pile of camel dung spewed out by half-crazed sheepherders 2,000 years ago, just like the Bible and the Toran.
Ignorance will not truly be conquered until we get everyone to see these festering piles of garbage for what they are.
I suppose the biggest question that I have is; what would be the purpose of putting the speed of light in Al Qur’an?
Also, does anyone know the last point in time at which it would have been possible to edit a widely released version? I.E. how feasible would it have been for someone to slip this verse in since the speed of light has been known? (Which I have found was not accurately but nearly accurately discovered first in 1676)
Oh, excuse me, I called the Torah the Toran. And I called the Qeeran the Koran. Well, you known, a steaming pile of camel dung by any other name would smell as sweet.
It’s an inanimate object, how it could possibly drive you to gibbering idiocy is beyond me.
alterego the Qur’an is not suppose to be translated and is suppose to remain as it was written, supposedly by Mohammed. There is some evidence that it was actually expanded and edited much like the New Testament but that was a while ago. Now you would have to have a Qur’anic scholar who understood the universal aspect of the speed of light which would place the revision around the 1900’s, maybe a little earlier if they knew about Maxwell.
The vast number of previous Qur’ans and the fact that a new verse would suddenly appear would likely stand out like a sore thumb.
The point though, is that the verse does not say what the author/translator thinks it says and the verse, even if it does, does not actually address the issue.
I have a bit of a difficulty with your use of the word admit since it is obvious for every normal thinking person that when a translation is released, the responsibility lies with the translator, not the reader.
So what is there to “admit” by me in the first place?
For your referation to Muhammed: the hadieth are very clear about this and tell us that Muhammed never wrote one verse down himself. The fact that there is a wide consensus about the claim that he was illiterate of course supports this (I’m not part of this consensus, by the way)
Translations of Al Qur’an are permitted.
But since Quranic Arabic - which represents a very particular style among the styles within Classical Arabic - is as difficult to translate in an other language as for example Classical Chinese, every translation remains in the best case an attempt to reflect as close and accurate as possible the meaning of the text.
Yet one has to keep in mind that every translation only represents one interpretation of the original.
Most translators take care to give a translation that comes as close as possible to the understanding of Al Qur’an by the Muslim majority.
There is no historical evidence for such a claim.
Of course research is done -and is still going on- about Al Qur’an as text.
For the written text of Al Qur’an:
According the hadieth, this started while Muhammed dictated revelations to secretaries. The same sources mention that there were also believers who wrote verses down for their own personal use while listening to the Prophet, there were close companions who wrote down large amounts of the whole revelation, also for their own purpouse, and several among them knew the whole text by heart.
Further described in the traditions is the history of Al Qur’an as an ordered written text, which according these sources began right after the death of Muhammed.
I can give you a short overview of this if you like, but not here since that would be far off topic.
See my other post where I give the Tafsier (=exegeses.)
But if the author of that article thinks he can see there some explanation for the speed of light … I think he has the right to defend his views.
As I said: I can’t comment on that being completely ignorant about that issue.
Salaam. A
I apologize. I’ve re-read the thread and it does seem that I was interpreting into the translation a statement not explicitly made.
You are correct. I was basing my statement off of the following premise
From the University of Southern California
My confusion stemmed from the mistaken premise that if the book it isn’t the literal word of God, it can not be strictly considered the Qur’an.
As to the claim of an unchanging text well my reading of the following links 1 and 2 where what formed the basis of my statement.
I don’t have the energy or time right now to try to open an OP on that topic (let alone the herding of cats it would entail). If you choose too, I would be glad to lurk and learn.
I looked briefly at that website. Although it gives rather detailed information which is of course very useful for people interested in Islam, I wouldn’t recommend it.
Not only because it is almost proselytizing, but also because I saw already a few points I wouldn’t agree on as being historical correct.
Yet for people merely interested in getting information, not interested in the historical foundation of this, I think it is indeed useful.
In that I think that you aren’t mistaken, since a translation is only a translation and not the original text.
Ah… the Sana’a findings. Yes, I followed that up rather closely.
The article you refer to itself has no historical meaning or foundation. (But drama sells).
The claim that these documents are indeed “contradicting” the Uthmanian redaction are a bit premature at the very least.
First of all because Mr. Puin - now followed up by an other collegue - wasn’t in the least able to study all those documents. Not only because there are so many but even more because they are out of reach for now. So it shall take even more time to get them to be studied.
What needs to be known further by all of this is that when the Uthmanian redaction - the one we still use today - became authorative, there were, as I mentioned above, already other forms of redaction of Al Qur’an. Some managed to keep circulating along with the Uthmanian redaction despite all the mesures taken to avoid this.
One of the most intriguing facts about the Sana’a findings is the question if yes or no those documents have their origin in one or more of those parallel edidtions.
And if yes… From which one(s) and further: Can we discover new elements or do we have here the confirmation that those parallel editions indeed existed. This would give credit to the hadith and other reports describing their existence.
The second link you gave is something I would avoid giving my attention it I were you.
I know where they come from.
Their claim that “nobody wants to publish” their “German historian” or whatever they name him, and that he would be “in danger” and so on is laughable.
To make it the more a joke, they next come up with mentioning Wansbrough.
Now if there would be “danger” or “refusal” involved in publishing critical studies about Al Qur’an as text or whatever touches the studyfield, the first who could have encountered such should be Wansbrough. He is as controversional as can be and his approach was and is refuted by the vast majority of collegues in the field.
From his analysis one should conclude that the entire Muslim tradition about the early history of the text of Al Qur’an is a forgery and that no single trace of any independent contemporary evidence survived in order to contradict or betray this.
Yet his work was published and circulates with no problems at all and no threats or whatever were flowing towards him as far as I know.
I have it in my library. Upto this day I didn’t see any enraged Muslim trying to break into my home in order to destroy it and to chop my head off because I have it and read it and found it far sought, but nevertheless offering interesting views.
For example:
John Wansbrough. “Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation” (Oxford 1977)
and
John Burton “The collection of the Qur’an” (Cambridge University Press 1977).
Which goes further on the study of Wansbrough
The same with Crone and others, who come with new idea’s I don’t necessarely underscribe - several aren’t based on correct assumptions or lack historical proof and are therefore easily refuted by others - yet find interesting to read.
When one studies a historical issue, the study and theories about it never end and each has the right to be there.
Maybe I’ll do this in a month or two when I have more time to follow such a thread up. But I don’t know if it is such a good idea… Since I think also that it would attrackt a lot what you call " a herding of cats"…
I have some feeling that I would bring myself in a situation comparable with"Daniël in the Lion pit"…
And that is something Christian… 
Salaam. A
You need to read the book “The Bible Code” by Michael Drosnin. The koran was written by Rabbis. Rabbis who had swords held to their throats by mohammads murderers. Every sentence in the koran is taken out of the Talmid. mohammid lived in Medina and spent 10 years studying in the yeshiva to convert to Judaism. When he realized they wouldn’t convert him he went to Mecca and made up his new religion. Remember, 999 out of every 1,000 converts were illiterate. mohammid then marched back to Medina to have the koran written – forcing the Rabbis to write what he quoted from the Talmid. Every sentence is quoted out of context and without the historical information about the sentence. The Rabbis, who knew they were to be murdered after writing mohammids ‘revealation’, added the word Alms between many many passages in the koran. "Alms’ is an amagram for “Ani Lo Mamin” i.e. “I Do NOT Believe.” The Theory of Relativity, the First, Second and Third Laws of Thermodymanics, Laws of Gravity, etc. etc. are all in Genesis. That is what they now call kabbalah. It also mentions DNA and RNA, sperm counts, brain synapasis, sodium currents starting visual perception – all this 3,120 years ago in the East. The West has always been thousands of years behind the East. Get Real. Do some serious reading.
Hmmm
DAbr…
So sorry that I’m a little bit laughing here…
By the way:
Tell your original historians that Muhammed was born in Mecca and went much later to Medina. And then he went back to Mecca.
By the way:
Thank you for this post. Now I know what purpose those swords in my collection served. Can you inform me where all those rabbis are burried?
By the way: There are several words one can use in Arabic for “alms”… But until now I didn’t encounter one that fits your description.
Oh forget… Al Qur’an was written in English… Of course… That this language even didn’t exist at the time , who cares?
“Alms” is the word I need to look for.
OK. I’m off now, go dive in my library to see if I find one Al Qur’an, new, or old, or historical, that has the word “alms”.
If I find one, I’ll let you know.
Oh forgot… I don’t have an English one. Can you send me some because I need to throw all the others away now, no?
Thank you.
Salaam. A
Yea! Another moron joins the SDMB.
You wouldn’t have some cites for this crap, would you? I’d like to see who has been playing with you.
You know, you really should lurk awhile, before posting in Great Debates.
Aldebaran, any accessible books on the Qur’an’s place in history you might be able to refer us to?
As to the phrase the “herding of cats”, it’s expression of frustration in organizing and getting people to focus on the topic at hand and not wander off to do their own thing. Given the nature of GD it would be almost inevitable regardless of the topic. For the Qur’an’s place in history and its unchanging nature…possibly more so.
I’m not sure what type of books you refer to, because “the place of Al Qur’an in history” can be linked with the whole history of Islam upto this day. And in addition with the influence of Islamic history on history in general.
Do you mean works that give information about the history of Al Qur’an as text?
Salaam. A
haha What else could you say? the transliteration of alef lamid mem is so people who speak English can pronounce it. Islamic history is just like christian history, it is written after the fact and changes, improvments and fraud put in where necessary to justify what you believe today. For instance, Abraham takes Issac up on the mountain and intends to sacrifice him but liars come along and substitute another name, an unworthy brother who is cast out because of weak moral character, and to justify this they say Mohammid says the scriptures were corrupted. How would he know? He was illiterate, we are told. He couldn’t read or write the Torah or the Talmid. When you rewrite history and attempt to steal the Holy History or another people and another religion you put in changes to cover up the truth. To curry favor with christianity moslems explain that jesus pantera was a prophet and that moslems accept the virgin birth of jesus pantera. All Moslems today are illiterate? No serious scholar anywhere claims Isaiah 7:14 has the Hebrew word for virgin. You need to read the book first, and then you can find out it was peer reviewed (the Code) and found valid. hahaha I will print out your response and present it to all the Islamic professors I took classes from. They should know they are all liars and morons. You can look and find books that show where every phrase of the koran is lifted from the Talmid. hahaha I am laughing to be friendly because I have sympathy for people raised to believe something they find out as adults is not true. But instead of responding to truth they just hate. That is not a laughable matter.
Something along the lines of Who wrote the bible? by Richard E. Friedman is what I’d be interested in.
For myself, the idea of a divinely mandated text which remain unchanged through the centuries is … dubious. That may be colouring my perception of your answer, but I do thank you for it.