Zombie wrote:I am new to this forum so I am going to start with a very simple question. (It may have been asked/discussed already, so please forgive me if I am doing it again.)
Quran and Bible have been translated into every major languages in the wrold. Quran still exists in its original language. Bible does not. The original scrolls/version of Quran is also still present (in the Moscow, Russia museusm). All the original scrolls of bible have been lost. Not a single word of Quran has been changed since its revelation (about 1400 years ago). The list of different Bible versions is as follows:
http://www.dtl.org/info/bibles.htm
To prove the above statement: If you compare two samples of Quran from any part of the world, you will never find a single difference in the words. And offcourse that is not possible with bible since it has many versions unlike Quran.
Q. Which do you follow.....OR Which would you follow?
Hi Zombie
(and other members of the board), I'm also new to the forum and I couldn't help noticing some claims you make for which you provide no evidence.
For example your claim
"If you compare two samples of Quran from any part of the world, you will never find a single difference in the words."
Here's a quote + 2 images from 2 different qurans that prove otherwise:
From:
My experience as a Muslim
http://www.mallorcaweb.net/rene/islam_en.htm
Evidences
...... I would like to add that it is normal among Muslims to defend themselves from the mistakes found in the hadiths by stating that, in fact, the Koran is the only book to be protected from mistakes.
Besides what I have just said about the Islamic teaching being based on what is written in the Koran and that the prophets words when speaking about religion are also protected, it must be said that the Koran is not perfectly protected. It is not only the fact that the numbering changes or that there exists different letters describing the same situation in different Koran versions. Some words even change from one Koran to another, fact which is strongly rejected by many Muslims or just simply not known.
The following two pictures show how there are variations from one Koran to another. They are not exactly identical, they are not absolutely protected against mistakes, as it could be expected.
............................................................................................
One image is taken from the Koran (43:18 or 43:19) used in
Arabia and the other one from the Koran used in
Northern Africa. One talks about angels
from the Merciful and the other about angels servers
of the Merciful. What suprises me the most now is that, when they told to me that the difference was not important, I just simply accepted it. Of course, the meaning remains the same, but that is not the question. The clue here is that there exists a clear contradiction between the fact that a perfect and superior being was in charge of protect it for ever, and the fact that there exist copy mistakes.
Furthermore there is no 'original quran' anywhere in a museum. There are some 'oldest' (partial) copies present (in Cairo, Tashkent and Istanbul), but their exact age is unknown and they probably date from at least several decades after Mohammed's death:
http://www.islamspirit.com/english/quran001.htm
Manuscript Evidence : Early Quranic Manuscripts in our Possession:
Most of the early original Quran manuscripts with us now date from after the 2nd century. There are however a number of odd fragments of Quranic papyri which date from the 1st century as mentioned in Die Entstehung des Quran. There is also a complete Quran in the Egyptian National Library on parchment made from gazelle skin which has been dated 68AH.
Narrations differ as to how many copies were directly ordered and sent out by the Caliph Uthman, but they range from four to seven. It seems certain from various Muslim historical sources that several were lost, through fire amongst other things. There are four copies that are attributed to Uthman.
1) The Tashkent manuscript.
It seems that the copy in Tashkent also known as the Samarkand manuscript may be the "Imam" manuscript which Uthman kept for himself and was killed while reading it. A book has been written called Tarikh al Mushaf al Uthman fi Tashkent by Makhdun in which he gives a number of reasons for the authenticity of the manuscript;
1. The mushaf is written in a script used in the first 50 years of Hijra.
2. It is written on parchment made from gazelle.
3. There are no diacritical marks which is indicative of early manuscripts.
4. It does not have the vowelling marks which were introduced by Du'ali who died in 68 AH suggesting that it is earlier than this.
2) The Topkapi manuscript.
Concerning the Topkapi manuscript there is an interesting clause in the Treaty of Versailles Article 246: "Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to his majesty King of Hijaz, the original Quran of Caliph Uthman."
It seems that the manuscript reached Istanbul but not Medina. Sheikh Mohammed Shaibanee from the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society in Kuwait certainly considers it as Uthmanic. Mohammed Hamidullah also seems to agree but with more caution. Martin Lings, amongst others, considers it second century. The reason for this late attribution is the development of the writing style (not script) and its comparative sophistication suggests a later period that the first century.
3) The Islamic Museum in Istanbul.
This again does not seem to be an original Uthmanic manuscript, but the oldest copy from the original. It is written in Makki script, and is almost certainly before the end of the first century.
4) Hussain mosque in Cairo.
This is the oldest of all the manuscripts, and is either original or an exact copy from the original with similarity to the Madini script.
There are also other Qurans attributed to Uthman.
Also, the hadiths tell us some conflicting stories on the number of versions and the contents of the first assembled qurans under Uthman, as explained for example in a comprehensive collection of articles & links (all based on islamic sources) at
www.answering-islam.org:
Textual Variants of the Qur'an
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Text/
So your claims might not be so strong as you think they are....
Btw,
Zombie also wrote:- Compare the orginal Quranic scroll from Moscow (1400 years old originals) to any copy of Quran in existance today....you WON'T find a single difference.
. There is no 'original Quranic scroll' in Moscow...
. 1400 years ago it was 604, that's even way before the very first quranic 'revelations' alleged to have started....
It seems you're not so well informed
about your scripture.
best regards,
CroMagnon